Creation Science?

[Tominator]

the difference on an argument and a discussion is that with a discussion both sides are open to the other sides thoughts on the matter, with an argument that doesnt happen and neither sides perspective on the matter has been changed.

Argument is the spice of life!

I claim friends that I hardly ever agree with...you for instance....

 

[SmackdownHotel]

Ah, once again the "we didn't come from monkeys" claim.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but nobody has claimed that man evolved from primates. Do we share a common lineage? Yes. But did we evolve from them? No.

 

[Maetryx]

I'd like to express my position, because it wasn't represented in the list of possible positions. I'm an old earth creationist. God created the universe in an event generally known as the Big Bang. God created life in a series of steps that is represented by the fossils we find now. His final life creation was mankind.

Men did not descend from any of the species that predate him, but was created by a special act of creation. Some speciation has certainly occured, along the lines of breeds of dogs, and maybe different kind of deer or what have you. But those mutations represent a loss of genetic information and adaptability for the resulting specimens.

This systematic creation belief addresses the ancient age of the earth, the surprising proliferation of distinct biologic eras and their sudden disapperances, and speciation.

Obviously, if a person has an atheistic worldview, they will interpret the evidence to fit their view. Everyone does that. But evolution is not well supported by the evidence. It is difficult to show that better species have arisen due to random mutations unless you are already inclined to believe that in the first place. Darwin predicted that tons of transition fossils would be discovered, and that did not happen. The fossil record is a complete embarassment to evolutionists. It matches pretty well with the Genesis account if you don't interpret the days as literal 24-hour periods.

 

[Cyberian]

Originally posted by: exp
Whenever possible I always post this link in every creation vs. evolution thread that pops up. It would behoove some people here to read through their FAQs before spewing garbage like it's going out of style.

Why is this particular LINK any more important or real than any of the other 500+ I can find using Google?

 

[Moonbeam]

The more recent bad news for literalists is that the universe was not created at all. It has always been here. Plenty of thie there for evolution if you were sceptacle before.

 

[exp]

Why is this particular LINK any more important or real than any of the other 500+ I can find using Google?

I don't recall saying it was "more important or real" (whatever that is supposed to mean). However, it *is* one of the most exhaustive sites on this topic and unlike most webpages it actually cites primary literature to support its claims. I find that almost without exception every "creationist" claim posted in these ATOT threads is addressed--often in significant detail--on TalkOrigins, and if they would simply take 20 seconds to do a search for it that would save us all a lot of wasted time.

 

[Maetryx]

Moonbeam,

If the universe is eternal (always been there) what do we do with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?

And if you're willing to believe that the universe was always there, why not God? God doesn't suffer from the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Science shows us that the universe does. It would have "burnt out" in the infinite past.

The eternal universe theory is totally bankrupt. Science points to a creation event, or a Big Bang.

 

[Ganryu]

Maetrix, what do you mean that different species represent a "loss of genetic information?" There are numerous examples where gene duplication, etc accounts for the generation of new types of proteins, etc. It is of course possible for species to lose genetic information that isn't necessary for their survival, but in similar fashion to gain it by being selected for.

 

[petrek]

Yes, and pay particular attention to what is said about halfway down this page, in re circularity and how after stating it is catagorically wrong, then goes on to prove it is used abundantly if not exclusively.

I also particularily like the use of "absolute" dates when referring to fossil records and the age of the earth. Considering there isn't a Judge in the land that would even hear such a dead argument, I'm amazed the term "absolute" still gets bantered about by supposedly highly educated individuals when speaking of these dates.

That's all for now
Dave

 

[Moonbeam]

Maetryx, sorry but that bankrupt theory has been revived. It's the latest stuff. And naturally it's a lot easier to assume that the universe is eternal than created by something eternal. That's just adding one more unnecessary complication than is needed. And when you say that atheism says that something comes from nothing, that's what you're saying when you say the universe came from the big bang.

 

[her209]

Creationist don't belive in science yet everything they use believe is a direct product of science, even the printing presses that the Bible is printed on and the computer that they are posting with and the car that they drive to work everyday and the refrigerator that keeps them full and etc...

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Maetryx, sorry but that bankrupt theory has been revived. It's the latest stuff. And naturally it's a lot easier to assume that the universe is eternal than created by something eternal. That's just adding one more unnecessary complication than is needed. And when you say that atheism says that something comes from nothing, that's what you're saying when you say the universe came from the big bang.

One of the major question, and points, that I've always seen brought up in these discussions...

What is the original cause? Everything in our universe, everything, is based on cause and effect. Nothing happens without some sort of external stimulus, motivation or force. Absolutely nothing. Even if you ignore the Second Law of Thermodynamics, there is no logical way (currently) to explain the cause and effect cycle that we see with the sinusoidal universe theory.

What was the initial domino to fall?

<--- not sure of "Sinusoidal Universe" is a term, but thinks it would make an awesome band name.

<--- runs back under his rock and watches the thread proceed with minds greater than his.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: her209
Creationist don't belive in science yet everything they use believe is a direct product of science, even the printing presses that the Bible is printed on and the computer that they are posting with and the car that they drive to work everyday and the refrigerator that keeps them full and etc...

Some Creationists are complete and utter buffoons, moral and social hypocrites. So are that many more evolutionists. Your point?

It's an irony, yes... just irks me.

 

[her209]

Okay,... here are 2 Evolution questions for you theologists... one that is observable...

God created 1 man and 1 woman... why are there different races/color skins/etc? Of course that couldn't be evolution

Through interbreeding of 2 animals of the same species... it is shown that later generations end up weaker and sterile... ie, genetic fvck ups. So applying this to the Noah's Ark story, all the animals are fvcked.

 

[rahvin]

Obviously, if a person has an atheistic worldview, they will interpret the evidence to fit their view. Everyone does that. But evolution is not well supported by the evidence. It is difficult to show that better species have arisen due to random mutations unless you are already inclined to believe that in the first place. Darwin predicted that tons of transition fossils would be discovered, and that did not happen. The fossil record is a complete embarassment to evolutionists. It matches pretty well with the Genesis account if you don't interpret the days as literal 24-hour periods.

You had to bring me into this thread didn't you?

Athiesm != Science. Science = Science, Athiesm = Belief ie Xian=Belief. Do NOT equate science to a belief because it frankly points to complete ignorance of what science is. Do NOT even imply that scientists are atheists because they study certain theories and facts. Evolution in fact is INCREDIBLY well supported, in fact it has such a body of evidence that evolution is considered a fact. It has occured, we continue to observe it to occur and all of the biological sciences are based off it (modern medicine is a result of it). The fossil record is in fact the WEAKEST evidence of evolution, the strongest being molecular biology (a branch of study that most americans couldn't even begin to understand). But in fact the fossil record supports exactly what Darwin predicted and what later modifications to his theory supported.

And frankly in response to the title of this thread. Creation ISN'T science, it NEVER WILL BE. Frankly a basic understanding of the scientific method would be all it took to understand the simple point that Creation is outside the definition or proof of science and can never be refered to as science.

Even if you ignore the Second Law of Thermodynamics, there is no logical way (currently) to explain the cause and effect cycle that we see with the sinusoidal universe theory.

E=mc^2. But of course this neglects the quantum reality that particles can randomly appear and disappear. (thats where all the socks go ) Thermodynamics plays no role in the early universe. The laws of physics as we know them did not exist till after the bang, in fact the universe (space-time) didn't exist.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: her209
God created 1 man and 1 woman... why are there different races/color skins/etc? Of course that couldn't be evolution

I would say, probably genetic variations in each child, combined with moves to different climates/conditions/lifestyles/diets, would contribute to that variation.

Through interbreeding of 2 animals of the same species... it is shown that later generations end up weaker and sterile... ie, genetic fvck ups. So applying this to the Noah's Ark story, all the animals are fvcked.

Not sure about that one... going off of my guided evolution theory, I would assume that God had a hand in that variation. It is interesting to note, I have heard that every civilization that has records has a story, somewhere way back, about a "great flood" and the current age of humanity descending from a single man and wife that survived. It would be interesting to see the correlations regarding the animals. But, no, I cannot answer this.

I can't provide a complete answer to your questions, her, because I don't know the answer. I am not a biologist, chemist, etc, I am an economist, . But these are just some logical half-answers to that. Sorry I can't provide a more indepth answer.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: rahvin

E=mc^2. But of course this neglects the quantum reality that particles can randomly appear and disappear. (thats where all the socks go ) Thermodynamics plays no role in the early universe. The laws of physics as we know them did not exist till after the bang, in fact the universe (space-time) didn't exist.

So that's where my socks go! Is my missing underwear there, too?

touche on the early universe part, I hadn't actually considered that... something I hadn't considered... they're still trying to figure out exactly what those conditions were like in the first couple seconds or so.

It is still a valid argument, however, simply because the universe as we know it, and for however many years past, has behaved according to these rules; what event, law or timeline would cause those rules to break? Is it a gradual thing, that the laws gradually break down as time goes on, allowing these other rules to take over? Or is it a sudden point, maybe the universe just "pops" or something?

<--- wishing he hadn't talked physics with his uncle earlier today...

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Zakath15
I would say, probably genetic variations in each child, combined with moves to different climates/conditions/lifestyles/diets, would contribute to that variation.

That is the definition of evolution.

Creatures changing to "adapt" to the enviroment... ie, the weaker die off and the ones that are able to survive have children.

 

[Orsorum]

I'm aware of the definition of evolution.

I never said evolution, as a theory, was wrong. I'm just saying that it doesn't always happen unassisted.

<--- guided evolutionist to the core.

I busted out laughing when I read this, simply because I thought it was ironic. It's a quote from CS Lewis, "Mere Christianity."

Perhaps a modern man can understand the Christian idea best if he takes it in connection with Evolution. Everyone now knows about Evolution (though, of course, some educated people disbelieve it); everyone has been told that man has evolved from lower types of life.

I just thought it was cool that Lewis was a guided evolutionist, too... the greatest Christian apologetic for the last century, imo.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Zakath15
I'm aware of the definition of evolution.

I never said evolution, as a theory, was wrong. I'm just saying that it doesn't always happen unassisted.

Examples?

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Maetryx, sorry but that bankrupt theory has been revived. It's the latest stuff. And naturally it's a lot easier to assume that the universe is eternal than created by something eternal. That's just adding one more unnecessary complication than is needed. And when you say that atheism says that something comes from nothing, that's what you're saying when you say the universe came from the big bang.

I agree. One can equally ask who created god when asked who created the universe?

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Zakath15
I'm aware of the definition of evolution.

I never said evolution, as a theory, was wrong. I'm just saying that it doesn't always happen unassisted.

Examples?

I'll ask you the same question.

That's the issue. I can't provide any. There's the simple fact that whenever God intervenes in this world, there's no "scientific" evidence to support it; the very fact that God is supranatural negates that possibility.

It comes back to where I ask for proof of transitional life forms - not sure how well that's been covered in other threads. IMO, the mere fact that evolution occurs at all is a sign of God's hand. Survival of the fittest, yes, that makes sense... actual evolution? Not so much. I can see how you can derive the theory of evolution, looking at the fossil record (weakest support for it, I know) and other factors; however, actually seeing it in action?

I suppose that is what it comes down to. Evolution is simply the best explanation. I just have trouble seeing how the actual change can be made from a paramecium to a fish to a... yadda yadda. I know that evolutionary changes have been tracked - I am just saying that it makes sense to me that only a divine hand could make those changes.

But, of course, I am not a biology student; I haven't kept up with the latest advances in cellular evolution studies.

<--- pulling terms out of his a$$ now.

<--- runs off to get subscription to Science that he's been meaning to get for months.

EDIT: supranatural, not supernatural.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Maetryx, sorry but that bankrupt theory has been revived. It's the latest stuff. And naturally it's a lot easier to assume that the universe is eternal than created by something eternal. That's just adding one more unnecessary complication than is needed. And when you say that atheism says that something comes from nothing, that's what you're saying when you say the universe came from the big bang.

I agree. One can equally ask who created god when asked who created the universe?

And then you say, who created that someone? It's an endless circle - there is no answer, other than God or no God.

The only explanation I can come up with is an intelligent, eternal being. God is the first cause. Above matter and the laws that govern this fragile universe.

 

[sandorski]

Creation Science = Flat Earth Science.

Both Creationism and Flat Earthism is/was considered as fact by those who espouse(d) them. It wasn't until intelligent men observed certain phenomena then put forth contradictory ideas(Round Earth/Evolution) that the "science" of Creation/Flat Earthism was founded. Instead of being founded upon observed phenomena though, it merely sought to take well known "facts" and shroud them in an air of legitimacy(scientific jargon).

Now before someone points it out, there was no "Flat Earth Science", but there was a very strongly held belief in a Flat Earth. It's just that at that particular time in history, Flat Earthers thought they could stifle the scientific round earth findings through threats and simple name calling. These days those tactics only work on some of the converted, so a mimicking of science becomes necessary.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Creation Science = Flat Earth Science.

Both Creationism and Flat Earthism is/was considered as fact by those who espouse(d) them. It wasn't until intelligent men observed certain phenomena then put forth contradictory ideas(Round Earth/Evolution) that the "science" of Creation/Flat Earthism was founded. Instead of being founded upon observed phenomena though, it merely sought to take well known "facts" and shroud them in an air of legitimacy(scientific jargon).

Now before someone points it out, there was no "Flat Earth Science", but there was a very strongly held belief in a Flat Earth. It's just that at that particular time in history, Flat Earthers thought they could stifle the scientific round earth findings through threats and simple name calling. These days those tactics only work on some of the converted, so a mimicking of science becomes necessary.

I don't call science names, I just combine science with my religious beliefs, neither of which are necessarily mutually exclusive.