Creationism Curiosity

[Split Rock]

I'm curious now. What things are outside the perview of science? How do you define nature (I thought the whole world is nature)?

Things like God are outside the perview of science. Nature is everything we can touch, see and smell in the world around us.

Yes, "inferred" works too. I mean, when you do an experiment and get a set of data - what the data "suggests" or "infers".

OK

It's not useless if it means God exists. I think that's quite a useful bit of knowledge to have.

Science cannot tell us if God exists. What questions about nature can creationism help us answer?

No, because you just made that up. If you find good evidence for the pink unicorn, then we should of course consider it.

I say she exists, because I feed her grapes and the grapes disappear. I will soon write a book about and call it holy. Will it count then?

Neither of these areas are my specialty, so I'd better not hazard an answer. What I've heard in this regard is, that fossils could have been made from the animals drowned in the flood. What physical data falsifies the first point?

The fact that the fossil record is far more complex then what you are suggesting. We see a long progression of entire ecosystems replacing each other in the fossil record, not just a bunch of dead creatures killed in a flood.

I'm not arguing against the Big Bang. I actually think the Big Bang supports Creationism. As for genetics - that's supports natural selection, not evolution. Natural selection is an observation that nobody doubts. Evolution is a much grander theory that incorporates natural selection as a mechanism.

This is nonsense. Natural Selection is a mechanism of Evolution. You cannot have natural selection if there is no evolution.

These are all "why" questions, and "why" questions can be answered in two ways: Philosophically (eg why is my car green? - answer: because I like the colour green) or mechanistically (eg why is my car green? - answer: because the spray paint reflects that wavelength).

I am speaking mechanistically. That is the type of question science answers, not the other type.

I can answer all your questions philosophically as - "Because God willed it that way".
Mechanistically, I don't have the answers, because the Bible doesn't tell us. That's our job to find out, through scientific study. Science has given us some great answers. But truly rigorous science requires us not to jump to conclusions.

How are we "jumping to conclusions?" We are answering mechanistic questions with science... nothing else.

Don't just listen to what you're told, but evaluate the evidence before you. Having done that all my life, I feel Evolution (ie natural selection as the sole means of making every organism) is something I just don't buy.

That is the best explanation science can provide us, and it works. You can add God into teh equation if you like, but please do not claim your religion invalidates the science.

 

[lostaquarium]

Great no debate. I gave a good example of a prediction when you said the ToE couldn't. Just because you have a different definition of evolution doesn't mean scientists are confused. Micro and macro evolution use the exact same principles: random mutation + natural selection. And the example I gave uses those two principles to make predictions.

Ectezus, if you define evolution as natural selection, then I have no problem with it We agree What I dispute is that natural selection is the sole means by which organisms are as they are.

Wrong again, we didn't look at every single spot in the universe. We checked a few, found the background radiation to be the same everywhere (where we looked) and then we can predict that it will also be there in places we haven't looked yet.

And there are quite a lot more (like predicting the abundance of the light elements) but like you said we're not here to discuss the Big Bang theory. You however wrongfully implied that the Big Bang theory couldn't make predictions. I'm just correcting that mistake.

OK, sure. Like I said, I've no problem with Big Bang theory. Seems like it's pretty well supported. What about evolution?

I have a theory that pink unicorns might be living inside the sun. I'm not able to test it yet though.
This theory is actually better than your GOD hypothesis because our sun is something we can test. Your god, heaven, hell, miracles and whatever other supernatural can by definition never be tested.

What's with all the pink unicorns in this thread?? Please see my answer to someone else, in my last post before this.

Creationism doesn't make any predictions, it's a dead end. "Here's how it happened and now stop thinking". If god created everything out of thin air then I want to know who created god. To say he has always been there is ridiculous because then all the matter and life might just always have been there aswell, without the need for a god.

Why is it ridiculous to say God has no beginning or end? Our brains are finite, and the fact is there are things we will never be able to understand. I think the concept of "infinity" is one of them.

I'm aware you might think this is a cop-out answer. Alone, it doesn't explain anything. But everything else I've written about, combined, gives a pretty good answer about why I believe God created the world.

 

[Hespera]

So, you are claiming that 90% of stupid college students voted for Obama, because they learned about evolution. I call shenanigans! You are just making stuff up.

Considering Juvie's last response to my post, I have to agree with you.

It is pretty funny that a person is able to determine how stupid today's college students are.

I'd like to see how that someone did on the SAT, or GRE. GMAT LSAT etc, before they start talking like they know more and are smarter.

But first Id like to see a whole paragraph that would be good enough for an intermediate ESL class.

 

[lostaquarium]

Things like God are outside the perview of science. Nature is everything we can touch, see and smell in the world around us.

I think everything physical and spiritual belongs to God. I guess that's just a difference of opinion.

Science cannot tell us if God exists. What questions about nature can creationism help us answer?

Not much It can, however, tell you if you're headed to eternal life or not, and what you can do about it.

I say she exists, because I feed her grapes and the grapes disappear. I will soon write a book about and call it holy. Will it count then?

Gosh. Find me better evidence than that, and maybe I'll consider it

This is nonsense. Natural Selection is a mechanism of Evolution. You cannot have natural selection if there is no evolution.

False. You can't have evolution without natural selection. You can have natural selection without evolution. For example: Animals were created in 6 days, 6000 years ago; after that, natural selection allows each species to adapt to its changing environment.

How are we "jumping to conclusions?" We are answering mechanistic questions with science... nothing else.

We all have to weigh up the evidence ourselves. For me, the evidence is insufficient to justify the conclusion of Evolution.

That is the best explanation science can provide us, and it works. You can add God into teh equation if you like, but please do not claim your religion invalidates the science.

No, religion doesn't invalidate science. The two are in harmony. Science is the study of what God has made. I fully support science. I just think we need more evidence before embracing Evolution. And I think we need to be open-minded, as scientists, about the possibility of a God.

Science will never prove the existance of God. Because, science starts with the assumption that there is no God.

I wouldn't want to change this, because I think it's a very useful model for investigating the world - there's no excuse for 'black boxes'. However we shouldn't let it blind us to what might really be happening.

 

[lostaquarium]

I'm so confused right now... I just made 3 posts in a row and 2 of them have been moved to earlier positions in this thread

 

[Lobster]

We all have to weigh up the evidence ourselves. For me, the evidence is insufficient to justify the conclusion of Evolution.

Where do you see the weaknesses in evolution?

Science will never prove the existance of God. Because, science starts with the assumption that there is no God.

Every discovery that science has made has been made without referring to god. Why is this one a special case?

 

[lostaquarium]

Every discovery that science has made has been made without referring to god. Why is this one a special case?

Good question. You have to decide whether it's a special case or not. To me, something that could decide where I go after I die - that's worth some extra consideration. Figuring out what the cerebellum does is just trivial in comparison

 

[Hespera]

I think everything physical and spiritual belongs to God. I guess that's just a difference of opinion.


Not much It can, however, tell you if you're headed to eternal life or not, and what you can do about it.


Gosh. Find me better evidence than that, and maybe I'll consider it


False. You can't have evolution without natural selection. You can have natural selection without evolution. For example: Animals were created in 6 days, 6000 years ago; after that, natural selection allows each species to adapt to its changing environment.


We all have to weigh up the evidence ourselves. For me, the evidence is insufficient to justify the conclusion of Evolution.





No, religion doesn't invalidate science. The two are in harmony. Science is the study of what God has made. I fully support science. I just think we need more evidence before embracing Evolution. And I think we need to be open-minded, as scientists, about the possibility of a God.

Science will never prove the existance of God. Because, science starts with the assumption that there is no God.

I wouldn't want to change this, because I think it's a very useful model for investigating the world - there's no excuse for 'black boxes'. However we shouldn't let it blind us to what might really be happening.

If you actually know the evidence for evolution... which looks very doubtful...then the only way it wont convince you is that you cannot be convinced no matter what.

If all the animals existed at the same time, then why are the separated out in the fossil record. Never ever find a cow with a dinosaur. A realistic answer to that, svp?

You are right about natural selection / evolution to some extent. You can have natural selection. But only in the short run. If the organism does not become extinct it will change over time.

You know that domestic animals are very different from the wild forms.
Same with plants. So why cant natural / artifical selection just keep going for centuries, millenia, until you have something vastly different from the beginning organism? (evolution)

You will have to invent a mechanism for that 'barrier' to evolution. And show that it exists. Good luck; its not there.

oh...btw ... how do you know that science starts with the assumption thatt there is no god? Seems weird that you "know" that. There are some Christians right here in the department that would be sursprised to hear it.

 

[Hespera]

Good question. You have to decide whether it's a special case or not. To me, something that could decide where I go after I die - that's worth some extra consideration. Figuring out what the cerebellum does is just trivial in comparison

How do you know that the Muslims didnt get it right. If you arent a muslim you will be in big trouble! Is that worth some extra consideration?

But wait... there are about eleventy-thousand other religions that might have gotten it right. All of the followers THINK they did. Isnt it far from a trivial consideration to see if the Hindus got it right?

 

[lostaquarium]

You are right about natural selection / evolution to some extent. You can have natural selection. But only in the short run. If the organism does not become extinct it will change over time.

You know that domestic animals are very different from the wild forms.
Same with plants. So why cant natural / artifical selection just keep going for centuries, millenia, until you have something vastly different from the beginning organism? (evolution)

You will have to invent a mechanism for that 'barrier' to evolution. And show that it exists. Good luck; its not there.

That's fine. I'm saying that evolution is not how things started. Things may well evolve a bit from Creation onwards, I don't dispute it.

oh...btw ... how do you know that science starts with the assumption thatt there is no god? Seems weird that you "know" that. There are some Christians right here in the department that would be sursprised to hear it.

Sorry, I phrased that poorly. What I meant was, science seeks to explain things without a need for God. ie there are no black boxes.

Does that clarify?

 

[lostaquarium]

How do you know that the Muslims didnt get it right. If you arent a muslim you will be in big trouble! Is that worth some extra consideration?

But wait... there are about eleventy-thousand other religions that might have gotten it right. All of the followers THINK they did. Isnt it far from a trivial consideration to see if the Hindus got it right?

The reason I am not a muslim, or any other religion:
God has very high standards. I can't possibly fulfill those standards. In fact, nobody can. Many muslims don't fulfill the standards required in the Koran. However, Muslims believe they are saved. How do they reconcile the God's purity with God's love? Do they expect God to lower his standards for people? Turn a blind eye? Christianity solves this by the death of Jesus Christ on the cross - Jesus was punished for our mistakes, so we get a blank slate.

After thinking about all the possible outcomes of:
1) an imperfect humanity, plus
2) a perfect God,
the perfect outcome is that described by Christianity.

Like I said, I evaluate evidence. I wasn't born a Christian. My parents weren't Christians until I was 15 years old. I was against Christianity all my life because my friends were "intellectual athiests". I was obsessed with the question throughout all my teenage years. I dabbled in different religions. I read a lot. And I gradually came to see that Christianity must be the truth, that it couldn't possibly be another way. Now my friends are
"intellectual Christians", and everything I meet in the world supports my belief.

So please re-evaluate those conclusions you jumped to about me.

 

[Hespera]

That's fine. I'm saying that evolution is not how things started. Things may well evolve a bit from Creation onwards, I don't dispute it.


Sorry, I phrased that poorly. What I meant was, science seeks to explain things without a need for God. ie there are no black boxes.

Does that clarify?

Clarifies it fine! Now, let me clarify. ToE is NOT about the origin of life!

It is about what happened after life started. Some ,such as myself, think life started spontaneously with no divine intervention. But the ToE does fine either way. Ok? Please dont confuse ToE with origin of life.

It would be cool if you can find time to take something like a historical geology course. Widen your focus a bit.

If nothing else you will learn an appreciation for the landscape you see, its not just hills and cliffs and rocks. It all has a story, its all part of a dynamic process, and you can learn to read it like a book.

We both see a big rock in a field. i see a piece of granite from the Canadian sheild, carried here and left behind by a glacier in Iowa. You see a rock in a cornfield. There is so much more to see than that!

AND... just maybe, if you are open minded... you will begin to realize that interpreting the Bible to say that the world is only 6000 years old just doesnt work.

I try off and on to see if I can become a Christian. But if believing the unbelievable... like 6000 yr old earth in a ncessary part of it... then forget it. No way it will happen. I wont lie to myself.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

The reason I am not a muslim, or any other religion:
God has very high standards. I can't possibly fulfill those standards. In fact, nobody can. Many muslims don't fulfill the standards required in the Koran. However, Muslims believe they are saved. How do they reconcile the God's purity with God's love? Do they expect God to lower his standards for people? Turn a blind eye? Christianity solves this by the death of Jesus Christ on the cross - Jesus was punished for our mistakes, so we get a blank slate.

After thinking about all the possible outcomes of:
1) an imperfect humanity, plus
2) a perfect God,
the perfect outcome is that described by Christianity.

Like I said, I evaluate evidence. I wasn't born a Christian. My parents weren't Christians until I was 15 years old. I was against Christianity all my life because my friends were "intellectual athiests". I was obsessed with the question throughout all my teenage years. I dabbled in different religions. I read a lot. And I gradually came to see that Christianity must be the truth, that it couldn't possibly be another way. Now my friends are
"intellectual Christians", and everything I meet in the world supports my belief.

So please re-evaluate those conclusions you jumped to about me.

Of course you do. As Shermer explains in his book "Why People Believe Weird Things," we tend to look for and accept that which affirms our beliefs, and reject that which contradicts our beliefs.

This is the same reason that one billion muslims think they are right, etc.

When we choose to set aside reason and logic, and replace what we don't understand with myths, we no longer have to be accountable to others.

 

[lostaquarium]

I try off and on to see if I can become a Christian. But if believing the unbelievable... like 6000 yr old earth in a ncessary part of it... then forget it. No way it will happen. I wont lie to myself.

Hey, I've obviously struck a nerve, and I'm really sorry about that Really, I didn't mean to get it so heated. I obviously know a lot less than you about geology. I totally accept that. I was just trying to do the best with what I had.

If this discussion is putting you off Christianity, then I'm really sorry I fuelled it for so long. In reality, it's no more than an intellectual exercise for me. I don't even think Creation/Evolution is an important part of Christianity. Plenty of Christians believe that God created the world using Evolution, and that's a perfectly valid view to have. Truth is, we'll never know until we go to heaven.

Let me just summarise my view:
- Creation/Evolution is quite irrelevant to the heart of the Christian message, which is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
- Genesis can be taken literally (as Creationism) or as poetry. Christians have to make that choice according to their own conscience.
- I would prefer to take Genesis literally. I currently see no evidence to invalidate that. But I know that I don't know a lot.
- I see much evidence of God's involvement. I know that he created the world, whether by using an Evolution-like method, or a direct 6-day Creation. I'm sure that Evolution without God can't explain things as they are today.

Peace

 

[Hespera]

OK. I obviously don't know enough about this Just one point: how are entire animals preserved within a thick layer of soil? e.g. a horse is 2 metres high and would a lot of time for soil deposits to build up around it - during which it must have decomposed / been blown away / something. It seems to me you need a dramatic deposit to fossilize an animal. Like a flood.


. Is there anything (other than Evolution) that suggests that life is this old?

Its eqasy for this kind of discussion to widen out so far its impossible to get anywhere. So let me answer 2 ideas here, and please let me know if you accept the explanations as making sense... ok?

To bury an entire large animal as you asked about may involve a dramatic event. I have been to a site Ashfall Fossil Beds State Historical Park where a lot of animals died and were buried in volcanic ash. (not a flood!)

Another Agate Fossil Beds National Monument (U.S. National Park Service) where the animals died in and around a waterhole, and were buried, some after lying in the open for a year or more (as shown by the cracking in the bone surface... think of an old cow bone in a field, how it looks).

or you have the laBrea tar pits. All sorts of things can bury an entire animal. A flood is just one of them.

More often than a whole skeleton tho, you just get single bones. And of course the vast majority are not fossilized.

Ok, got it on whole animal, no flood?

Age of life on earth. The geologists have a variety of ways of dating the rock the are working with. Take-um historical geology course!

Both questions answered? Anything else?

 

[Hespera]

Hey, I've obviously struck a nerve, and I'm really sorry about that Really, I didn't mean to get it so heated. I obviously know a lot less than you about geology. I totally accept that. I was just trying to do the best with what I had.

If this discussion is putting you off Christianity, then I'm really sorry I fuelled it for so long. In reality, it's no more than an intellectual exercise for me. I don't even think Creation/Evolution is an important part of Christianity. Plenty of Christians believe that God created the world using Evolution, and that's a perfectly valid view to have. Truth is, we'll never know until we go to heaven.

Let me just summarise my view:
- Creation/Evolution is quite irrelevant to the heart of the Christian message, which is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
- Genesis can be taken literally (as Creationism) or as poetry. Christians have to make that choice according to their own conscience.
- I would prefer to take Genesis literally. I currently see no evidence to invalidate that. But I know that I don't know a lot.
- I see much evidence of God's involvement. I know that he created the world, whether by using an Evolution-like method, or a direct 6-day Creation. I'm sure that Evolution without God can't explain things as they are today.

Peace

Oh,, I dont know that I jumped to any conclusions. Sorry if i did.

And no you didnt hit a nerve! Dont worry about that.

The only thing that the biblical literalists will do as far as putting me off Christianity is that I'd never to to THEIR church. Yours, that sounds acceptable.

I think if you gave me time I could convince you that genesis isnt any more to be taken literally than is a passage where it talks about the hills clapping their hands, or Jesus being a lamb. He just wasnt a lamb!!

I think the Bible is pretty much wrecked if a person tries to read it like he was a lawyer. And it doesnt serve anyone to do that and be forced by it to believe nonsense.

I would btw be interested in one specific thing,, if you have something in mind.. about life that requires god to explain things as they are today. Im curious!

 

[lostaquarium]

Of course you do. As Shermer explains in his book "Why People Believe Weird Things," we tend to look for and accept that which affirms our beliefs, and reject that which contradicts our beliefs.

This is the same reason that one billion muslims think they are right, etc.

When we choose to set aside reason and logic, and replace what we don't understand with myths, we no longer have to be accountable to others.

But... I've just given you a very logical reason why I believe is Christ.

 

[lostaquarium]

Its eqasy for this kind of discussion to widen out so far its impossible to get anywhere. So let me answer 2 ideas here, and please let me know if you accept the explanations as making sense... ok?

To bury an entire large animal as you asked about may involve a dramatic event. I have been to a site Ashfall Fossil Beds State Historical Park where a lot of animals died and were buried in volcanic ash. (not a flood!)

Another Agate Fossil Beds National Monument (U.S. National Park Service) where the animals died in and around a waterhole, and were buried, some after lying in the open for a year or more (as shown by the cracking in the bone surface... think of an old cow bone in a field, how it looks).

or you have the laBrea tar pits. All sorts of things can bury an entire animal. A flood is just one of them.

More often than a whole skeleton tho, you just get single bones. And of course the vast majority are not fossilized.

Ok, got it on whole animal, no flood?

Age of life on earth. The geologists have a variety of ways of dating the rock the are working with. Take-um historical geology course!

Both questions answered? Anything else?

That's quite cool. Thanks.

Of course I can't make a judgement on this, but it seems to me that the interpretation of fossils/bones is quite open to error. Just how accurate are geologists' inferences based on what they find? How do they figure out what animal a single bone belongs to? Could there be mistakes in what they conclude?

ETA: By the way, I'm not making a huge number of posts in a row! There's something wrong with CF and all my posts are being collected at the end. It seems like I'm talking to myself, but I'm not

 

[Hespera]

That's quite cool. Thanks.

Of course I can't make a judgement on this, but it seems to me that the interpretation of fossils/bones is quite open to error. Just how accurate are geologists' inferences based on what they find? How do they figure out what animal a single bone belongs to? Could there be mistakes in what they conclude?

ETA: By the way, I'm not making a huge number of posts in a row! There's something wrong with CF and all my posts are being collected at the end. It seems like I'm talking to myself, but I'm not

As for the single bone, you'd be impressed! A paleontologist can pick up a bone in the badlands here, and say "this is the astragalus from a camel"
and he will be right. Ribs are about impossible, so are mid sections of limb bones. Skulls,teeth, limb bones, ankle and some of the toe bones, tho, they are dead on diagnostic. Those will tell you exactly what you have.

Attempts to reconstruct an entire animal from a single bone can be pretty iffy of course. Its good sport, and partly just to see how close you came when enough more of the bones come to light some day to complete the skeleton.

There is a cartoon taped to a profs door, it is from a cartoon called Beetle Baily. He is a dumb private in the army. He finds a bone while digging a ditch. The wild hair scientist takes the bone and reconstructs the whole animal from it. It comes out as a giant version of his big fat sergeant.

Anyhow, of course people are human and make mistakes. Science is as you know pretty good at being self correcting though, and they all love to jump on each other's mistakes.

I think if you examine how the earth's ages are dated you will see its pretty good science.

 

[Lobster]

Attempts to reconstruct an entire animal from a single bone can be pretty iffy of course. Its good sport, and partly just to see how close you came when enough more of the bones come to light some day to complete the skeleton.

It's also impressive just how many absolutely beautifully preserved many fossils are! Tiktaaalik and the Berlin specimen come to mind. The other thing to remember is that not every bone needs to be seen to reconstruct a specimen, or see what it represents in terms of evolution. If a paleontologist saw a piece of a jawbone joint and some teeth, it's possible to conclude that it representts a transitional form between reptiles and mammals.