Can someone explain "Creation Science" to me?

[Elledan]

Noone can explain Creationism.

The only source is the bible, and that book summarizes it in a few sentences, without any details, supporting evidence or whatever.

To base a whole theory on such a source is totally unlogical.

 

[apoppin]

<<Which is probably why the evidence we have points to life developing in the seas first.>>

Napalm318, if the amino acids somehow reached the oceans and were then somehow protected from the destructive ultraviolet radation they would be inhibited by the water from forming more complex molecules.

<<WHO the FU(K said I wasn atheist??>>

Sorry, Valhalla1, I wasn't directing my answer specifically to YOU. Just to atheists in general (to THEM, I can't explain 'Creation Science').

<<apoppin: Carbon and Nitrogen are needed for amino acid formation.>>

Rakkis, I was referring to Dr. Miller's original experiment. It was rich in hydrogen, carbon and nitrogen. Hydrogen would not likely be found in earth's primitive atmosphere as he assumed nearly 50 years ago.

An atmosphere of ONLY carbon and nitrogen is not thought conducive to the synthesis of amino acids. Since hydrogen is ruled out, oxygen harmful and ultraviolet radiation present, what other possible composition of earth's primitive atmosphere would allow for life's precursors to form?

Interestingly, in Miller's experiment of passing the spark through his &quot;atmosphere&quot;, he saved the 4 amino acids he got only by removing them from the area of the spark. If he left them there, the spark would have decomposed them.

 

[Harvey]

Tominator -- << Notice that a self-proclaimed Lineral, Harvey, can only call names and demogogue those that belive in some sort of Creator >>

Hmmm... Did I post somewhere that you must be a lame putz who uses your ears for toilet paper on a daily basis because you believe in some deity? In fact, did I say anything nasty about anyone in this thread or on the whole forum?

Regardless of how little I think of you, it is not because of your beliefs. You are entitled to them, as ridiculous as I may think they are. You are equally entitled to your lame political non-reasoning. However, it is you who posted the demagoguery and name calling, even though you're too functionally illiterate to spell it correctly.

Your understanding of chemistry and biology is similarly short on a reality connection.

Do you remember the old joke that says &quot;Let he who is without sin cast the first stone?&quot; If you do, you must understand that it's a joke, because you obviously don't take it seriously.

BTW, since you clearly meant it to be a derisive comment (at least from your own dimwitted perception), exactly WTF is a Lineral? :Q

 

[Tominator]

Rakkis
You are making my point. For evolution to have a chance you MUST eliminate as many variables as possible. An ever changeing environment would negate nearly 100% of the mutations that evolution would need to be even remotely viable. In the environment on earth I think evolution would be nearly impossible. Too many changes in too short a time result in a failed experiment. The theory of evolution falls apart even without creationism.

 

[Rakkis]

apopppin: I never said that case the case. I said that those 2 elements were essential parts of amino acids. Once again.. the atmosphere was a huge sink of compounds that was not part of the inmmediate environment life first developed in. Even if it was not, how would nitrogen and carbon dioxide impede amino acid formation?

The atmosphere is not a glass instrument kept under controlled conditions with a constant highly concentrated energy form. It took millenia of random events and many many false starts for stable organic compounds to form.

Tominator: Your definition of adaptation and mutations are a little off. Mutations happen on a regular basis in all populations that reproduce sexually. That's the reason you're not of a clone of your father. You're thinking way too small.. It's all about statistics. When you have huge populations (i.e. billions of tiny protist-like one celled organisms) that have a very short reproductive cycle, these changes happen fairly quickly. We're not talking about an extra arm or hair instead of scaly skin. We're talking about single base pair changes in an organism's genome whenever its germinal cells divide. These changes sometimes make cells manufacture different amino acids which in turn form different proteins with slightly different behavior and so on.

Every single individual in a sexual population then is slightly different from all the others. Now let's say some change in the environment happens, some individuals will not be able to cope with the change. It's not the environment that selects against X trait. But it is those that are better able to cope with such changes that tend to reproduce more (again, think huge populations) and these traits eventually become more predominant in a population. Now compound these tiny insignificant changes over millions of years and you start to get really interesting stuff going on.

&quot;Too many changes in too short a time&quot; do indeed destroy entire populations because not enough time (think 20+ generations at least) has passed for the population to adapt to the new environment. However, the evolution of life on earth has been through millenia. More than enough time to become viable thourgh many changes in environment.

 

[apoppin]

Rakkis, everything we know tells us that the probability of life forming by chance as evolutionists describe is impossible.

And life forming by chance becomes more difficult to explain when we consider that it is not just HOW the first protein and nucleic acid molecules came into existance. It is how they work together that makes life on earth possible.

You are asking for an endless set of coincidences each occuring at the right time and in perfect conditions for life to have formed as you suggest. And NONE of this can be demonstrated in the laboratory.

Does this not take great faith to believe in life originating by random chance?

 

[sweetca]

i just read over this thread a few times and everyone made some good points. basically, you believe what you want to believe. some people will never change their minds, which in most cases isnt necessarily bad.

 

[Tominator]

Rakkis
All opinion and no fact. Irregardless of our bantering back and forth, I still maintain there is no sound Scientific Proof that evolution is possible. This has been covered time and again in various other threads by myself and others.

If it only took 20 generations, give or take 20, to 'adapt,' it seems it would be very easy to prove Evolution is not a theory. As it is, we have zero evidence, fossilized or otherwise, to give even the most remote chance that evolution is fact.

When variables, such as oxygen presence, are thrown into the mix the chances of evolution become much more remote. Anytime another variable is introduced the chances of successful adaptation will be decreased and not increased, and the variables are almost infinite.

Harvey
You continue to add zero to any discussion regarding any post with the smallest reference to belief in a diety or god. You have a history of this. Instead of bad-mouthing anyone with opinions different than your own, why not try to explain your opinions with some kind of argument rather than your constant foaming at the mouth. You have constantly proclaimed loudly and proudly that you are both an atheists and a liberal. It is YOU that put those tags on yourself and not me. Typically you quote the Bible without even a hint of what it is about and just as your political views do, ignore the intent and meaning of the laws and the intent of those that have written it.
I've never claimed to be a 'Chemists,' but I need not have that title to realise that not everything written by one is absolute fact...most assurdly on the subject of the Theory of Evolution.

 

[apoppin]

I forgot to add this regarding a carbon and nitrogen atmosphere.

I was quoting from John Horgan in New Scientist (1991) who explained that the hydrogen-based molecules in the atmosphere (so crucial to Miller's amino acid-producing &quot;atmosphere&quot; experiment) would have been destroyed by uv solar radation and an atmosphere of carbon dioxide and nitrogen &quot;would not have been conducive to the synthesis of amino acids and other precursors of life.&quot;

We have absolutely no evidence that the primitive atmosphere was reducing, yet evolutionists insist it had to be because life somehow formed (which it could not have in the presence of oxygen).

Talk about your &quot;circular reasoning&quot;. Where is the &quot;scientific method&quot; here?

 

[Whitedog]

Tominator
Thanks for the comments on Harvey, I thought I was going to have to say a few words about him myself, but you just summed it up perfectly. Take a hint Harvey! Try acting your age if you can.

Here's something else I want to comment on:
<<To everyone: Life through evolution just like faith in God are just theories. And as theories they cannot be &quot;proven&quot; but only supported by evidence. Saying things like &quot;God doesn't exist because why would he do X&quot; and &quot;No. Evolution is wrong because God can do such and such thing&quot; is self defeating since neither are statements of fact but opinions.>>

Uhmmm, Theories are NOT supported by &quot;evidence&quot;, they are supported by &quot;optinions&quot; That's what make them theories. Too many times people present so called &quot;evidence&quot; to support their theories, when someone else can take that same &quot;evidence&quot; and show that it could mean something else, which leaves the so called &quot;evidence&quot; as just an optinion.

I'll let you in on a secret about God also. God can neither be proven, or disproven. It's his way. If your not a believer and have to be proven that God exist, you'll be in the dark the rest of your life...
For those of us who are believers and &quot;know God&quot; because we have been saved. We don't need any proof because we &quot;know&quot; God exists... and when someone asks us to &quot;prove to them&quot; God exists, well, too bad, we can't. That's just how God works.

You can scream as loud as you want that God doesn't exists and that believers are complete idiots for believing.. doesn't matter to me.

If there was one person that was going around telling everyone that he saw a 300 foot long snake in downtown New York City and it dissapeared into the sewers, and NO ONE ELSE ever saw it, they would think he was nuts and admit him to a psychic ward... But if there were 300,000 people that swear they saw it too, you really couldn't call that one man crazy, you probably would think it was a legit story.

It's funny that Hundreds of Millions of people all over the world claim they &quot;know God&quot; and that he does exist, yet as many people claim they are all crazy and brainwashed? Yea, Right!

 

[Fiddy]

Answer me this. The speed of light is a known constant, this Picture shows galaxies 13 to 14 billion light years away (the red ones). How could the universe be only 6000 years old if this happened that long ago? Or, better yet, this question. The distnce from Recife Brazil to the west coast of Cameroon in Africa is about 3200 miles as the crow flies. If the universe is only 6000 years old, does this mean that the two continents traveled apart from one another at the approximate rate of TWO MILES A YEAR ?Makes 'ya wonder, huh? I don't think we will ever know for certain were we came from or how life originated but when I look at that photogragh, (there are over 1500 galaxies in it) you have to keep an open mind.

 

[apoppin]

Fiddy, where do you get &quot;the universe is 6,000 years old&quot; from? Certainly NOT the Bible.

It very clearly states &quot;In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.&quot; (Genesis 1:1). AFTER THAT it goes on to talk about the 6 Days (NOT 24 hours each - rather thousands of years each) spent preparing the earth for man's habitation.

You are attacking your own fantasy.

 

[Whitedog]

apoppin, you have nothing to base your claim on but &quot;opinion&quot;, stop quoting it as facts in the bible.

You're opinion is only shared by a small number of people. &quot;Most&quot; people believe that creation days are 24 hour periods, at least after the 3rd day.

You're one verse of scripter (which is the most misquoted verse in the bible) you use to support your &quot;thousand year day&quot; theory, is only an opinion shared by you and few others.

2 Peter 3:8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

... Not a thousand years. but &quot;Like&quot;

And, he's not talking about creation days either, he is talking about the time it will be &quot;when the Lord returns&quot;

 

[Whitedog]

apoppin, You say we are living in Day 7. I heard you say this. OK then, when did day 6 end, and day 7 begin?

 

[apoppin]

Whitedog, quit saying a majority of Bible students believe in the days of creation as 24-hours each. You don't know that.

At the very least, the scripture I quoted shows that God is not limited to the human 24-hour day.

After God created the first man and woman, the 6th day completed. (Genesis 1:31). Each of the 6 days says the same thing &quot;There came to be evening and there came to be morning a (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th) day.&quot;

The Bible NEVER states the 7th day completed (as it so carefully stated 6 previous times). We are told on the 7th Day God rested from his creative works. The Bible then makes many references to entering into God's rest.

So, each day could NOT have been literal 24 hour days - rather God's Days - thousands of years each.

Now, I challenge you to show me where each day was a 24-hour day using only the Bible and logic.

 

[apoppin]

Further, Whitedog, do you not believe the universe including the earth was created BEFORE the 6 creative days?

The Bible clearly states &quot;In the Beginning, God created the heaverns and the earth.&quot; The earth could be billions of years old (or not) - but the Bible doesn't state.

Genesis goes on to state &quot;the earth proved to be formless and waste&quot; THEN Day 1 begins. (Genesis 1:1-3).

Or, are you of the opinion that the earth itself is only about 6,000 years old?

EDIT: Do not say &quot;most&quot; people believe your way as any basis for what you think the Bible states. MOST people believe evolution.

 

[Whitedog]

Well, I don't know what translation you are using.. Gen 1:31 is worded completely different in mine (NIV).

Whatever, I'm not going to argue with you about it anyway... You go on quoting your &quot;facts&quot;... as you will anyway no matter what I say.

 

[Whitedog]

I, unlike you, don't limit God.

 

[Whitedog]

Question, what denomination are you apoppin?

 

[Whitedog]

I'm not questioning or trying to bash you, just trying to understand your teachings...

 

[apoppin]

Then quote your translation, Whitedog.

The American Standard Version of Genesis 1:31 states: &quot;And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day.&quot;

This was stated immediately after God created the first human pair (Genesis 1:27-30).

Chapter 2:1-3 says that on the 7th day, God rested &quot;from all his work&quot;.

It doesn't say the 7th day ended.

Please, feel free to use ANY Bible translation to support your viewpoint that the 6 days of creation were literal 24-hour days.

I doubt that ANYONE can.

 

[Pyro]

The situation goes like thisL

evolutionists (and most 'new earth creationists') want to seek the truth. They are not content at someone quoting an old book and saything this is how it is, they out and and gather evidence and try to form belivable theories. If you are interested in astronomy or physics and read news, almost everyday it seems that someone has discovered/found something that makes no sense. Just over 100 years ago no one thought quantum mechanics was real, and now in such a short time we are about to start building computurs on based on this concept, which still seems unbelivable to most (ie, that a particle can exists in two states at once).

creationists are content at reading the bible and beliving it.

but tell me, which is more credible? the bible or science? science is resposible for our high stadards of living, santitation, our civilization.

let me quote something from the bible:

&quot;(genesis)19:26
But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.&quot;

if someone might explain to me how a woman can become nothing more than Sodium Chloride (or any other salt variant) just by looking at something, I would be happy. The bible is full of vagueness and absurdity like the above, which greatly discredits it.

 

[Whitedog]

again, Whatever! Seems we see this eye to toe, so why bother.

 

[apoppin]

<< I, unlike you, don't limit God. >>



Well, that certainly looks like a putdown. How am I limiting God? I am just quoting from the Bible. You - on the other hand - are limiting Him to 24 hour days - man's measurment of time (not his)

I am just a simple Bible student. I am associated with no denomination.

I only use the Bible to interpret the Bible. You have provided no scriptural support at all for your viewpoint. I would be glad to believe as you do if you could show me from the Bible.

I am very open to what you have to say - just use the Bible to support your ideas.

 

[apoppin]

Pyro, you don't want to know ANYTHING about the Bible. You are content to ridicule.

Athanesius spent a lot of time answering your questions - your answer to him shows you didn't even consider his answers.

I am not content to remain ignorant of science. Evolution is not Science.