What Makes Creationism a Valid Scientific Alternative?

[OldWiseGuy]

You clearly haven't studied geology. Your statement is rubbish. Do you ACTUALLY believe that "even small local floods" erase all evidence of their own occurrence? Who told you that? (Do you understand why people get frustrated with the adamant claims of YECs when they ignore all scientific evidence?)

I didn't say 'all' evidence. And I am an OEC, a Gapper.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

How does that help us understand what causes malaria? Please be specific.

Science can do that.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Nice try. Anyone can try to discredit sources. How about refuting the claims of the article.

The claims are simply outright lies - there's nothing to refute, because they themselves don't substantiate their claims.

But take #6: rocks don't bend. Anyone with a passing interest in geology knows that AiG's treatment of the malleability of rocks is rooted in 'common sense' - that is, 'rocks are hard, therefore can't bend', which is childishly naive. Rocks can bend, albeit over larger scales than the inexperienced mind is used to thinking of rocks in. A rock in your hand won't noticeably bend if you twist it, but rocks that are kilometres long can bend.

That is, rocks can and do bend, and do so under pretty much any condition. The bend only becomes noticeable over long periods and long distances, but bend they do, and sufficiently accurate technology can measure this in real time.

 

[CabVet]

Nice try. Anyone can try to discredit sources. How about refuting the claims of the article.

I was going to give some time to do that since you requested. After all, lies are really easy to refute. But lucky for me, Rocks did a pretty good jobo of refuting them here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7700298-30/#post61779794

 

[Loudmouth]

Evidence 1Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level due to the ocean waters having flooded over the continents

False.

CC364: Marine fossils on mountains

Evidence 2 Rapid burial of plants and animals

False.

CC361.3: Contorted Fossils

The chalk beds of England (the white cliffs of Dover) can be traced across Europe into the Middle East and are also found in the Midwest of the United States and in Western Australia.

The chalk beds of England were not laid down rapidly. They are made up of coccolithophores which are little organisms, and they take a lot of time to accumulate. This is perhaps the biggest whopper you have told yet.

Evidence 4 Sediment transported long distances

We find that the sediments in those widespread, rapidly deposited rock layers had to be eroded from distant sources and carried long distances by fast-moving water. For example, the sand for the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon (Arizona) had to be eroded and transported from the northern portion of what is now the United States and Canada.

The Coconino Sandstones are wind blown sand dunes. They were not deposited by water.

Evidence 5 Rapid or no erosion between strata

Those processes still occur, but no global flood is required.

Evidence 6 Many strata laid down in rapid succession

Rocks do not normally bend; they break because they are hard and brittle.

Completely false. Rocks do bend as shown by the distorted fossils found in them. The fossils bend with the rock. According to creationists, this can't occur, but yet it does.

The Bible's history is reliable throughout--from the creation of man from the dust of the ground to the worldwide Flood to the coming of Jesus Christ.

Why should anyone believe this claim when you tell all of those other whoppers?

 

[mathetes123]

False.

CC364: Marine fossils on mountains

False.

CC361.3: Contorted Fossils

The chalk beds of England were not laid down rapidly. They are made up of coccolithophores which are little organisms, and they take a lot of time to accumulate. This is perhaps the biggest whopper you have told yet.

The Coconino Sandstones are wind blown sand dunes. They were not deposited by water.

Those processes still occur, but no global flood is required.

Completely false. Rocks do bend as shown by the distorted fossils found in them. The fossils bend with the rock. According to creationists, this can't occur, but yet it does.

Why should anyone believe this claim when you tell all of those other whoppers?

False. I can do it too.

 

[jpcedotal]

Creationists often claim that scientists refuse to teach creationism as an alternative to evolution (and an old earth in some cases). So why should they teach creationism? What makes creationism a valid scientific alternative? Where is the research? Where are the useful predictions? Where are the creationist based search algorithms that one can use for DNA database searches? Where are there creationist biology departments at private christian schools that are turning out top notch research biologists?

If you can't show that creationism works as a science, then why should it be taught?

i am a Creationist and most of us do not want Creationism taught as science...we like it where it is...in the church. What we don't want is evolution, which is simply a worldview, being taught in our schools as science.

Leave origins for college where the minds being taught have had time to develop to the point where everything should be questioned instead of brain-washing children who think everything a teacher says is fact.

To me teaching evolution in grade school is very Hitler-like...one of those "believe this or get a bad grade" brain-washing techniques.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

i am a Creationist and most of us do not want Creationism taught as science...we like it where it is...in the church. What we don't want is evolution, which is simply a worldview, being taught in our schools as science.

Leave origins for college where the minds being taught have had time to develop to the point where everything should be questioned instead of brain-washing children who think everything a teacher says is fact.

To me teaching evolution in grade school is very Hitler-like...one of those "believe this or get a bad grade" brain-washing techniques.

You could apply this to everything.

"You'd better learn to spell 'colonel' or you'll get a bad grade!"
"You'd better learn how to add and subtract or you'll get a bad grade!"
"You'd better learn the planets of the solar system or you'll get a bad grade!"
"You'd better learn the reactions in the Krebs Cycle or you'll get a bad grade!"

 

[jpcedotal]

You could apply this to everything.

"You'd better learn to spell 'colonel' or you'll get a bad grade!"
"You'd better learn how to add and subtract or you'll get a bad grade!"
"You'd better learn the planets of the solar system or you'll get a bad grade!"
"You'd better learn the reactions in the Krebs Cycle or you'll get a bad grade!"

it is taught as fact with the emphasis that Creation is not only false but only believed by the ignorant...

A 10-17 year old kid is too young to be thrown into this mess.

 

[mathetes123]

it is taught as fact with the emphasis that Creation is not only false but only believed by the ignorant...

A 10-17 year old kid is too young to be thrown into this mess.

I agree. When they treat it as an established fact with a monopoly, no allowance being made for legitimate objections to the theory, it is no longer science, but indoctrination.

 

[HitchSlap]

I agree. When they treat it as an established fact with a monopoly, no allowance being made for legitimate objections to the theory, it is no longer science, but indoctrination.

But that's just it, creationism is not a legitimate objection. It is a Hebrew creation myth, just one of hundreds of creation myths, most of which existed before G1/2.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

it is taught as fact with the emphasis that Creation is not only false but only believed by the ignorant...

A 10-17 year old kid is too young to be thrown into this mess.

This may be a surprise, but among biologists, evolution is about as controversial as saying that a cat is a mammal.

 

[jpcedotal]

This may be a surprise, but among biologists, evolution is about as controversial as saying that a cat is a mammal.

amoung evolutionist maybe...but it aint "gravity" yet....no matter how hard evolutionist try to push it.

 

[verysincere]

As a bible affirming Christian, how do you reconcile the creation account in genesis with evolution?

'
Nothing to reconcile. All of the PRESUMED contradictions are based on English Bible translation TRADITIONS, not the Hebrew text.

For example, it is not at all clear that Genesis 1 is a chronological account. And NOTHING in the text denies evolution. Christians regularly confuse ULTIMATE causation (GOD) with PROXIMATE causation (evolution). Christians once claimed the planets were pushed around by angels. Newton explained it with gravity. Christians abandoned that "angel propulsion" tradition and adopted gravity. Evolution is similar.

Genesis 2:7 where God made Adam from the dust of the ground (i.e. the chemical elements of the earth's crust) doesn't say whether it took a nanosecond or millions of years. Indeed, abiogenesis is simply a way to refer to the natural processes: biological life from non-living ingredients. The idea of God being involved is THEOLOGY, not science. The science is life from non-life: abiogenesis.

I've written copiously on this topic. So don't assume that some trivial English Bible tradition is going to impress me over what the Hebrew text clearly states. I am not impressed by the cherished traditions of arm-chair devotees of the Schofield Study Bible, etc.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

amoung evolutionist maybe...but it aint "gravity" yet....no matter how hard evolutionist try to push it.

No, that's what I'm trying to say: among scientists, it is as undisputed as gravity. It's only among everyone else that it's made out to be a 'controversy'.

 

[jpcedotal]

take it out of public schools...people who do not want to biologists (for the sake of argument) do not need it, so why teach it to the masses?

Believing or not believing has zero bearing on my worldly life and really the majority of people in general...just like rocket science has no bearing...so why the push for evolution to young kids?

 

[Trogool]

take it out of public schools...people who do not want to biologists (for the sake of argument) do not need it, so why teach it to the masses?

Believing or not believing has zero bearing on my worldly life and really the majority of people in general...just like rocket science has no bearing...so why the push for evolution to young kids?

You can't be serious. I call Poe.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

 

[jpcedotal]

No, that's what I'm trying to say: among scientists, it is as undisputed as gravity. It's only among everyone else that it's made out to be a 'controversy'.

again, that's just pushing an idea by calling those who question ignorant...that's politics not science.

 

[verysincere]

amoung evolutionist maybe...but it aint "gravity" yet....no matter how hard evolutionist try to push it.

Yes it is. But you should say SCIENTISTS, not "evolutionists".

Refusing to believe it is not evidence. And actually, evolution at this point is much better understood that gravity. (So it is rather comical that you compare it with gravity, one of the most mysterious forces in the universe! But it DOES point out why the criticisms of science-deniers simply do not count. Science doesn't care what slogans and deniers have to say. EVIDENCE and attempts at falsification are what counts.)

I was a young earth creationist speaker/debater long ago so don't assume that I don't know the facts. I know the scriptural evidence and the scientific evidence. Young Earth Creationism is about ignoring evidence. Period. It is poor biblical scholarship and non-existent science competence.

 

[jpcedotal]

You can't be serious. I call Poe.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

it is a worldview and should be taught in Philosophy or Religion in college.