Does a Creator Make Sense?

[k4c]

In this thread ... http://www.christianforums.com/t7550830/ tou2009, wondered whether they might join the SDA church and said...

This is something that I once thought had an obvious answer - yes. But I have since realised that that is not so. The question "Is there a creator of the universe?" actually doesn't any make sense at all.

It is like asking "How late is the colour yellow"? A non sequitur.

There are two reasons for this. First up, by definition the universe is all that exists. A creator is part of everything that exists. That means the universe must somehow have "created" itself. Absurd.

The second problem comes about by virtue of the meaning of the word "create". Creation is a process of cause and effect. Aquinas famously argued from this that there must be an "uncaused cause" that started everything off. (Of course the uncaused cause is supposed to be god.)

Without time to separate cause and effect the concept of cause and effect (hence creation) becomes meaningless. In other words, the idea that something could create/cause something else without the existence of time is illogical. It is therefore silly to talk about the "creation" of time.

Now, here's the rub. Einstein discovered that time and space are inextricably linked in four dimensions that have come to be known as spacetime. Without space there can be no time and without time there can be no space. Because there is no time outside our spacetime it is meaningless to claim that our spacetime was "created".

Who can really understand the God who created time and space? We all bicker back and forth and poke at the doctrinal beliefs of each other but do you really want to know the truth? God is so personal with His creation that He gave us taste buds for only one purpose, so that we can enjoy all the flavors He created. He gave the sense of smell so we could smell the spring flowers in the fields and do you know why He did this? Because He loves you, me and all of us so much. Remember, God didn't create love, God is love and anyone who loves is born of God.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

I have several objections to the ideas implicit in that question. For one, science is a-religious. In other words, it is an investigation into the natural world without the bias or baggage of religious dogma. There is no need to bring any type of perspective to it whatsoever.

And yet all people do, whether they acknowledge it or not.

Support does not equate to evidence. The fact is that Creationism (as practised in the Abrahamic tradition) is not falsifiable. The term "creation science" is an oxymoron.

I am grateful that many scientists disagree with you on this point.

I most certainly favour an open minded exploration of truth.

. . . So long as the exploration goes where you want it to go . . .

But what could be more closed minded than blindfolding genuine enquiry with the demand that it conform to religious dogma?

Who has made such a demand?

Also, I think that what you mean when you ask for an open minded approach is that it is open minded to your particular religious prejudice but closed to others.

I think all theories should be taught. I would never advocate for creationism to be taught in exclusion of other theories. I suspect, however, that you would not be willing to support such open exploration.

I reject the creationist perspective because it is at odds with what we observe.

There are many theories that are at odds with what we observe. Take the big bang theory for example.

In fact, it is through the drive of scientists to overturn existing theories with new ones that we gain a better understanding of our world.

Is that open-minded, or is it a bias?

BFA

 

[Argy Lacedom]

And yet all people do, whether they acknowledge it or not.

I'm sure there are some people who do have agendas that they want to push but one of the beauties of the scientific method is that their hypotheses need to be falsifiable. That means that science still advances human knowledge even when its participants are motivated by different things. At worst a poorly motivated scientist will divert funds/attention from more valuable work. At best they could make a substantial contribution.

I am grateful that many scientists disagree with you on this point.

You mean the so called creation scientists? Name one significant contribution to science that has been motivated by a creationist perspective.

Who has made such a demand?

You have. You have said that scientists should carry the burden of viewing their research through the filter of a creationist perspective. I say that that is a very restrictive filter. Very closed minded, very burdensome and totally counter to the approach needed to do good science.

Having said that I do not want to give the impression that all creationists do bad science. It is only when they apply their religious perspective that it becomes bad. I know an SDA who completed a PhD by researching into solar energy. That field did not involve creationism and so there was no conflict. But when that same person became involved in bio-mechanics he was a menace and an impediment.

I think all theories should be taught. I would never advocate for creationism to be taught in exclusion of other theories. I suspect, however, that you would not be willing to support such open exploration.

I would certainly be willing to support such an exploration, but in the context of religious education, not science. And I would not call them theories. They are not falsifiable. They are more properly described as myths.

There are many theories that are at odds with what we observe. Take the big bang theory for example.

I think you probably have the wrong idea on the big bang. Exactly how is it at odds with what we observe?

The creationist view is at odds with the current body of science knowledge because it puts the age of the universe at only a few thousand years. Science has established it to be about 13.7 billion years. Creationists cannot explain why dating methods all agree but give a vastly different date to what they think it should be.

One field of research that is of vital interest to the world right now is climate change. Climate scientists use all sorts of techniques to gauge how the level of CO2 has changed throughout history. For example, they use ice cores that enable them to reconstruct the CO2 concentration back for hundreds of thousands of years. Creation scientists reject this time frame. If they are correct then they are in a unique position to enlighten the world on what climate change means, whether we need to be worried about it and how to combat it if we need to.

If creation scientists want to get some street cred' then I suggest they start with climate change. After that they could develop a cure for the ever evolving influenza virus.

Is that open-minded, or is it a bias?

BFA

I have no idea what you mean. How would the desire to develop better theories be called biased? Perhaps in some vague meaning of the term you could say that, but it is hardly relevant as it leads to significant advancement. It is also the basis of the scientific method. Scientists develop falsifiable hypothesise routinely in order to test their own ideas.

AL

 

[Byfaithalone1]

I'm sure there are some people who do have agendas that they want to push but one of the beauties of the scientific method is that their hypotheses need to be falsifiable. That means that science still advances human knowledge even when its participants are motivated by different things. At worst a poorly motivated scientist will divert funds/attention from more valuable work. At best they could make a substantial contribution.

I can certainly agree with that.

You mean the so called creation scientists? Name one significant contribution to science that has been motivated by a creationist perspective.

A broader understanding of carbon dating.

You have. You have said that scientists should carry the burden of viewing their research through the filter of a creationist perspective. I say that that is a very restrictive filter. Very closed minded, very burdensome and totally counter to the approach needed to do good science.

I would agree with you if you had actually captured my position. You have not. It is my understanding that good scientists explore by asking questions and not by jumping to quick conclusions. Why not model this approach in your conversations with me by asking questions first and then reaching conclusions.

I have never said that scientists should view their research through the filter of a creationist perspective. I have only said that all theories should be taught so children can make informed decisions for themselves. Withholding that information from children is in direct conflict with the main tenets of scientific exploration.

I would certainly be willing to support such an exploration, but in the context of religious education, not science. And I would not call them theories. They are not falsifiable.

Why not? By your own admission, the creationist perspective on the age of the world can be falsifiable.

They are more properly described as myths.

How open minded of you.

I think you probably have the wrong idea on the big bang. Exactly how is it at odds with what we observe?

It doesn't explain things such as the existence of beauty -- especially when that beauty does not contribute to survival.

BFA

 

[Argy Lacedom]

You mean the so called creation scientists? Name one significant contribution to science that has been motivated by a creationist perspective.
​

A broader understanding of carbon dating.

Can you elaborate? As I understand it all dating techniques, including carbon dating, counting tree rings, observation of corals, radioactivity, ice cores, etc., are in substantial agreement when used appropriately. Carbon dating is useful for relatively young organic specimens that date back to something like 45,000 years old maximum. Are you suggesting creation science has contributed to extending the timing back to this date, or to confirming that other dating techniques give substantially similar results?

I would agree with you if you had actually captured my position. You have not. It is my understanding that good scientists explore by asking questions and not by jumping to quick conclusions. Why not model this approach in your conversations with me by asking questions first and then reaching conclusions.

I would be glad to oblige. I have a series of questions that should clarify your position. Here are a few starter questions...

(1) Please give a comprehensive statement of creationism. Here I am particularly interested in why you see it as a science, how we can test it and how we can differentiate the myriad different "brands" of creation science from mere creation myths.

(2) Define any technical terms that you think are likely to be misunderstood.

(3) Provide the positive evidence for creationism. Here I am not interested in failings of existing science theories as this is not evidence FOR creationism. A good example would be some example that is unambiguously predicted by it.

[I have plagiarised some of these questions, but I hope you excuse me in the interest of setting the record straight.]

I would certainly be willing to support such an exploration, but in the context of religious education, not science. And I would not call them theories. They are not falsifiable.
​

Why not? By your own admission, the creationist perspective on the age of the world can be falsifiable.

We have not yet established which creationist perspective you expect me to accept. My major objection to classifying any form of creationism as science is the common, non-falsifiable claim that a supernatural force is responsible for the biodiversity we observe.

Nevertheless, there are some specific brands of creationism that do make some falsifiable claims. Two hypothesise that spring to mind that have, indeed, been falsified are (1) the conjecture that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, and (2) that biodiversity does not change with time according to the principals of evolution.

The first conjecture has been falsified by scientific dating methods. The second has been falsified by many observations - for example that we never observe rabbit fossils mixed with dinosaurs and that evolution has been observed in the laboratory (http://www.pnas.org/content/104/34/13728.full.pdf)

They are more properly described as myths.
​

How open minded of you.

I'm sure you believe the same as I do. For example, do you think the Australian aborigine's creation perspective of the Rainbow Serpent myth or science?

It doesn't explain things such as the existence of beauty -- especially when that beauty does not contribute to survival.

Can you please explain how you know this and why it advances your argument that the big bang theory is incorrect?

For one thing, beauty is very much in the eye of the beholder and I suspect that there is no commonly accepted scientific definition of beauty that would allow your hypothesis to be tested. For another, the big bang theory is a theory that describes the growth and change of our universe in cosmological terms. It does not purport to explain human psychology.

Finally, the idea that there is a creator sheds is no more light on the concept of beauty than the idea of the big bang. All that idea provides is a curtain behind which one can shout "godditit" and pretend that that explains it all.

As I have said previously the major question for believers and non-believers is not whether there is a creator god or not, but why is there something rather than nothing. For the non-believer this reduces to "why is there a universe?" To the believer this reduces to "why is there a god?"

Can you explain why there is a god rather than no god?

AL

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

I know you don't consider me to be on the same level of understanding as yourself but you mentioned 'observable science'. In my mind, observavle science is not based on theory but but what we can ascertain from facts as we know them.. please tweak my inderstanding if this is incorrect.

Based on what I believe to be fact, there is zero evidence of cross species evolution. Inter species evolution, yes, but not cross species. If you know of any evidence, please share.

If man has been on this planet for tens of thousands of years, or longer, why is the oldest civilisation we have evidence of, the Sumerians, around 5,000 years ago? Why can we not find anything that predates them?

Why is the oldest living organism we know of, the Bristlecone pines, only 4-5 thousand years old? Where are the 50,000 year old specimens?

I know that you will bring up carbon dating to 'prove' that there are organic matter that is up to 60,000 years old. But who's to say that the decay rate of carbon 14 has been the same. Do you know that with the recent activity of the sun, that scientists are observing a change is this decay rate? Could it be that it is not as constant as once thought?

Is the Sun Emitting a Mystery Particle? : Discovery News

Here's an excerpt from the article..

This is exactly what has been noticed in recent years; the decay rates of radioactive elements are changing. This is especially mysterious as we are talking about elements with "constant" decay rates -- these values aren't supposed to change. School textbooks teach us this from an early age.
This is the conclusion that researchers from Stanford and Purdue University have arrived at, but the only explanation they have is even weirder than the phenomenon itself: The sun might be emitting a previously unknown particle that is meddling with the decay rates of matter. Or, at the very least, we are seeing some new physics.
Many fields of science depend on measuring constant decay rates. For example, to accurately date ancient artifacts, archaeologists measure the quantity of carbon-14 found inside organic samples at dig sites. This is a technique known as carbon dating.
Carbon-14 has a very defined half-life of 5730 years; i.e. it takes 5,730 years for half of a sample of carbon-14 to radioactively decay into stable nitrogen-14. Through spectroscopic analysis of the ancient organic sample, by finding out what proportion of carbon-14 remains, we can accurately calculate how old it is.
But as you can see, carbon dating makes one huge assumption: radioactive decay rates remain constant and always have been constant. If this new finding is proven to be correct, even if the impact is small, it will throw the science community into a spin.

If you have any factual, observable evidence that the shifting sands of evolutionary science is true, please post it up. Theories and suppositions are meaningless without hard proof....

 

[Argy Lacedom]

Based on what I believe to be fact, there is zero evidence of cross species evolution. Inter species evolution, yes, but not cross species. If you know of any evidence, please share.

What you believe to be fact, or do not believe, does not define what a fact is.

You seem to have an odd idea about what evolution says. It basically says that the biodiversity we observe today results from three processes that have been observed in nature:-

1. Inheritance
2. Diversity
3. Selection

Which of these do you disagree with?

The notion of species change is based on the observation that accumulated diversity can interfere with the ability of organisms with the same ancestor to reproduce effectively. If you hypothesise that species cannot change what mechanism do you suggest there is that limits the accumulation of diversity? How can you test that hypothesis?

If man has been on this planet for tens of thousands of years, or longer, why is the oldest civilisation we have evidence of, the Sumerians, around 5,000 years ago?

Civilisation has became possible in the last ten thousand years or so when a juxtaposition of circumstances, mostly brought on by the retreat of the most recent ice age and the migration of humans out of africa into the fertile crescent where there were grasses (eg wheat) and animals suitable for domestication (eg cattle and goats). This allowed humans to move from a hunter and gatherer existence to a farming existence. This in turn allowed the development of permanent residences and the beginning of "civilisation" as we know it.

Why can we not find anything that predates them?

You are kidding, no?

If man has been on this planet for less than ten thousand years why do the same dating methods that give you the 5,000 year age of the Sumerians date the oldest aboriginal settlements in Australia to 40,000 years and more? (History of Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

the decay rates of radioactive elements are changing

The implication in that statement is wrong. Decay rates of some elements have been observed to be dependent on their chemical environment to a tiny degree. There has also been some suggestion that there is a tiny, minuscule seasonal affect on some decay rates, but not that the decay rates of radioactive elements has changed to any meaningful extent over prolonged periods of time.

For one thing, if they did change significantly it would mean that the weak force (which mediates radioactive decay) would have changed significantly. This would have made the universe a very different place - so inhospitable that nothing could live.

For another, there is very practical day to day evidence that radioactive decay rates are not changing significantly over time, or even seasonally. The global positioning system (GPS) relies on exquisitely sensitive timing signals between the earth and the orbiting satellites. The timing relies on caesium clocks (ie radioactive decay). The timing is so exquisitely sensitive that scientists must correct the signals for the relativistic effects predicted by Einstein; both for the velocity effect and for the gravitational well effect. These corrections make it possible, with the right equipment, to measure the position of objects on the earth's surface to better than 25mm accuracy. That implies an accuracy in the order of one part in ten billion - about one year over the entire age of the universe.

If there was even the slightest deviation on the radioactive decay rate of the caesium clocks planes would fall out of the sky and the SatNav system in your car would put you on the other side of the planet.

I suggest that before you speculate on these things you do a bit more research and get your facts straight.

AL

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

You seem to have an odd idea about what evolution says. It basically says that the biodiversity we observe today results from three processes that have been observed in nature:-

1. Inheritance
2. Diversity
3. Selection

Which of these do you disagree with?

But how did a frog become a horse? Where is the evidence that there has ever been a jump from one species to another. Or are you suggesting that the primodial ooze spontanously created all the species we now have?

 

[Argy Lacedom]

But how did a frog become a horse? Where is the evidence that there has ever been a jump from one species to another. Or are you suggesting that the primodial ooze spontanously created all the species we now have?

I am not suggesting any of those things. By those questions you are exposing your lack of understanding about evolution. Who ever said a horse came from a frog? Who says all the species we now have sprang into being spontaneously?

Evolution is about accumulated changes caused through the processes of inheritance, diversity and selection. The evidence is consistent with the notion that all life forms on the planet today had a common ancestor, not that a frog turned into a horse!

I remember having a similar conversation with an SDA friend at university. He said dogs never turn into cats and I agreed with him. However, all indications are that dogs and cats had a common ancestor. Big difference!

That makes me wonder. Both you and he share the same misconception about evolution. Do all SDA schools misrepresent the theory? If you don't think so, would you mind explaining, in as much detail as you can, what they do teach?

...

By the way, am I correct to presume that you agree that the Australian aborigines settled in Australia some time more than 40,000 years ago? If not, why do you accept the date of the Sumerian civilisation based on the same dating techniques?

I also presume that you trust your GPS system in your car and on your phone. If so can you please confirm that you now accept the notion that radioactive decay rates do not change.

AL

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

I am not suggesting any of those things. By those questions you are exposing your lack of understanding about evolution. Who ever said a horse came from a frog? Who says all the species we now have sprang into being spontaneously?

Evolution is about accumulated changes caused through the processes of inheritance, diversity and selection. The evidence is consistent with the notion that all life forms on the planet today had a common ancestor, not that a frog turned into a horse!

I remember having a similar conversation with an SDA friend at university. He said dogs never turn into cats and I agreed with him. However, all indications are that dogs and cats had a common ancestor. Big difference!

That makes me wonder. Both you and he share the same misconception about evolution. Do all SDA schools misrepresent the theory? If you don't think so, would you mind explaining, in as much detail as you can, what they do teach?

...

By the way, am I correct to presume that you agree that the Australian aborigines settled in Australia some time more than 40,000 years ago? If not, why do you accept the date of the Sumerian civilisation based on the same dating techniques?

I also presume that you trust your GPS system in your car and on your phone. If so can you please confirm that you now accept the notion that radioactive decay rates do not change.

AL

Ok, if you believe that we all came from a common an ancestor, it must have been a single celled amoeba or something like it. So, from this humble beginning, how did the all the species come into existence? And if we are all related, why can there be no successful procreation between any species?

 

[k4c]

I am not suggesting any of those things. By those questions you are exposing your lack of understanding about evolution. Who ever said a horse came from a frog? Who says all the species we now have sprang into being spontaneously?

Evolution is about accumulated changes caused through the processes of inheritance, diversity and selection. The evidence is consistent with the notion that all life forms on the planet today had a common ancestor, not that a frog turned into a horse!

I remember having a similar conversation with an SDA friend at university. He said dogs never turn into cats and I agreed with him. However, all indications are that dogs and cats had a common ancestor. Big difference!

That makes me wonder. Both you and he share the same misconception about evolution. Do all SDA schools misrepresent the theory? If you don't think so, would you mind explaining, in as much detail as you can, what they do teach?

...

By the way, am I correct to presume that you agree that the Australian aborigines settled in Australia some time more than 40,000 years ago? If not, why do you accept the date of the Sumerian civilisation based on the same dating techniques?

I also presume that you trust your GPS system in your car and on your phone. If so can you please confirm that you now accept the notion that radioactive decay rates do not change.

AL

I was a detective for many years. If Adam was murdered five minutes after he was created and I was called to the scene my report would probably read something like this, "I have a deceased thirty year old male". To me, Adam would appear old even though he was created five minutes prior to my arrival. God created living creatures with the ability to reproduce. This means they were created in a mature state. This tells me that God can create a diamond in a blink of an eye that we would identify as being 10,000.00 years old.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

By the way, am I correct to presume that you agree that the Australian aborigines settled in Australia some time more than 40,000 years ago? If not, why do you accept the date of the Sumerian civilisation based on the same dating techniques?

I also presume that you trust your GPS system in your car and on your phone. If so can you please confirm that you now accept the notion that radioactive decay rates do not change.

AL

First, I do not accept that Aborigines settled in Australia 40,000 years ago. Carbon dating, I beleive, is flawed science based on the possibility of changing decay rates (unknown but currently observed), the changing amounts of carbon in the atmosphere and whether the sample was not underwater at one time (worldwide flood??)

The Sumerian civilization was extensively documented and any radioisotope dating would tend to reflect a more accurate number based in it's age, post flood.

 

[Argy Lacedom]

Ok, if you believe that we all came from a common an ancestor, it must have been a single celled amoeba or something like it. So, from this humble beginning, how did the all the species come into existence? And if we are all related, why can there be no successful procreation between any species?

I understand you are having difficulties with the ideas of evolution, but I need to know what you think it is before I can tailor an explanation of these things for you.

Perhaps the best way to move forward is to get you to answer a few questions to fill in the gaps.

1. Do you accept that offspring inherit traits from their parents? (I am not limiting this to humans, nor indeed to life that reproduces sexually.)
2. Do you accept that offspring are usually different to their parents (in that they have slightly different characteristics)?
3. Do you accept that, in nature, some offspring are more successful at reproducing than others?
4. Do you accept that the differences from the original parent to each successive generation become greater with each generation?
5. Do you accept that the ability to successfully reproduce is adversely affected if the genetic differences between two individuals is great enough?

That is sufficient for the moment. Please answer each question clearly.

AL

 

[Argy Lacedom]

I was a detective for many years. If Adam was murdered five minutes after he was created and I was called to the scene my report would probably read something like this, "I have a deceased thirty year old male". To me, Adam would appear old even though he was created five minutes prior to my arrival. God created living creatures with the ability to reproduce. This means they were created in a mature state. This tells me that God can create a diamond in a blink of an eye that we would identify as being 10,000.00 years old.

Are you suggesting that God created the world in such a state that it deliberately looks to be billions of years old rather than a few thousand years old? Why would a decent god go to such lengths to fool his creation? If what you say is true it smacks of deceitfulness.

AL

 

[Argy Lacedom]

First, I do not accept that Aborigines settled in Australia 40,000 years ago. Carbon dating, I beleive, is flawed science based on the possibility of changing decay rates (unknown but currently observed), the changing amounts of carbon in the atmosphere and whether the sample was not underwater at one time (worldwide flood??)

The Sumerian civilization was extensively documented and any radioisotope dating would tend to reflect a more accurate number based in it's age, post flood.

The age of both the Sumerian and Aboriginal cultures have been dated using the same science. Why do you believe one but not the other?

AL

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

The age of both the Sumerian and Aboriginal cultures have been dated using the same science. Why do you believe one but not the other?

AL

Because of the answer I already gave... the 40,000 year old culture has no other evidence besides flawed testing... the Sumers do.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

I understand you are having difficulties with the ideas of evolution, but I need to know what you think it is before I can tailor an explanation of these things for you.

Perhaps the best way to move forward is to get you to answer a few questions to fill in the gaps.

1. Do you accept that offspring inherit traits from their parents? (I am not limiting this to humans, nor indeed to life that reproduces sexually.)
2. Do you accept that offspring are usually different to their parents (in that they have slightly different characteristics)?
3. Do you accept that, in nature, some offspring are more successful at reproducing than others?
4. Do you accept that the differences from the original parent to each successive generation become greater with each generation?
5. Do you accept that the ability to successfully reproduce is adversely affected if the genetic differences between two individuals is great enough?

That is sufficient for the moment. Please answer each question clearly.

AL

Alright, I'll play you game..

1. hardly deserving of an answer but yes

2. variation within a species...yes

3. variation within a species...yes

4. can't agree with ya here, while variation does occur, extreme variation causes mutation which is self correcting as the survivability decreases. A two headed cow does not go on to produce a sub species of two headed cows.

5. not clear if i understand this question... I'll defer to my answer above on mutation.

Next question...

 

[Argy Lacedom]

Alright, I'll play you game..

1. hardly deserving of an answer but yes

Well, at least we agree on one thing.

2. variation within a species...yes

Well, a parent and its offspring would hardly be of different species, so I guess we have two points of agreement.

3. variation within a species...yes

Again, I hardly think the qualification about "in species" is necessary, so we have three points of agreement.

Interestingly, this is all that's necessary to account for all the diversity of life forms we see on earth today and also the ones we observe from the fossil record and various other things from the past.

4. can't agree with ya here, while variation does occur, extreme variation causes mutation which is self correcting as the survivability decreases. A two headed cow does not go on to produce a sub species of two headed cows.

I agree that extreme mutation is often fatal, especially the type of mutations you mention. But I'm not talking here about variations that occur within a generation. I'm talking about genetic variation between organism that occurs over long periods of time.

5. not clear if i understand this question... I'll defer to my answer above on mutation.

I'll take that as a yes. We're now in agreement on all five points.

Next question...

Okay, the next questions require you to do a bit of thought experimentation.

Let's take a hypothetical. Let's look at what happens when two of the three processes that we agree occur on earth today operate; inheritance and variation.

Assume for the purpose of our discussion that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. (I know you disagree with this, but please humour me.)

We'll keep things simple for the point of this exercise. Assume that life started with a single form 4.5 billion years ago and that this organism and its descendants reproduce only once each year and produce two offspring, nearly, but not quite, the same as the parent (inheritance and variation).

If none of these died we would have 2^4.5billion genetically different descendants alive today. To put this in perspective, this is more than the number of electrons in the entire known universe! Every possible form, shape and manifestation of life you could possibly imagine would be alive today!

6. Do you accept that arithmetic?
7. Can you name any known mechanism that prevents the gradual accumulation of genetic changes over time?
​

Lets' move on to the next aspect.

So far we've been talking about only two of the processes that we both agree are in operation on the earth today; inheritance and variation. Where does the third fit in; selection? Well, that's quite easy. The only thing that would stop this unimaginable variation that arises quite naturally in our thought experiment is the lack of resources. Very soon after life began there would be insufficient food for all the organisms to survive. In fact there would be insufficient matter in the whole universe to form their bodies.

Only the toughest or luckiest organisms would survive to pass on their genes to their offspring. The rest would die. They and their potential descendants would be missing from the record. (These are the missing pieces that would fill the gaps between species that we observe today.)

Because the genetic gaps between species are unfilled by the missing pieces there is no opportunity for a continuum of reproductive interaction. As the environment changes it favours different variations within species and these ones are the ones that survive to become the ancestors of more descendant species, just as the first life form is the ancestor to them.

8. Do you accept that the principals we have agreed on can account for the diversity of life on earth if they act over a sufficient length of time?
9. If not, what mechanism limits variation and diversity?
​

AL

 

[Byfaithalone1]

We have not yet established which creationist perspective you expect me to accept.

I have no expectations regarding the perspectives you accept or reject.

Do you have any expectations?

BFA

 

[Argy Lacedom]

I have no expectations regarding the perspectives you accept or reject.

Do you have any expectations?

BFA

I expected more of you. Would you please respond to the questions I raised in post #25. For convenience here is that post again...

Originally Posted by Byfaithalone1

You mean the so called creation scientists? Name one significant contribution to science that has been motivated by a creationist perspective.
​

A broader understanding of carbon dating.
​

Can you elaborate? As I understand it all dating techniques, including carbon dating, counting tree rings, observation of corals, radioactivity, ice cores, etc., are in substantial agreement when used appropriately. Carbon dating is useful for relatively young organic specimens that date back to something like 45,000 years old maximum. Are you suggesting creation science has contributed to extending the timing back to this date, or to confirming that other dating techniques give substantially similar results?

I would agree with you if you had actually captured my position. You have not. It is my understanding that good scientists explore by asking questions and not by jumping to quick conclusions. Why not model this approach in your conversations with me by asking questions first and then reaching conclusions.
​

I would be glad to oblige. I have a series of questions that should clarify your position. Here are a few starter questions...

(1) Please give a comprehensive statement of creationism. Here I am particularly interested in why you see it as a science, how we can test it and how we can differentiate the myriad different "brands" of creation science from mere creation myths.

(2) Define any technical terms that you think are likely to be misunderstood.

(3) Provide the positive evidence for creationism. Here I am not interested in failings of existing science theories as this is not evidence FOR creationism. A good example would be some example that is unambiguously predicted by it.

[I have plagiarised some of these questions, but I hope you excuse me in the interest of setting the record straight.]

I would certainly be willing to support such an exploration, but in the context of religious education, not science. And I would not call them theories. They are not falsifiable.
​

Why not? By your own admission, the creationist perspective on the age of the world can be falsifiable.
​

We have not yet established which creationist perspective you expect me to accept. My major objection to classifying any form of creationism as science is the common, non-falsifiable claim that a supernatural force is responsible for the biodiversity we observe.

Nevertheless, there are some specific brands of creationism that do make some falsifiable claims. Two hypothesise that spring to mind that have, indeed, been falsified are (1) the conjecture that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, and (2) that biodiversity does not change with time according to the principals of evolution.

The first conjecture has been falsified by scientific dating methods. The second has been falsified by many observations - for example that we never observe rabbit fossils mixed with dinosaurs and that evolution has been observed in the laboratory (http://www.pnas.org/content/104/34/13728.full.pdf)

They are more properly described as myths.
​

How open minded of you.
​

I'm sure you believe the same as I do. For example, do you think the Australian aborigine's creation perspective of the Rainbow Serpent myth or science?

It doesn't explain things such as the existence of beauty -- especially when that beauty does not contribute to survival.
​

Can you please explain how you know this and why it advances your argument that the big bang theory is incorrect?

For one thing, beauty is very much in the eye of the beholder and I suspect that there is no commonly accepted scientific definition of beauty that would allow your hypothesis to be tested. For another, the big bang theory is a theory that describes the growth and change of our universe in cosmological terms. It does not purport to explain human psychology.

Finally, the idea that there is a creator sheds is no more light on the concept of beauty than the idea of the big bang. All that idea provides is a curtain behind which one can shout "godditit" and pretend that that explains it all.

As I have said previously the major question for believers and non-believers is not whether there is a creator god or not, but why is there something rather than nothing. For the non-believer this reduces to "why is there a universe?" To the believer this reduces to "why is there a god?"

Can you explain why there is a god rather than no god?

AL