Data that confirms creationism

[Josephus]

"Ok, I'll bite. How does mathematics confirm the creation hypothesis?"

The existence of Mathematics confirms the hypothesis that a Created universe would have order to it. Mathematics is certainly an "order" and therefore the hypothesis is proved.

How far should the stars be if creation is true?

That is the wrong question. The right question is, what hypothesis does Creationism put forth in relation to the obvious existence of far away stars?

Simple. Creation took a few days for stars to form. Assuming the Big Bang Theory is sound and includes the theory of Relativity, all that mass in such a small space would make relative time pass incredibly slow for involved matter, but awefully fast for a being that can create Light. Stars extremely far away would have light extremely red shifted as the universe expanded, even though light travels at a fixed relative rate, the distance between one star or another should not be considered a factor to determining the universe's age, but rather it's distance. This is because the time it once took for one star's light to reach another point in the universe would be relatively fixed to the speed of light, yet it's wavelengths "streched" as space-time itself expanded under the influence of the original expansion and decreasing Universal Gravitation, thus giving the appearance of a fixed universe with a non-relative distance with a relatively deterministic time which depends on the relation of an observer to the object. In simple English, it means the runners finished the race before the observers in the stands arrived to watch it.


Creationism puts forth another hypothesis that God literally means six Earth days of creation, so therefore by the time Earth is created, God's relative time and Earth's relative time are in sync - a concept evidenced by the proof of Relativity as being a universal law.


ed,

"Good. Why don't you pick one and we can discuss it. Tell us how, for instance, mountain ranges confirm a flood."

Simple. Mountain ranges contain fossils of marine life.


"Well, not exactly. You have to ignore a lot of other data to use any particular evidence to support creationism."

Data? or Interpretations? I choose to ignore other people's interpretations and instead choose to think for myself. I encouarge you to do the same.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith Only one is falsifiable, and only one of these is a scientific theory that can makes predictions that can be verified by comparison with objective evidence. Only one of these is subject to falsification by potential incompatibility with objective evidence. I will leave it to you to figure out which, and why that matters.

This is gibberish. There are many predictions you can make based on creation, flood, etc., that can be verified by comparison with one's interpretation of objective evidence. And that's exactly what you do with evolution, too. The evidence may be objective, but your interpretation (as an evolutionist) is not.

As for the next part ... Wow! Can you equivocate any more than that? Actually, yes, and you must in order to be honest and accurate. You have to add "interpretation" here once again.

It should read: "Subject to falsification by potential incompatibility with your interpretation of objective evidence."

My favorite is "potential incompatibility." Yeehaw, we can interpret just about anything we want with that.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Ok, here is one for your scientific athiests.

Explain the First Law of Thermodynamics, which states that matter is neither created or destroyed. Where did matter come from in the first place?

 

[mac_philo]

Originally posted by s0uljah
Ok, here is one for your scientific athiests.

Explain the First Law of Thermodynamics, which states that matter is neither created or destroyed. Where did matter come from in the first place?

Please try to stay on-topic. Go back and read the first post. This thread is for scientific evidence for creationism.

 

[seebs]

Josephus: I understood the question to be evidence for *young earth* creationism. Mathematical order doesn't support or reject that.

I don't think we can form meaningful arguments based on the "likelihood" of given physical constants; as noted, we wouldn't be here if they weren't fairly similar, or so we suspect... Therefore, we don't know that there aren't billions upon billions of other "universes" where they're different, many of which might well contain no life - but in one of which, they're explaining how, if pi weren't *exactly* 4, it'd be really hard to make space-time work, and this proves that the Four-Aspected God is real.

This hypothesis can be neither confirmed nor denied.

 

[edgeo]

Originally posted by Josephus
e: Good. Why don't you pick one and we can discuss it. Tell us how, for instance, mountain ranges confirm a flood.

J: Simple. Mountain ranges contain fossils of marine life.

Sure and it is also evidence for plate tectonics. However, plate tectonics also explains the existing seismicity, the symmetry of deformation, the ordering of fossils, etc., that you have to ignore if you say that it supports a flood model.

e: Well, not exactly. You have to ignore a lot of other data to use any particular evidence to support creationism."

J: Data? or Interpretations? I choose to ignore other people's interpretations and instead choose to think for myself. I encouarge you to do the same.

Data. For instance you have to ignore the clustering of radiometric age dates by different independent methods in order to say that radiometric dating doesn't work.

 

[mac_philo]

The constants are a dead issue unless you can connect them to YEC. Yes, yes, many things cannot be fiddled with without destroying life. Like physical constants, and the state of your arteries. The delicateness of the constants and the guadiness of the probabilities would be evident given either hypothesis, so without some further facts, they are mere window dressing.

 

[ardipithecus]

Originally posted by s0uljah
Ok, here is one for your scientific athiests.

There is no such thing as a "scientific atheist" since atheism has nothing to do with science.

Indeed, what we now call the Big Bang was first proposed by a priest.

Explain the First Law of Thermodynamics, which states that matter is neither created or destroyed. Where did matter come from in the first place?

It would be beter to use word "energy" here rather than "matter." True they are two aspects of the same thing but energy is the prefered word in this context.

Actually, many cosmologists believe the total energy content of the universe is zero. This hypothesis is consistent with observation. Basically it all cancels out. If you want more detail, you should probably find a book on cosmology.

 

[Ray K]

Originally posted by npetreley


What are you saying? That if one or more of these constants were different, it would probably be just as likely that life would exist because we don't really know how the interactions would affect the way the universe formed?

Yes? No?

What I am saying is that we have no way of knowing what the would be like if some of these constants were changed. It is unimaginable to us.

For all we know, life of some sort might be more possible.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by Josephus
"Ok, I'll bite. How does mathematics confirm the creation hypothesis?"

The existence of Mathematics confirms the hypothesis that a Created universe would have order to it. Mathematics is certainly an "order" and therefore the hypothesis is proved.

1) How much order is predicted in a universe that is created?
2) This basically comes down to the question of why anyone cannot posit order in the universe as "evidence" for any hypothesis? Why is it required for creation? Why could a creator not equally well create without order?
3) Can you give evidence that an uncreated universe would have no order, or less order than one that is created?

How far should the stars be if creation is true?

That is the wrong question. The right question is, what hypothesis does Creationism put forth in relation to the obvious existence of far away stars?

If the distance of stars is evidence supporting the hypothesis of creation, you have to explain what that hypothesis would predict with regards to the distance of the stars. Anything else is just accomodation. The fact that creation can conceivably accomodate the distance of stars cannot be construed as evidence in support of creation. The --most-- that can be made of that is that one potential falsification fails, if the accomdation is valid.

Simple. Creation took a few days for stars to form. Assuming the Big Bang Theory is sound and includes the theory of Relativity, all that mass in such a small space would make relative time pass incredibly slow for involved matter, but awefully fast for a being that can create Light.

Relative to the frame of reference of matter within the primordial universe, how much faster does relativity predict time will travel for a being that can create light than for the matter in the primordial universe? I assume you have the equations of relativity to work with, so you should be able to work that out, and let me know. If you cannot, can you explain why you expect time to travel faster for such a being?

Stars extremely far away would have light extremely red shifted as the universe expanded, even though light travels at a fixed relative rate, the distance between one star or another should not be considered a factor to determining the universe's age, but rather it's distance. This is because the time it once took for one star's light to reach another point in the universe would be relatively fixed to the speed of light, yet it's wavelengths "streched" as space-time itself expanded under the influence of the original expansion and decreasing Universal Gravitation, thus giving the appearance of a fixed universe with a non-relative distance with a relatively deterministic time which depends on the relation of an observer to the object. In simple English, it means the runners finished the race before the observers in the stands arrived to watch it.

In simple English you are demonstrating that red-shift can be used to determine the speed at which stars are receding from one another, ergo the speed of expansion of the universe. You seem to also toss God into the equation without stating why stellar distances depend on God's involvement in order to show the properties they have today.

You are correct that red-shift cannot determine age of stars or distance to stars directly. There are better measures for that.

Creationism puts forth another hypothesis that God literally means six Earth days of creation, so therefore by the time Earth is created, God's relative time and Earth's relative time are in sync - a concept evidenced by the proof of Relativity as being a universal law.

The fact that general relativity is proven does not prove that the rate of flow of time will be identical between God's frame of reference and earth's frame of reference. In fact, without finding out what the flow of time is from God's frame of reference using objective measurements, a comparison is impossible, so the hypothesis is impossible to verify. Besides this, even if God's relative time, as you put it, and Earth's relative time, as you put it, are in sync, as you put it... why does that support 6-day creation? Would that not be just as compatible with 12-day creation, or 500 million year creation?

Do you have any other evidence for creation?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by npetreley

This is gibberish. There are many predictions you can make based on creation, flood, etc., that can be verified by comparison with one's interpretation of objective evidence.

First let me know what predictions you can make based on the creation hypothesis that are testable. If it can make any that are testable, that means it predicts the that we will find certain objective data. We need only look for the data. If any "interpretations" are involved, we can examine them to see if they are good interpretations or not - but it doesn't have to come down to that. A theory predicts data, not interpretations.

And that's exactly what you do with evolution, too. The evidence may be objective, but your interpretation (as an evolutionist) is not.

If interpretation is required, evolutionary biologists gladly submit their interpretation to be examined by any and all to see if there are any flaws in it. You can point out the flaws in any interpretation you find that is given as part of the evidence for evolution.

As for the next part ... Wow! Can you equivocate any more than that? Actually, yes, and you must in order to be honest and accurate. You have to add "interpretation" here once again.

It should read: "Subject to falsification by potential incompatibility with your interpretation of objective evidence."

Only if "my interpretation" of objective evidence is sound. However, regardless of my interpretation of it, the existence, if found, in a remote rainforest, of a fish that nurses its young from mammary glands would falsify common descent. Discovery of mammals in strata from the cambrian would falsify common descent. Discovery of primates in the Devonian would falsify common descent. A comparison of cytochrome c between humans and a newly discovered bird species where human's cytochrome c is closer to the bird than to a mouse would falsify common descent.

My favorite is "potential incompatibility." Yeehaw, we can interpret just about anything we want with that.

Poor choice of words, yet the potential for true incompatability (such as would be found in any of the examples given above) is what makes evolution falsifiable - one requirement for being considered a good theory. "Scientific" theories of Creation come in two strains: unfalsifiable and falsified. As a scientific hypothesis a young earth is falsified. As an unscientific hypothesis, a young earth cannot be falsified, because any given evidence that can falsify it is dismissed by citing an additional miracle or two (themselves merely ad hoc, without evidentiary support).

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley
"The only difference are the interpretations of the evidence. And interpretations always rely on a bias of some kind."
Praise God for someone who sees the core issue. I'm so glad you showed up.

This is not the core issue at all. Everyone agrees that interpretations are subject to individual bias. The core issue is: how do we select which is the best interpretation. Here's an example.

Let's say I walk into a room. In one corner is Jerry, laying on the floor dead, with a gaping knife wound in his chest. Standing over him is Nick, clenching a bloody dagger in his fist. How do we interpret this evidence?

Interpretation number one is that Jerry stabbed himself and, just before I arrived, Nick found him and pulled the dagger from his chest in an attempt to help.

Interpretation number two is that Nick stabbed Jerry with the dagger.

How do we decide which interpretation is the correct one? We call the police and they begin to gather evidence...

First, they question Nick. Nick assures the police repeatedly that he was only trying to help and that interpretation #1 is the correct one.

After further questioning, Nick lets it slip that he owed Jerry $10,000. A quick call to the courthouse reveals that Jerry recently began legal proceedings against Nick.

Later, during a search of Jerry's apartment, the police discover a message from Nick on Jerry's answering machine. In the message Nick threatens to kill Jerry.

Still later, a friend of Jerry's calls the police. "I'm worried about my friend Jerry", he says. "I was talking to him on the phone earlier today when I heard some yelling in the background. I think the person said something about killing him. Jerry said, 'I gotta go -- Nick's here. I'll call you back'. He hung up abruptly and now he won't answer his phone. I'm afraid something bad has happened."

The police check the friend's phone records and discover that the call ended five minutes before I arrived and saw Nick with the knife.

So where does the evidence leave us? Have we proved that one interpretation is the only possible interpretation, to the exclusion of all others? Of course not. It is still possible to imagine a scenario where Nick did not kill Jerry. Aliens from the starship Enterprise could have beamed down just after Jerry hung up the phone, stabbed Jerry, and beamed back to their ship before I arrived to find Nick in a compromising position. There is no way, short of a time machine, to unequivocally prove one interpretation over the other.

Does that mean both interpretations have an equal claim to the truth? Clearly, if we thought so, very few people could ever be convicted of a crime. In this simple example, one interpretation is by far more consistent with the evidence than the other. Only persons with highly biased points of view (like maybe Nick's mom) would claim that interpretation #1 was more likely true than interpretation #2.

To translate this little example back to the topic under discussion:
The "crime" is the observed diversity of life on Earth. The competing "interpretations" are evolution and creation. The evidence in favor of evolution is extensive, well documented, and persuasive. The evidence for creation, the original topic of this thread, is apparently zero. To embrace evolution is to conclude that Nick killed Jerry. To embrace creationism is to blame it on aliens from the starship Enterprise.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Aliens from the starship Enterprise could have beamed down just after Jerry hung up the phone, stabbed Jerry, and beamed back to their ship before I arrived to find Nick in a compromising position.

No LFOD, We know from the logical character of Mr. Spock (the only so-called "alien" on the Enterprise) that he could not have done it. It had to be Nick, I guess.

 

[TheBear]

Well said, LiveFreeOrDie.

I have used similar analogies in the past....Give me a minute, I'll dig it up.

 

[TheBear]

Here it is.....

Originally posted by TheBear
I would like to use the police detective analogy again.

Let's say that police detectives respond to a call that someone heard a gunshot in the building, and a few minutes later, heard the sound of screeching tires. The detectives search the building and find a person, slumped over dead, with their hands tied behind their back, and gunpowder residue and a hole in the back of their head. The detectives interview all people who were in the building around the time of the incident, and all cooberate the same theme.....they heard what sounded like a gunshot, and they all heard the sound of screeching tires. No one actually saw anything.

Back at the scene of the incident, detectives work meticulously to uncover any evidence or clues to the crime. However, the perpetrator was extremely carefull not to leave any evidence, wearing latex gloves, recovering the spent shell, cleaning up any footprints, etc. Consequently, the detectives did not find any gun, fingerprints, footprints, spent shells or other conclusive evidence.

So the question is: Did a murder occur? If you say yes, how can you say so without all the conclusive evidence that points to the exact murderer?


Now, for all the evolution nay-sayers, think about this before you try to dismiss evolution just because all the conclusive evidence has not been uncovered, yet. Even though every shred of evidence is not in, there is extremely high confidence that a murder took place, that the the murderer used a gun, and that the murderer fled the scene.

John

But I digress, and was taking this on from a different angle. We are looking for scientific evedince that supports creationism in this thread.


John

 

[eldermike]

Livefree,

Here is something to consider.

Nick's life is at stake in your senerio. For that reason I like your senerio. Discounting your third possibility and going with; Nick did it, or Nick was trying to help as the two possibles, would you convict; knowing that His life is the necessary payment?

Blessings

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by eldermike
Livefree,

Here is something to consider.

Nick's life is at stake in your senerio. For that reason I like your senerio. Discounting your third possibility and going with; Nick did it, or Nick was trying to help as the two possibles, would you convict; knowing that His life is the necessary payment?

Blessings

Mike, is this relevant? The relevant issue is whether you would be rationally convinced. Whether you would take action that would result in Nick's death would depend more on your moral scruples about whether evidence beyond reasonable doubt is sufficient when there remains potential for any doubt at all (due to human fallibility) in taking the life of another person.

If you see how the assumed death penalty bears on what conclusions can reasonably be drawn or how much reasonable certainty you can have from the evidence, then how? What is the relevance of the possible consequences of a discovery to the certainty of the discovery itself?

 

[Josephus]

"3) Can you give evidence that an uncreated universe would have no order."

Well, it is true that something can't come from nothing. Would you agree? All causes have a causer except one thing that is the cause of all causes but is itself "unmoved." - Plato.



"Relative to the frame of reference of matter within the primordial universe, how much faster does relativity predict time will travel for a being that can create light than for the matter in the primordial universe? I assume you have the equations of relativity to work with, so you should be able to work that out, and let me know. If you cannot, can you explain why you expect time to travel faster for such a being? "

Let me ask you a question: at what point would the universe's event horizon be able to be breached after time index 0 at the start of the big bang? That certainly is an aweful lot of mass and energy scrunched up in one tight space. space- time itself would be like a compact sponge. Who's to say what the relativistic time dilation would be for an observer unaffected by the universe's creation? The amount of time passing within the Big Bang singularity at time index 0 would be equal to the amount of energy existing. A finite amount, to be certain, but big enough to make time (which relies on matter for slowing it down) as infinite as the matter-less pure-energy singularity itself. As matter is created after the first Planck second (time relative of course to the unaffected observer), time slows down within the universe. (Ut) is Universe time variable in relation to God's time (Gt).

Gt/Ut = time dilation between God and our Universe's time.

from E=mc2

c2 = E/m

From the theory that more matter means less time passing the change in matter from energy results in E/m = Universal Time factor (Ut)

Ut therefore must = c2

The speed of light in our universe = square root of Universal Time factor

Gt = 0 (since theory assumes he is unaffected by time)

Gt/Ut = 0 always - meaning God is still unaffected.

However, God can choose to enter our universe at any point away from the matter that causes it's existence, and thus it's affect on time. Pretend God picked a point in space where the universe would have to expand to before the universe's time was in synch with the position he picked (as the universe expanded).

Simply waiting 3 days at that spot the very instant the singularity exploded very very very very very far away (little mass close by to affect his relative time), within 3 days the matter of that explosion reached his position and the matter cloud's time was affected - changed slower exponentially until time within the matter cloud became stabilized - perhaps at the exact point where God was floating. If the matter to energy ratio in the universe reached a 1/1 ratio right at the moment it reached God, then that matter cloud's time (Ut) would be ticking in sync with the relative position of God's time - a positional clock reading 3 days, but elsewhere in the universe, especially near the point of the origin of the singularity, billions of years may have passed.

Quite simple.

 

[seebs]

I don't necessarily agree that something can't come from nothing. I don't know whether or not something can come from nothing. I think it's rare under the circumstances I'm normally in, but I've been told that there's some evidence that particles and antiparticles occasionally form spontaneously in a vacuum, and then annihilate each other.

So... For all I know, everything's always been here, and just acts in certain ways, which happen to create temporary order. I can't actually disprove this, although I don't believe it.

 

[Josephus]

Energy either becomes matter, or matter energy. The total amount of energy (when all matter is converted) in this universe, never changes.