Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution

[Insidious Rex]

Sounds like a sly twist on the fear that many young earth creationists have about science (and particularly evolution) which poke massive holes in the literal interpretation of the bible. Creationists sometimes turn this argument around and say well if [standard scientific/evolutionary argument] can be shown to have errors or weaknesses then the whole thing can come tumbling down and the only alternative is the god model! And although Rian is usually more rational then that and doesnt usually come off as a literalist it is a huge joke to even think that errors in date readings could somehow directly lead to the proof that there is a god. I must have missed the logic jump on that one.

[Rían]

There is physical evidence to support creationism, as I listed in my summary post. Just to bring up one area - genetic data, IMO, strongly supports creationism. As I pointed out, we've done lots and lots of breeding, and as we breed to bring out characteristics, we find that genetic info is LOST, and viability DECREASES, and susceptibility to disease INCREASES, and the type stays the same. All of this supports creationism more than evolutionism.

---------------------------------

My use of the word "chances" was a poor choice. Obviously God either exists or doesn't exist; what I meant was the "chance" or "probability of it being true" in people's minds would increase if they admitted any problem areas in evolutionism. If people think evolutionism is just iron-clad true and proven, then they are less likely to consider the possibility of the existence of God, with all its uncomfortable implications. And that is a strong motivator to be biased towards evolutionism.

Really, the thought that it's a warm, fuzzy thing to think that God exists, and that's why people make Him up in their minds, is rather silly IMO, if you think about it. The idea that an incredibly powerful God who made the universe is also the One that put the moral law into our heart that we find ourselves violating continually and is also the One that is uncomfortably persnikity about rightfully punishing those who break the law is ... comforting?

It's more comfortable to think that you come from some unknown bit of goo and that there's no absolute truth, IMO.

But uncomfortableness shouldn't stop us from holding whatever opinion we think, based on the available evidence, is true.

(the comforting part of Christianity is that God has provided Jesus to pay the rightful penalty that we have incurred - if we choose to accept the payment with its implications. But the part before this is definitely NOT comforting.)

[Rían]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
And although Rian is usually more rational then that and doesnt usually come off as a literalist it is a huge joke to even think that errors in date readings could somehow directly lead to the proof that there is a god. I must have missed the logic jump on that one.

No, that's not what I meant at ALL, as I just explained. I'll go back and edit the post.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Last Child of Ungoliant
thank you for your time in reading this.
as i say, first time in this thread,
but i am an accomplished biologist, palaeontologist, palaeobiologist and archaeologist
but i have a lesser knowledge of geology

Your're welcome

But IIRC, you just turned 18, right? I don't see how you can be accomplished in all these fields (at least as far as university degrees), if that's the case, altho I don't doubt that you're well-read in the areas, if that's what you mean.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
There is physical evidence to support creationism, as I listed in my summary post. Just to bring up one area - genetic data, IMO, strongly supports creationism. As I pointed out, we've done lots and lots of breeding, and as we breed to bring out characteristics, we find that genetic info is LOST, and viability DECREASES, and susceptibility to disease INCREASES, and the type stays the same. All of this supports creationism more than evolutionism.

at best the above would say that we've got evolution wrong... it has absolutely nothing to do with creationism

and even if you buy creationism, the question becomes, "created by what?"

one god, two gods, a race of beings from an alternative dimension?

i have yet to see any evidence that points to the nature of this creator

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
at best the above would say that we've got evolution wrong... it has absolutely nothing to do with creationism

Part of creationism is that the created kinds are stable and do NOT turn into other kinds in the way that evolutionism DEMANDS happen (i.e., fish to bird or whatever the current guess is). This is predictive, and the data fits this prediction, and thus supports creationism more than evolutionism.

gtg ...

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Your're welcome

But IIRC, you just turned 18, right? I don't see how you can be accomplished in all these fields (at least as far as university degrees), if that's the case, altho I don't doubt that you're well-read in the areas, if that's what you mean.

i am well read in these areas, certainly up to, and beyond, gcse level, as i achieved a double A grade in my gcse's at 16, when i left school, but i haven't said i have any degrees.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Part of creationism is that the created kinds are stable and do NOT turn into other kinds in the way that evolutionism DEMANDS happen (i.e., fish to bird or whatever the current guess is). This is predictive, and the data fits this prediction, and thus supports creationism more than evolutionism.

gtg ...

nobody has ever 'guessed' that a fish turns into a bird, this is ridiculous, and an unscientific way to think. the point about stable genera is that they evolve and adapt to their new circumstances, unlike the unstable forms, who die out when they can't evolve and adapt

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Last Child of Ungoliant
i am well read in these areas, certainly up to, and beyond, gcse level, as i achieved a double A grade in my gcse's at 16, when i left school, but i haven't said i have any degrees.

Well, Chrys, for someone that is quite 'accomplished', I have many issues with your statements. Your Green/Brown species example is not an example of (macro-)evolution per se (as a new species has NOT occured), but rather an example of natural/sexual selection (a selection factor(s)), though it can be argued that it is an example of microevolution. The hair example would not strictly be microevolution, unless it effected the (frequency of the) rest of the population with reference to selection factors (after all, evolution is about adaptation). Rian is right - it's just genetics. Microevolution is small changes at the genetic level that change the population frequency. Also, it is rather simplistic to state that organisms die out because of being predated. Detrimental traits can also be breed out in the sense that sexual selection is a viable means of ensuring the survival of the animal, BUT detrimental traits are not always breed/selected out of the population as they can sometimes have positive effects upon the population (eg: sickle cell anaemia/malaria resistance).

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Part of creationism is that the created kinds are stable and do NOT turn into other kinds in the way that evolutionism DEMANDS happen (i.e., fish to bird or whatever the current guess is). This is predictive, and the data fits this prediction, and thus supports creationism more than evolutionism.

i know that genesis talks about the cretion of the world, but where does it say that evolution can not happen at some later point?

btw ~ evolution doesn't DEMAND change... many organisms have changed very little over an enormous period of time... instead it tries to explain why some have changed... it seems to me that you are not necessarily challenging evolution, but challenging the idea that organisms that inhabit this planet have changed over time at all, irregardless of the method... am i correct?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Well, Chrys, for someone that is quite 'accomplished', I have many issues with your statements.

as i say, i have only gcse level,
but these are all examples that we have used
in exam work, the same exams that i have double A standard in.
Of course, you have more knowledge, and i have (on many threads) stated how poorly i actualy word my posts, so i apologise once more, but i hope people see my reasonign, anyway

[BeardofPants]

No problem chrys. Just be a bit more wary when throwing around credentials. One of the first things my stage one human evolution lecturer said was, "Unlearn everything you learnt in High School, as it is all rubbish." Mayhaps a bit harsh, but you will see when you go to university, that high school education is grossly oversimplified. ::shrug::

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
No problem chrys. Just be a bit more wary when throwing around credentials. One of the first things my stage one human evolution lecturer said was, "Unlearn everything you learnt in High School, as it is all rubbish." Mayhaps a bit harsh, but you will see when you go to university, that high school education is grossly oversimplified. ::shrug::

got college first, start in september, taking 5 a-levels!!
keep me busy for two years, i suppose!
(either that or kill me! lol)

[BeardofPants]

G'luck Chrys, I'm sure you will do well.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Just to bring up one area - genetic data, IMO, strongly supports creationism. As I pointed out, we've done lots and lots of breeding, and as we breed to bring out characteristics, we find that genetic info is LOST, and viability DECREASES, and susceptibility to disease INCREASES, and the type stays the same. All of this supports creationism more than evolutionism.

That is not true. Genetic mutation occurs all the time, and new material is guaranteed to be introduced into the DNA gene pool. Also, these kinds of factors only really affect small populations to any great degree. Lack of viability, and susceptibility to disease etc are only a weakness in small population sizes where there is limited variability within the gene pool (eg Founders effect).

[Rían]

Originally posted by Last Child of Ungoliant
i am well read in these areas, certainly up to, and beyond, gcse level, as i achieved a double A grade in my gcse's at 16, when i left school, but i haven't said i have any degrees.

To me, someone that is "an accomplished biologist, palaeontologist, palaeobiologist and archaeologist" means someone with a college/uni degree in these fields, and typically some experience in a job, too. So I misunderstood you. Congrats on your good grades, and good luck at uni! What are you specializing in, or is it just general ed at first?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
To me, someone that is "an accomplished biologist, palaeontologist, palaeobiologist and archaeologist" means someone with a college/uni degree in these fields, and typically some experience in a job, too. So I misunderstood you. Congrats on your good grades, and good luck at uni! What are you specializing in, or is it just general ed at first?

i do have experience in these fields, having worked at digs around the country.
and I won't be going to uni for at least 2 years
i have got to go to college first,
and get good a-levels

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
i know that genesis talks about the cretion of the world, but where does it say that evolution can not happen at some later point?

In Hezekiah 6:10.


j/k! j/k! There's no such book as Hezekiah in the Bible, but it sounds like one, doesn't it!

It's based on the statements about animals reproducing according to their kinds. Also, that there was no death until man sinned, and evolution requires scads of death before you even get anywhere close to man.

btw ~ evolution doesn't DEMAND change... many organisms have changed very little over an enormous period of time...

It doesn't demand change for ALL kinds of organisms, of course - but for going from one-celled-thingy to man would certainly demand lots of change, IMHO. I have no problem with beak types changing in the population of finches in the Galapagos - and neither does creationism.

instead it tries to explain why some have changed... it seems to me that you are not necessarily challenging evolution, but challenging the idea that organisms that inhabit this planet have changed over time at all, irregardless of the method... am i correct?

No

It's only a subset of the changes that are covered in evolutionism that I have problems with, not all. That subset generally falls under the description of macroevolution, or as I say, one-celled-thingy to man.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Last Child of Ungoliant
i do have experience in these fields, having worked at digs around the country.

Excavations are fun, aren't they? I've only been on a couple, myself. I always had more fun doing the lab stuff.

[Cirdan]

I'm still having a good chuckle about the Mt. St. Helen's rock.

So, we have a rock that some radiometric test or tests were run, that yielded inaccurate results. This proves that one must assume the age prior to testing? Nice straw man. All it proves is that sloppy science yields sloppy results. Where is the paper on the results including the methods used? Here is a sample of what a typical research paper should look like. Methodogy, duplicates, premise, actual test results; these are critical in legitimate science.

Which test or tests were run? What is the expected precision and accuracy of the test(s) on rhyolitic volcanic rock? We know the accuracy of Ur/Pb is best with basalt since it most closely resembles the mantle. How does this sample compare with similar samples from this site and similar sites of different age?

Once again even throwing out radiometric dating completely, the earth is still caculated to be exponentially older than YEC claims by all other methods. However, we won't be throwing out one of the valuable tools of science based on a Ripley's Believe It or Not Museum display.

YEC's gaping failure is an inability to produce even the tiniest shread of physical evidence that the earth is only 10-12,000 years old. This is a fatal flaw since it is part of the founding hypothesis. You may imagine magical scenarios where god makes things appear, and time changes, and physical laws have no meaning, but that is not a scientific theory without some physical evidence.