Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution

[Lizra]

My kids have been in school for two weeks. Ahhhhhhh! I start my art class today though! Wheee! Unfortunately I have to commute to Indpls for it. I hope my butt doesn't go numb sitting that long!

[Rían]

Well, I think I've finally hit the point where I want to wrap this thread up, at the very latest by Wed. next week before the surgery on Friday. As I said before, I'm aware of many of the counter-arguments, and the counter-counter-arguments, and I think the evidence still favors creationism. Note - FAVORS, not exclusively supports.

I'll hit a few points of some of the responses, then I would like to ask the evolutionists to answer a question

Cirdan - you said I made some "serious charges without any proof" about dating - which of the 3 points were you objecting to? I re-read all three points, and I don't see any problem with how I stated them.

As far as the chicken lysozomes, I'll contact ICR about that if I get the time - it looks like Gish is wrong here, and he should acknowledge it, if that is the case, IMO.

GrayMouser - I don't see a problem with the Gen. 6 and 7 verses - from my engineering background, I see a very common-sense reason. I've written many specs for our systems, and one starts out with a *drumroll* top-level spec. Then comes the lower-level spec with many more details. It doesn't make sense for God to give all the exact details at the Gen. 6 timeframe - He gives the basic idea, plus info on boat-building. At the Gen. 7 point in time, the "loading" is starting to occur, and it makes sense to give the final exact details. I really see no problem here - do you?

Also, re "kinds" - why should identifying kinds be the "MOST important task"? I think we all have a pretty good sense of "kind". And it's so painfully (to evolutionists) obvious and repeatedly observable that: kinds remain kinds! And the mechanisms that seems to keep kinds in their kind include: breeding for traits involves loss of genetic info and loss of viability, and non-neutral mutations are harmful.

IMO, the purpose of the Bible is not to provide a really good scientific textbook to mankind - (science is very helpful, but it's not the most important thing, by any means) - it's to (and this is a massive simplification) reveal truth about God and the human soul. However, because it expresses truth, any scientific details that happen to be in it will be correct (allowing for the fact that often they will be expressed in historically current terms of the people that wrote it; also, a particular person may be incorrect if stating a personal opinion). The record in Genesis is written as a history, and I believe it makes sense to take it that way. And I believe the scientific evidence supports creationism more than evolutionism (not entirely, but more).

IRex - I think that Willow Oran's point (which is entirely right) is that one CANNOT throw out creationism by using the argument "well, where did GOD come from, then?" because one can say the same thing about the raw material for evolution - "well, where did the raw material for evolution come from, then?" You may try to evade by saying that evolutionism doesn't deal with origins - that is irrelevant - I can say just as easily that creationism doesn't deal with the origin of God. BOTH theories have an unexplainable source of the original stuff.

Also, birds are taken on the ark (Gen. 7). Fish are not. I don't see any reason why "all" marine life would die. I imagine a lot of them would die, but not "all", as you stated. Also, remember it's "kind", not "species", so there would not need to be aviaries for each "species" as currently defined today (and to my understanding, there are disagreements as to which types are separate species, anyway.)

[Rían]

And my question for evolutionists:

I've said before that I'm interested in TRUTH. I have no problem with acknowledging areas of difficulty in creationism or areas of strength in evolution, and I would hope that you guys have no problem acknowledging areas of difficulty in evolutionism or areas of strength in creationism. We are Entmoot friends, and this has been a very interesting and considerately-held discussion on an emotional topic. I've learned a lot, and I hope the discussion has been of some benefit to you guys, too.

I would like to ask the evolutionists here to share what they think are: areas of difficulty in evolutionism and areas of strength in creationism.

Personally, I think the weakest point in creationism is the grouping of fossils. I think the 3-point explanation of (living areas/sorting by water/catastrophism) is a feasible explanation, but it needs a lot more research and supporting evidence.

I think the strongest area in evolutionism is a trend (altho by no means an exclusive trend) of simpler/smaller to more complex/larger in the fossil record.

OK, would you guys please share your opinions now on areas of difficulty in evolutionism and areas of strength in creationism? Thanks

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by RÃ*an - you said I made some "serious charges without any proof" about dating - which of the 3 points were you objecting to? I re-read all three points, and I don't see any problem with how I stated them.

Well, I guess you used correct english but the statements were unfounded and false. The problem is you provided no supporting facts for your statements of opinion.

[Lizra]

Wrap it up, baby!

I think the weak point in creation is the mythological God who did it all. Who, what, and where is he. (no, don't tell me! I've heard it before too....and I just can't swallow it! )

I think the strong point in evolution is the fossil record and DNA evidence. Evolution is a scientifically accepted tool used to explain how biological life developed on earth, not the creation of the entire universe, as the creation theory claims to do.

[Cirdan]

I had hoped you would address the more seriously damaging criticisms of some of your ideas. As it stands creationism is a intelletually bankrupt concept. You attempt to equivocate by saying creationism is just as short of facts as evolution. One large problem is that crerationism fails to explain what we see in nature and requires a great amount of ignorance about science. At least evolution works within the framework of reality. Even within this thread when terrible flaws in creationism are pointed out we just wander off to some arguement about the semantics and avoid the obvious conclusions.

Evolution may take too many kinds of scientists to explain properly for many people, but creationism only requires one to be proved false. Evolution may have open questions but it does not have the fatal flaws that creationism has.

I am not critquing relion or deism or theistic evolution, only the various pseudo-sciences referred to by the "creationism" label. It is still obvious that no "creation scientist" has even produced one iota of legitimate laboratory or field study work. Every "theory" turns out to be some armchair fantasy packed with twisted, second-hand facts and outright fabrications. During our dialogs my view on evolution has only strengthed due to the amount of research needed to understand just how wrong creationism can be.

I'm open to the idea of a creator, a grand design, etc., but I reject outright that which elevates dogma over observation. I can't accept the idea that god could somehow be limited by a book. That makes it come down to which man-made version of god you're rooting for.

Evolution asks you to see between the facts; creationism asks you to ignore them.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Well, I guess you used correct english but the statements were unfounded and false. The problem is you provided no supporting facts for your statements of opinion.

Good grief, Cirdan - "correct english"?! I wasn't asking you for a critique of my writing style! By my statement of "I re-read all three points, and I don't see any problem with how I stated them", I meant that I re-read them to see if I accidentally misstated what I meant to express, and I was happy with how I had stated them.

So just to be really clear, I'll quote what I wrote:

from an earlier post by the loquacious RÃ*an
(But please remember that different dating methods (1) are ALL based on extrapolation, which is a dangerous technique that can be highly inaccurate; (2) can give greatly different time values, which doesn’t say much for their accuracy, and (3) are based on the assumption that the time periods involved are large. These dates assigned to the different layers are not as hard and fast as popularly believed.)

Then YOU wrote:

by Cirdan
You have made some serious charges without any proof. Geological dating methods agree quite well with one another. Statigraphy, observed rates of deposition, superposition, etc were used for years to estimate the ages of sedimentary formations. These turned out to correlate well with radiometric dating and the other methods used. Nothing anyway in the geologic record reflects the short time table given by a literal reading of the creation event.

However, I don't see how you can say any of my 3 points, or my concluding sentence, are incorrect.

Point 1 - How can you deny that dating methods are based on extrapolation, or that extrapolation can be highly inaccurate?

Point 2 - How can you disagree that different dating methods yield different dates? Are you claiming that the many, many different dating methods all give pretty much the same date for different samples?

Point 3 - Isn't this true? If there is not direct measurement involved, there MUST be some assumptions - one very obvious one would be that it is assumed that the decay rates remain constant as one extrapolates back in time millions and millions of years, and back into an environment that has been proposed to be very different in areas such as radiation and atmosphere.

Conclusion - It is correct to conclude that the dates are NOT "hard and fast". How can it NOT be correct to conclude this, especially considering that figures of the estimated age of the earth have changed?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Lizra
Wrap it up, baby!

I think the weak point in creation .... I think the strong point in evolution is ...

No, Lizra - you got it backwards - I was asking those who believe in evolutionism to share what they think is the STRONG point in CREATIONISM and the WEAK point in EVOLUTIONISM.

I believe in creationism, and I shared what I thought was its weak point and what I thought was the opposing view's strong point. I'm asking those that believe in evolutionism to share what they think evolutionism's WEAK point is and what the STRONG point is in the opposing view, creationism.

Yeah, I'm about ready to wrap!

[Rían]

Originally posted by Cirdan
I had hoped you would address the more seriously damaging criticisms of some of your ideas.

*is he actually asking me to post MORE?! What, I haven't posted enough? *

OK, Cirdan, pick a topic and I'll address it, except for the layering of fossils, because as I stated, I think that's the weak area and there is not much behind that particular mechanism idea and I'm getting tired of looking things up.

As it stands creationism is a intelletually bankrupt concept.

I disagree; I gave a lot of good info in my mega-post.

You attempt to equivocate by saying creationism is just as short of facts as evolution.

What??? What about all the facts I posted? Yes, I think they are both short in some areas, but in the areas that ARE there, I think creationism is better.

One large problem is that crerationism fails to explain what we see in nature and requires a great amount of ignorance about science.

No offense, Cirdan, but I would say exactly that about evolutionism. We see boundaries in change that support creationism; we see the operation of thermodynamics that supports creationism, etc. Please refer back to the mega-post. Evolutionism sees boundaries in change and says that there ARE no boundaries and fish-types can change to people; evolutionism sees thermodynamics and tries to get around it by saying the sun has lots of energy but they have no mechanism to say HOW it circumvents the 2nd law; etc.

At least evolution works within the framework of reality. Even within this thread when terrible flaws in creationism are pointed out we just wander off to some arguement about the semantics and avoid the obvious conclusions.

And what about the terrible flaws in evolutionism? I haven't seen lots of answers. Again, point out something besides fossil layering and I'll address it. What about the many points I HAVE addressed?

Evolution may take too many kinds of scientists to explain properly for many people, but creationism only requires one to be proved false.

I have no idea what you mean by this - could you please explain?

Evolution may have open questions but it does not have the fatal flaws that creationism has.

Oh yes it does; see mega-post.

Every "theory" turns out to be some armchair fantasy packed with twisted, second-hand facts and outright fabrications.

but I reject outright that which elevates dogma over observation.

Yeah, like macroevolution.

I can't accept the idea that god could somehow be limited by a book.

Um, what? This is not consistent with what the Bible says (and I'm arguing internal consistency here) - If God inspired the writing of the Bible, how is He limited by His statement of what really happened???

Evolution asks you to see between the facts; creationism asks you to ignore them.

Evolution extrapolates wildly BEYOND the facts in too many cases. Creationism works with the facts.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
However, I don't see how you can say any of my 3 points, or my concluding sentence, are incorrect.

Point 1 - How can you deny that dating methods are based on extrapolation, or that extrapolation can be highly inaccurate?

So, millions of samples collected and tested reflect dates consistent with the dates estimated by supra-postion, relative process rates and with other samples but that is invalid becuase YOU call using the radioactive decay rate as a constant "extrapolation?" I guess that is some kind of epithet even if it doesn't apply.

Point 2 - How can you disagree that different dating methods yield different dates? Are you claiming that the many, many different dating methods all give pretty much the same date for different samples?

Do yuou mean that some methods of dating the age of the earth yeild a age of 4.51 billion years while others yield a age of 4.52 billion years? I have yet to come across SIGNIFICANT differences in dating method results (although the french restaurant yields better dating results than McDonald's). YEC requires variation on the order of 10 to the fifth to even be in the ballpark. No such discrepancy exists.

Point 3 If there is not direct measurement involved, there MUST be some assumptions - one very obvious one would be that it is assumed that the decay rates remain constant as one extrapolates back in time millions and millions of years, and back into an environment that has been proposed to be very different in areas such as radiation and atmosphere.

So it should be easy to create an experiment that would prove that the decay rates could be accelerated under conditions were life could still exist, right? Gee, you think someone would have tried that by now.

Conclusion - It is correct to conclude that the dates are NOT "hard and fast". How can it NOT be correct to conclude this, especially considering that figures of the estimated age of the earth have changed?

Since they have changed please tell us, do you think they are getting less accurate? Is there any factual evidence that shows that the dates are wildly innaccurate?

An still we see no examples of inexplicably uncorrelated dating methods that show the earth is actually very young...(stands next to mountain of data that points to a very old earth)

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
*is he actually asking me to post MORE?! What, I haven't posted enough? *

Nobody's put a gun to your head (I hope)

OK, Cirdan, pick a topic and I'll address it, except for the layering of fossils, because as I stated, I think that's the weak area and there is not much behind that particular mechanism idea and I'm getting tired of looking things up.

Now that's no attitude for a seeker of truth.... That layering thing is a fatal flaw in the creationist idea so if you don't fill that hole the whole ship sinks.

What??? What about all the facts I posted? Yes, I think they are both short in some areas, but in the areas that ARE there, I think creationism is better.

Ummm... not so much facts as characterizations, suppositions, and opinions. Facts would be something like "scientists have confirmed that radiometric dating is flawed due recent studies of volcanic formations in east africa by Dr, Hossenpfeffer and a team of researchers. The data has been confirmed by several other independent reseasrch teams" and not "it's extrapolation so it must be wrong."

We see boundaries in change that support creationism; we see the operation of thermodynamics that supports creationism, etc.

This is what is annoying me to no end. There is no barrier to biological change. You just say "there must be 'cause...". SHOW ME THE BOUNDARY! You gave a homily about a dog breeder like that has anything to do with change over millions of years. And the thermodynamics bit has been debunked in this thread yet you bring it up again. There are energy sources feeding into the system (solar, chemical, electrical, geothermal) so it doesn't fly. Adding energy to a system is EXACTLY how it gets from a lower state to a higher state so that entropy can occur. Otherwise everything would already be at its lowest state.

And what about the terrible flaws in evolutionism?

What ever flaws evolution has are flaws of ommission where evidence is sparse. There are no fatal flaws that render the theory invalid. Creationism has many fatal flaws such as the age of the earth, the fossil record, lack of actual evidence for it's main premise (the creation event). Your "mega-post" contains nothing that points to a fatal flaw in evolution. The "Cambrian Explosion" is no problem for evolution. Your ideas about limits to change and genetic diversification are quaint but hardly scientific. You say radiometric decay rates might vary but biological mutation rates don't? Seems like logic would tell us that DNA could be exposed to greater stresses and is known to mutate under stess. Again there is no fatal flaw here.

I have no idea what you mean by this - could you please explain?

Creationists depend on the complexity of evolutions proofs being too difficult for the layman, so the simplistic creationist answer is mopre comforting. However, it only requires a specialist from any related field to prove that the creationist view of that aspect is flawed.

Yeah, like macroevolution.

Oh, and who has said that there is only one interpretation of the theory and that it is immutable? Dogma is the literal reading of a document of faith. It is the biblical literalists that lock themselves into the genesis story. Which book is it the the "faithful" reading the one true definition of macroevolution. Pulleeeze.

Um, what? This is not consistent with what the Bible says (and I'm arguing internal consistency here) - If God inspired the writing of the Bible, how is He limited by His statement of what really happened???

He may have inspired it but he sure didn't write it. Can you prove his statement wasn't misinterpreted or too complex for the author to understand? Doesn't the physical world stand as a better testament to what god is? Aren't there other different inspired texts of the subject?

Evolution extrapolates wildly BEYOND the facts in too many cases. Creationism works with the facts.

Well, someone took the time to write the above words so I guess they are fact.

[Earniel]

Originally posted by Eärniel
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*

I'm still hoping for somebody to clear these few things up for me. My apologies if it has been adressed and that I have missed it. I must be a little dense but it's still unclear to me how there isn't a visible difference between groundlayers that have been arranged by a flood and newer layers. I have this thought in my head that won't go away and that says if a flood arrayed all the fossils in those layers then those layers should have a distinct look or aspect that all the new layers are missing.

[Lizra]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
No, Lizra - you got it backwards - I was asking those who believe in evolutionism to share what they think is the STRONG point in CREATIONISM and the WEAK point in EVOLUTIONISM.

I believe in creationism, and I shared what I thought was its weak point and what I thought was the opposing view's strong point. I'm asking those that believe in evolutionism to share what they think evolutionism's WEAK point is and what the STRONG point is in the opposing view, creationism.

Yeah, I'm about ready to wrap!

Backwards? Silly me!

Strong point in creation......uh.....It's "fun" to believe in.

Weak point in evolution....uh....places where there isn't lot's of fossil evidence yet, I guess.

OK...It's a wrap!

[Lizra]

Originally posted by Cirdan
I had hoped you would address the more seriously damaging criticisms of some of your ideas. As it stands creationism is a intelletually bankrupt concept. You attempt to equivocate by saying creationism is just as short of facts as evolution. One large problem is that crerationism fails to explain what we see in nature and requires a great amount of ignorance about science. At least evolution works within the framework of reality. Even within this thread when terrible flaws in creationism are pointed out we just wander off to some arguement about the semantics and avoid the obvious conclusions.

Evolution may take too many kinds of scientists to explain properly for many people, but creationism only requires one to be proved false. Evolution may have open questions but it does not have the fatal flaws that creationism has.

I am not critquing relion or deism or theistic evolution, only the various pseudo-sciences referred to by the "creationism" label. It is still obvious that no "creation scientist" has even produced one iota of legitimate laboratory or field study work. Every "theory" turns out to be some armchair fantasy packed with twisted, second-hand facts and outright fabrications. During our dialogs my view on evolution has only strengthed due to the amount of research needed to understand just how wrong creationism can be.

I'm open to the idea of a creator, a grand design, etc., but I reject outright that which elevates dogma over observation. I can't accept the idea that god could somehow be limited by a book. That makes it come down to which man-made version of god you're rooting for.

Evolution asks you to see between the facts; creationism asks you to ignore them.

Oh, RAH RAH! (cheerleader Liz ) Thank you for taking the time to put those excellent thoughts into words. I might have to actually print that out!

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
[B]

Also, re "kinds" - why should identifying kinds be the "MOST important task"? I think we all have a pretty good sense of "kind" . And it's so painfully (to evolutionists) obvious and repeatedly observable that: kinds remain kinds

That's the scientific standard for creationism?
"a pretty good sense"???

Well, after half an hour searching on-line biology dictionaries I didn't find any entries for "kind", so biologists apparently don't have any sense of what a "kind" is.

Since, creationists maintain that a kind is the most fundamental category in biology, I really do think they should put forth an explanation of what it actually means and how organisms should be classified accordingly

(closest definition was "Kindred:A groups of organisms that have common ancestral time lines, and are therefore related in some way.")

And the mechanisms that seems to keep kinds in their kind include: breeding for traits involves loss of genetic info and loss of viability, and non-neutral mutations are harmful.

What information has a St. Bernard or fox terrier lost? and how has a Husky lost viability in the Arctic? Most domestic breeds lose viability for life in the wild because that's what we breed them for.






UK: May 9, 2003


LONDON - Mosquitoes carrying West Nile virus and a strain of malaria have developed a resistance to insecticides because of a single-letter mutation in their genetic code, scientists said.

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsst...0746/story.htm

How is not dying from insecticide harmful?

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Lizra
Oh, RAH RAH! (cheerleader Liz ) Thank you for taking the time to put those excellent thoughts into words. I might have to actually print that out!

Thanks, Lizra...

Horrah! My insomnia is paying off.

Nice outfit, BTW.

[Rían]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
That's the scientific standard for creationism?
"a pretty good sense"???

Come, GM, I didn't claim that was a scientific definition! I am arguing along the common sense lines here. And I think even without a super-specific definition of "kind", one can easily use COMMON SENSE and observation to see that kinds remain kinds.

Since, creationists maintain that a kind is the most fundamental category in biology, I really do think they should put forth an explanation of what it actually means and how organisms should be classified accordingly

Yes, that would be nice, I agree.

(closest definition was "Kindred:A groups of organisms that have common ancestral time lines, and are therefore related in some way.")

Interesting - "time lines"? I wonder why"time"? (just wondering, it doesn't really matter)

What information has a St. Bernard or fox terrier lost? and how has a Husky lost viability in the Arctic? Most domestic breeds lose viability for life in the wild because that's what we breed them for.

They've lost info for traits that have been "bred out" of them because they're undesirable to that particular breed. And it's well-known that purebreds are more susceptible to disease than mutts. And your last sentence agrees with this - and again, in the millions and millions of years that the main bulk of evolution occurred, there was nothing BUT "wild", right? So losing viability for life in the wild would NOT be advantageous, would it?

How is not dying from insecticide harmful?

Thanks, I"ll check out the link.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Eärniel
I'm still hoping for somebody to clear these few things up for me. My apologies if it has been adressed and that I have missed it. I must be a little dense but it's still unclear to me how there isn't a visible difference between groundlayers that have been arranged by a flood and newer layers. I have this thought in my head that won't go away and that says if a flood arrayed all the fossils in those layers then those layers should have a distinct look or aspect that all the new layers are missing.

Sorry, Eärniel, that's one area that I'm not up on, and also is a weak area, as far as research, in creationism, IMO. I'll try to look up some links.

I just re-read your post and as far as "new layers", if the new layers are laid down by water, too, then I don't know why they should look very different. Do you think they should? (just trying to get some more details so I can try to find a better answer)

Did you read my multiple post? If so, what did you think of all the other areas of evidence I discussed? To repeat yet again, I think there are strong points and weak points in BOTH theories, but creationism is better supported.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Now that's no attitude for a seeker of truth.... That layering thing is a fatal flaw in the creationist idea so if you don't fill that hole the whole ship sinks.

Seems like a double-standard here ... YOU can ignore many of my other points, but if I say that I'M unable to research into this particular area, then you shoot me down? When YOU have written an 11-page summary of evolutionism and/or geology and posted it here, and when YOU have posted as much as I have on this subject, then maybe I'll take that criticism seriously.

There is more than one truth in life that must be sought after by a truth-seeker, and seeking evolution/creation truth does not take up the vast majority of my life (nor does it yours, I imagine). There are more important things out there. This is a conversation among peers, and NONE of us here are PhDs. Several of us hold BS degrees, but only in ONE subject. I think it is a pretty valid request for me, personally, to say I am not familiar and don't have time to research one particular area, don't you? If you disagree, then I will just ignore you, because disagreeing with this would be pretty silly and unrealistic.

And I think that even counting the layering of fossils as a flaw in the creationism model (and NOT fatal, BTW - there has been a mechanism proposed, but there is not enough research in to support it or disprove it yet) that creationism is the better fit.

I'll deal with the rest of your post later - I started to deal with it, then saw I was misquoted by you yet again .... so it will take time to wade thru and find my original statements.

I WILL deal with this, however:

Well, someone took the time to write the above words so I guess they are fact.

Geez, Cirdan - you mentioned "insomnia" in your post to Lizra. I guess it made you cranky or something. Let's see, this looks like a double-standard yet again - YOU can post opinions, such as "Every "theory" turns out to be some armchair fantasy packed with twisted, second-hand facts and outright fabrications.", but when I post an opinion, you give me a silly line like "Well, someone took the time to write the above words so I guess they are fact."?

Riiiiight.

What do you propose - shall I preface opinions with "My opinion ->" so you can tell when I'm stating an opinion versus a fact?? YOU have stated plenty of opinions (many of which I disagree with) and I can easily tell they are opinions vs. facts.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Horrah! My insomnia is paying off.

If you count being mean to a fellow Mooter as "paying off", then I guess you're right ...