The science of creationism: where is it?

[anagnostic]

I challenge anyone to use geologic science to disprove creationism. (paleontology is excluded)

I cannot post links yet, but if you look at my avatar, you will see a formation that appears to me to be very old.

Either it IS very old (through the laying down of strata and the gradual erosion by a slow meandering river), or it looks very old because God created it like that - already old.

Which do you believe is right? Is there another possibility I haven't covered - the Flood perhaps?

 

[dad]

Consider the following taken from the opening paragraph of the article in Wikipedia explaining "Creation science."

"Creation science or scientific creationism is the movement within creationism which attempts to provide support for the religious Genesis account of creation, and disprove accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms on the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution."
​

So I would think that in order to "provide support for the religious Genesis account of creation, and disprove accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms on the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution" that one would have to marshal scientific evidence to make any kind of a case. Now there are scientists who are creationists. In fact, several creation web sites like to tout the credentials of their scientifically trained members; however, I have yet to find any peer reviewed work by any scientist, creationist or otherwise, whose findings support creationism to the detriment of evolution; to say nothing of any such scientific work that's been specifically aimed at doing so.

So I again ask: where is all this science that is suppose to give credence to the "science" by which these creationist like to identify themselves? As far as I can see this use of "science" is no more meaningful than had they called their enterprise, "Lollipop creationism." which just might be a more accurate label.

Creation science I would think is the conscious effort to include God in knowledge, and science. It is a way of looking at data, not a different set of data. We like to include God in our knowledge.

 

[anagnostic]

Creation science I would think is the conscious effort to include God in knowledge, and science. It is a way of looking at data, not a different set of data. We like to include God in our knowledge.

There are two issues here - the idea of a Created universe (by God or otherwise) usually in accord with science (evolution and old-earth); and the idea of a 6 'day' Creation, based on interpretations of Genesis. The second is what causes problems with the dominant theories of modern science.

Science does not exclude a Creator - it simply has no methodology that can include one.

You can only include God in your beliefs, not your knowledge. That's why so much emphasis is placed on 'faith' and 'belief' in religion.

Believe what you like, but leave knowledge (of material things) to the empirical sciences.

 

[Hespera]

Advice: take a logic course. So you can put the question together.

I challenge anyone to use geologic science to disprove creationism. (paleontology is excluded)

It does not hurt to ask for clarification when a person says something ambiguous. It would not hurt you to study English a bit more so that you could write in a way that makes sense.

Since you wont define "creationism" how could anyone disprove or prove it?

As for your challenge, why should anyone even bother? "Creationism" is the challenger, with no data to work with. Lets see you use something from your highest possible education to disprove evolution.

 

[juvenissun]

I cannot post links yet, but if you look at my avatar, you will see a formation that appears to me to be very old.

Either it IS very old (through the laying down of strata and the gradual erosion by a slow meandering river), or it looks very old because God created it like that - already old.

Which do you believe is right? Is there another possibility I haven't covered - the Flood perhaps?

I am glad you take the challenge. It is the time to learn some geology.

In fact, the landform should be called "extremely young". It could be made within 1 million year depends on the tectonic environment. This understanding is based on the conceptual geology model. If you examine the real data, then nobody can be sure how old is the landform. Landform is a bad thing to show the old age of the earth.

 

[juvenissun]

Kind of. We have a remnant ERV (the 'marker' of that ancient viral infection) in our genome which is in the EXACT same position as in a chimp's genome. There are other ERV's which we likewise share with gorillas, orangs, etc. The odds of these markers occurring in the same location in two genomes just ONCE by chance goes off the radar - several of them can ONLY be explained by us all having common ancestors that were infected by the virus, and that the markers were passed on to subsequent 'splits' in the evolutionary path.

...

The ones we share the markers with? - chimps, gorillas, etc. The original ancestor? We don't have a name for it yet.

OK, as a layman to this subject. I don't question the theory (not because I can not ask. for example, how do we know this 2-became-1 change "must be" made by "fusion?", rather than by dropping one, or was simply the appearing of a new one? the virus interpretation is only one possibility. do we see this mechanism duplicated in genetics lab?). The thing I see is one piece of data which shows a possible relation between chimps and human.

There could be A LOT questions to the "interpretation" of this piece of data. Just to name few:

Do we see a similar feature to other animals that they also share the common ancestor? If not, then this piece of data becomes an isolated case.

There are big differences between human and chimps (3% ? on DNA ?). How much does this piece of evidence take in that 3%(?). How do we explain the rest of differences? Can you say this chromosome#2 mechanism can explain all the differences?

etc.

-------

The point of argument is that we found one piece of favorable data to the theory of evolution, then we use it as a "proof". I don't see any difference on this way of argument between evolutionist and some creationist. One or two pieces of data are simply not good enough. Needless to say that the mechanism for the observation is still in question.

So, the conclusion of my argument is that this "observation" proves nothing. It is only an isolated fact of unknown origin.

 

[Alunyel]

I am glad you take the challenge. It is the time to learn some geology.

In fact, the landform should be called "extremely young". It could be made within 1 million year depends on the tectonic environment. This understanding is based on the conceptual geology model. If you examine the real data, then nobody can be sure how old is the landform. Landform is a bad thing to show the old age of the earth.

You mean that by working out how long water takes to erode the various compositions of rock in the sediment, then adding all of that data together isn't a good indication of how old the feature is?

Yes. Sure.

Still, how would a young Earth explain volcanic plugs?

I'm sure you must have an idea on how they're formed, but just to clarify; when the igneous rock within the vent of an active volcano eventually cools and hardens, it leaves a column of much harder igneous rock, surrounded by layers of sediment.

Because the igneous column is much harder to erode, the sediment around it becomes eroded away, leaving huge visible columns of igneous rock.

Mato Tipila is a perfect example of the extent and the size to which these volcanic plugs can form.

See the size of that, and the relative flat-ness of the surrounding area? The only way that is possible, is for that entire field to erode around the huge igneous plug. The land was once at least level with that, and quite possibly, much higher.

 

[Hespera]

I am glad you take the challenge. It is the time to learn some geology.

In fact, the landform should be called "extremely young". It could be made within 1 million year depends on the tectonic environment. This understanding is based on the conceptual geology model. If you examine the real data, then nobody can be sure how old is the landform. Landform is a bad thing to show the old age of the earth.

That kind of depends on the landform doesnt it? A new gully in a plowed field isnt a good one to show the earth's age. You are generalizing with such a broad brush that it makes you statement meaningless.

 

[Washington]

Creation science I would think is the conscious effort to include God in knowledge, and science. It is a way of looking at data, not a different set of data. We like to include God in our knowledge.

So, show us some "looking at data" that creationists have done in a scientific manner. That is, scientific research that's been published and reviewed in a recognized science journal. Failing that, creationists have no right to call their enterprise "creation science" or "scientific creationism."

 

[dewaddict84]

In fact, the landform[ation in anagnostic's avatar] should be called "extremely young". It could be made within 1 million year depends on the tectonic environment.

Tectonic movement could certainly shake things apart and flatten the area, but what you have there is a canyon. It was formed by a river. That's the blue-green stuff at the bottom there. It cuts a channel in the rock and slowly erodes away the rock and after a while forms a canyon.

But, as you said, if this took something like a million years to form, then that certainly disproves a young earth creation. You know, the one where god made everything in 6 days around 4000 B.C. So science can certainly disprove (or at least discredit) various flavors of creationism.

 

[MoonLancer]

Creation science I would think is the conscious effort to include God in knowledge, and science. It is a way of looking at data, not a different set of data. We like to include God in our knowledge.

that's fine if god was measurable or observable, but its not, so your just adding unfalsifiable junk.

 

[biggles53]

I fear you may have become a victim of information overload - we may have provided you with too much in one hit!

OK, as a layman to this subject. I don't question the theory (not because I can not ask. for example, how do we know this 2-became-1 change "must be" made by "fusion?", rather than by dropping one, or was simply the appearing of a new one?

OK, this is a separate issue to the 'virus thing'. The chromosome #2 in humans clearly shows evidence of fusion. As you can see from the diagrams posted earlier, 'regular' chromosomes have a particular physical structure, made up of two end pieces (telomeres) and a central portion (centromere). If we were looking for evidence of two chromosomes fusing end-to-end, we should see a structure whereby two telomeres are joined in the centre, with the remainder of the structures in place - this is EXACTLY what we find with chromosome #2.

the virus interpretation is only one possibility. do we see this mechanism duplicated in genetics lab?). The thing I see is one piece of data which shows a possible relation between chimps and human.

As above, the "virus interpretation" is a separate issue, dealing with a separate piece of evidence.

We have TWO sets of data, giving TWO supporting arguments for common primate ancestry.

There could be A LOT questions to the "interpretation" of this piece of data. Just to name few:

Do we see a similar feature to other animals that they also share the common ancestor? If not, then this piece of data becomes an isolated case.

Indeed there are such similar features in other groups. Off the top of my head, I am familiar with findings having been made with jackals and related species. There are others - you can search for them as you like...

There are big differences between human and chimps (3% ? on DNA ?). How much does this piece of evidence take in that 3%(?). How do we explain the rest of differences? Can you say this chromosome#2 mechanism can explain all the differences?

etc.

-------

The rest of the "differences" between humans and chimps can be explained in the same way that we can explain the differences between you and your parents, or your children - a combination of mutation and heredity. However, this in no way invalidates the stark evidence that ERV's provides us.

The point of argument is that we found one piece of favorable data to the theory of evolution, then we use it as a "proof". I don't see any difference on this way of argument between evolutionist and some creationist. One or two pieces of data are simply not good enough. Needless to say that the mechanism for the observation is still in question.

It may not have been explained to you before, but science does NOT attempt "proof" for any assertion. The whole point of scientific enquiry is to always leave the door open to future knowledge. And, those "one or two pieces of data" are only two of MANY examples of evidence which support the theory. Out of curiosity, how many "pieces" would it take before you accepted it? 5? 10? Please, give us a number....

So, the conclusion of my argument is that this "observation" proves nothing. It is only an isolated fact of unknown origin.

Again, no "proof" in science. But these lend overwhelming SUPPORT for the theory. Burying your head in the sands of creationist ignorance will not alter that situation.......

 

[juvenissun]

I fear you may have become a victim of information overload - we may have provided you with too much in one hit!



OK, this is a separate issue to the 'virus thing'. The chromosome #2 in humans clearly shows evidence of fusion. As you can see from the diagrams posted earlier, 'regular' chromosomes have a particular physical structure, made up of two end pieces (telomeres) and a central portion (centromere). If we were looking for evidence of two chromosomes fusing end-to-end, we should see a structure whereby two telomeres are joined in the centre, with the remainder of the structures in place - this is EXACTLY what we find with chromosome #2.



As above, the "virus interpretation" is a separate issue, dealing with a separate piece of evidence.

We have TWO sets of data, giving TWO supporting arguments for common primate ancestry.



Indeed there are such similar features in other groups. Off the top of my head, I am familiar with findings having been made with jackals and related species. There are others - you can search for them as you like...



The rest of the "differences" between humans and chimps can be explained in the same way that we can explain the differences between you and your parents, or your children - a combination of mutation and heredity. However, this in no way invalidates the stark evidence that ERV's provides us.



It may not have been explained to you before, but science does NOT attempt "proof" for any assertion. The whole point of scientific enquiry is to always leave the door open to future knowledge. And, those "one or two pieces of data" are only two of MANY examples of evidence which support the theory. Out of curiosity, how many "pieces" would it take before you accepted it? 5? 10? Please, give us a number....



Again, no "proof" in science. But these lend overwhelming SUPPORT for the theory. Burying your head in the sands of creationist ignorance will not alter that situation.......

What I like to see is: 1) This chromosome fusion feature is common to the evolution history of other species (why not?). 2) It can be demonstrated in lab. 3) Similar convincing evidences that explain at least some DNA differences between chimp and human.

I don't expect to see any of them. So, again, no matter how convincing this one is, it is an isolated fact.

 

[Kingssman]

In biology we studied evolution from the atom to the first single celled organism to mammals. We studied things like carbon chains and molecules that make up strands of protein that wrap around our DNA blocks of our tissues that make up organs and systems into a full functioning being.

Our bodies are like ecosystems that are perfectly tuned and in balance. Our parts share the same traits as species before us. Why do they test medicine on rats? it's because their fundamentals are similar to ours.

But when you boil it all down to the very basic components, you'll see God at work. We are what we are because god created the universe. God invented 1+1=2, God designed gravity and created the laws of atoms and the combination of elements. God made it possible for a world this massive to revolve around a sun that is an eternal nuclear furnace that we are stabilized that for the past trillion years have not fell out of orbit and our planet supports an environment that allows molecules to be created and stable.

 

[juvenissun]

Tectonic movement could certainly shake things apart and flatten the area, but what you have there is a canyon. It was formed by a river. That's the blue-green stuff at the bottom there. It cuts a channel in the rock and slowly erodes away the rock and after a while forms a canyon.

But, as you said, if this took something like a million years to form, then that certainly disproves a young earth creation. You know, the one where god made everything in 6 days around 4000 B.C. So science can certainly disprove (or at least discredit) various flavors of creationism.

To me, a 10 m.y. old earth or even a 100 m.y. old earth is still a young earth.
Besides, we do not know what does a "million years" really mean.

 

[juvenissun]

You mean that by working out how long water takes to erode the various compositions of rock in the sediment, then adding all of that data together isn't a good indication of how old the feature is?

Yes. Sure.

Still, how would a young Earth explain volcanic plugs?

I'm sure you must have an idea on how they're formed, but just to clarify; when the igneous rock within the vent of an active volcano eventually cools and hardens, it leaves a column of much harder igneous rock, surrounded by layers of sediment.

Because the igneous column is much harder to erode, the sediment around it becomes eroded away, leaving huge visible columns of igneous rock.

Mato Tipila is a perfect example of the extent and the size to which these volcanic plugs can form.

See the size of that, and the relative flat-ness of the surrounding area? The only way that is possible, is for that entire field to erode around the huge igneous plug. The land was once at least level with that, and quite possibly, much higher.

Landform denudation does not work as you imagined. It does not erode one layer at a time.

As far as the volcanic plug, I did not read anything about it. But I guess it does not take more time than the formation of an incised meander. Volcanic rock usually deteriorated much faster.

Back to the OP. Studies of all these geologic features are certainly within the domain of creation science. You tell me why not.

 

[biggles53]

What I like to see is: 1) This chromosome fusion feature is common to the evolution history of other species (why not?).

Yes, indeed it is. Chromosome fusion is quite common in nature. It is well recorded in both the plant and animal kingdoms.

2) It can be demonstrated in lab.

Much of the work done with commercial plants has seen new species arise as a result of chromosome fusion.

3) Similar convincing evidences that explain at least some DNA differences between chimp and human.

Huh? I thought your argument was over what we had in COMMON...ie, an ancestor!

I don't expect to see any of them. So, again, no matter how convincing this one is, it is an isolated fact.

Sorry to disappoint you...I guess this now makes you a supporter of evolutionary theory and common ancestry...right?

Oh, by the way, this "fact" is not in "isolat[ion" in any way! Even though the presence of ERV's is overwhelming evidence ON ITS OWN, it is nevertheless supported by the mountains of evidence we have from the fossil record, from morphology, from genetics, from molecular biology, etc...

 

[biggles53]

In biology we studied evolution from the atom to the first single celled organism to mammals.

Then, I'm sorry, but your science teachers were poor! Evolutionary theory does NOT deal with atomic structure...

But when you boil it all down to the very basic components, you'll see God at work.

I do hope this part WASN'T included in your biology class...!

We are what we are because god created the universe. God invented 1+1=2, God designed gravity and created the laws of atoms and the combination of elements. God made it possible for a world this massive to revolve around a sun that is an eternal nuclear furnace

Unsubstantiated assertions. And we have evidence that our sun is anything but "eternal" - we know approximately when it formed and approximately when it will 'die'.

...that we are stabilized that for the past trillion years have not fell out of orbit and our planet supports an environment that allows molecules to be created and stable.

Your timescale is a tad out of kilter - and you might want to review your assertion about the "stability" of just about anything on this planet or in this universe.....

 

[Alunyel]

Landform denudation does not work as you imagined. It does not erode one layer at a time.

As far as the volcanic plug, I did not read anything about it. But I guess it does not take more time than the formation of an incised meander. Volcanic rock usually deteriorated much faster.

Back to the OP. Studies of all these geologic features are certainly within the domain of creation science. You tell me why not.

Igneous rock is much harder than sedimentary, therefore erodes at a much slower pace. Of the three types of rock, igneous is the hardest. That's primary school-level stuff. If you can't get that right, then there's really no point in trying to talk to you about geology showing the age of the Earth, because you clearly haven't the foggiest what you're talking about and I really can't be bothered to have to explain everything I say over and over again.

 

[anagnostic]

Landform denudation does not work as you imagined. It does not erode one layer at a time.

As far as the volcanic plug, I did not read anything about it. But I guess it does not take more time than the formation of an incised meander. Volcanic rock usually deteriorated much faster.

Back to the OP. Studies of all these geologic features are certainly within the domain of creation science. You tell me why not.

A catastrophic Biblical Flood cannot produce a landscape like this. It is clearly formed by a gradual process, not a sudden one.

I have not seen any explanation from you for a meander like this that can occur in a few thousand years. There are a number of gradual processes here - the formation of a sea, the laying down of strata, the disappearance of the sea, the appearance of a slow moving river, and time for erosion to take place. Which of these processes would take only a few thousand years?

Shall we give them five thousand years each? There are no noticeable changes to any landforms in the last five thousand years, based on archeological and historical accounts, apart from those due to catastrophes like volcanoes, earthquakes and floods.