Why no evidence FOR creation/ID?

[tas8831]

Hi Tas, free right now on Netflix, there's a 2016, exceptionally well-done documentary called Is Genesis History? which may have what you're looking for

Here's the movie's cast:

• Kevin Anderson, PhD – Microbiologist
• Steve Austin, PhD – Geologist
• Steven Boyd, PhD – Hebraist
• Robert Carter, PhD – Marine Biologist
• Arthur Chadwick, PhD – Taphonomist
• Danny Faulkner, PhD – Astronomer
• George Grant, PhD – Pastor
• Paul Nelson, PhD – Philosopher of Science
• Douglas Petrovich, PhD – Archeologist

• Marcus Ross, PhD – Paleontologist
• Andrew Snelling, PhD – Geologist
• Kurt Wise, PhD – Paleontologist
• Todd Wood, PhD – Biologist
• Stuart Burgess, PhD – Mechanical Engineer (Bonus Features)
• Douglas Kelly, PhD – Theologian (Bonus Features)
• Larry Vardiman, PhD – Atmospheric Physicist (Bonus Features)

--David
p.s. - this was a blind post, so I apologize if this movie has already been suggested.

I may check it out - but what do I get if they just attack evolution/old earth (i.e. reality based) geology?

And I do like that Steve Austin is taking part.

Steve Austin likes ot "witness" that he used to be an old-earth evolution guy until he studied at mt. St. Helens after the 1980 eruption. This studying somehow turned him into a young earth creationist.
The problem is, he had been writing creationist essays as early as 1976 (under the anagrammatic pseudonym 'Stuart Nevins'), a full 4 years BEFORE the eruption that produced the geology that supposedly converted him.


In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - References and Notes

Some may wonder why Austin and I have never worked together.

*My first attempt toward that end was in the summer of 1976. I flew to ICR in San Diego, in part to meet a “Stuart E. Nevins.” At the time, I did not know that Austin had been writing under that fictitious name to conceal his identity as a creationist. At lunch with Henry Morris, I said that I would like to meet “Stuart Nevins.” Morris, hiding the true situation, simply said that “Nevins” was out of town.




IOW, I do not believe a single thing Steve Austin claims.


I also note that Todd Wood is listed - he wrote this a few years ago:

The truth about evolution

I hope this doesn't turn into a rant, but it might. You have been warned.

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)​

 

[tas8831]

When it comes to Darwinism, likewise!!

Cool comeback.

Sad for you then that your opponents on here routinely provide evidence - and unlike your creationist brothers and sisters, they can understand and explain it.

 

[tas8831]

In the end; evolution is the religion of the spiritually dead.

In the end, the creationist, desperate, labels a scientific theory a 'religion' in a rather depressing attempt to drag science down to the level of religion.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You mean a singular text, written in a language that all nations and tongues can understand, without going through a translator?

Yes.

 

[tas8831]

Evolution believers:

Please show the scientifically valid explanation for the origination of the universe.
1. You do not get to presuppose the existence of another universe which exists only in your fantasies.
2. You can cite Quantum theory ONLY if you can validate a suspension of the effects of gravity and explain where the subatomic particles originated.

I'm sure you will ALL agree on this single scientifically proven process by which the universe began. After all, there could be no life without the building blocks of life, which had to come from minerals and chemicals in the environment.

Instead of this off-topic nonsense, you could have either:

1. admitted that there is no evidence for creation or
2. just not replied at all

 

[tas8831]

Yeah right you are and hopefully the mods are not asleep at the switch.

I forgot about how thin-skinned and snowflakey some folks are. Nobody on this forum though, nosirree.

 

[tas8831]

The evidence is against you:

SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES ESTABLISHED
BY CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS

DISCIPLINE / SCIENTIST
ANTISEPTIC SURGERY JOSEPH LISTER (1827-1912)
BACTERIOLOGY LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
CALCULUS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
CELESTIAL MECHANICS JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
CHEMISTRY ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
COMPARATIVE ANATOMY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)
COMPUTER SCIENCE CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)
DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
DYNAMICS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
ELECTRONICS JOHN AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945)
ELECTRODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
ELECTRO-MAGNETICS MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
ENERGETICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
ENTOMOLOGY OF LIVING INSECTS HENRI FABRE (1823-1915)
FIELD THEORY MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
FLUID MECHANICS GEORGE STOKES (1819-1903)
GALACTIC ASTRONOMY WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822)
GAS DYNAMICS ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
GENETICS GREGOR MENDEL (1822-1884)
GLACIAL GEOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
GYNECOLOGY JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870)
HYDRAULICS LEONARDO DA VINCI (1452-1519)
HYDROGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
HYDROSTATICS BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662)
ICHTHYOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
ISOTOPIC CHEMISTRY WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916)
MODEL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
NATURAL HISTORY JOHN RAY (1627-1705)
NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY BERNHARD RIEMANN (1826- 1866)
OCEANOGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
OPTICAL MINERALOGY DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868)
PALEONTOLOGY JOHN WOODWARD (1665-1728)
PATHOLOGY RUDOLPH VIRCHOW (1821-1902)
PHYSICAL ASTRONOMY JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
REVERSIBLE THERMODYNAMICS JAMES JOULE (1818-1889)
STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
STRATIGRAPHY NICHOLAS STENO (1631-1686)
SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778)
THERMODYNAMICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
THERMOKINETICS HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829)
VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)

I suggest you check the education and training of any of these
before you claim that they are notable in that they ignored
their creationist training. Yes, there is another current list.

Cool - so did you plagiarize that from the ICR, or creationstudies.org?

 

[AV1611VET]

Cool - so did you plagiarize that from the ICR, or creationstudies.org?

I take it you don't a Defender's Study Bible?

 

[Steve Petersen]

In the end, the creationist, desperate, labels a scientific theory a 'religion' in a rather depressing attempt to drag science down to the level of religion.

Or worse: to drag their religion up to the level of science.

 

[SkyWriting]

So nothing can go from the inside to the outside. Agreed.But I was talking about things going from the outside to the inside, wasn't I? So your argument that nothing can pass the event horizon is wrong.And even if we were talking about things on the inside, they would not collect and pile up on the event horizon. They would fall back towards the singularity. In fact, unless they were starting out on the event horizon, they could never get to it, as once you are inside the event horizon, you can only go down, and never up.So your arguments are still wrong.

Which arguments? This one?
Physicist Claims to Have Proven Mathematically That Black Holes Do Not Exist

 

[SkyWriting]

Wow, not only do you not know what you are talking about, you can't even explain it clearly.

Things can't escape a black hole once they are inside the event horizon because the event horizon is where the escape velocity is the speed of light. If you are at the event horizon, the escape velocity is the speed of light. Inside the event horizon, the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light, and escape is impossible. But outside the event horizon, escape is possible, because the escape velocity is lower than the speed of light. But thanks for the mansplaination.

I wish I was more up to speed:

No Black Holes Exist, Says Stephen Hawking—At Least Not Like We Think

 

[SkyWriting]

Cool - so did you plagiarize that from the ICR, or creationstudies.org?

Only if I take credit for the work. These days, you can Google
anything and locate the source material. Just highlight
any text and right-click search for it.
But if anyone asks for the link, I will provide it.
Bible-Believing Scientists of the Past | The Institute for Creation

 

[lesliedellow]

Which arguments? This one?
Physicist Hawkins Claims to Have Proven Mathematically That Black Holes Do Not Exist

"Mersini-Houghton claims that she has clearly and effectively reconciled Einstein’s Theory of Relativity with quantum mechanics."

I will believe it when I see it. If she has managed to combine quantum theory with General Relativity, she is about to become very famous indeed.

By the way, why did you insert "Hawkins" when the name does not appear in the article's title for a very good reason.

 

[SkyWriting]

"Mersini-Houghton claims that she has clearly and effectively reconciled Einstein’s Theory of Relativity with quantum mechanics."

I will believe it when I see it. If she has managed to combine quantum theory with General Relativity, she is about to become very famous indeed.

By the way, why did you insert "Hawkins" when the name does not appear in the article's title for a very good reason.

My mistake. Corrected.

 

[USincognito]

where both sexes evolved at the same rate via accidents, blind chance. (talk about faith)

Wow, just wow.

 

[tas8831]

Only if I take credit for the work. These days, you can Google
anything and locate the source material. Just highlight
any text and right-click search for it.
But if anyone asks for the link, I will provide it.
Bible-Believing Scientists of the Past | The Institute for Creation

So copy-pasting something without attribution and presenting it as your own is OK because Google?

Funny - we expel students at my university for doing that.

 

[USincognito]

This is false. Tomkins cannot bring himself to admit his errors. The DDX11L2 gene is not actually in the fusion site as he claimed.

That's the beauty of Creationist CT mentality. Tomkins is the sole one telling the TRVTH™ and all the other geneticists, etc. are lying or too dumb to realize they're wrong.

 

[USincognito]

So by using science and natural law you are unable to scientifically prove how the universe was created through natural processes, but you expect US to provide scientific proof of a SUPERNATURAL creation?

Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.​

 

[USincognito]

p.s. - this was a blind post, so I apologize if this movie has already been suggested.

Leaving aside for a moment the history of shoddy* science on the part of Creationists, a movie isn't quite what he's asking for in terms of evidence. In a movie, the presenters can just make claims and say things without challenge. Evidence would have gone through some sort of review process and then survived public scrutiny.

* to put it as nicely as I can

 

[SkyWriting]

So copy-pasting something without attribution and presenting it as your own is OK because Google?

Funny - we expel students at my university for doing that.

I am lazy and don't always provide the link.
Students are expected to produce original material
as they are seeking a grade on their work.
I didn't claim to build the table from scratch
just to answer a forum post.