When does "Creationism" fail?

[hithesh]

Over the course of time on this thread, and among the various YEC arguments out there, it seems that our beloved youth-earthers, are always seeking to find a hole somewhere, to crawl in and say, see if "this hole is here than evolution does not work", only to later find that hole is occupied, so they continue from the motor in the cell's flagellum, to the eye, to the woodpecker's tongue, to "why do we not have fur?", continually trying to find gaps, continuing on in there pursuit, when they find out this space is occupied.

But let us assume for a day that they find a gap so big, that it causes the whole evolutionary theory to collapse, there by taking with it chunks of biology, and genetics with it.

Does this make young-earther-creationism the valid theory on the origin of life, and the age of the earth?

Do YEC honestly believe there is a bigger hole in the "evolutionary theory" and the "age of the earth",
than in the following list of assumptions:

Dinosaurs and man walked the earth together.

The Earth, and all life on earth is only 10,000 years old.

(feel free to add as you like, I figured we'd start by keeping it pithy)

 

[PaladinValer]

I believe Creationism fails when it erronously replaces God's natural laws with God's spiritual and moral instruction. While I don't God is angry about it, He's probably scratching His head wondering why Creationists think the Bible is a science textbook that rejects His own Creation's natural laws.

 

[laptoppop]

Do YEC honestly believe there is a bigger hole in the "evolutionary theory" and the "age of the earth",
than in the following list of assumptions:

Dinosaurs and man walked the earth together.

The Earth, and all life on earth is only 10,000 years old.

(feel free to add as you like, I figured we'd start by keeping it pithy)

Yes, are you accusing the entire YEC community of lying? It may be hard for you to understand, but there are honest intelligent people with PhDs in just about any field you can mention, including biology, biochemistry and paleontology, from recognized universities, that hold YEC as the best explanation for the actual evidence (as opposed to conjectures) that we have.

 

[Jase]

Yes, are you accusing the entire YEC community of lying? It may be hard for you to understand, but there are honest intelligent people with PhDs in just about any field you can mention, including biology, biochemistry and paleontology, from recognized universities, that hold YEC as the best explanation for the actual evidence (as opposed to conjectures) that we have.

They are few and far between, and in most cases they aren't actually doing research related to the Creation evolution debate. Not to mention, even those that do have fancy degrees have stated they will not reject YEC regardless of the evidence against it, so how much value can we really put on YECs having a Ph.D - it means diddly squat if you aren't going to use it.

 

[Parmenio]

Pop,

Just because the know one thing and believe something completely contradictory, does not in any way validate the creationist claim. The various different conjectures that are proffered to take the evidence and portray it in a creationist fall flat when the baggage, that is just about always brought along with them, is examined. The conjecture that first pops into my head is that all of the flood waters emerged from the mantel. Which, as was explained so thoroughly would bake the entire earth.

Certain pieces of evidence occasionally do not fit within accepted parameters on first blush and they are almost always taken to mean that the earth must be young, when all that implies is not taken along with it.

Again, in the thread discussing the flood it was mentioned that science has a full geologic prospective that puts all of the pieces together, and makes a rational tapestry of ideas. Creationism offers nothing of the sort, and is only able to offer up an extremely unlikely scenarios in alternative to the more rational and workable ones in very isolated cases.

This is why creationism fails. I do not believe the OP is accusing all creationists of necessarily lying, but the accusation of double think is definitely there. For someone to earn their PhD in geology, and then assert that the earth is six thousand years old, it is almost always due to a form of cognitive dissonance. I'm certain they have some little anomaly that allows them to hold on to their irrational belief, but in their day to day practice of finding oil, minerals, et cetera, creationism has no place, as it has nothing to offer in the way of prediction. A geologist who attempted to use the various methods that creationists assert laid down the sedimentary layers would quickly be out of the job for ineffectual work.

It is difficult to argue with reality, but many find a way. That is the only explanation that I have for it.

 

[PaladinValer]

PhDs, unfortunately, don't mean anything if they are not in a relevent field.

Approximately 99.95% of PhDs in those relevent fields agree with the theory of evolution. That's something.

 

[hithesh]

Yes, are you accusing the entire YEC community of lying?

Not, for a minute do I think, that any young-earther on this forum, is a liar.

The question was if you can continually seek holes in the evolutionary theory, and the age of the earth, are you telling us that the idea that the earth is only 10,000 years old, and that dinosaurs walked with man, doesn't have gaps the size of Mount Everest?

Do creationist have a strong, or even moderately weighted scientific case that the earth is 10,000 years old, and that dinosaurs and man walked the earth together???

 

[laptoppop]

No, no "double think" is required. The evidence for creationism is stronger than any alternative. By evidence, I include everything from the geological formations to biochemistry to mutational issues to the revelation of a loving creator (this is a Christian forum after all )

Of course, technical journals, both evolutionary and creationist, have to pay the bills -- so a lot of the most recent research is not out on the web, but requires subscriptions, etc. -- but the field of creationism is advancing more rapidly now than at any previous time in history. Computer modeling is also helping us to understand the incredible varied dynamics of a world wide flood, enabling us to put aside earlier, simplistic understandings.

 

[hithesh]

Of course, technical journals, both evolutionary and creationist, have to pay the bills -- so a lot of the most recent research is not out on the web, but requires subscriptions, etc. -- but the field of creationism is advancing more rapidly now than at any previous time in history. Computer modeling is also helping us to understand the incredible varied dynamics of a world wide flood, enabling us to put aside earlier, simplistic understandings.

Well, if I was an unbeliever, I'd be a creationist too.

Kent Hovind made over a million a year, with a Phd from a degree mill.

I'd be quite foolish to not jump on the creationst Gold Rush.

 

[PaladinValer]

Kent Hovind made over a million a year, with a Phd from a degree mill.

I'd be quite foolish to not jump on the creationst Gold Rush.

Perhaps I should just cancel my graduate studies and join you running the 'mill...may I do so?

 

[Deamiter]

No, no "double think" is required. The evidence for creationism is stronger than any alternative. By evidence, I include everything from the geological formations to biochemistry to mutational issues to the revelation of a loving creator (this is a Christian forum after all )

Of course, technical journals, both evolutionary and creationist, have to pay the bills -- so a lot of the most recent research is not out on the web, but requires subscriptions, etc. -- but the field of creationism is advancing more rapidly now than at any previous time in history. Computer modeling is also helping us to understand the incredible varied dynamics of a world wide flood, enabling us to put aside earlier, simplistic understandings.

How might I access these technical journals. I know for any scientific journal, I either have access through my school or through inter-library loan. Are there any universities out there that subscribe to these creationist journals? Is there any search engine out there that catalogues creationist material?

Perhaps more importantly, is ANY of this creationist material peer-reviewed by other scientists in the field (not just other creationists?) How do you explain rather incredible errors like Setterfield's publishing of an r^2 value of 1 when not a single point fell on his curve?

Basically, how is the scientific community supposed to access this research, and who is reviewing the content (not just making sure the conclusions are of a young earth without evolution)?

 

[vossler]

Do creationist have a strong, or even moderately weighted scientific case that the earth is 10,000 years old, and that dinosaurs and man walked the earth together???

You guys make this far more complicated than it is. I don't need scientific evidence or theories to justify my beliefs, God's Word is and has been more than sufficient. This is doubly true when the 'evidence' that is presented to contradict the Word is based on conjecture and speculation. Sometimes I wish my YEC brethren wouldn't feel compelled to play the science game when there are no clear and succinct answers available. Science is wonderful when it is based solely on the empirical evidence. I believe 'creation science' would be far better served if those adhering to its tenets focused solely on the evidence and quit, at times, playing the same game evolutionists do.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

You guys make this far more complicated than it is. I don't need scientific evidence or theories to justify my beliefs, God's Word is and has been more than sufficient. This is doubly true when the 'evidence' that is presented to contradict the Word is based on conjecture and speculation. Sometimes I wish my YEC brethren wouldn't feel compelled to play the science game when there are no clear and succinct answers available. Science is wonderful when it is based solely on the empirical evidence. I believe 'creation science' would be far better served if those adhering to its tenets focused solely on the evidence and quit, at times, playing the same game evolutionists do.

So we have one vote of "I never let the truth get in the way of bad theology." Thank you Vossler, it is refreshing to see a creationist admit that creationism was never about truth at all.

 

[jeffweeder]

science is pointing in the direction that everything is intelligently designed.
How can you miss this fact.

ALL text books should be rewritten to include mind stretching discoveries in cellular biology, cosmology, DNA , astronomy, physics, that point to a creator.
There is no other explanation for these recent discoveries--my faith has been confirmed and joy fills me that God exists and created all things strange and wonderful.

Someone mentioned something about poop and how cruel it was that faeces are eaten, but i still believe that organic gardening is the best way to get things to grow, and bring out the flavour. This is good stufff

YOUR text books are old and wrong and need to be rewritten.

Science is best appreciated when it deals with what is testable and observable.---so much for origins

 

[jeffweeder]

may God get the glory...not chance

 

[gluadys]

This is doubly true when the 'evidence' that is presented to contradict the Word is based on conjecture and speculation.

And what are your qualifications for deciding that any part of the science you know nothing of is based solely on conjecture and speculation?

Do you just dismiss everything in science that disagrees with your interpretation of scripture as "conjecture and speculation" even though there are reams of supporting evidence for it?

Or do you have a more objective criterion for deciding when science is really based on evidence and when it is only conjecture and speculation?

 

[Assyrian]

Of course, technical journals, both evolutionary and creationist, have to pay the bills -- so a lot of the most recent research is not out on the web, but requires subscriptions, etc. -- but the field of creationism is advancing more rapidly now than at any previous time in history. Computer modeling is also helping us to understand the incredible varied dynamics of a world wide flood, enabling us to put aside earlier, simplistic understandings.

I was a YEC in past. They always have great new advances from C14 dating snailshells or dating Hawaiian lava to Setterfields C-decay charts or photos of Japanese fishermen catching a plesiosaur. The problem is these great new advances don't survive being reviewed by non YECs who know anything about the subject. Do you really think the new advances kept safe in their subscription only journals are really going to do that much better?

 

[juvenissun]

I was a YEC in past. They always have great new advances from C14 dating snailshells or dating Hawaiian lava to Setterfields C-decay charts or photos of Japanese fishermen catching a plesiosaur. The problem is these great new advances don't survive being reviewed by non YECs who know anything about the subject. Do you really think the new advances kept safe in their subscription only journals are really going to do that much better?

I look them this way, and I think it is true based on my personal experience:

They just thrown out the questions. They do not have the intention and the time to continue the debate. Their target of audience is not the scientific public, but the general church public, and, may be the politicians.

 

[Jase]

science is pointing in the direction that everything is intelligently designed.
How can you miss this fact.

ALL text books should be rewritten to include mind stretching discoveries in cellular biology, cosmology, DNA , astronomy, physics, that point to a creator.
There is no other explanation for these recent discoveries--my faith has been confirmed and joy fills me that God exists and created all things strange and wonderful.

Someone mentioned something about poop and how cruel it was that faeces are eaten, but i still believe that organic gardening is the best way to get things to grow, and bring out the flavour. This is good stufff

YOUR text books are old and wrong and need to be rewritten.

Science is best appreciated when it deals with what is testable and observable.---so much for origins

Since there is no evidence linking scientific discoveries to a creator, changing textbooks wouldn't do any good. Not to mention it would be illegal in this country.

 

[Parmenio]

From what I gather astrology is also at one of its peaks today. This guy is one of the leading proponents.

My assertion is that what is presented by those researching the world to find evidence for six thousand year earth must first contend with the ramifications of their assertion. How do we see stars? How are there so many formed galaxies? Why isn't the earth still baking hot? Where did the water come from and go for the flood?

Those all need to be answered before you can even begin to assert a young earth. That is the minimum baggage any claim for a young earth comes with. To my knowledge no sufficient answer to any of those has been presented. Every time conjecture is brought up in order to explain any of the things I previously listed the baggage is usually even more confusing. Such as accelerating the speed of light, thereby destroying everything in the universe. Those things need to be explained in a rational way before creationism can ever begin to enter into the scientific field.

edit: I asserted a RATIONAL way, this discounts dad's theory immediately.