Affirmative evidence towards creationism

[rocketman]

Again, I asked for a clarification. Are we discussing the creation of the universe or is this just another lame discussion about evolution?

Yes, the O.P. Aren't we in a sub-forum called evolution vs creation? Since old earth creationism tends to pretty much accept most of evolution I've always thought of this sub-forum as mostly being a debate between the YEC crowd and everybody else, incuding the OECers. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Sorry, I didn't see what forum we are in. Sorry. I will back out now... I don't buy the young earth theory.

 

[McBell]

What evidence is there in support of creationism?

define 'evidence.'

 

[sandy whitelinger]

How could that be used in favor of evolution? I've only ever heard that argument from proponents of intelligent design and creationism.

I'm not saying it is logical but I've seen people try a number of times to say there must be evolution of species because we have species. I just turned the page so to speak to say everything must have been created because it's here. There is no proveable logic to it either way.

 

[fantome profane]

Can we polarize this any more? There is no way for you to support this contention...

Well obviously I am trying to be provocative. I am trying to provoke somebody into answering the OP so we can examine the evidence. Still I stand by the statement.

And it worked, Rocketman gave us something to work with.

But first

If you could show that there had been unnatural interference you might then speculate that a non-human mind was involved. Some IDers look at IC that way.

This makes no sense. What is an unnatural interference? How do you define that? How can you show that? Science is the study of nature; it is simply not equipped to make inferences as to something that may be “unnatural”, even if such a thing were to exist. And remember that just because you have not found a natural explanation, that is not evidence of an unnatural explanation.

Now…

What is your opinion on this research? (Just a friendly question to a bright person whose thoughts I respect).

There are several basic errors in the procedure that this group has followed in collecting which calls their results into question and makes it difficult for others to replicate their experiments. Critics of the Rate project have pointed to examples of mislabeled and misidentified samples, discrepancies regarding where these samples originated (including the depth at which they were found) and even some confusion as to whether they were igneous or metamorphic rock.

There are examples of inaccurate data, which to be fair may be the result of simply typographical errors and simply mathematical mistakes, but regardless of whether it is honest error or data manipulation it still calls their conclusions into question.

The biggest problem with this is that all of their conclusions are based on the assumption of a “miracle”. In order to explain their results the way they wish to they must speculate that there was a “burst of accelerated nuclear decay” that occurred approximately 6000 years ago. There is absolutely no evidence provided to support this assumption, there is no explanation as to how this could possibly happen, there is no explanation as to why there is no evidence of the extreme heat and radiation that should be evident if this happened. The obvious answer to these questions is of course “God did it”. “God” causes this strange accelerated decay and “God” allowed it to happen without any excess heat. So it is clear that despite the complex math involved in this work, it is still pseudo-scientific nonsense. It is no different than saying that “God” put the fossils in the rocks to fool us and test our faith.


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/original.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/appendixc.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html

http://gondwanaresearch.com/rate.htm

 

[Ryan2065]

Most creationist research is done wrong simply because they are trying to prove something and have a moral stake in the outcome of the research. Scientists are not supposed to "want" a certain outcome because then they are prone to mistakes in the actual experiment or in misinterpreting the outcomes of the experiment. It is better to look at research from people with no moral stake in the outcome of the experiments and statements from non-creationist scientists about the results.

People tend to see what they want to see...

 

[Random]

From what I've learnt, the proper Scientific answer to the question "Where did all the atoms and molecules come from, what was their beginning?" is "WE DON'T KNOW, SCIENCE CAN ONLY SPECULATE ON THIS ISSUE".

Right?

So, that being the case, what are we grasping @ here, hmm? There is neither evidence for Creation, aside from the fact that it is experiencable, nor is there a satisfactory explanation for the appearance of composites which make up the processes science describes.

All in all, sound like an apples and oranges question to me.

 

[Ryan2065]

From what I've learnt, the proper Scientific answer to the question "Where did all the atoms and molecules come from, what was their beginning?" is "WE DON'T KNOW, SCIENCE CAN ONLY SPECULATE ON THIS ISSUE".

I'd more say "there are hypothesis' with evidence backing them up".

So, that being the case, what are we grasping @ here, hmm? There is neither evidence for Creation, aside from the fact that it is experiencable, nor is there a satisfactory explanation for the appearance of composites which make up the processes science describes.

yet there is evidence against creationism and evidence for hypothesis' we have regarding the appearance of composites.

 

[rocketman]

This makes no sense.

I wasn't arguing for it personally, just pointing out that some IDers do. The OP asks for evidence and IDers say they have it so it's only fair to bring that up.

What is an unnatural interference? How do you define that? How can you show that?

A crime scene is checked for 'disturbances' that we would attribute only to human intervention, for a similar example. Of-course, there would seem to be an outside chance that such disturbances were natural. If, as the ID idea goes, we were to find something that could not possibly have evolved then there may be a case for outside (unnatural) interference.

There are several basic errors in the procedure that this group has followed in collecting which calls their results into question and makes it difficult for others to replicate their experiments.

Thanks for taking the time to answer my question. I have no way of knowing if you've studied the results of that research in detail for yourself but can I just say that the links you gave are partially inaccurate and definitely not telling the whole story. There actually is legitimate evidence from some of these geological studies that go against the idea that earth is billions of years ancient - just as there are research results that are anomolous throughout all of science. Such things are usually put in the 'as yet unexplained' basket. But what if they are the key to a different way of looking at things, just as parallax measurement unlocked the otherwise watertight idea that the earth was the centre of the cosmos? How do we know?


In focusing exclusively on the questionable areas the anti-creationist side shows itself yet again to be as prejudiced as the creationist side. It would be a cinch for a lab to prove the whole of that project right or wrong. Simply dismissing by saying "we shouldn't have to" is all but an admission of failure to the creationists ears. I find it ironic that mainstream science criticises that research yet with a straight face holds up such semi-scientific forays as the Miller-Urey experiment and it's many progeny as hard science. Assumptions about earth's initial conditions anyone?

In order to explain their results the way they wish to they must speculate that there was a “burst of accelerated nuclear decay” that occurred approximately 6000 years ago.

You seem to have unwittingly adopted another person's straw-man argument. What scientist doesn't speculate about the possible implications of their research? Did the YEC crew say 'we have proof' of a “burst of accelerated nuclear decay”? It's ok if speculation itself raises new questions - mainstream science does it all the time. If we follow your yardstick fairly then there would be nothing left of say, the discipline of cosmology.

The biggest problem with this is that all of their conclusions are based on the assumption of a “miracle”.

It seems obvious, to me anyway, that direct evidence of creation isn't going to turn up on You-Tube anytime soon. My question is: does the evidence have to be direct? We accept a great many things without direct evidence, even to the point of occasionally calling such indirect evidence 'confirmational'. Even devout atheists excercise faith thousands of times a day, ranging from flat blind through to near obvious faith. If the origin of things is beyond our limits to see (I think it is) then would we accept non-direct evidence? We accept it for just about everything else.

How much of what we know is direct and how much is indirect? Does it all come through our 5 senses? Well, without any additional sensory input we can think of things and work things out and then 'know' new things in our mind, right? Can not people 'know' of creation this way?

If we use the Judeo-Christian religion as an example, would the physical discovery of proof of, say, the exodus, and say, a young earth, and say, a global flood, - would that not then cause a thinking person to look at the 'letter' that describes those things and then accept the creation story contained therein? There are plenty who see it that way. Science can't directly measure the 'cause of the origin' of things so neither side will ever have direct evidence.


Sorry for the long post.

 

[klubbhead024]

For how many thousands of years did people think the stars in the sky were magically created. Now, we know HOW a star is born. Perhaps someday with the advancement of technology we can see how a planet is created, and we will have our answer.

 

[rocketman]

Now, we know HOW a star is born.

No we don't.

 

[yippityyak]

But is it not true that all science disproves the theory that God created earth?

That science also cannot prove things like the existance of The Ark or the Big Flood? Or the actual location or evidence of Jesus' birth?

I might be wrong, but these are questions burning in my mind.

 

[James the Persian]

But is it not true that all science disproves the theory that God created earth?

Science could never conceivably disprove any such thing (and no, I'm not a YECer by any stretch of the imagination). Science is limited to studying the universe we have, the natural. It cannot ever say anything about anything that might be outside of this universe, what one might call the supernatural. It doesn't, then, make the slightest bit of difference who is actually correct, science will never be able to say one way or the other. Now, from my point of view the combination of both scientific and theological evidence together conspires to make the YEC view so implausible that I am compelled to reject it, but in no way can I prove that such a rejection is correct.

James

 

[fantome profane]

I wasn't arguing for it personally, just pointing out that some IDers do. The OP asks for evidence and IDers say they have it so it's only fair to bring that up.

A crime scene is checked for 'disturbances' that we would attribute only to human intervention, for a similar example. Of-course, there would seem to be an outside chance that such disturbances were natural. If, as the ID idea goes, we were to find something that could not possibly have evolved then there may be a case for outside (unnatural) interference.

I realize that this is not your argument, but you did bring it up and you are still trying to say it makes sense, so I hope you don’t mind if I question you further on it.

I not speaking rhetorically when I say that I really don’t understand. What is “unnatural interference? Can you give me an example? Has anyone ever provided evidence of “unnatural interference”? Speculate if you must, but let me know what you are talking about.

I think we may be dealing with a false dichotomy here. If we were to find something that could not possibly have evolved, that would not be evidence of “unnatural interference”. It would simply be evidence we do not understand how it came to be. That has been one of the major criticisms of the creationist mindset. Many seem to think that if they can poke holes in evolution then they have automatically proved creationism, and the is not the case. Even if we have no natural explanation for something, that is not a reason to assume that “God did it” (or raliens or whatever). I think that is one of the reasons the OP asked for “affirmative evidence towards creationism” instead of negative evidence against something else.

To use your example of a crime scene, if the case could not be solved, if we could not figure out how it happened, would the police be justified in considering the possibility of “unnatural interference”? Could you see a police report that claimed that “God” was responsible for the crime?

I find it ironic that mainstream science criticises that research yet with a straight face holds up such semi-scientific forays as the Miller-Urey experiment and it's many progeny as hard science. Assumptions about earth's initial conditions anyone?

This is what I call the “you too” fallacy, there is a latin term for it but I can never remember what it is. It is when one person will justify themselves by accusing someone else of doing the same thing, kind of like two wrongs make a right. Basically what you are saying is that it is ok for creationists to do bad science because the other side is doing bad science as well.

Criticism of mainstream science can be a noble endevour. We should all be more critical of what we hear and more willing to challenge it. But nothing that mainstream science has done justifies “creation scientists” making the same errors and exaggerating them. We should hold science to a higher standard, not use their failings to excuse even greater nonsense.

You seem to have unwittingly adopted another person's straw-man argument. What scientist doesn't speculate about the possible implications of their research? Did the YEC crew say 'we have proof' of a “burst of accelerated nuclear decay”? It's ok if speculation itself raises new questions - mainstream science does it all the time. If we follow your yardstick fairly then there would be nothing left of say, the discipline of cosmology.

It is one thing to speculate about something that could be. It is quite a different thing to speculate that something that can not be. It is not a matter of them not having proof, it is that they have no explanation of how “burst of accelerated nuclear decay” could even be possible.

If we use the Judeo-Christian religion as an example, would the physical discovery of proof of, say, the exodus, and say, a young earth, and say, a global flood, - would that not then cause a thinking person to look at the 'letter' that describes those things and then accept the creation story contained therein? There are plenty who see it that way. Science can't directly measure the 'cause of the origin' of things so neither side will ever have direct evidence.

Even if it were possible to prove such things I would still be skeptical. It seems to be that a more reasonable explanation would be that a human being witnessed these events and created a “God” myth to explain them.

 

[yippityyak]

Even if it were possible to prove such things I would still be skeptical. It seems to be that a more reasonable explanation would be that a human being witnessed these events and created a “God” myth to explain them.[/quote]

I tend to agree with you on this point, and I sometimes wonder if Christainity was not created as a crutch for people who need reassurance about life in general.

Or maybe it was a myth created for children as a better understanding of life, or as a set of laws in a time when people would not listen to the "government" of that time, and needed something more "supernatural" to help them listen.

I am not too sure, and i am all very new at this, but I often hear Christians say that the Old Testament is as relevant today as the New Testament is. Then how do you explain things like, (and please dont ask me to quote because i dont know what scripture it is from) in the Old Testament where it says that you can strike your slave and if he dies straight away, you are to be punished. But if he dies only 1 or 2 days later, you are not to be punished. Where is the sense in that being relevant today? Do any Christians today own slaves? And if it is not meant as a direct reference to our lives today in being that we own and keep slaves, what is it actually talking about then?

Or what about the fact that God talks about Monogamy and Sexual Relations being for Husband and Wife only, but does not condemn the men of the Old Testament for having Concubines? A Sexual Sin is meant to be the highest of sins being punished 10 fold as opposed to other sins being punished 3 fold?

Just a thought.

 

[rocketman]

If we were to find something that could not possibly have evolved, that would not be evidence of “unnatural interference”. It would simply be evidence we do not understand how it came to be.

If we assume a natural cause, which in my opinion would be rather rash given that we know nothing of the cause of our universe. We can't just limit ourselves to deductive reasoning on matters such as this. If there was a discovery of something that was outside of the known capabilities of evolution yet within the suggested evolutionary timeframe then we would have to allow for the possibility of either a natural or unnatural explanation. Just becasue we can't explain something doesn't mean it had to have a natural cause. (By the way, I'm not sure that IC is really evidence of this, yet, but if it ever was shown to be then I'd be happy to consider all the possibilities).

Many seem to think that if they can poke holes in evolution then they have automatically proved creationism, and the is not the case.

I'm not one of them. (By the way, did you realise that the converse of your statement is just as true?)

To use your example of a crime scene, if the case could not be solved, if we could not figure out how it happened, would the police be justified in considering the possibility of “unnatural interference”? Could you see a police report that claimed that “God” was responsible for the crime?

No, but I could see a police report that might point to a suspect. (unnatural here meaning human interference). Hmm. Let me ask you something. Is your posting on this website a natural or unnatural act? Do we accept that our actions are just a natural part of evolution, that our tearing down of forrests and our killing off of species is simply a natural part of being evolved biological forms, following instinct? Aren't therefore books and computers and even your personal opinion all just the natural consequence of evolution? If so then unnatural evidence of anything will never be found. This one really depends on you point of view.

This is what I call the “you too” fallacy, there is a latin term for it but I can never remember what it is. It is when one person will justify themselves by accusing someone else of doing the same thing, kind of like two wrongs make a right. Basically what you are saying is that it is ok for creationists to do bad science because the other side is doing bad science as well.

No, I'm saying that both sides are as bad as each other. Neither side is justified in attacking.

The term I think you were looking for is 'Tu quoque'. I was bemoaning the reciprocal attacks, not attacking. I personally think it's ok for both sides to explore issues speculatively.

It is one thing to speculate about something that could be. It is quite a different thing to speculate that something that can not be. It is not a matter of them not having proof, it is that they have no explanation of how “burst of accelerated nuclear decay” could even be possible.

You don't know what's possible. Forgive me if I sound simplistic here but are you seriously suggesting that cosmologists have an explanation for all of their speculations? As long as the YECers don't say they have proof of this phenomenon then let 'em speculate. Everybody else does.

Even if it were possible to prove such things I would still be skeptical. It seems to be that a more reasonable explanation would be that a human being witnessed these events and created a “God” myth to explain them.

I understand.

 

[fantome profane]

No, I'm saying that both sides are as bad as each other. Neither side is justified in attacking.

The term I think you were looking for is 'Tu quoque'. I was bemoaning the reciprocal attacks, not attacking. I personally think it's ok for both sides to explore issues speculatively.

Thank you. “Tu quoque”. I hope I will remember that next time I need to use it.

I am taking the opposite position here. Both sides are fully justified in attacking sloppy thinking. Neither side is justified in sloppy thinking just because the other side may do it too.

Philosophers may feel free to explore these issues speculatively. But I think it is good to hold science up to a higher standard. Yes speculation may have a role to play, but when the entire premise is based on an unreasonable and unevidenced speculation then you are no longer doing science.

I'm not one of them. (By the way, did you realise that the converse of your statement is just as true?)

What was that term again? Oh yeah – Tu Quoque.

But yes I agree with you. There are those who think that just by showing some particular Biblical passage doesn’t seem to make sense, they have then proved that “God” doesn’t exist therefor proved a strictly materialistic universe. This is faulty logic and I assure you I do not support that kind of nonsense.

And this is exactly the kind on nonsense the I.D people think they can get away with. Even if they were to demonstrate that something could not have evolved in the way we understand it, that is not evidence in support of another theory. As I have said before it cannot be evidence of an alternative theory simply because there is no alternative scientific theory for how things came to be.

No, but I could see a police report that might point to a suspect. (unnatural here meaning human interference). Hmm. Let me ask you something. Is your posting on this website a natural or unnatural act? Do we accept that our actions are just a natural part of evolution, that our tearing down of forrests and our killing off of species is simply a natural part of being evolved biological forms, following instinct? Aren't therefore books and computers and even your personal opinion all just the natural consequence of evolution? If so then unnatural evidence of anything will never be found. This one really depends on you point of view.

When I first read this I thought that I finally understood, and then I read it again and I am even more confused. In this case “unnatural” means human interference. So how does that translate to the origin of the universe? Certainly you are not going to tell me that human are responsible for that (although that would be an interesting theory). I can certainly understand human interference in the case of a crime, because we know that humans exist, and we can see that they could possibly commit such a crime. But in the case of the origin of the universe there is no evidence of anything “unnatural” that could interfere.


And to answer your question I am a Pantheist. I believe that everything is nature. We might use certain terms to distinguish humans and human activity from other natural influences (i.e. artificial, cultural, etc), but essentially humans are part of nature just as much as any other animal. Terms such as “unnatural” or “supernatural” to me are synonymous with “non-existent”. If you can show me that something exists, then you have shown me that it is part of nature.

You don't know what's possible. Forgive me if I sound simplistic here but are you seriously suggesting that cosmologists have an explanation for all of their speculations? As long as the YECers don't say they have proof of this phenomenon then let 'em speculate. Everybody else does.

What I am saying is that if they cannot show that their speculations are at least possible, then no one should seriously consider their theories.

There is a term for the kind of argument you are making here. What was it again? hmmm, let me think. “Tu Quoque!!!”, that’s it!!!

When I was a kid my mother always use to say “well if everybody else jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?”

 

[painted wolf]

wow, sorry I missed so much, I was out sick.

first off, Fervent... I have been AiG many times and that is how I know that they cherry pick then misrepresent other peoples reserch. Often they use selective quotes and snippets of papers to make thier case. In so doing they misrepresent what the actual scientific paper was about.

as for RATE.... they don't exactly have the best reputation when it comes to actually doing sound reserch. Lets just say they have been known to fudge the numbers a bit.
http://www.answersincreation.org/ratedeception.htm
http://gondwanaresearch.com/rate.htm

Ultimately they even admit they were wrong.
http://www.answersincreation.org/rate_admit.htm

wa:do

 

[rocketman]

And this is exactly the kind on nonsense the I.D people think they can get away with.

Yep, Tu Quoque! Hehe. (It's hard not to sound like you are having a go at someone isn't it?) But yes, I agree with your sentiments.

And to answer your question I am a Pantheist. I believe that everything is nature.

That's what I thought. Still, I'd like to think that when I read a post from you that there is more behind it than a collection of particles and molecules. (That was an ad-hominin compliment )

What I am saying is that if they cannot show that their speculations are at least possible, then no one should seriously consider their theories.

Are you serious? Just because something is yet to be proven possible doesn't mean it's not science. People give copious thought to string-theory you know...

 

[rocketman]

wow, sorry I missed so much, I was out sick.

Hope you are feeling better now.:bounce

Ultimately they even admit they were wrong.
http://www.answersincreation.org/rate_admit.htm

The page you quote shows that some YECers decided to take a different track in their research, which led to RATE. It does not provide evidence that any of them have admitted that they are wrong regarding the current RATE project. The old-earth creationist spin of that page aside, isn't the fact that some YECers broadened their scope in light of scientific evidence a good thing?