Would Anyone Care To Defend The Creation Model?

[Justatruthseeker]

He asked you to defend the creation model. Explain how it works, describe it in detail etc. Not pull out a list of pratts. Now, this thread is about creationism. Not evolution. You need to support creationism not flail impotently at evolution. Creeeaaaaationism. Stick with that.

You don't understand how breed mating with breed works? Then why are you in a discussion about evolution and creation? I have to explain the science to you?

Here's a start

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21475960

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2674911/

http://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(08)71203-7/abstract

And all done without a hint of mutation being involved. Imagine that. But since none of you actually understands how reproduction actually works, it's not surprising you resort to fantasies in a time long ago. We have heard that story before. And once upon a time.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Reproduction

 

[crjmurray]

You don't understand how breed mating with breed works? Then why are you in a discussion about evolution and creation? I have to explain the science to you?

Here's a start

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21475960

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2674911/

http://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(08)71203-7/abstract

And all done without a hint of mutation being involved. Imagine that. But since none of you actually understands how reproduction actually works, it's not surprising you resort to fantasies in a time long ago. We have heard that story before. And once upon a time.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Reproduction

You didn't even read my post.

 

[AV1611VET]

Just out of curiosity, Murray, what is it about what creationists believe that concerns deists?

Is it the fact that we say GOD DID IT -- meaning He didn't just sit in the background observing everything?

 

[Split Rock]

Sure it does. If creationism does not make sense, nobody will believe it. For example, you will not.

And I don't, for that reason.

From your perspective, are you claiming that creationism has no unanswered questions?

 

[juvenissun]

And I don't, for that reason.

From your perspective, are you claiming that creationism has no unanswered questions?

It has. But ultimately, it has not.
This is where the major advantage is.

Creation itself is a question which can not be answered by science. In order to question creationism, you either reject the definition first (then there is no need to continue any reasoning), or you argue within the definition.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You didn't even read my post.

Sure I did, you asked for the explanation of the science when you should already know how breed mating with breed works in real life. I shouldn't need to explain the obvious to you.

Triceratops mates with another breed within the three horned dinosaur Kind and a new breed T. Prorsus appears suddenly in the fossil record separated from the others. There are no missing links because the links never existed. You just need to quit pretending it happens any other way than what we observe in real life.

Just as the Husky mates with the Mastiff and after a short period of flux - the Chinook breed comes into existence. The fossil record agrees perfectly with what we observe, but because scientists are so eager to name a new species and get their names in the books, we have a proliferation of incorrectly named species when they are in reality what we observe today - different breeds of the same species. Your only argument is that I ignore how life propagates in the here and now and don't apply that to the fossil record. Your only defense is that I not use science.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It has. But ultimately, it has not.
This is where the major advantage is.

Creation itself is a question which can not be answered by science. In order to question creationism, you either reject the definition first (then there is no need to continue any reasoning), or you argue within the definition.

It's the same with evolution - you either reject the definition first - or you argue within the definition. It's only too bad life propagates by breed mating with breed producing new breeds - and not one species evolving through mutation into another. One has been observed - the other is pure fantasy.

 

[crjmurray]

Sure I did, you asked for the explanation of the science when you should already know how breed mating with breed works in real life. I shouldn't need to explain the obvious to you.

Triceratops mates with another breed within the three horned dinosaur Kind and a new breed T. Prorsus appears suddenly in the fossil record separated from the others. There are no missing links because the links never existed. You just need to quit pretending it happens any other way than what we observe in real life.

Just as the Husky mates with the Mastiff and after a short period of flux - the Chinook breed comes into existence. The fossil record agrees perfectly with what we observe, but because scientists are so eager to name a new species and get their names in the books, we have a proliferation of incorrectly named species when they are in reality what we observe today - different breeds of the same species. Your only argument is that I ignore how life propagates in the here and now and don't apply that to the fossil record. Your only defense is that I not use science.

So you don't have a model or any evidence to support it?

 

[juvenissun]

It's the same with evolution - you either reject the definition first - or you argue within the definition. It's only too bad life propagates by breed mating with breed producing new breeds - and not one species evolving through mutation into another. One has been observed - the other is pure fantasy.

Definition is where reasoning starts. I accept the definition of evolution without a single question.
The trouble of evolution is way way beyond its definition.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Definition is where reasoning starts. I accept the definition of evolution without a single question.
The trouble of evolution is way way beyond its definition.

Agreed, the trouble with evolution is we observe breed mating with breed producing new breeds - not one species evolving through mutations into a new species. The definition matches nothing that we observe.

 

[Goonie]

Agreed, the trouble with evolution is we observe breed mating with breed producing new breeds - not one species evolving through mutations into a new species. The definition matches nothing that we observe.

And because we did not observe it, it never happened. Fascinating, no evidence that anyone witnessed the birth of the universe therefore...

 

[bhsmte]

And because we did did jo obs

And because we did not observe it, it never happened. Fascinating, no evidence that anyone witnessed the birth of the universe therefore...

Hey, you have to grab onto whatever you can.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And because we did did jo obs

And because we did not observe it, it never happened. Fascinating, no evidence that anyone witnessed the birth of the universe therefore...

Oh the birth of the universe is not in doubt - just how it came to be.

Which in your world is just creation proposed by a priest in which you no longer accept the source.

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Georges_Lemaître

"was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven... He proposed (independently of Russian physicist Alexander Friedman) the theory of the expansion of the universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble. He was the first to derive what is now known as Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article. Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom" or the "Cosmic Egg".

About the only thing different is time. Time in an expanding universe that is increasing in acceleration. Clocks that slow under acceleration and therefore MUST have ran faster when acceleration was less than it was today, yes? Or are you going to ignore that part of the theory now?

 

[The Cadet]

Evolution is a powerful model. If it were true, then it would be applied to anywhere, anytime in this universe or other universes. If the evolution is wrong, then what else (except the creation) could explain the variation (or origin) of life? There is NONE

So what? This does not mean that your explanation is right by default.

Just to give an example, if it turns out that General Relativity is just dead wrong, and we have no other known mechanism for explaining how objects operate at light speed, does that mean my "magical pixies make it so" theory is automatically right? The fallacy you are committing is called the "argument from ignorance" - "We don't know, therefore whatever I can come up with is right". That's not a valid argument. Creation still needs to provide its own evidence and testable predictions. Just because you cannot think of an alternative does not mean that there is no other possible mechanism other than creation - you'd need to demonstrate that dichotomy in order for this argument to work.

 

[Astrophile]

Here's something that most people don't understand. A theory which is presented with evidence that doesn't fit the model is typically not immediately discarded. Rather, so long as it continues to provide insight into the available evidence, it is maintained until an alternative comes around which does account for all available evidence. A classic example of this was Newtonian physics: the perehelion of mercury's procession was known not to fit into the Newtonian paradigm for at least half a century before General Relativity was shown to be a more accurate paradigm.

I am afraid that you have got this slightly wrong; it was the precession of Mercury's perihelion that didn't fit into the Newtonian paradigm. To put it more simply, the long axis of Mercury's orbit was rotating slightly faster than was predicted by Newton's theory of gravitation.

 

[juvenissun]

So what? This does not mean that your explanation is right by default.

Just to give an example, if it turns out that General Relativity is just dead wrong, and we have no other known mechanism for explaining how objects operate at light speed, does that mean my "magical pixies make it so" theory is automatically right? The fallacy you are committing is called the "argument from ignorance" - "We don't know, therefore whatever I can come up with is right". That's not a valid argument. Creation still needs to provide its own evidence and testable predictions. Just because you cannot think of an alternative does not mean that there is no other possible mechanism other than creation - you'd need to demonstrate that dichotomy in order for this argument to work.

Life evolves. So we have life form variations
If life does not evolve, why do we have life form variation?
You do not know? That is not a good answer.
Life is created. That is the only good answer left.

 

[The Cadet]

Life evolves. So we have life form variations
If life does not evolve, why do we have life form variation?
You do not know? That is not a good answer.
Life is created. That is the only good answer left.

Please demonstrate that it is a good answer. In leiu of that, what you are doing here is committing the "argument from ignorance" fallacy quite flagrantly.

 

[bhayes]

Please demonstrate that it is a good answer. In leiu of that, what you are doing here is committing the "argument from ignorance" fallacy quite flagrantly.

I think life itself is a good enough answer. Intelligent design speaks of an intelligent maker and this is good enough for me. Also you want evidence but the fact is is in front of your eyes and you still wouldn't believe because you don't want to. That being said, the creator of the universe also sent his son Jesus Christ into the world so you can know him and believe on him. Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God? He payed your sin debt so that you can be reconciled to God if you so choose to ACCEPT him as your Savior and repent of your sin.

 

[juvenissun]

Please demonstrate that it is a good answer. In leiu of that, what you are doing here is committing the "argument from ignorance" fallacy quite flagrantly.

It is good because there is no better one.
It is not only a good one, it is THE ONLY good one. There is no other answer.

 

[The Cadet]

I think life itself is a good enough answer. Intelligent design speaks of an intelligent maker and this is good enough for me. Also you want evidence but the fact is is in front of your eyes and you still wouldn't believe because you don't want to.

I have nothing against believing any explanation, so long as it is buoyed by evidence. This is not evidence.

It is good because there is no better one.
It is not only a good one, it is THE ONLY good one. There is no other answer.

So wait, now you're claiming that "the current historical model" and "biblical creationism" is a true dichotomy? Ugh.



This is getting really tiresome. The entire point of this thread is to defend the creation model. The idea that any model of reality somehow "wins by default" is laughable and shows a fundamental misunderstanding. If you can't figure out that proving evolution wrong does not get you one step closer to demonstrating creation, you do not belong in this thread.

@justlookinla @Justatruthseeker @lifepsyop You guys are all ostensibly science-minded YECs. Any of you want to step up to the plate and try to provide a functional scientific model for your position?