Modern creationism makes no sense

Post Reply New Topic

I'm not claiming that the bulk of the scientific community are a pack of idiots. I'm just saying that certain areas of scientific study and exploration could use a little revision, that's all.

Also, evolution cannot be DISproved, either. Believe it or not, I do recognize that. The things I struggle with are those little things that people make too much of. While for many things evolution seems to be the best explanation, its greatest drawback (in my view) is that it is regarded as absolute fact when there are some gaping holes in evolutionary thinking. We may seek to avoid circularity and presupposition in scientific thought, but ultimately it is unavoidable.

What is ultimately important, however, is what you do with the information. Can you accept what science has to say in ONE theory? Or do the holes in it leave just enough doubt that you can't abandon your own presuppositions? For the most part I do have a lot of respect for the scientific community. Sure, I took the same A&P, biology, chemistry, and geology as well as the required algebra and geometry classes as most do. I'm aware of how all that stuff works. But I also have my own mind to make up, something that no teacher or pastor can do for me. If evolution makes perfect sense to you, GREAT. If creationism makes perfect sense to you, GREAT. But what REALLY doesn't make sense here is adopting a superior attitude of one over the other on the basis of "evidence." There are obvious problems with both. My personal feeling on this based on my experience is that creationism can and does make sense if you presuppose it to happen. It's possible to presuppose a lot of the foundational elements of evolution, but it seems to me this happens at the detriment of purely objective scientific inquiry (circular arguments). In my view, if God is the Creator, then everything else DOES make sense, including much of the scientific world.

Ok, but you're giving excuses and not even giving a real defense. Is this only a matter of indoctrination? Umm.... I kind of doubt it, I've believed all sorts of things throughout my life, from fascism to anarchism, so I doubt that this is a matter where I am too mentally inflexible to see your position. You still are bluffing.

Now, is there anything wrong with "saying something doesn't make sense and instantly attacking it when someone does defend it"? No. Not at all. Someone defending it does not mean that something makes sense and pressing the attack until we start to see the sense seems totally sensible. That's part of the idea of arguing an idea in the first place, because both sides will have to develop their arguments and positions.

As for "objectivity". 1) That isn't necessary, the real question is adaptability to new information. 2) Being passionate does not reduce one's ability to find information, and a passion for knowledge is often important. 3) The only proper response to idiocy is fire. Sadly, it doesn't go through a computer screen very easily and I've lost too many monitors trying to get it to go through.


I've already pointed out in the past that Genesis 1 mentions morning and evening. I've also pointed out that in Exodus 20:11 that the Sabbath represents the 7 day of creation, an analogy that makes less sense if we assume the vague term "age".


Yes, yes it does. As does cosmology. As does geology.


Yes, it makes perfect sense. Evolution explains some things, and other things belong to other theories. If phenomena aren't similar then demanding the same theory explain all of these phenomena just makes no sense, even if the theories have some overlap in our understandings and narratives. It's like complaining that the mechanics of the functioning of a car is deficient because cars use some electrical systems, such as the battery and other things.


Zoology. It works with mostly the physiological functionings of an animal. Might need some chemistry, but conceivably some branches might never invoke chemical explanations at all.


Well, except that it isn't. The first cell could have come from anywhere. It could have been placed by aliens that defy all laws of logic. It could have been a result of a drunken party by the gods. (plural) The list can go on and on, but we know about evolution occurring regardless of how the first cell got here.


It's not a hole. We've told you before that you are expressing an atrocious understanding of the issue, and you are. Your position isn't a position, as in some intellectually defensible idea, but rather it is nonsense, and literally an error. (rather than a mere disagreement)

Ok? But who cares. It is irrelevant to the occurrence of evolution. Technically there is a position called "theistic evolution" where God plays a role in the process in some vaguely defined manner. This idea still opposes both young and old earth creationism, but boom, it fills the gap.


Doesn't have to be proven. Proof doesn't even really exist in science. Not only that, but frankly, just because we haven't found a solution yet doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. Nature literally had millions of years to figure something out, and we've only had like less than a century.


You say that abiogenesis can't happen, but now you say it can, and somehow you pull out the probability of "highly improbable" even to the point where you can give a time frame for this???? Did someone remove part of your brain when you were little, because this kind of reasoning makes no sense.


You don't really make sense, and frankly, you're trying to use ignorance to discredit a very powerful theory. That's stupid, we work from good explanations outward, not from ad hoc nonsense inward. If we have a good idea, there is no reason to poison it with utter BS.


Ok? And the overwhelming majority of evidence claims that the Earth is that old.

Not only that, but you're using a load of extrapolations that are significantly less reasonable than using radiometric dating. I mean, hell, we have the anthropological evidence sufficient to show that human life is more than 5000 years old. This is actually mocked by the Onion. http://www.theonion.com/articles/sumeri ... worl,2879/ And, just that fact alone is sufficient evidence that you don't know what the heck you are talking about, because most of the rest of your evidence is just as solid.


Umm.... yes, we do. Most scientists have rough estimates on the age of the earth. The reason why it is even a debate is because you are part of an intellectually dishonest fringe community that maintains its vitality by lying to its children, lobotomizing the intelligent members of the population, and generally burying its head in the sand on all issues, from Biblical Criticism to almost all areas of science.


Not really, any young earth creationist would just tell us that.


Well, yes, I know that presuppositions matter somewhat, but probably nowhere as much as fringe people like to pretend.

Umm.... ok, but the problem is that we use multiple materials and we find general convergence. If you check your answer using multiple methods, then the issue tends to be relatively clear. Just because there is a hypothetical problem that could occur, does not mean that it was what occurred, not only that, but if your idea is right, then there shouldn't be convergence because the radioactive decay of elements varies from element to element to a degree which would throw off estimations by hundreds of thousands/millions/billions of years. Which is to say that the time frame you are finding is smaller than our margin of error.


Wow, geologists are just completely arbitrary in their arrangement of the whole matter? Yeah... something stinks, but I doubt it is the scientists who have spent years, if not decades of their lives to make sure they'd do a good job.


Science is oriented around coherence.


You mean BSing. I mean, the "fact that 95% of all recorded fossils are marine invertebrates" has nothing to do with a 40 day flood. Not only that, but the story itself has more coherence problems than could be withstood. I mean, the dove leaves the massive boat filled with all of the world's creatures, and finds a tree branch that somehow is fresh despite the fact that if the flood just ended, there wouldn't be enough time for these trees to grow, and then all of these animals leave the massive boat and go across the world back to their homes, which for kangaroos apparently means swimming or maybe flying, and then the world recovers through massive incest. I mean, that's just ignoring the fact that a 40 day flood would require more water than the world has, probably require a downpour that would sink our massive boat, and would put so much pressure on the Earth's crust that it would probably break.


Right, because missing fossils is a horrifying issue in a world where fossilization is a rare thing to begin with.

And y'know, poor understanding of some elements of cosmology is just inconceivable given how well we understand Dark Matter.


You mean sitting in a cult, where you spew out complete garbage, pretending it is reasoning, and have effectively given up the ability to check yourself for internal consistency, much less explore other ideas? Yeah.... sure.... I'd rather never sit where you sit.


Ok, but the problem is that evolution still really isn't in the same boat. Posters here have already given things that do seem explained by evolution. Not only that, but... really, you're just giving out nonsense. I am sure that someone here has more of an extreme love of killing creationist claims, and I'll probably leave more of that dirty work to one of those people.

Well, AG, nobody takes the time to pick apart things they disagree with quite like you do, and by this point I don't care to draw out the argument any further. I was challenged to provide the evidence of which I was aware, so I did. Which proves my point--doesn't matter what is said for/against something. You either decide you like whatever suits your side or your personal belief, or you consider other evidence and change your position as you feel you need to. I'm finding in general people pretty much have their minds made up. You aren't inclined to change your mind any more than I am. You view certain things you disagree with as stupid by default, even when they are researched or well-reasoned. That is your prerogative, of course, and you are free to go along with the dogma of your choice.

Well, ok, but most of this is quite questionable as evidence.

I don't think this really proves anything though, you've made a lot of questionable claims as a basis for rejecting ideas that are significantly more sensible.

Well, yeah, I do have my mind pretty much made-up, because if 99.9% of the scientific community says X is true, then I don't think I even come close to the place where I can actually meaningfully question it. I don't even consider this dogma.

http://biologos.org/blog/would-you-like ... at-theory/
I might have already shared this blog post, but I think the author gets my position quite well. This isn't at the level of "dogma" this is at the level where nearly everybody who knows more than you or I do disagree with you tremendously on what is correct, and where you can't even begin to meaningfully dissent. I mean, in order for you to even maintain intellectual integrity, you have to believe in both a massive conspiracy theory and have an inflated view of your own ability to understand the issue.

Not true. See, that's what "they" WANT us to think.

OK. So what is your explanation for the observed fact that everyone better informed than yourself thinks you're dead wrong?

As a new Christian, the first time another Christian told me the Earth was only 4,000 years old, I laughed at him - unintentionally of course - pure aspie response. Besides, at first, I thought he was kidding. He was very offended and I begged forgiveness but I had never heard anyone say that before, and when I realized he was serious, I thought "Get away from this guy quick as possible, before I say something else stupid, like the book of Job might be a parable or maybe even a play." It certainly reads like one, but whether it is or not has no effect on my faith in God. As I've said before, the scriptures are nothing but words without the illumination of the Holy Spirit.

A person can be a spirit-filled Christian and still believe that God used a framework of evolution to fulfill His purposes. Why this belief would endanger or water down anyone's faith, I don't know. I think Christians spend too much time majoring in the minors. Why do we need to prove all this stuff anyway? It's not vital to salvation. I've said before that the church has only two issues: abortion and homosexuality, but I suppose there are a couple more that Christians waste their time with, putting B before A, in terms of communicating God to the world at large. It really doesn't matter HOW God created the universe, only that He DID create the universe, and all that is in it. I mean, we've just discovered that some genetic material found in plants is identical to genes found in humans and used for completely different purposes - all earthly life is interrelated. There is no doubt about that. God used the same "stuff" to create and organize all that lives on our planet.

So let me adjust the list: abortion, homosexuality, believing the Earth is more than 4,000 years old - oh yeah - and political activism. Even if the Christian had incontrovertible proof that the church has got it right on these subjects, it wouldn't make a bit of difference to the unregenerate.

The unregenerate mind is hostile to the Gospel. To those who do not know God, the gospel is foolishness. The natural mind is incapable of understanding the things of God, and hates the message of salvation by the blood of Christ. If these things are true, how will the Christian make an effective apology for the faith based in proving wrong certain scientific explanations? Will presenting that knowledge result in the salvation of anyone? I hardly think so. The church needs to get back to its true mission: Preaching Christ, living a life that is worthy of Him - a life that is enviable to those who observe the Christian and his behavior. A life lived in peaceableness, simplicity, walking with Christ in the Spirit, aglow with the "peace that passes understanding." Instead, the church tries to work through the power of politics - the worldly system that will pass away, a system in which the believing Christian does not belong.

The Gospel is simple. Nothing can kill the love of God. He sent his own Son among those who would kill him. Their very act of killing the Christ - the ultimate act of hatred against God - God used that act to reconcile the world to himself. He made Jesus Christ an offering for the reconciliation of all humankind, for the blood payment of their sins. Then, God raised his Son from the dead. In Him we die, so that in Him, we now have eternal life. This is the magnitude of the love of God. He did not punish the world for killing His only Son. Instead, he forgave the world, and Christ now offers eternal life to all who have been given grace to believe. Everyone who is saved is saved by the will of God. There is nothing anyone can do to be able to stand before God in his own good works - his own righteousness. As Christians, our righteousness is not our own. It is the righteousness of Christ within us. It is true that many Christians have fallen away from this notion. They act like they see themselves as better, and holier than other people. This is simply not true. The church needs to be reminded where holiness came from. However, although the church is imperfect, its God-given message is perfect. It is not the message of humans, but the message of God, that eternal life is yours when God reveals to you the true identity of His Son, the living Christ, the conqueror of death. God is able to reveal His loving nature to the world. He offers direct access to Himself through the Great Mediator, Jesus Christ, who loved us, and gave himself for us. How shall we reject this kind of love? How can we run away from the peace of a clear conscience before God? How can we turn our backs on a God who wants to know us, comfort us, and give us peace and keep us in close person-to-person relationship with Him? This is the Gospel. It is not the gospel of no abortion. It is not the gospel of no homosexuality. It is not the gospel of no evolution. It is the Gospel of Christ, Him crucified, buried, resurrected, and seated at the right hand of the Father. He is able to reveal all these things if we but ask. . .

My point exactly. Nothing is intelligible apart from God. So long as there is no incontrovertible proof either way, those who want to believe WILL believe, those who don't will justify their reasons in any number of ways.

Personally, I think it's impossible for anyone to "want" to believe. I think the unregenerate mind cannot even go that far - to want to believe. I'm of the opinion that the "wanting" can only come from the Holy Spirit, and that believing can only come from the Father's revelation of the Son through the Holy Spirit. The natural man cannot even desire God's forgiveness on his own power. However, we must continue to preach the gospel of Christ. Who knows whom God will touch? I believe we're long overdue for a deep spiritual awakening in this country - but the church has busied itself with futile arguments against the unbeliever. We don't need to argue these other things, which are trivial by comparison to the gift of salvation. Instead, we need to devote ourselves to being humble before God, repenting of our own sins, and then preaching the love of Christ and eternal life in Him. Arguing cannot serve the purposes of God. Declaring Christ crucified and resurrected for the forgiveness of sins is our mission to the whole world. Wouldn't it be great if the church went back to the days of having mercy on the sinner, the same way God had mercy on us? Perhaps then, we could communicate and connect with many more who do not believe.

Actually AG seems to respect things he disagrees with that are actually researched and well-reasoned, your claim of this seems deceiving as well as your claim of your views being like that (your reasoning has been demonstrated here to be fallacious instead) are deceiving as well. AG despises intellectual dishonesty not disagreement.
It has been demonstrated to you plenty of times that your problem is not your disagreement but your method of defense and arguments are the problem, so at this point, hiding behind the "you hate me because I disagree with you" crap, doesn't do any good which is an easy cope out and pretty much, dishonest.


The discussion has been entertaining though, I give you that.

I might be somewhat harsher in this discussion, however, I do feel like a lot of BS has been thrown at me. I will admit that scientific issues are somewhat outside of my area of expertise as well, which might hurt the issue, but then again, I don't think that they are your expertise at all, given that this is usually considered an open and shut case.

That being said, your sodium claim is addressed elsewhere, and the explanation given also shows once again, that your claim was based upon bad information.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD221_1.html

The Saturn ring issue is also questionable. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE240.html They could be younger than assumed. There could be a physical interaction that isn't being accounted for.

The retrograde motion objection actually is complete BS. Like, the article here outright says it is nonsense: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE260_1.html

The moon issue is also addressed. There is some question on constancy given that the continental structure matters. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE110.html As well, it really isn't a problem.

The earth slowing isn't an issue: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE011.html

The Earth's magnetic field is actually better matched with a linear model, and not only that, but the curve is historically very variable even switching poles. The list of assumptions you are making ends up being ridiculous given that you didn't even account for pole switching. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD701.html

So, there, I addressed all of your "fact" claims, and most of them were quite bogus. A lot of them used false extrapolations and only half of the proper considerations. Radiometric dating, on the other hand, is a lot more stable because even though flaws can occur, the physical constants are not very likely to change given our current information. (and I think I addressed other issues with your objection sufficiently to deal with the issue)

The circularity claim is addressed as well: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC310.html The mistake you make is to confuse circularity for coherentism. We adjust our assessment of information based upon other things accepted as true, this means that if evolution is already accepted as true, it can be used to make a more coherent picture out of our geology. However, geology didn't start assuming evolution and that much seems obvious. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD103.html I figured that your claim was just bogus, as it is at face value too stupid to take seriously, and I already pointed out coherence later when you identified the issue as circularity.

Even further your claim about transitional fossils is outright bs. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html The article gives a list.

From what I see, you don't have the first clue on what you are talking about. You are naively attacking an entire scientific body. And you aren't even an honest opponent.

I disagree with the argument that the time was unexpectedly short. I believe current estimates are that life appeared about 1,000,000,000 years after the earth formed, which while a fraction of the 4,000,000,000 years that have passed since, is still a long time. I do agree that it's impossible to prove that a creator wasn't involved - a omnipotent creator could always have set up the initial conditions of the universe for everything to happen as they did - but I certainly don't think the time was insufficient for things to happen naturally.

You make a few arguments for a young earth. I think it's great that you're applying your logic to the facts you're familiar with. I think there are a few extra facts you may want to consider before drawing your conclusions on these arguments.


Minerals are also removed from the ocean. For example, substantial amounts of calcium carbonate is removed by corals to form their shells, which become entire islands made of coral reefs.


The ocean floor passes downward in subduction zones to be remelted into the mantle.


Analysis of sedimentary rocks shows that the earth's magnetic field periodically disappears and reverses. We're just in another one of those cycles.


The rings may not be billions of years old - they may be recent captures or the result of recent destuction of a moon - though I think there's still debate about just how stable or unstable they are.


The current rate of recession of the moon is 38.14 mm/year. Even with a linear extrapolation, that's less than 200,000 km since the moon when it was formed, which is half its present distance from earth. The extrapolation that it would have been touching is incorrect.


The leap second is due primarily to setting the second to be too short when the cesium clock second was originally defined. The slowdown in the earth's rotation is much smaller. The day did used to be shorter a billion years ago, but only by a few hours, not by nearly enough for coriolis effects to prevent life.


Recent population increases are due to the rapid increase in farming efficiency due to the industrial revolution. Extrapolating those population increase rates back more than a couple centuries is incorrect.


There's a lot of scientific evidence, and all of it points to the earth being about 5,000,000,000 years old.

Well, since my HONESTY has been called into question, I'm not HONESTLY that stuck on a lot of evidentiary arguments. But thank you for being kind about it!

The thing with evidence, and I don't care which side you're on, is that there are always going to be problems.

Someone brought up forensics and saying some of the ways I've treated certain claims wouldn't hold up in court. Well, that's true to a degree. Take the O.J. Simpson murder trial. It was OBVIOUS that the guy was guilty. Such a highly publicized case, practically 24/7 reporting on it, round after round of evidential examination and witnesses, some courtroom theatrics from the defense, and the jury lets the guy go!

SOMETHING cast doubt on apparently solid evidence. Why? Is it possible O.J. really was innocent? According to the court at that time he was (not the civil suit later on, which made absolutely no sense to me--I got the impression that SOMEBODY had to go down, and I say if you lose, you lose. I'd hate to see court systems misused based on certain precedents like that, but then again, I don't know all the details of the civil trial).

If you think of it in the context of a trial, it is possible to show that many things CAN be called into question. As long as there are questions, there can be alternatives. How do I know that the truth isn't really a blend or hybrid of two opposites on the continuum, i.e. origins are explained by Special Creation and development of most species is through evolution? I don't KNOW. But what I CAN do, and what we ALL do, is make an assumption. That's the only way one can make sense of anything.

That's not something I'm just making up, and there's no reason anyone should be upset with that statement. To make a logical conclusion, you have to assume logic. To understand the God of the Bible, you have to assume the God of the Bible. The assumptions you make are going to shape what you believe about how other things are explained or how you relate to them. To deny factual evidence, either way, is to make assumptions on what is true and what is not. One of my favorite examples of this was when Al Gore announced that "scientists" discovered that the polar ice caps were melting at such a rate that they'd be completely gone in five years.

I have no doubt in my mind that there was some evidence that said "something," but some time has passed and the ice caps don't seem to be going anywhere. Also peculiar to me is how many in the mainstream media no longer talk about global warming--it's "climate change." And then there are the reports of certain areas having the longest/coldest winters on record, and then the "climate change" people come out to say that the reason winters are longer and colder is because the Earth is heating up.

Neither evolution nor creation are without their critics, each showing how the others' information is wrong. Compared with other patterns, such as Ptolemaic geocentrism which despite being mistaken STILL made accurate astronomic predictions, it remains possible that new information or even a shift in attitude may one day have a similar effect as Copernican heliocentrism had on geocentrism. There's no way to know at this time.

But then again, I'm still waiting for the predicted "Boobquake" to happen.

Not by me.


I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying you don't care about the facts?


That's not what I do. If I want to know the answer to a question, I dig for more facts until I know the answer. If it's not worth digging until I know, I admit that I'm not sure or that I don't know.

Observers are monitoring the situation closely.

lol

So I hear! Sadly, I've been most attracted to--how should I put this?--significantly small-featured women. So as per my situation, I'll never know. Keep me posted, though. That would be exciting news, indeed!