Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution

[Rían]

Hi guys - I got the "blaster" worm, so I haven't been able to get on all day (intelligently designed mutating computer worm!) - I'll prob be logged off any second - anyway, like I said, I'm off for vacation and I"ll see you guys in a week - have fun reading! I'll get to your comments when I can get back on the internet reliably.

[Sheeana]

Believers in the lost Ark

Treating myth as fact misunderstands the meaning of religion

Karen Armstrong
Saturday August 9, 2003
The Guardian

The explorer who discovered the Titanic beneath the Atlantic in 1985 is setting out on another underwater expedition to document Noah's flood. The Black Sea was originally a freshwater lake that in ancient times became inundated by the salty Mediterranean. Robert Ballard believes that this was a cataclysmic event that occurred about 7,500 years ago, and was possibly the deluge described in the Bible.
Ballard's critics are sceptical: they argue that the infiltration of the Black Sea was a gradual process that occurred much earlier and over a long period of time. They accuse Ballard of using Noah to sex up his material for maximum publicity.

Christian fundamentalists will expect great things of Ballard's expedition. American creationists, who believe that the book of Genesis gives a scientifically accurate account of the origins of life, have long discussed Noah's flood. Some have even led archaeological expeditions to Mount Ararat in Turkey, in the hope of unearthing the Ark, and proving the literal truth of scripture once and for all.

Other creationists are more cautious, pointing out that the Ark is unlikely to have survived the ravages of time. But all Christian fundamentalists are passionately convinced that the Bible describes a historical deluge that destroyed all life on earth. Noah's flood was not a local event, as some suggest; it was universal, and even covered the US, creating the Grand Canyon and Niagara Falls.

The creationists claim to study the physical effects of Noah's flood in order to disprove the theory of evolution, using carbon dating methods and modern geological data, and insist on their constitutional right to teach "creation science" in the public schools.

Most importantly, the creationists argue that fossils are simply relics of the flood. After the waters had subsided, exposing millions of rotting carcasses, God caused a powerful wind to blow, which buried them under a mound of trees and earth that later solidified and became rocks, oil and coal. The flood had killed the smallest creatures before the larger animals, which had congregated on hilltops and were buried at a later stage of the storm, so the fossil record does not reveal a truly temporal evolution. Noah saved a pair of each species, just as the Bible records, even though to accommodate them all, the Ark must have been as large as eight goods trains with 65 livestock trucks apiece.

Rest at

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/...1015350,00.html

[Lizra]

Wow! Talk about rearranging things to fill out a myth! This is where I get the "grasping at straws" bit...come on guys, you've got to realize how flakey that sounds!? It's one thing to unearth fossils, date and try to catagorize them using scientific methods, but God as a global washing machine and dehydrator!!! No way I'm going for that one!

[Earniel]

I must say it's the first time I heard about the 'flood rearranged the fossil record'-theory. I find it very, very odd. Suppose a flood did arrange all the fossils so neatly, shouldn't there be a massive visible difference in the groundlayers that the flood rearranged and layers that came on top of them afterwards? I know geology isn't my strongest point but I have never heard or read something even remotely suggesting a rearranging flood. But if a flood did that, then that was one very smart (and IMO unnatural) flood.

Now that I think of the flood, how can it be global if at that time America wasn't even discovered? How could they have known the whole world was under water when they didn't even know how far the whole world actually went? What exactly are the arguments that it was a global flood since the geological evidence seems to be missing?

*just wondering*

[Rían]

Hi guys, I'm back from vacation and I got the Blaster worm off my computer, so I'll start replying to some of the comments -

Several major points of disagreement about the article in Sheeana's post -

From an article posted by Sheeana
Christian fundamentalists will expect great things of Ballard's expedition. American creationists, who believe that the book of Genesis gives a scientifically accurate account of the origins of life, have long discussed Noah's flood. Some have even led archaeological expeditions to Mount Ararat in Turkey, in the hope of unearthing the Ark, and proving the literal truth of scripture once and for all.

I doubt if finding what appears to be Noah's ark would prove "the literal truth of scripture once and for all", and I doubt that scientific "American creationists" would make that claim. It would be a point that lends support - but would not by itself, IMO, prove the literal truth of scripture, which is what is implied. At least I hope that they wouldn't make the claim - some fringe elements would, but I wouldn't take fringe elements of any group very seriously. I doubt if the respectable people would make that claim.

Funny how it says "American" creationists, too - I wonder why she specified "American"? Because we're currently rather unpopular to many people? IIRC, one of the more prominent creationists is Australian. (checks books - yes, Ken Ham.)

Other creationists are more cautious, pointing out that the Ark is unlikely to have survived the ravages of time. But all Christian fundamentalists are passionately convinced that the Bible describes a historical deluge that destroyed all life on earth. Noah's flood was not a local event, as some suggest; it was universal, and even covered the US, creating the Grand Canyon and Niagara Falls.

I really doubt that "all Christian fundamentalists" are "passionately convinced" of this. Also, I find the use of "passionately" rather offensive, because it implies without reason or thought. I doubt the author would say that evolutionists are "passionately convinced" that macro evolution occurred (I think they are, though! ). As I said before, you guys may think I'm wrong, but you can't claim that I haven't studied the matter and given it a lot of thought, if you've ever read my posts on the subject.

The creationists claim to study the physical effects of Noah's flood in order to disprove the theory of evolution, using carbon dating methods and modern geological data, and insist on their constitutional right to teach "creation science" in the public schools.

"Claim to study"? What, do they say to the people around them "I'm going off to study now - ta tah!" and then disappear into a room and play backgammon? Do they also "claim" to have PhD's and really don't? I doubt if the author has bothered to read articles written by creationist PhDs. If she had, she wouldn't make this claim.

Most importantly, the creationists argue that fossils are simply relics of the flood.... Noah saved a pair of each species, just as the Bible records, even though to accommodate them all, the Ark must have been as large as eight goods trains with 65 livestock trucks apiece.

I haven't heard of the wind part. This section has some innaccuracies also, the biggest being that "Noah saved a pair of each species, just as the Bible records". If one bothers to read the Biblical account, one can see that this is completely wrong in TWO areas. First, some types were to be taken in groups of seven, like birds. And the BIG inaccuracy is the use of the word "species" - the actual word used in most translations is "kind". So as far as dogs, for example, it's conceivable that only one pair of dogs would have been taken (or perhaps seven - I think dogs might fall in the seven category). With the built-in variability of animals very close to their creation time, this would probably be enough. As it is, even now when I watch the Westminster Dog Show every year in February, there's always a discussion on new breeds being developed. And what are they developed from? OTHER DOGS! (as opposed to, say, fish.) So the use of "species" is just plain wrong here, esp. considering that biologists can't even agree, many times, on which animals should be considered seperate species. This incorrect use of the word "species" also leads to wildly inaccurate estimates (as in WAY too large) of how many animals, at a minimum, would have had to have been on the ark.

This article seems to be at a level of "this is what I think creationists believe". I wish it was better researched and couched in less condescending language - it would have been a better (and fairer) article. I'll check out the link and read the rest of the article, tho - perhaps it gets better.

[Rían]

*reads rest of article*

Yug, it just gets worse!

Oh well

[Khamûl]

Just to toss in my two cents rather quickly about the size of the ark...

IIRC, it doesn't say that the all the animals on the ark were fully grown. It would have been much easier, for example, to take elephants that weren't fully mature instead of adults that would have taken up a lot more space.

[Willow Oran]

More practical too, in regards to your most recent post Khamul. Taking younger specimans of each kind would have meant that by the time the flood was over and the waters receded and the mud dried into solid ground again and everyone past the crisis that such a flood would have presented; The creatures taken aboard the ark would be fully mature and probably at the peak of their lifespans. Also in regards to the size of the ark. Noah would only have had to worry about those creatures who couldn't fly or swim. Those who could would been largely able to fend for themselves.

Having said that I'll join in the debate as it happens to be a favorite of mine. You learn all sorts of little tidbits they don't teach you in school. To begin, neither theory makes any sense at all without first taking the other into consideration. In order to have evolution something had to cause the first life form to come into being, or in other words, something had to create the spark that began evolution. The alternitive is that everything came from something which came from nothing. However, it's a proven fact that the only thing to come from nothing is more nothingness. Whereas it is possible that everything could have come from something. Therefore we must arrive at the conclusion that everything did come from something but that something did not come from nothing which means that the start of everything has to have been something. From this simple fact we can deduce that Something had to have created everything. This explains everything and makes any creationism/evolutionism arguments obsolete except for the question of what exactly that first Something was. Make sense?

As to any scientific evidence I may be asked for, I admit, I have none. I have only theoretical evidence to present, and as we are discussing two of the most theoretical theories ever to be theorized about, theoretical evidence should be sufficient until said theories become facts. Which they will never become so long as the followers of each disregard the validity of the other, because even the mere theory of evolution cannot exist with having first been created by something.

[Insidious Rex]

Uh have we seriously gotten to the point where we are arguing about the literal interpretation of the Noah’s Ark story? Are you kidding? I mean creationism is one thing. But lets not get too ridiculous now. Some things were just NOT meant to be taken literally now…..

Originally posted by Willow Oran
Also in regards to the size of the ark. Noah would only have had to worry about those creatures who couldn't fly or swim. Those who could would been largely able to fend for themselves.

actually in a global flood birds would all die because there would be no land. So they would have no source of food or places to nest or even rest. You try treading water for 2 months in the middle of the open ocean and see how long you last.

And all the sea creatures would die because of the massive change in salinity of the oceans. like pumping huge amounts of carbon dioxide into our air. just because its all air doesnt mean we dont need a particular ratio of elements in order to keep on breathing.

so yeah the ark would need massive aviaries for EACH bird species and countless fresh water and salt water fish tanks to keep the fish. yikes watch out for the shark tank!

To begin, neither theory makes any sense at all without first taking the other into consideration. In order to have evolution something had to cause the first life form to come into being, or in other words, something had to create the spark that began evolution. The alternitive is that everything came from something which came from nothing. However, it's a proven fact that the only thing to come from nothing is more nothingness. Whereas it is possible that everything could have come from something. Therefore we must arrive at the conclusion that everything did come from something but that something did not come from nothing which means that the start of everything has to have been something. From this simple fact we can deduce that Something had to have created everything. This explains everything and makes any creationism/evolutionism arguments obsolete except for the question of what exactly that first Something was. Make sense?

surely your logic is dizzying…

well if yer getting at how did the first life form come about there are theories that make plenty of sense (outside of the IT WAS CREATED BY GOD! Theory) but we don’t have to get into them here (unless you want to) because it really is irrelevant as far as evolution is concerned. Because evolution only applies once life gets kicked off. So how it came about isn’t necessarily relevant to the argument of does evolution exist. Now creationism requires a “something� to exist and to always have existed and that “something else� could not have existed before it. So I guess your argument could be used to shoot down creationism but not evolution. Evolution is just the mechanism by which life transforms itself. Its not an explanation for the big bang or even for how life first started.

[Willow Oran]

The argument I used was not meant to shoot down either but to support the existence of both. My point is that evolution makes no sense unless something was there to start it going. And creation in it's turn makes no sense unless there is something to continue it. In fact, the only way either makes any sense at all is to conclude that something was created to evolve. Creation starts and evolution continues. Therefore both must be true.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Willow Oran
The argument I used was not meant to shoot down either but to support the existence of both. My point is that evolution makes no sense unless something was there to start it going. And creation in it's turn makes no sense unless there is something to continue it. In fact, the only way either makes any sense at all is to conclude that something was created to evolve. Creation starts and evolution continues. Therefore both must be true.

evolution continues yes but the genisis of the situation is what you should be debating. was it simply a primordial soup combined with lightening or energy from hot water vents? were our oceans "seeded" by ancient meteors carrying the right molecular building blocks for making life? (we did get our water that way after all). Or was their purposeful alien intelligent seeding of life on earth? OR was it some big incomprehensable entity that we call god that just kinda created all the animals we know today just a few thousand years ago. hmm.... *singing* which one of these things is not like the others...

[GrayMouser]

Welcome back!- hope you had a nice holiday, and got dewormed without too much trouble. It's so dull without you here- everybody else just sits around and agrees with each other

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Several major points of disagreement about the article in Sheeana's post -
<snip>

Funny how it says "American" creationists, too - I wonder why she specified "American"? Because we're currently rather unpopular to many people? IIRC, one of the more prominent creationists is Australian. (checks books - yes, Ken Ham.).

True, there's a flourishing Creationist community in Australia, but far and away the biggest and strongest movement is American, simply because Fundamentalism is so much more widespread there- in most of Europe Creationists are a tiny fringe group, and while Fundamentalism is spreading in the Third World - due in no small part to American missionaries- they tend to have more pressing problems, like AIDS.

I really doubt that "all Christian fundamentalists" are "passionately convinced" of this. Also, I find the use of "passionately" rather offensive, because it implies without reason or thought. I doubt the author would say that evolutionists are "passionately convinced" that macro evolution occurred (I think they are, though! ).

I am

I haven't heard of the wind part. This section has some innaccuracies also, the biggest being that "Noah saved a pair of each species, just as the Bible records". If one bothers to read the Biblical account, one can see that this is completely wrong in TWO areas. First, some types were to be taken in groups of seven, like birds.

Actually, the Bible has two separate versions.

Genesis 6:19

19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.

and Genesis 7:2

2 Take with you seven [1] of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.

Modern Biblical scholars attribute this to the differences between the "Yahwist" source (J) and the later "Priestly" source (P), which was much more concerned with ritual, and we see that some of the seven (or seven pairs) of clean animals are used for a sacrifice after the Flood ( Gen. 8:20)

And the BIG inaccuracy is the use of the word "species" - the actual word used in most translations is "kind". So as far as dogs, for example, it's conceivable that only one pair of dogs would have been taken (or perhaps seven - I think dogs might fall in the seven category). With the built-in variability of animals very close to their creation time, this would probably be enough.

Okay, a big question for Creationists- since "kind" is the most fundamental classification of animals, established by the Creator, the essence of their true nature, surely the MOST important task of any truly scientific creationism would be to establish what exactly is a kind.

They should have as their foremost task the production of a classification system showing where "kinds" fit in on the species-genera-family-order-class-phylum-kingdom hierarchy, even if they have to completely rearrange Linnaeus, so we could all see the limits of microevolution.

(BTW, Woodmaroppe, the foremost Creationist scholar of the Ark, holds that the "kind" is mostly at the genera level, sometimes even family- this moves microevolution up a couple of very large steps- and vindicates Darwin's title "The Origin of Species
by Means of Natural Selection" )

By defining and classifying this most fundamental unit of life on Earth, the Creationists would be able to begin the scientific project of showing what the mechanisms are that prevent evolution beyond the "micro" level (whatever that may be).

Naw, let's go lobby a school board....

[Willow Oran]

True, that is what we should be debating. However, you forgot to include the "All of the Above" option, along with the thousands of crazier ones that haven't been brought up yet. All we know is that something created the beginnings of everything. No matter what that paticular something actually was it still created everything and we can say without a doubt that the world was brought into being through creation.
As to the question of whether it was created through accidental circumstances or by an ineffable divine being... Is it not possible that it was created by a divine being who, for ineffable purposes of its own, made it seem as though the earth was created through accidental circumstances? It's probably not true, but it's possible.
The core of creationism is the fact that everything was created by God. While it is true that most people think of God as a great big beard in the sky, or some variation thereof, could it not be possible that God was actually that first lightening or energy combining with primordial soup and that such phenomona was later humanized? If, as you say, God is incomprehensible, then it follows that God could be anything and thus could be nothing more than a name for whatever it was that created that beginning and a belief.

[Lizra]

I'll go with "It's probably not true" !

God is lightning! I don't think Rian will go for that. Welcome back Rian!

Blackheart and I were discussing Big Bang stuff back on page 16.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Willow Oran
True, that is what we should be debating. However, you forgot to include the "All of the Above" option, along with the thousands of crazier ones that haven't been brought up yet. All we know is that something created the beginnings of everything. No matter what that paticular something actually was it still created everything and we can say without a doubt that the world was brought into being through creation.

we cant really. In my opinion we are not able to conceive of that level of “creation�. Something happened but it was beyond us. To try to stick it with a human label like “creation� limits it to what we can conceive. What if what “happened� is incomprehensible to our little brains? What then? Explain the unexplainable please.

The core of creationism is the fact that everything was created by God.

yes but creationism defeats itself by being unable to explain what created god (I mean if you can ask well how did evolution start you can certainly ask how did god start). If there must be a beginning to everything then what created the beginning? And sillyness like that that can only be approached by dealing in quantum mechanics and high level mathematical theory. Not in theology. And we discover perhaps that there was no beginning as we understand it.

While it is true that most people think of God as a great big beard in the sky, or some variation thereof, could it not be possible that God was actually that first lightening or energy combining with primordial soup and that such phenomona was later humanized? If, as you say, God is incomprehensible, then it follows that God could be anything and thus could be nothing more than a name for whatever it was that created that beginning and a belief.

oh yes. Absolutely. God becomes a human façade for the unexplained and for that which cant be put into words produced by the human brain. God is the dark space behind the point we cant reach. God is the limited translation of the infinitely devine.

[Willow Oran]

yes but creationism defeats itself by being unable to explain what created god

There is no need to explain what created God, it's quite obvious. Belief created God for such a being only exists within the mind and then only by belief. Of course, to say that is to say that the thing that created the creator is belief in such a creator but for that to be true then something had to first believe therefore the only thing we can say created anything is ourselves by believing in a creator. Which brings us into an inescabale loop of improbabilities because there is obviously no possible way we could have created ourselves unless we aren't what we believe ourselves to be, in which case all of creation is merely a figment of the collective imagination of an imaginary race. None of which makes any sense at all unless you are completely mad or completely drunk.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Willow Oran
There is no need to explain what created God, it's quite obvious. Belief created God for such a being only exists within the mind and then only by belief. Of course, to say that is to say that the thing that created the creator is belief in such a creator but for that to be true then something had to first believe therefore the only thing we can say created anything is ourselves by believing in a creator. Which brings us into an inescabale loop of improbabilities because there is obviously no possible way we could have created ourselves unless we aren't what we believe ourselves to be, in which case all of creation is merely a figment of the collective imagination of an imaginary race. None of which makes any sense at all unless you are completely mad or completely drunk.

nah makes more sense to me then "god did it". perhaps yer on to something.

[HOBBIT]

Of course we are all the product of someone's deranged imagination.

[Rían]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Welcome back!- hope you had a nice holiday, and got dewormed without too much trouble. It's so dull without you here- everybody else just sits around and agrees with each other

Thanks! I did, and just threw in the last post-camping washload - the (former) whites (currently rather brownish ... ) I think I'll just give up on some of those socks and throw them out!

I knew I should have taken those deworming pills ....

Yes, it's tough to be right when everyone else around you is wrong Evolutionists are just so, um, to borrow a word used by several recent posters ... brainwashed! (said in a friendly, teasing manner - please don't take offense, people!)

Originally posted by Lizra
God is lightning! I don't think Rian will go for that. Welcome back Rian!

Thanks, Lizra! It's always nice to get home and take that first wonderful hot shower

You're right - I would change "is lightning" to "made lightning" However did you guess I would object?

Are your kids back in school? Mine start in 2 weeks. Maybe I'll ask if I can guest-lecture in their science class .....

And just a quick note here, because many of you on this thread have asked to be kept updated - my surgery is Aug 29 - they'll pull out the biggest enlarged lymph node and hopefully find no evidence of cancer (they don't expect to, but we're making sure). I pre-ordered the LoTR: Two Towers DVD and will pick it up Aug 26, so I'll save it for my post-op treat!

[Sheeana]

Best wishes for your surgery, Rian. *Will respond to your PM sometime soon, I promise...*