Modern creationism makes no sense

Post Reply New Topic

This is a good rule of thumb for separating the nut-ball theists from the sane ones: the sane ones will accept things like evolution and abiogenesis as being representative of God. The nut-balls cannot reconcile God and science, and resort to moronic positions like "Young Earth Creationism" and others that attempt to deny evolution.

Sad.

Sad. Indeed. people like this substitute the bible for facts.

ruveyn

Oh, I'm not saying that that God and science CAN'T be reconciled. Hardly. I think they CAN be in your own mind if you care to make the effort. I personally DON'T care. I'm always skeptical of anyone who claims they have THE answer when THE answer can't be found in the way in which they propose to have found it. That's why I like to challenge people to physically dig up things that are known to be unseeable or even physically impossible--more recently and more relevantly "logic." We "know" it exists, but how? I don't have THE answer for you on that, and most people who personally know me will likely describe me as somewhat unusual but reasonably sane. If you don't know the answer to that, it doesn't mean anything is wrong with you. But what I do know is we use this ethereal "logic" all the time and understanding the "stuff" it's made out of is irrelevant. It still IS.

I'm not necessarily DENYING evolution in any hard way.

Look at it this way: Hard science, at least they way some on this forum approach it, denies God. Ask why, and someone will say that there is no "proof" or evidence that could lead to "proof," whatever "proof" means. OK, fair enough. But then ask for evidence or "proof" that God does NOT exist... Now we run into trouble. There is no evidence either way. So cold, hard science tells us that God cannot be proved nor disproved. You can't squeeze out of a container, mix with distilled water, fill a test tube with the result, and place in a centrifuge to separate out all the components of divinity. So cold, hard science tells us God isn't falsifiable.

Turn that around on evolution, which seems to be accepted by many of us here as fact. Forget about abiogenesis or other origin-of-life theories that aren't concerned with evolution as understood in this contemporary period of time. A proponent of evolution will point to biological changes and even speciation that has been known to happen in recent history. OK. Fine. But what is the difference between microevolution, that is, adaptive variations and limited speciation that doesn't result in dramatic deviations from previous generations, and macroevolution in which new body parts or radically different species result? One can be observed while the other cannot. Ask a hard science person why the latter can't be observed, and the obvious answer is that the changes happen too slowly to observe in their completeness.

Ah, so now we understand that large-scale macroevolution takes too great a time to even be observable--not artificially in the lab (though this might unwittingly be taken as evidence of intelligent design), and not even in nature. Well, if it takes too much time to observe and we lack a time machine that could speed the process, then macroevolution must also be said to be "not falsifiable."

Do you see the dilemma? It takes a leap of faith to believe in it wholeheartedly. As some of you have said in regards to the opposite view, this relegates it to the stuff of fiction and fairy tales.

I'm not even going to touch YEC. Some claim the Bible provides a close approximate date for creation, but I've carefully studied Genesis from a more literalist perspective. Genealogies, the only means of determining any definite amount of passing time, tend to skip generations and only hit the high points. It does not give us, nor is it concerned with, any kind of precision otherwise, and should not be taken as a perfect, reliable way of gauging the age of the earth and the universe. My conclusion based on my reading of Genesis is that the universe is probably older than 6000 years as far as I can know, and likely younger than millions or billions of years as far as the Big Bangers really know. Debate that if you will, but I personally just don't see the point!

"Proof" is an ideal that we never fully attain. Evidence, however, is a different issue altogether. Forget proof for now and just focus on evidence.

Do you seriously expect people to believe that the evidence against evolution is equal to the evidence for it?

Not the evidence. Just the way in which we examine it or think about it. If you're already predisposed to thinking about evidence as being in favor of evolution, then that is all you're going to see or believe. Likewise, if you're predisposed to thinking about evidence as being in favor of creationism, then, likewise, that's all you're going to see or believe.

You yourself admit proof is an ideal we never fully attain. However, setting out to prove creation or evolution is not the same things as, for example, proving that my computer exists. If you and I were sitting in the same room, I could pick up my notebook computer and hand it to you so that you could see it and prove to yourself that it does, indeed, exist. I'm not getting into the whole philosophical question over existence versus delusion, but under normal circumstances you would probably concede or agree that my assertion that my computer does, indeed, exist really is true. In that sense, you MAY have undeniable proof, because my statement regarding the existence of my notebook computer is falsifiable.

I can make other claims, as well, that may be proven. If you were here, I could make the claim that I have beer in my refrigerator. You could ask me how I know, without a doubt, that I have beer, since I cannot see inside my refrigerator from where I'm sitting. All I would have to do is ask you to open the door, look, and see if I have beer. You might even open a can and drink some of it if there is further doubt. Beyond that, there are more cans remaining, of which you can reasonably and accurately assume contain beer. Proof.

You could even tell your friends, who may or may not believe you unless they can prove it for themselves. Of course, I only have a finite supply, which sucks. When I run out of beer, I can no longer prove that I have any because to do so would be contrary to fact. A problem with the evolution evidence is that it has run out of beer. You have a few examples of adaptive variation, speciation that doesn't deviate from the original organism in any exciting way, and some really cool museum exhibits. But beyond that, you don't really have much.

Creationism, on the other hand, isn't bounded by the same limits. It's a bottomless well in comparison. It also answers more questions in a more comprehensible way. For example, the odds that life could appear ANYWHERE in the universe as it is are hardly likely. But take the Earth. You have just the right distance from the sun, just the right amount of spin on the Earth to get just enough sunlight for plant life to survive, the right amount of axial tilt to generate seasons above and below the equator to ensure that nearly the entire planet is suitable for life. The earth travels just fast enough around the sun that its orbit is stable, neither floating away out of the system, not crashing into the sun, nor colliding with other planets or lesser rocks like asteroids (it may have happened once, but WE'RE here aren't we?). The solar system itself hangs within our galaxy which in turn resides a safe distance from other galaxies and maintains an apparently friendly, harmonic gravitational relationship with the rest of the galaxies in the universe.

Abiogenesis is conspicuously and conveniently absent from evolution, likely more relevant to the study of chemistry than biology. There is no reason that all the right elements could have just magically, accidentally, randomly come together all at the right time at the right place underneath the right lightening bolt to begin the process for creating living beings.

The age of the Earth itself. 4.55 billion years, measured geologically as per our best guess. The earliest KNOWN evidence places the age of life at about 3.4 billion years, which suggests that its evolutionary origins began much sooner. Now, consider the probability that life could ever spontaneously appear ANYWHERE in the universe, much less on THIS planet, in this galaxy, in this solar system. How is it even likely, much less possible, that the earliest evidence of life that we can find dates back as early as 3.4 to 3.8 billion years ago? The Earth, solar system, galaxy, universe would have to be MUCH older for it to have happened by chance. Either life began at the same time as the Earth and the rest of the cosmos, something is wrong with our testing equipment and procedures, or maybe a little bit of both.

My opinion, taken on the evidence, is that there WAS no cosmic accident that caused the Earth to be nor the life upon it to be at the same time. With the actual evidence of evolution lacking, it very likely is indeed fiction. If the earth and the life on it happened so quickly, one after the other, it stands to reason that it could have been deliberately CREATED that way.

Now, I won't get into the finer details of creationism, but here you do have the groundwork for it. You may continue to deny creation and affirm evolution if you want to. I won't stop you. But understand that to do so is a choice you make. All I need for my own understanding is that creation is beautiful and miraculous, and I have no problem at all sleeping at night resting in the faith that the God who provides for me could easily have made earth and everything on it in 6 days. That makes perfect sense to me.

So far (keeping in mind the "Judge not" thing, I have to say that the creationists' concept of God creating light "in transit," is one of their weaker arguments for our ability to see faraway planets. In other words, when God created light, He created it as having already arrived here from the far reaches of the universe, so that Adam could see the stars. The problem with this theory is a new discovery about those faraway galaxies: they are smaller, and far less complex than our own. The ramifications of this are troubling even to scientists, because for the first time, there is a possibility that the concepts of evolution must now be applied to cosmology, which, until now, was abhorrent, and still may be viewed as such. However, the cosmologists are now stuck with having to deal with the possibility of cosmic evolution, whereas before, evolution was thought to be strictly biological. It's good to see them facing a new struggle - especially one they weren't expecting.

You're right--it's much easier to just say, "A wizard did it." You can explain anything that way, and it always makes perfect sense.



Isn't it funny how theists are always rushing to point out that science doesn't live up to the ideal of proof? It makes about as much sense as a high school drop out criticizing someone with a Master's degree for failing to achieve a Ph.D.

A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.

- Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15

The biggest mistake made by theists is in going to the trouble of attacking science in the first place. Being Christian myself, and believing in science, I see the two as primarily unrelated. It was the church that started this insane war, and that without necessity - anything scientific can be proved or disproved. The existence of God cannot be disproved - the two occupy mutually exclusive realms. One would think the theists would rest in that fact.

The Christian who attempts to use his Bible as a science textbook may as well be living in the middle ages. Scientific discovery does nothing to endanger my faith; my own personal faith does nothing to endanger science. However, the religious, by and large, have consistently sought to invalidate science, to the point of putting scientists to death when they dared challenge the authority of the church. Now, things have turned around - the church no longer has legal authority over the dissemination of scientific theory, perhaps one of the greatest turn of events in human history.

That's why it's so disheartening that some in the scientific community choose to conceal or alter data, as with the autism/vaccine scare, promulgated by Lancet (finally rescinded), or as in the case of some proponents of climate change - even many non-religious were put off.

It's a terrible thing when scientists act like the religious, terrified of being forced to abandon their precious doctrines.

It is NOT a fact. The earth's revolution about the sun can be demonstrated, especially in relation to other planets that can be seen to also revolve around the sun. The Earth's rotation can be demonstrated as the cause for the rising and setting of the sun and moon. The moon can be demonstrated to have a gravitational orbit around the earth.

Evolution can NOT be demonstrated. Adaptive variations and minor speciation CAN be, but not some silly idea about how monkeys turned into humans over millions of years. Sure, there are similarities. But similarities do not point to how they came to be beyond your imagination that they are linked.

It is also funny how a person who claims creationism doesn't make sense can't even make sense of his own science fiction. You posit as "fact" that evolution is a body of interconnected statements that are "thought" to cause evolution, and you dare to compare something that cannot be realized in nature OR the lab with something that can be, such as nuclear or chemical reactions. You don't know any more what you're talking about than what you think creationists do. I've even put forth "factual" evidence in favor of creationism, and I see it has been ignored or rejected already by Poke. So if one can ignore evidence in favor of something they don't agree with, what is so wrong or silly about me doing the same?

Hard science tends not to directly address God, some might say that it indirectly denies God, but whatever.

One could argue that proof that God does exist or proof that God does not exist both exist, not definitive proof, but certainly evidence sufficient that someone would say "this is proof".


We've observed radical changes in species though.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ion_2.html

"Researchers found that the lizards developed cecal valves—muscles between the large and small intestine—that slowed down food digestion in fermenting chambers, which allowed their bodies to process the vegetation's cellulose into volatile fatty acids.

"They evolved an expanded gut to allow them to process these leaves," Irschick said, adding it was something that had not been documented before. "This was a brand-new structure."

Along with the ability to digest plants came the ability to bite harder, powered by a head that had grown longer and wider. "

This was changes in physiology and the creation of new bodily structures.


Ok, but in some sense it isn't. The change in lizards is rather large and not just a minor incremental improvement, as the physiology, organs, and even social structure changed.

Even further, macroevolution is usually considered a theory explaining past events. This allows it to be falsified to some extent, not perfectly because sometimes evidence really doesn't falsify when it seems to, but certainly it is entirely possible that the fossil record rejects an evolutionary theory. (It is very unlikely though given that evolutionary theories existed before Darwin and were so popular of an explanation)


You mean as a dogma that can never be falsified in principle? I don't think anybody holds to evolution as an article to be taken on faith, at least faith outside of the faith most people have in the scientific process.


Ok, but I've mostly been hitting on the matter of the days. You can talk about genealogies all you want, but I am not arguing in favor of 6-10 thousand year creationism, but rather 6 day creationism. 6 day creationism is still not credible regardless of how long you want to say the universe lasts.

Evolutionary theories have extensive genetic evidence, fossil evidence, and observed mechanisms, and as such explain a lot and constitute a very good theory.


You don't know what you are talking about. Creationism has a large number of problems, in that it is a relatively ad hoc theory, that it fails to explain a very very large number of organism designs that are very questionable, it makes no sense given fossil evidence, and it can't ever be meaningfully falsified in any instance.


This is an issue of much debate and even you know should know it is an issue of much debate. A number of astrophysicists believe that another life-bearing planet is likely. Even further, if there is this creator, then why isn't the universe well-suited for life? It seems to me that if life was so precious to this creator, then the universe would be made to foster it, not to be unlivable for it outside of this single planet.


Yeah, it's not the same subject. Even further, areas where science hasn't explained everything aren't proofs of the impossibility of a scientific foundation. As for "there is no reason", umm.... your assuming that you are right to prove that you are right.


You've shackled a slew of assumptions together and I don't even know where to begin on this. Evolution and generation of life can rapidly occur though. Even further, you're assuming your own point on abiogenesis, but lack proof or evidence or anything else of anything, thus making a massive appeal to ignorance.


Yeah, except that the idea is stupid, and fails to explain poor design, unnecessary suffering, lacks parsimony, can never be falsified even in principle, and fails to account for the counter-intuitive nature of much of existence, such as psychology which does not follow from reasonable philosophical principles.


It isn't much of a choice really. You don't provide much reasoning or even a good paradigm for us to pursue and you don't see aware of the evidence of the other side. As for what makes sense to you.... honestly, I have a lot of problems respecting what makes sense to my fellow man.

A reasonable Christian--God be praised!



Agreed.

that argument is simply absurd.

you are in fact using logic to justify not believing in logic.
& you should know that logic cannot have physical proof because it is not in fact a physical entity. It is a a mode of intangible thought.

if you're trying to dismiss evolution in favor of religion by dismissing logic, then god too, by the same token must be false for there is no physical proof of him either.
The same can be said for emotions. You can say a smile is physical proof of happiness for example. But someone could also argue that to smile convincingly, while indeed physical, is not necessarily so much proof of happiness so much as just that that person is a good actor.

You don't have to directly see something like macroevolution in a lab in order to demonstrate it to be true. It's not only those adaptive variations and speciation you've mentioned. It's also the evidence from fossil records as well as the genetic evidence to back it up. All of these things put together collectively demonstrate evolution to be true. Also, the difference between macroevolution and microevolution is merely a difference in quantity, not quality. In other words, macroevolution is just a case of microevolution happening millions of times continuously over millions of years. Those small adaptive variations in microevolution which appear to be insignificant, nonetheless accumulate over time leading to the macroevolution.

My point, exactly, IS that it's absurd.

I'm not trying to dismiss evolution by dismissing logic. What I'm dismissing is the mistaken idea that some seem to have that only what you see is what you get. There are also a lot of funny ideas that ONLY evolution is valid and that there cannot be any evidence in favor of creation. I disagree. I say that there CAN be, and further I provided evidence for it. Doesn't mean people are bound to agree with me any more than I'm bound to agree with them.

The truth of the matter is you CAN arrive at evolution through logical evaluation of evidence. There are other conclusions that may be drawn also.

Others dismiss God on the basis of falsifiability (or lack of, rather). If that is so, it follows that logic also must be dismissed, and if logic is to be dismissed, that renders all decisions or conclusions based upon logic somewhat questionable. Emotions, as you pointed out, are the same way. I'm sure we can think of a lot of other things of the same nature. So if, indeed, we may "know" things such as numbers and emotions and logic, then we may attempt to ascertain such other things that may also exist that also lack the property of falsifiability, such as God or the Holy Spirit.

I think the nature of God as it pertains to the creationism/evolution argument is that of an entity that may either be believed or disbelieved. Something similar may also be said for evolution, not as an entity, but as a force of the natural world.