C
creativecreationist
Guest
Hi all....
I'm in the middle of an a online debate at another site and I need help. I just am not well versed enough to have anything I say taken seriously (well, a lot of my info comes from Answers in Genesis and they call AIG pseudoscience)---- If anyone can I would really appreciate any help. (oh, I had to take out links... I couldn't remember my old screenname exactly or the password was wrong, so I had to create a new one)
This is the original question possed :
OK, in the bible we are led to believe way back when humans lived outrageously lengthy lives, like hundreds of years or whatever.
I find this absolutely ridiculous. If that is so, how come we have not found ancient human bones showing eight hundred yrs of wear? Bodies are often id'd from bones only, and using bones we can determine a reasonable estimate of age.
I think the people who wrote the bible used outrageously long ages to beef up their stories, like adam and eve. It is NOT HUMANLY possible to live hundreds of years!
Then it gets off in to all sorts of creation vs evolution topics .
Heres where we are currently at.
Quote:
Originally Posted by *~Carrie~* (aka creativecreationist)
Check out the book "in six days... why fifty scientists choose to believe in creation" edited by john f. ashton PhD
at amazon you can read the 2 page list of scientist who wrote essays for the book and you can also read the first essay....
these are all highly respected scientists in their fields... I encourage those who doubt to check it out (at least the first essay that you can read online)
If you go here:
you can read a number of essays from this book. I am not going to read them all. However, I have selected a random sample in order to make an initial assessment of the book.
Elaine Kennedy, geologist, provides absolutely no evidence for a young earth. She openly admits this:
Quote:
As a geologist, I do not find much evidence for the existence of a fiat creation. I just have not found any geologic data that convinces me that God spoke and it was.
and goes on to say that it is her Christian faith, rather than any physical evidence, that convinced her of a young earth:
Quote:
As a Christian, I find abundant evidence for the existence of a Creator and the greatest evidence is found in my personal relationship with Jesus Christ. This is my experience and it is from this platform of faith that I look at the geologic data.
Further, she admits to having no way to account for the ancient dates provided by radiometric dating:
Quote:
Those of us who believe in a short chronology and a six-day creation do not have an adequate explanation for radiometric dates; however, we do know that much research needs to be done and we know multiple interpretations of the distributions concerning the processes involved are possible.
Not very convincing.
Jonathan D. Sarfati is a "research scientist for Answers in Genesis." I suppose that means he's respected in his field.
The first part of his essay is devoted to purely Christian reasons for believing in a literal, six-day creation and a young earth, which may be interesting to other Christians, but has no bearing on the scientific questions. Then he presents some scientific evidence which he believes supports his position. Not being a chemist, I am not competent to assess all of his points, but I can address a few.
He says:
Quote:
The dolphins sonar system is so precise that its the envy of the U.S. Navy. It can detect a fish the size of a golf ball 70 m (230 feet) away. It took an expert in chaos theory to show that the dolphins click pattern is mathematically designed to give the best information.
He seems to believe that this optimal design is evidence that dolphin sonar must have been designed by an intelligence. He seems unaware that the entire point of evolutionary theory is to demonstrate a manner in which functional designs can be produced without intelligence, and that evolutionary programming, to take one example, has demonstrated how unintelligent processes can produce better results than those produced by intelligent human programmers!
Quote:
The complex compound eyes of some types of trilobites, extinct and supposedly primitive invertebrates, were amazingly designed. They comprised tubes that each pointed in a different direction, and had special lenses that focused light from any distance. The required lens design comprised a layer of calcite on top of a layer of chitinmaterials with precisely the right refractive indicesand a wavy boundary between them of a precise mathematical shape.20 The Designer of these eyes is a Master Physicist, who applied what we now know as the physical laws of Fermats principle of least time, Snells law of refraction, Abbés sine law and birefringent optics.
Since these physical principles form part of the environment in which the trilobite eyes evolve, it is not surprising to find them reflected in the structure of the eyes. The fact that a baseball struck by a bat travels in a parabola does not mean we have to assume that Abner Doubleday invented gravity. (Okay, he didn't even invent baseball, but you get my point.)
Edward A. Boudreaux is a theoretical chemist. He describes at great length the properties of various elements, proteins, DNA, etc. As far as I can tell his descriptions are accurate. Then he proudly concludes:
Quote:
These few examples contain clear evidence of complex design imparting tailor-made functions.
Um, what? That's quite a leap. Then he goes on to say:
Quote:
Hence, having concluded that creation by the power of an omnipotent God is the only acceptable explanation for the origin of life, I was convinced that the only reliable source of this account must be from the Creator alone. Now the Bible claims to be the written word of God to man. While this documentation was by the hand of man, the information is directly from God. If God actually is who He reveals himself to be, He is perfectly capable of preserving the complete accuracy and integrity of His own word.
Holy circular logic, Batman!
One more, and then I should go to bed. Bob Hosken, biochemist and researcher in food technology. He says:
Quote:
These kinds of findings indicate to me that each animal is in some way uniquely designed to suit its particular environment, and I cannot help but attribute the complexity of the design to a Creator, rather than to random evolutionary forces.
The first part is unarguable. Organisms are designed to suit their particular environment. The second part is less clear. Does complex design necessarily imply an intelligent designer? The point of evolutionary theory is that it describes a physical mechanism which can produce, through simple, unintelligent processes, complex design. Was all of the design in the natural world produced through such mechanisms? I would say yes. Professor Hosken would say no. But he has provided no evidence beyond personal intuition to support his position.
These essays are quite interesting. Thank you for pointing me in their direction.
One more point I should add: most of the essays I looked at seem to rely on the evidence of order and complexity and design as evidence for an intelligent creator. Even if one were to grant the existence of such a creator, it seems a much greater leap to then assume that this creator must be the Christian God, and none of the essays I read presented any evidence for such an identity beyond personal religious faith. Why not aliens? Hyperdimensional computers? Bored computer programmers? Maybe we're just a really complicated version of The Sims
Carrie, Ive taken other Creationists up on the kind of challenge youve thrown down. Although Ive only flipped through the specific book youve mentioned, I have read several books very much like it. Ken Hams The Answers Book springs to mind. As you likely know, Ham is a co-founder of the Answers in Genesis site from which you often post references. With regard to Hams book, in between biting my tongue over its blatant inaccuracies I was often laughing out loud at its over-stretched propositions. I got an especially large giggle from Hams illustration of the early Israelite fighting off a T-Rex.
I think Hams approach, and it seems to me the approach in your suggested book I glanced through, share something in common: that is, mass over substance. Volume is no substitute for quality. Especially in providing logical argument in support of your positions. Rarely if ever do I hear Ham or other Creationists go up against competent Evolutionary scientists in a balanced forum. Hams arguments are almost always made from behind the pulpit, talk radio, or seminar lectern to groups of believers. Youve posted a lot from AiG in this and other threads Carrie. But nearly all of it is shot through with holes which folks like Chris have repeatedly demonstrated. Yet you post more. And Ham goes on as well, though he doesnt seem to have the courage you demonstrate here by defending your ideas before others in open debate.
Carrie, Ive already previously taken advice similar to that you just offered. As a person who mostly agrees with Evolution Theory, Ive taken the time to study Creationist literature. So Ill ask a similar question of you, Carrie. How many rebuttals to Creationism have you read outside of AiGs filter? How many mainstream biologists and geologists have you talked with regarding the issues?
I'm in the middle of an a online debate at another site and I need help. I just am not well versed enough to have anything I say taken seriously (well, a lot of my info comes from Answers in Genesis and they call AIG pseudoscience)---- If anyone can I would really appreciate any help. (oh, I had to take out links... I couldn't remember my old screenname exactly or the password was wrong, so I had to create a new one)
This is the original question possed :
OK, in the bible we are led to believe way back when humans lived outrageously lengthy lives, like hundreds of years or whatever.
I find this absolutely ridiculous. If that is so, how come we have not found ancient human bones showing eight hundred yrs of wear? Bodies are often id'd from bones only, and using bones we can determine a reasonable estimate of age.
I think the people who wrote the bible used outrageously long ages to beef up their stories, like adam and eve. It is NOT HUMANLY possible to live hundreds of years!
Then it gets off in to all sorts of creation vs evolution topics .
Heres where we are currently at.
Quote:
Originally Posted by *~Carrie~* (aka creativecreationist)
Check out the book "in six days... why fifty scientists choose to believe in creation" edited by john f. ashton PhD
at amazon you can read the 2 page list of scientist who wrote essays for the book and you can also read the first essay....
these are all highly respected scientists in their fields... I encourage those who doubt to check it out (at least the first essay that you can read online)
If you go here:
you can read a number of essays from this book. I am not going to read them all. However, I have selected a random sample in order to make an initial assessment of the book.
Elaine Kennedy, geologist, provides absolutely no evidence for a young earth. She openly admits this:
Quote:
As a geologist, I do not find much evidence for the existence of a fiat creation. I just have not found any geologic data that convinces me that God spoke and it was.
and goes on to say that it is her Christian faith, rather than any physical evidence, that convinced her of a young earth:
Quote:
As a Christian, I find abundant evidence for the existence of a Creator and the greatest evidence is found in my personal relationship with Jesus Christ. This is my experience and it is from this platform of faith that I look at the geologic data.
Further, she admits to having no way to account for the ancient dates provided by radiometric dating:
Quote:
Those of us who believe in a short chronology and a six-day creation do not have an adequate explanation for radiometric dates; however, we do know that much research needs to be done and we know multiple interpretations of the distributions concerning the processes involved are possible.
Not very convincing.
Jonathan D. Sarfati is a "research scientist for Answers in Genesis." I suppose that means he's respected in his field.
The first part of his essay is devoted to purely Christian reasons for believing in a literal, six-day creation and a young earth, which may be interesting to other Christians, but has no bearing on the scientific questions. Then he presents some scientific evidence which he believes supports his position. Not being a chemist, I am not competent to assess all of his points, but I can address a few.
He says:
Quote:
The dolphins sonar system is so precise that its the envy of the U.S. Navy. It can detect a fish the size of a golf ball 70 m (230 feet) away. It took an expert in chaos theory to show that the dolphins click pattern is mathematically designed to give the best information.
He seems to believe that this optimal design is evidence that dolphin sonar must have been designed by an intelligence. He seems unaware that the entire point of evolutionary theory is to demonstrate a manner in which functional designs can be produced without intelligence, and that evolutionary programming, to take one example, has demonstrated how unintelligent processes can produce better results than those produced by intelligent human programmers!
Quote:
The complex compound eyes of some types of trilobites, extinct and supposedly primitive invertebrates, were amazingly designed. They comprised tubes that each pointed in a different direction, and had special lenses that focused light from any distance. The required lens design comprised a layer of calcite on top of a layer of chitinmaterials with precisely the right refractive indicesand a wavy boundary between them of a precise mathematical shape.20 The Designer of these eyes is a Master Physicist, who applied what we now know as the physical laws of Fermats principle of least time, Snells law of refraction, Abbés sine law and birefringent optics.
Since these physical principles form part of the environment in which the trilobite eyes evolve, it is not surprising to find them reflected in the structure of the eyes. The fact that a baseball struck by a bat travels in a parabola does not mean we have to assume that Abner Doubleday invented gravity. (Okay, he didn't even invent baseball, but you get my point.)
Edward A. Boudreaux is a theoretical chemist. He describes at great length the properties of various elements, proteins, DNA, etc. As far as I can tell his descriptions are accurate. Then he proudly concludes:
Quote:
These few examples contain clear evidence of complex design imparting tailor-made functions.
Um, what? That's quite a leap. Then he goes on to say:
Quote:
Hence, having concluded that creation by the power of an omnipotent God is the only acceptable explanation for the origin of life, I was convinced that the only reliable source of this account must be from the Creator alone. Now the Bible claims to be the written word of God to man. While this documentation was by the hand of man, the information is directly from God. If God actually is who He reveals himself to be, He is perfectly capable of preserving the complete accuracy and integrity of His own word.
Holy circular logic, Batman!
One more, and then I should go to bed. Bob Hosken, biochemist and researcher in food technology. He says:
Quote:
These kinds of findings indicate to me that each animal is in some way uniquely designed to suit its particular environment, and I cannot help but attribute the complexity of the design to a Creator, rather than to random evolutionary forces.
The first part is unarguable. Organisms are designed to suit their particular environment. The second part is less clear. Does complex design necessarily imply an intelligent designer? The point of evolutionary theory is that it describes a physical mechanism which can produce, through simple, unintelligent processes, complex design. Was all of the design in the natural world produced through such mechanisms? I would say yes. Professor Hosken would say no. But he has provided no evidence beyond personal intuition to support his position.
These essays are quite interesting. Thank you for pointing me in their direction.
One more point I should add: most of the essays I looked at seem to rely on the evidence of order and complexity and design as evidence for an intelligent creator. Even if one were to grant the existence of such a creator, it seems a much greater leap to then assume that this creator must be the Christian God, and none of the essays I read presented any evidence for such an identity beyond personal religious faith. Why not aliens? Hyperdimensional computers? Bored computer programmers? Maybe we're just a really complicated version of The Sims
Carrie, Ive taken other Creationists up on the kind of challenge youve thrown down. Although Ive only flipped through the specific book youve mentioned, I have read several books very much like it. Ken Hams The Answers Book springs to mind. As you likely know, Ham is a co-founder of the Answers in Genesis site from which you often post references. With regard to Hams book, in between biting my tongue over its blatant inaccuracies I was often laughing out loud at its over-stretched propositions. I got an especially large giggle from Hams illustration of the early Israelite fighting off a T-Rex.
I think Hams approach, and it seems to me the approach in your suggested book I glanced through, share something in common: that is, mass over substance. Volume is no substitute for quality. Especially in providing logical argument in support of your positions. Rarely if ever do I hear Ham or other Creationists go up against competent Evolutionary scientists in a balanced forum. Hams arguments are almost always made from behind the pulpit, talk radio, or seminar lectern to groups of believers. Youve posted a lot from AiG in this and other threads Carrie. But nearly all of it is shot through with holes which folks like Chris have repeatedly demonstrated. Yet you post more. And Ham goes on as well, though he doesnt seem to have the courage you demonstrate here by defending your ideas before others in open debate.
Carrie, Ive already previously taken advice similar to that you just offered. As a person who mostly agrees with Evolution Theory, Ive taken the time to study Creationist literature. So Ill ask a similar question of you, Carrie. How many rebuttals to Creationism have you read outside of AiGs filter? How many mainstream biologists and geologists have you talked with regarding the issues?
