The best evidence for Creationism

[Jamin4422]

What are you suggesting the mechanism is for creating order from energy? Where did it come from?

Protons and neutrons began to react with each other one to three minutes after the creation of the universe.

 

[Loudmouth]

Do you realize scientists have attempted experiments with amino acids and have yet to create life from non life.

Do you realize that scientists have yet to see a supernatural deity create life in the lab, or any evidence whatsoever for a deity?

Where did the laws of electromagnetism come from? Don't laws require law givers?

The current explanation for the source of electromagnetism is string theory. As for laws needing law givers, that is not needed. Laws just are. You are conflating physical laws and governmental laws. Those are two different things.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Do you realize scientists have attempted experiments with amino acids and have yet to create life from non life.

Indeed. Let's review your previous points:

1. The Second Law of Thermodynamics forbids evolution
   Soundly debunked twice:
   1) Theoretically, your error was in a misunderstanding of just what the Second Law actually states.
   2) Empirically, we've done the experiments and seen that complex, ordered, organic molecules can and do form spontaneously and naturally from simple, disordered molecules - since the Second Law must hold, it follows your objection must be flawed.
   
2. How does energy create order?
   Succinctly explained - simple chemistry is enough to create order out of chaos, complexity out of simplicity. This sort of chemistry boils down to atoms obeying the laws of electromagnetism.
3. Where did the laws of electromagnetism come from?
   See below for my answer to that.

So, is it fair to say that you now accept that evolution doesn't violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics? Is it fair to say that you accept that complexity can form from simplicity spontaneously and by wholly naturally processes?

Now, while we could delve deeper, and they are fascinating topics, we've ceased to discuss evolution. So long as you accept the above two points, the laws of electromagnetism could well come from God for all it matters to evolution.

So. If you now accept the above two points, do you have any other objections to evolution?

Where did the laws of electromagnetism come from?

They're mathematical expressions for how electromagnetic fields and particles operate.

Don't laws require law givers?

No, as it happens.

 

[Inan3]

Do you realize that scientists have yet to see a supernatural deity create life in the lab, or any evidence whatsoever for a deity?

Neither have they seen nor can they see in the lab one species evolving from one form to another and yet they believe in it.

 

[thomasmitchel]

I am a young earth creationist and have been for 25 years since my undergraduate years at UVa.

Short answer to your question: Scripture, properly understood and supported as a valid historical text, and Geology, shed of the logical fallacy of assuming the conclusion and the uniformitarian problem, are probably the best evidence for creationism.

 

[HitchSlap]

I am a young earth creationist and have been for 25 years since my undergraduate years at UVa.

Short answer to your question: Scripture, properly understood and supported as a valid historical text, and Geology, shed of the logical fallacy of assuming the conclusion and the uniformitarian problem, are probably the best evidence for creationism.

That's why creationism is not considered science, as it starts with the conlusion, then selectively accepts limited supporting evidence, while jettisoning boatloads of evidence to the contrary.

 

[Elendur]

Neither have they seen nor can they see in the lab one species evolving from one form to another and yet they believe in it.

CB901: No Macroevolution

Read it, it links to further arguments made by creationists as well.

 

[Inan3]

Such as . . . ?

I hear creationists say that we are ignoring evidence, but they never seem to produce this evidence.

Read on!!

Orangutans May Be Closest Human Relatives, Not Chimps
"There are actually very few [physical] features linking chimps and humans," noted the Natural History Museum's Andrews. "The case for that is based almost entirely on molecular evidence."

And those molecular studies are flawed, Schwartz and Grehan say, because of the high likelihood that the data includes broadly shared DNA traits.

"When you're doing a really rigorous analysis of relationships, you don't just stop at the potential demonstration of similarity," Schwartz said. "You have to distinguish between features that are widely shared [among many species] and those that are more uniquely shared."

In addition, Schwartz notes, the most cited studies are largely based on the so-called coding region of the genome, which makes up just 2 to 3 percent of an animal's DNA.

Scientists are referring to this tiny part of the genome when they say humans and chimps are so similar, he said."

The Phylogenetic Handbook: A Practical Approach to DNA and Protein Phylogeny - Science News - redOrbit
There are two basic problems with data analysis. In the first place, there are competing philosophies as to how data analysis is best approached. For example, there are frequentist, permutation, likelihood, and Bayesian analyses available for almost any data- analysis problem that you care to name, and this smorgasbord of choices won’t necessarily all lead to the same conclusion. In the second place, your data may not meet the assumptions of the analysis that you have chosen, and the assumption violations may be enough to lead you astray when you are interpreting the results. Consequently, data analysis is often a trial-and-error affair, as various possibilities for analysis are explored and their outcomes evaluated. When describing this approach in a published paper, it requires more than just a passing reference to “so-and-so’s method,” as can be done when describing an established protocol.

Anthropomics: March 2012
The gorilla genome is now out, and when combined with human, chimpanzee, and orangutan, it allows us to do a phylogenetic comparison.[3] We have known since the 1980s that human-chimp-gorilla genetically is a very close call, with DNA tending to place humans and chimps a little closer, but only with a lot of discordance or statistical noise. (That is in fact exactly what the ill-fated DNA hybridization showed, although it was infamously misrepresented.) When the mtDNA data first came out [4] they linked human to chimp pairwise, but only if you ignored the fact that over half of the phylogenetically informative DNA sites did not in fact show it to be human-chimp. Those data showed it to be chimp-gorilla and human-gorilla. The only way to extract human-chimp from those data was to treat the question like a Republican primary, where whoever gets the plurality of the votes wins the state. So human-chimp was Mitt Romney, winning the nomination, but with barely 45% of the phylogenetically informative sites.

It then becomes a trivial task to explain away the discordant data, that is to say, the 55% of your data that you have decided is giving you the “wrong” answers. You say it is “incomplete lineage sorting” or the result of ancestral polymorphisms, which have segregated into descendant taxa in a pattern different from the sequence of speciation. Geneticists illustrate this with images that always seem to remind me of maps of the London Underground, with chimpanzees being Bakerloo and humans Victoria Station.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I am a young earth creationist and have been for 25 years since my undergraduate years at UVa.

Short answer to your question: Scripture, properly understood and supported as a valid historical text,

Pick one.

and Geology, shed of the logical fallacy of assuming the conclusion and the uniformitarian problem, are probably the best evidence for creationism.

So we should instead assume the logical fallacy of Catastrophism?

 

[thomasmitchel]

What evidence does it disregard? Creationist truth better explains the facts and evidence than evolutionary theory.
Why do you not consider what creation scientists do as science? Take a look at two of the peer-reviewed creation science journals, Answers Research Journal and Creation Science Research Quarterly. Identify one fact or piece of evidence any article uses that is false, a conclusion that an author reaches based on a logical fallacy or any criticism of their peer review process.

If you look at the footnotes to this article, on creation.com entitled Radiometric Dating Age of Earth, there are articles from non-creationist peer-reviewed journals that acknowledge that those in the science profession often ignore evidence that is inconsistent with their long year assumptions.

Finally, I was debating this fellow that goes by CanadianSkeptic in the comments to Pollitt's article on the Gallup poll on Creationism in last month's Nation. I pointed out to him that I had never seen a satisfactory explanation as to how soft tissues, leaves et cetera became fossilized. He gave me three articles that he thought answered the question. All assumed the conclusion, and here is a quote from one
of the abstracts of one of the articles. [FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']The emphasis represented by caps is mine. The evolutionists have to solve this issue or the really have nothing.[/FONT]
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']
"The process of fossilization is POORLY UNDERSTOOD. However, it is CENTRAL to our understanding of the evolution of life. It is UNCLEAR how plant tissues become fossilized, whether fossilization is selective to specific biopolymers, or whether original organic constituents survive. We have REPLICATED the fossilization PROCESS IN the LABORATORY by using both microbial and chemical approaches to pyritize plant debris."
I guess, in conclusion, it is evolutionists, not the Creationists that disregard evidence.[/FONT]

 

[Illuminaughty]

Matter / energy can self organize.

Self-organization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[thomasmitchel]

The question was the best evidence, not the single best piece of evidence. Catastrophism is not a logical fallacy -- it is a general term, typically used by anti-creationists to refer to a certain theory. Some refer to the account of the Flood in Genesis 7 as falling within that theory. Did you know that almost every human civilization has a flood narrative and many are strikingly similar to the Biblical account. The Geological record also support the Biblical account. Soft science and hard science together pointing to the same truth.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

What evidence does it disregard? Creationist truth better explains the facts and evidence than evolutionary theory.
Why do you not consider what creation scientists do as science? Take a look at two of the peer-reviewed creation science journals, Answers Research Journal and Creation Science Research Quarterly. Identify one fact or piece of evidence any article uses that is false, a conclusion that an author reaches based on a logical fallacy or any criticism of their peer review process.

You do realise, don't you, that they're not real scientific journals, right? That simply tacking on the phrase 'peer-reviewed' doesn't mean that they actually are?

RationalWiki has a critique of ARJ's 'findings'.

If you look at the footnotes to this article, on creation.com entitled Radiometric Dating Age of Earth, there are articles from non-creationist peer-reviewed journals that acknowledge that those in the science profession often ignore evidence that is inconsistent with their long year assumptions.

I assume you're referring to this article. If so, you may want to check the date - we've had decades of research, yet the Creationists can only find solace in works published in the late 50s and early 70s.

The emphasis represented by caps is mine. The evolutionists have to solve this issue or the really have nothing.

Except for, y'know, all the other evidence. Geology, geography, genetics... and that's just the G's!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Did you know that almost every human civilization has a flood narrative and many are strikingly similar to the Biblical account.

Did you know that floods are somewhat common?

Did you know that Damascus (and others) has been in continual occupation for 10,000 years, somehow surviving the flood that allegedly killed everyone but Noah and his gang?

Did you know that there are numerous civilisations that existed quite happily while this flood was going on? You'd think the literate, history-recording Egyptians, Chinese, and Greeks would make a note of the time the world came to an end...

 

[Inan3]

CB901: No Macroevolution

Read it, it links to further arguments made by creationists as well.

My point is that you choose what you will believe and not believe. Have you ever seen these transitional fossils personally? Have you ever seen "A new species of mosquito, isolated in London's Underground, speciated from Culex pipiens." Of course, not.. and you won't. These things are never searched out or verified by people but they believe them anyway. I searched and can only find blogs on the mosquito FAQ, a general statement on the site you gave me to read, all seem to be atheistic in viewpoint. I didn't find any EVIDENCE that it is true. I even found one site that didn't seem to be a creationist in nature that said there was a mistake inspeciation FAQ of talkorigins.org.
Re: A mistake in the speciation FAQ of talkorigins.org ?

Yet, you seem to believe them. I could give you many evidences of a supernatural God involved in many peoples lives supernaturally but you would have to want to believe them.

 

[thomasmitchel]

I suppose it depends upon what you mean by "real scientific journals" and whether you have any criticisms of their peer review process. The criticism is based upon their world view. When you read their articles, they acknowledge the world view and deal with the FACTS and EVIDENCE.

I will acknowledge that since the 70s the anti-Creationists have gotten more subtle and less honest about their biases and rejections of the evidence. Do a search for Jenkins, Fischbach and Sturrock on dating issues. The decay "constants" are not so constant, but none of the anti-Creationists want to acknowledge the impications of that.

What evidence do you want to actually discuss -- the studies of hyperconcentrated sedimentation from transgressing waters through levy breaches during Katrina, Grand Canyon, marine and terrestrial plant fossils found together, polystrate plants, the movement of the island of Japan from a short duration earthquake, and what aspect of genetics might you like to discuss?

What up 'G?

 

[thomasmitchel]

World wide floods where one family survived? In 200 narratives from different cultures here are the stats.
Is there a favored family? 88% [/font]
Were they forewarned? 66% [/font]
Is flood due to wickedness of man? 66% [/font]
Is catastrophe only a flood? 95% [/font]
Was flood global? 95% [/font]
Is survival due to a boat? 70% [/font]
Were animals also saved? 67% [/font]
Did animals play any part? 73% [/font]
Did survivors land on a mountain? 57% [/font]
Was the geography local? 82% [/font]
Were birds sent out? 35% [/font]
Was the rainbow mentioned? 7% [/font]
Did survivors offer a sacrifice? 13% [/font]
Were specifically eight persons saved? 9% [/font]

What is your evidence for "continual occupation" before about 5000 years ago? The Chinese continuously numbered calendar -- a little over 4700 years. I think that is the longest.

 

[TLK Valentine]

World wide floods where one family survived? In 200 narratives from different cultures here are the stats.
Is there a favored family? 88% [/font]
Were they forewarned? 66% [/font]
Is flood due to wickedness of man? 66% [/font]
Is catastrophe only a flood? 95% [/font]
Was flood global? 95% [/font]
Is survival due to a boat? 70% [/font]
Were animals also saved? 67% [/font]
Did animals play any part? 73% [/font]
Did survivors land on a mountain? 57% [/font]
Was the geography local? 82% [/font]
Were birds sent out? 35% [/font]
Was the rainbow mentioned? 7% [/font]
Did survivors offer a sacrifice? 13% [/font]
Were specifically eight persons saved? 9% [/font]

The "local geography" should've raised an interesting flag -- oddly enough, every culture is adamant that only their people survived. What does that tell you?

 

[USincognito]

If you look at the footnotes to this article, on creation.com entitled Radiometric Dating Age of Earth, there are articles from non-creationist peer-reviewed journals that acknowledge that those in the science profession often ignore evidence that is inconsistent with their long year assumptions.

Actually, there's the sources for the quote mines found in Creationist propaganda and when one looks at the original articles, they don't say at all what the Creationists propagandists are claiming.

I pointed out to him that I had never seen a satisfactory explanation as to how soft tissues, leaves et cetera became fossilized.

Instead of an abstract, why don't you give us some specifics and we can see what the actual fossil finds are? Soft plant and animal material can fossilize under certain circumstances. How about you show us a few examples that you find particularly befuddling and let's discuss details, not concepts?

 

[USincognito]

Did you know that almost every human civilization has a flood narrative and many are strikingly similar to the Biblical account.

No. Be are all familiar with the Creationist claim averring such. In actuality, it's quite a number, most of which live near bodies of water and the details don't match up most cases. That's all well and good, but many societies have many shared legends and myths. So what? The archeological, geological and genetic evidence doesn't support them happening.

The Geological record also support the Biblical account.

Simply untrue. I'm sure you've got a ton of PRATTs from Creationist websites that you'll trot out, but we've seen, and debunked them, all before. Go ahead and pick a few examples you find particularly compelling and let's see if you've got anything new.