Creation "Science" And The Flood of Noah.

[KrazyHorse]

Rogan Josh

I understand and agree with what you say, but I personally use the word "proven" in its non-mathematical form, to mean "having a great preponderence of evidence for". Obviously if you want to bring an omnipotent God into things then I can't state for certain what is "actually" the case, but I think you'll find that most of the "evolutionists" here are at least attempting some semblance of scientific argumentation instead of engaging in factless and foundless speculation as are the "creationists".

[Zealot]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Only religious fundamentalists assert that there are no transitional fossils (or very few transitional fossils). It is a creatioist lie, pure and simple.

Oh how lovely it is from you to call every one against you a liar! But I still expect to know where in the world have been found fossils that prove the evolution of fish or any other aquatic being into a bird, or any other kind of flying being!

You keep insisting in the idea of an animal adapting to an environment, but you just discard how that environment can change and that the animals could have some kind of nomadic behavior! This is just one big Dogma you insist in supporting yourselves!

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
There is the little matter of evidence: scientists have it, creeationists do not. It isn't just a matter of personal opinion, every single shred of physical evidence supports only one side. Unless you're accusing the whole scientific community of fabricating that evidence: there comes a point where the scientist can say no more and the psychiatrist must take over.

This is not true. It is a matter of personal opinion. There is 'evidence' for both creation and evolution. The evidence for evolution is the fossil records etc, and the evidence for creation is the word of God.

Now, you personally may not credit the word of God as being valuable or even relevent evidence, and that is your right, but that is subjective. Creationists place more importance on what they believe God has told them than on the fossil records, so they have more 'evidence' in favour of creation.

If a host of angels came down into your living room tonight to proclaim the truth of creation, would you not lay aside the fossil evidence? Or would you put it down to a bad pretzel?

[aaglo]

Originally posted by Zealot
I have read some biology and chemistry information, and what is needed for life to appear from unliving matter. Well, what can I say? The odds are inferior to what mathematicians consider statisticaly possible, wich is 10^50. There are just so many components, that it's just not possible for life to appear that way. Randomness just isn't viable. I know I'm not proving anything, but I have exposed what I know in previous threads. So we have to end it this way.

I think that it's not possible in any way to make statistics about the propability of life. I mean where the hell did those mathemathicians get their variables for calculations?

[Rogan Josh]

Re: Rogan Josh

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I understand and agree with what you say, but I personally use the word "proven" in its non-mathematical form, to mean "having a great preponderence of evidence for". Obviously if you want to bring an omnipotent God into things then I can't state for certain what is "actually" the case, but I think you'll find that most of the "evolutionists" here are at least attempting some semblance of scientific argumentation instead of engaging in factless and foundless speculation as are the "creationists".

I agree (almost) entirely of course. My objection is, in part, that many of the evolutionists are not scientific in their approach. Somehow because evolution is the accepted belief in today's society most people believe in it not because they have examined the evidence for themselves, but because they have faith in what the scientists tell them.

This is very dangerous. I am a scientist, so I know what a load of bollocks scientists tell the popular press! Indeed, I see this as analagous to the people believing everything the priests told them 1000 years ago.

[Zealot]

Originally posted by aaglo
I think that it's not possible in any way to make statistics about the propability of life. I mean where the hell did those mathemathicians get their variables for calculations?

I don't know.
But I can tell you where I read about it!
The book it at home. Can't say what's its name until I get home.

[Zealot]

Re: Re: Rogan Josh

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
I agree (almost) entirely of course. My objection is, in part, that many of the evolutionists are not scientific in their approach. Somehow because evolution is the accepted belief in today's society most people believe in it not because they have examined the evidence for themselves, but because they have faith in what the scientists tell them.

This is very dangerous. I am a scientist, so I know what a load of bollocks scientists tell the popular press! Indeed, I see this as analagous to the people believing everything the priests told them 1000 years ago.

Now with this I agree entirely!

[Zealot]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Now, you personally may not credit the word of God as being valuable or even relevent evidence, and that is your right, but that is subjective. Creationists place more importance on what they believe God has told them than on the fossil records, so they have more 'evidence' in favour of creation.

This is not true, Rogan. I never discarded the fossils! Neither do I know anyone who has! If someone does that and proclaim himself to be a creationist, that's his problem.
In fact, one of the reason that makes me reject the theory of evolution is because of the lack of fossils of continuous evoluting beings. Earth has a huge bio-diversity. That bio-diversity must be explained. If there wasn't at one point a garden called Eden on Earth, then I want to see step-by-step the evolution of such bio-diversity. From the ant to the giraffe.

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
If a host of angels came down into your living room tonight to proclaim the truth of creation, would you not lay aside the fossil evidence? Or would you put it down to a bad pretzel?

Look, God has already done that, but history tells us that the people, as a whole, still were rebels, and wanted to live their lifes as they're pleased (I'm talking about Hebrew history, of course). So do you really think every one deserves to have his personal signal of God's existance?

[Zealot]

Originally posted by aaglo
I think that it's not possible in any way to make statistics about the propability of life. I mean where the hell did those mathemathicians get their variables for calculations?

One more thing:
If for some time scientists can say how much our planet wheights, I think they can probably make a statistic of the probability for some aminoacids to form in the proper way to start life...

[KrazyHorse]

Actually it is possible, but you'd have to know a few things:

First off, what was the composition of the chemical soup?

Secondly, what was the original self-catalyzing molecule?

Thirdly, what were the other possible self-catalyzing molecules?

Give those to a chemist and he'll tell you what the time constant for the exponential curve predicting the first "organism" was.

The "calculation" that was performed here was ridiculous, though.

Even if we take the numbers at face value then he has only come up with the probability of creating human beings from individually randomly shifting alleles. That's not how evolution works, so that's not how we perform a calculation.

[Tolls]

"In fact, one of the reason that makes me reject the theory of evolution is because of the lack of fossils of continuous evoluting beings. "

There are loads, as we keep pointing out!

We have fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile/dino/mammal...therapod to bird, a set for whales, a (large) set for humans...we have ant to wasp if you want an insect one.

We wouldn't expect to find sequences for every existing species since most aniumals do not fossilise...that would be a ridiculous thing to expect.

If you're not going to accept evolution until a complete chain has been forged from fossils for everything then this becomes a pointless discussion!

Rogan:
I don't have a problem with people who want to believe biblical creationism, it's when they proclaim it scientific that is annoying...

Similarly I ignore Dawkins when he goes off on one about religion (actually I ignore him more often than not anyway...).

[Jack the Bodiless]

Rogan:

This is not true. It is a matter of personal opinion. There is 'evidence' for both creation and evolution. The evidence for evolution is the fossil records etc, and the evidence for creation is the word of God.

Now, you personally may not credit the word of God as being valuable or even relevent evidence, and that is your right, but that is subjective. Creationists place more importance on what they believe God has told them than on the fossil records, so they have more 'evidence' in favour of creation.

But the fossil record (and astronomy, geology, radiometric dating etc etc etc) don't just support evolution, they also contradict the Biblical account. Biblical creationism cannot be true, unless we assume fakery by God, mischievous aliens with godlike powers, or the ubiquitous Evil Atheist Conspiracy. Falsification is an important part of science, and creationism has been shown to be false.

Of course, some people who call themselves "creationists" simply believe that "God is responsible for it all" (though why they choose to use the same label as the modern equivalent of Flat-Earthers is beyond me). It is not possible to show that there has NOT been a supernatural agent at work. But, whenever creationists (of any sort) have attempted to show that a supernatural agent is required, such claims have been without substance. Therefore, irrespective of whether there actually is a God, creationist claims are unsound.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
But the fossil record (and astronomy, geology, radiometric dating etc etc etc) don't just support evolution, they also contradict the Biblical account. Biblical creationism cannot be true, unless we assume fakery by God, mischievous aliens with godlike powers, or the ubiquitous Evil Atheist Conspiracy. Falsification is an important part of science, and creationism has been shown to be false.

Don't get me wrong - I agree with you.

But your argument goes both ways. One could also say that the word of God does not just support Creation, but it also contradicts evolution. The fossil records cannot be true since they do not fit with the known word of God.

Of course, some people who call themselves "creationists" simply believe that "God is responsible for it all" (though why they choose to use the same label as the modern equivalent of Flat-Earthers is beyond me). It is not possible to show that there has NOT been a supernatural agent at work. But, whenever creationists (of any sort) have attempted to show that a supernatural agent is required, such claims have been without substance. Therefore, irrespective of whether there actually is a God, creationist claims are unsound.

There is of course, the non-literal creationist lobby too, who espouse that God created the universe via the mechanism of the Big Bang and subsequently us via the mechanism of evolution. This is fair enough in my opinion, since our theories make no attempt to explain 'why' the Big Bang happened or indeed the physics at the singularity.

[Zealot]

Originally posted by Tolls
There are loads, as we keep pointing out!
therapod to bird

I love your comparison of a therapod to a sparrow, a chicken, an eagle, etc...
By the way, what led for wings and feathers to appear?
Where did the therapod come from?

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
But the fossil record (and astronomy, geology, radiometric dating etc etc etc) don't just support evolution, they also contradict the Biblical account.

You're just considering that the 6 days creation are literal, and that man was put on the garden after the completion of Earth. But what if what the radiometric dating is only showing the time needed to Earth to "age" without any interference, when it might just have been how God creates a planet, bombarding it with radiation, and such?

You could even get some Playdoh, bombard it with radiation for 1 month, and then make a measurement of radiation. What could prevent the value you obtain be different than if you left that piece of Playdoh under the sun, at Earth's current distance from it?
This thought might not be "scientific", but at least I'm not resting assured on your dogmas.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Zealot:

You're just considering that the 6 days creation are literal, and that man was put on the garden after the completion of Earth. But what if what the radiometric dating is only showing the time needed to Earth to "age" without any interference, when it might just have been how God creates a planet, bombarding it with radiation, and such?

You could even get some Playdoh, bombard it with radiation for 1 month, and then make a measurement of radiation. What could prevent the value you obtain be different than if you left that piece of Playdoh under the sun, at Earth's current distance from it?
This thought might not be "scientific", but at least I'm not resting assured on your dogmas.

How would living creatures survive these bursts of radiation? Radiometric dating indicates that life is millions of years old.

But this does nothing to explain the sequence of the fossil record, the order in which the fossils appear. It's precisely the order required by the "tree of life" pattern of common descent from shared ancestors. No form of literal-Genesis creationism has ever explained this miraculous coincidence. In fact, the creationists cannot even admit that this arrangement exists, because it contradicts Genesis (birds evolved from land animals, grass appears after the dinosaurs died, and so forth).