Questions for creationists

[Jack_www]

Anther thing I have notice is that I am the only one left trying to argue for idea of Creator.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Jack_www
I just wanted to share some thoughts I have after spending some time going over objections people have to idea of creator.
Those that support this idea point to how complex life is, and how great odds are in occurring by chance and say because of this they believe that life was designed by someone Intelligent.

Mostly that is not true. You believe in a creator and you bring up objections. Often the objections are based on complexity.

This is the oposite of science. In science you look at the evidence and try to come up with a theory that explains it and hopefully tells you something you don't allready see in the evidence. Then that extra stuff can't be checked against new evidence.

Whereas you and all creationists start with an idea. That is that life and the universe were created and then you try to either find evidence to support you or you attack the evidence against you. Creationists almost exclusively do the latter which gives me the impression that they have as little expection of finding supporting evidence as I do that they will.

Others who oppose this view, say that first off that they really dont give a on theory on how life was created, in there view there is no way to test such ideas. They say the with theory of evolution model, that this can be tested by scientific method. They contend that they can observe it, and have showed how different genes could mutate to change the structure of living things.

Would you guys say this is correct statement?

I think you left out some important words that would clarify that. I am not sure if you just were unwilling to say 'don't give a damn' or if you left out something else. As it is I am not sure what you meant to say. I leave out words fairly frequently myself so I am merely asking for clarification here. Its not a put down.

I care how life came about. I just don't expect to ever know the answer. It happened long ago and the evidence is not likely to exist anymore. We are talking about what was most likely one single chemical reaction to start with. Not exactly an ubiquitous event.

I am not saying that it was so unlikely that it only happened once. I am saying that once was enough. One self reproducing molecule would quickly begin to multiply at an exponential rate using all the available raw material. With the right conditions the earth could go from zero self reproducing molecules to no free raw materials for the reaction in months or even days if the molecule could be blown on the wind and still reproduce later.

That should give you an idea of why I don't expect evidence of the beginning of life. The best we can hope for is to create something that MIGHT have been like how life started in a lab. But if the odds are trillions to one per cubic centimeter than we aren't likely to just get lucky. Trillions to one is very good odds with the whole ocean to work with for millions of years. Millions of years would not be needed if the odds were only trillions to one but thats lousy odds for a lab experiment.

We can see mutations in the lab. We do know a lot about genetics now and we know an enormous amount more than we did just a decade ago. When I was in high school the way DNA codes for proteins was only just discovered. Creationists often make arguements about how little we know based on books that are decades old and completely obsolete.

The other thing that is a favorite is to say the specific way life is around us including ourselves is impossibly unlikely. Which is bogus. Its false because it assume that things HAD TO BE THIS WAY for life to exist at all. We don't have to exist. The only requirement for our existence is that we couldn't argue if we didn't exist.

Shuffle a deck of cards. What comes out is what comes out. Yet the odds against any particular order of fifty-two cards is staggering but ONLY if you think the cards had to come out that way. They didn't. Neither did we.

Life is not too complex given billions of years. The odds against our existing is not evidence that we had to be designed any more than a specific outcome of a shuffle of deck had to have a designer.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Jack_www
Anther thing I have notice is that I am the only one left trying to argue for idea of Creator.

I noticed that. Zelot has no stamina. No will to discuss it.

If you look at the link I posted for a discusion thread on Maximum PC you will see the discussion has over 6000 posts over a long time. I am on it from the beginning to the end. I am not the only one on from beginning to end but NO creationist did that.

Basicly there is ton of evidence on the side of evolution. New evidence all the time so the anti-creationists can always say new things or say them better. The creationists just keep using the same things.

I think there was one belieiver on from beginning to end. He wasn't realy argueing things though and he came and went. That was Tess and he was there to wittness more than to argue. He kept going away to discuss things on forums for believers and then he would get ostricized for asking questions or having unorthodox views and then he would return to the Creation vs. Evolution thread.

[Lung]

This thread has been quiet for some days now. I guess that settles it, then.

EVOLUTIONISTS WIN!!!

[Ethelred]

Apolyton was down for nearly 48 hours this weekend. It likes to take the weekend off fairly often.

Besides the creationists here are mostly wimps. Not enough Americans I guess. For some reason active ignorance is more popular in the US.

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Apolyton was down for nearly 48 hours this weekend. It likes to take the weekend off fairly often.

Besides the creationists here are mostly wimps. Not enough Americans I guess. For some reason active ignorance is more popular in the US.

eh. Only some baptists and crazy southerners believe creationism.
Fundamentalism is popular in the US because of the Great Awakening, etc. Their ministers were more outspoken and charismatic.

The United Stations just sometimes don't want to face the real world. (example: noninterventionist policy in World Wars I and II)

---
"Europeans must band together "

[Ethelred]

Only some baptists and crazy southerners believe creationism.

Most Baptists. Lots of Southerners. Lots of others as well. About 25 per cent of Americans last I heard.

Ohh I overestimated intelligence. I don't have the actual polls but here is an aticle that refers to one.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/creationism_museum000417.html

That view is becoming less entrenched in the United States, according to Gallup Poll findings. In 1962, two out of three Americans surveyed said “the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word.” By 1998, one in three took that stance.

So its more like 33 per cent not 25. But it is improving anyway.

The United Stations just sometimes don't want to face the real world.

Not wanting to be entangled in European messes is not the same thing as not faceing the real world. If you are thousands of miles from most other countries it just simply isn't the same as it is where the other nations are cheek by jowel. The US has only two neighbors and one mostly speaks the same language.

Things became different after WWII. Isolationism is dead. Well dying anyway. Some people don't learn. See then numbers above.

[Felch]

Not all Americans are Creationist. I believe that a (Deistic) God caused or set forth the guidelines for evolution. Of course, you may not agree with it, but it seems like a fair compromise to me.

[Ethelred]

Not all Americans are Creationist.

No just a third.

I believe that a (Deistic) God caused or set forth the guidelines for evolution. Of course, you may not agree with it, but it seems like a fair compromise to me.

I see no reason to go that way. Guidlines aren't needed. Evolution's functioning is inherent. If you want to go that way its OK by me.

Why bother though? If a god is needed to explain the Uiverse than what explains the god? If no explanation is needed for the god then no explanation is needed for the Universe.

[Lung]

Originally posted by Ethelred

Why bother though? If a god is needed to explain the Uiverse than what explains the god? If no explanation is needed for the god then no explanation is needed for the Universe.

AH!! But that's the whole point of the creationist stance, isn't it?? If no explanation is needed, then more people might start blindly following the church again. Besides, there's no need for those pesky facts getting in the way

[-=Vagrant=-]

Quiet on the Apolyton front, but I'm still having an argument about the Biblical Flood! In a Finnish forum.

[Ethelred]

I recommend genetics.

There are only four women on the boat. Most species are represented by a single pair. There are only four men and ALL of them have the same Y chromosome in the non-recombinant sections.

As a consequence most species would have the same variation as all the rest. Entirely unlike reality plus the fish would have much more variation than the land animals. Again unlike reality.

Back to the humans. One Y-Chromosome is quite a problem since that has no relationship to reality. From the women we get exactly FOUR lines of mitochondrial DNA. Mitochondria are inherited directly from the mothers. The fathers make no contribution to the offspring in humans an most likely in any other mammal. So that gives us four lines of mitochondria. Not the case however.

In fact the Eve hypothesis is based on mitochondrial DNA and that gave results that show Homo Sapiens to be at least 100,000 years old as a species that started that long ago with from one to fifty women. Thats assuming they did their math right and it looks like they actually gave the latest date and smallest number possible. Other people have looked at the numbers and came up with much older results.

Then there is the matter of the Egyptians and Sumerians not noticing that they drowned 4400 years ago as the timing in the Bible requires. The Egyptians just blithely went their way with the same language and culture and didn't stop building things for hundreds of years. I wonder how they managed not to notice that they were all killed about the time the pyramids were built.

[-=Vagrant=-]

Originally posted by Ethelred
I recommend genetics.

There are only four women on the boat. Most species are represented by a single pair. There are only four men and ALL of them have the same Y chromosome in the non-recombinant sections.

Thanks! But unfortunately he believes that their genetic structure was perfect and (similar bullspit), therefore genetics doesn't prove anything. I'll give it a try though.

Then there is the matter of the Egyptians and Sumerians not noticing that they drowned 4400 years ago as the timing in the Bible requires. The Egyptians just blithely went their way with the same language and culture and didn't stop building things for hundreds of years. I wonder how they managed not to notice that they were all killed about the time the pyramids were built.

I told him that at the very start, but he refuses to understand it. I even pointed at the chinese 5000 year old culture, but no! Rightnow he is claiming the Flood caused the Ice Age. He did realise that the Egyptians don't mention the Ice Age, so I guess he starts to realise something. It is always fun to argue with people who don't know what evidence is.

[Ethelred]

But unfortunately he believes that their genetic structure was perfect and (similar bullspit), therefore genetics doesn't prove anything.

There is no way to pretend that humans had a massively different genetic structure a mere 4400 years ago. Even in the Bible they still reproduced sexually and had X and Y chromosomes. Mitochondria as well.

Besides its easy to attack claims of perfection. Cain was a murderer. God created him that way. Eve was created to eat the Fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. If men were perfect then no slaughter of all mankind was needed. The whole thing is a nonsensical conglomeration of different contradictory stories and any claim of both evil men and a perfect creation is inherently irreconcilable.

At least it can be fun to see what way they would twist and turn to evade what the Bible really says. Bet they claim that people were warned about the flood. They weren't. Only Noah was told and only Noah and his family were to be saved so telling others would be counter productive since the idea was to murder every living perfectly created but corrupt thing on the face of the Earth.

Rightnow he is claiming the Flood caused the Ice Age.

Ask how a flood could possibly do that? Trust me he has no answer. I have seen the claim before and its even more ludicrous than the usual. Rain releases heat from kinetic energy of falling water. Water from any depth is hot. In fact even most creationists have given up on the water canopy idea because it releases enough heat to kill Noah. Of course the water from the deep does the same thing but they are still ignoring that one.

On top of all that they usually claim the Ice Caps were created by the flood. How? They don't like to think about that. Since ice tends to float and a worldwide flood covering the highest mountain must also cover the hightest points in Antartica they are better off not noticing the the Ice caps and glaciers would all float away in the water. The water of course would be hot enough to cook everyone in the Ark but thats another issue.

It is always fun to argue with people who don't know what evidence is.

Well if they try the hydroplate theory it comes from engineer and not a geologist. The engineer has never run the numbers on his ideas either which shows he is a LOUSY engineer. I have seen a geologist go over the numbers on the hydroplate theory and he has steam reaching escape velocity. The geologist is a creationist by the way. Yes a real live creationist geologist. I believe he goes the god works in mysterious ways route rather than the creation 'science' route.

Let me see if I can find a link for it again:

Well here is a creationist timeline anyway to nail down the claimed times.

http://www.cynet.com/jesus/timeline/timeline.htm

Know thy enemy

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/7730/Evolution/Hydroplate1.html

The book itself online

http://www.creationscience.com/

Ah found it.

http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/hydro.html

Thats the rebuttal from the geologist creationist. Nice to see that some creationists can think. He is an Old Earth Creationist.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Maybe you should ask him why he chooses to believe the word of a tribe of Bronze Age goat-herders who thought the Earth was flat.

A lot of creationists seem to begin with an inflated view of the Bible's accuracy: it's inerrant, contains countless fulfilled prophecies and great scientific knowledge, and so on. From this starting point, they assert that the rest of it must be true.

But if you ask them why they believe the Bible is so great in the first place, it's because some fundie preacher told them so. Ask for a fulfilled prophecy, and you always get the reformation of the nation of Israel in 1948 (or, just possibly, the destruction of the Second Temple). Similarly, for "scientific knowledge", you usually get the knowledge that the Earth is round (a fact known to various ancient peoples, but not to the Hebrews: Isaiah 40:22 refers to a flat disk, not a sphere).

With "so many thousands" of examples to choose from, isn't that a little odd?