Creationism vs Evolution

[pookie]

[quote]jasmincar wrote:
The problem is that those debate always end up in scientist having to defend their theory. Why don’t creationnist try to prove creationnism? That is because they can’t[/quote]

To be fair, science doesn’t “prove” it’s theories either. Theories can only be tested repeatedly. They become accepted when they are tested enough times that we can have some confidence in saying that they model the real world to a fair degree of certitude.

Some theories, say the Big Bang, have many problems and inconsistencies. Yet, they remain “the currently accepted” theory because they explain more facts in a better way than all other competing theories. If new findings come to light that allow someone to propose a new theory (or vastly revise an existing one) and the proposal fits past observations, allows new predictions and better fits all available evidence, then the new theory will replace the old one, with very little opposition from any scientist.

Other theories, such as String Theory, appear (circa 1980), develop and seem extremely promising (circa 1995) but later further develop and seem much less promising (current time…) and might eventually die out, unless there is a major breakthrough before a competing theory becomes more promising.

The whole difference is that science is amenable to changing it’s theories in the face of conflicting evidence. Creationists have a creation story which cannot be changed. Hence, their only modus operandi is to defend it against all contrary evidence. Any new facts discovered must be made to fit, either by tortured logic, or by simply trying to discredit the discoverer, his methods, his past work, etc. The preferred method seems to be to repeat lies about how science works until they become “common knowledge” (see IrishSteel’s rock/fossil circular dating method for an example) Creationists already have their absolute conclusion and they need the real world to conform to it, by whatever means necessary.

The other fact that favors Creationists, is that their creation story is easy to understand. Anyone can read Genesis during an afternoon. To understand science’s current thoughts about the same subjects, you need to understand Evolution, Cosmology, Abiogenesis (for which no “accepted” theory currently exists… just a lot of hypotheseses), Paleontology, etc. A book about evolution that tries to be somewhat all-encompassing of the theory will run about 1000-1500 pages. After that, nothing will have been said of the universe’s origin or of how life started from non-life. And while you read it, research will have amended parts of it with more current data. So Creationists have it easy. If they can fit a few “scientific” facts to their story, like push did with his rapid fossilization claims for the flood and seed enough doubt about science’s methods in the mind of fellow believers, many will go with the easy story they’ve been taught to be true from childhood, rather than the complicated stuff from those brainy, elitists scientists in their ivory towers. Especially when they often learn of the science through apologists who’ll present the scientific case as “your granddad was a monkey” or “did you ever see a duck give birth to a dog?” neither of which is claimed by evolution theory.

[anon41664405]

[quote]pookie wrote:

The other fact that favors Creationists, is that their creation story is easy to understand. Anyone can read Genesis during an afternoon. To understand science’s current thoughts about the same subjects, you need to understand Evolution, Cosmology, Abiogenesis (for which no “accepted” theory currently exists… just a lot of hypotheseses), Paleontology, etc. A book about evolution that tries to be somewhat all-encompassing of the theory will run about 1000-1500 pages. After that, nothing will have been said of the universe’s origin or of how life started from non-life. And while you read it, research will have amended parts of it with more current data. So Creationists have it easy. If they can fit a few “scientific” facts to their story, like push did with his rapid fossilization claims for the flood and seed enough doubt about science’s methods in the mind of fellow believers, many will go with the easy story they’ve been taught to be true from childhood, rather than the complicated stuff from those brainy, elitists scientists in their ivory towers. Especially when they often learn of the science through apologists who’ll present the scientific case as “your granddad was a monkey” or “did you ever see a duck give birth to a dog?” neither of which is claimed by evolution theory.
[/quote]

Incredibly well said. You pretty much summed up 32 pages in that paragraph.

Hi thread, I’m back.

[Gradstudent78]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
pookie wrote:
However, I will say this, there is no debate that speciation and adaptation - otherwise known as micro-evolution - takes place. What has never been established scientifically in the past or present is whether those “evolutionary changes” operate so that new genuses, orders, families, etc. occur.
[/quote]
Speciation is typically considered an aspect of macroevolution, not microevolution.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Evolutionary scientists understand that and so speculation/extrapolation reaches into the past and demands that that must have occurred very slowly over eons. So slowly that it is not readily observable.

Fine, that fits the macro-evolutionary model. So be it. But that speculation does not fit the definition of what a true scientific theory is.
[/quote]

What is the definition of what a true scientific theory is?

[pookie]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
You apparently believe the earth has always appeared exactly as it does now? You discard theories of continental drift as well as vastly different sea levels in the past? If so I’m surprised.[/quote]

Over 6,000-10,000 years, continental drift hardly matters. Continents aren’t water-skiing around, as simple observation will show.

You’ve failed to address the kangaroo question entirely.

You would do well to study creationism if you are so hell-bent on dismissing it on a public internet site. “Know your enemy”, friend. (Or should I address you as Buddha from now on?)

There are way too many fantasy claims made by creationists, homeopaths, dowsers, psychics, faith healers, etc. If you had to become an “expert” in each “discipline” (AKA learn by rote all their bullshit), you’d never have time for anything else.

I can simply ask a few easy questions whenever a creationist - or whatever other “woo-woo” proponent - makes a claim that contradicts known scientific fact. The inability of the claimant to answer is all I need to demonstrate.

So, when do we get the story about Noah and the kangaroos?

[ephrem]

…just finished watching the BBC documentary on ‘Ida’, the 47 million old primate fossil, and conclusive evidence has been found, namely the “thalus” foot bone, that ties this fossil to us, humans. The thalus bone is only found with primates and humans, and because ‘Ida’ has this thalus bone she forms the missing link between the earliest mammals and modern primates. To give you an idea of the timescale; ‘Lucy’ is 8,5 million years old…

[pookie]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
pookie wrote:
…Creationists have a creation story which cannot be changed…

To a certain extent you are correct. Let’s face it, both sides start with a basic premise.

I start with:

#1. God is real. He is Creator.
#2. Let’s go from there and see what the evidence shows us.

You start with:

#1. God is not real. There is no Creator.
#2. Let’s go from here and see what the evidence shows us.[/quote]

Actually, it’s:
#1. God may or may not exists.
#2. Things which have an uncertain existence require evidence before their existence is accepted.
#3. I see no current evidence for God’s existence.

Consequently, both of us examine the same evidence and come to different conclusions.

I’ve seen what you do with evidence, and “examine” is not the way I’d describe it. “Pick and choose (and bury the remains)”, I believe, better covers it.

The mistake you make is thinking you are an objective thinker and therefore your argument bears more intellectual and scientific merit.

If my arguments are flawed you’d think someone would eventually manage to point out the flaws, instead of calling me names. I don’t own science; I’m just a layman who’s rather passionate about the subject and know enough about many fields to be able to tell shit from shinola when “scientific” claims are made.

Like I’ve said several times before and will continue to say, you are a devout, fervent believer in your cause as am I. You are an atheist first and then you look at science, the systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation, through the spectacles of your underlying beliefs/assumptions/premises. I am a theist first and then look at science, the systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation, through the spectacles of my underlying beliefs/assumptions/premises.

Ah, but why are you a theist when you have no more evidence than I do? Why do many believers insist on claiming scientific reasoning leading to their beliefs? I you believe because you like it; or because you have to at least pretend to be able to live in your community, or because it helps you cope with personal tragedy, I have no problem with it. I’m just intrigued as to why believers feel they need to twist science around and invent fallacious arguments to support their belief. Faith - sorry, “failth” - is defined as belief without evidence. Seems a whole lot of believers want to show they actually have some evidence.

I don’t remember which thread it is, but I got initially interested because someone claimed that we were souls who had bodies. I found that interesting because were that the case, we should be able to test for the interaction between the supernatural soul and the physical body. There should be a way to observe the soul effecting it’s will on the body and see some process happen for which we would find no physical cause.

That seems to piss off some believers. I don’t know why, because you’d have actual evidence of the existence of some supernatural agent, and I’d have to revise my position.

You own no scientific “moral high ground” just because many scientists believe as you do just as I don’t own it for the same reason.

Conversely, you can’t simply make bullshit up and call it “science”, or claim that there’s “debate” about a theory because a fraction of a percent of scientists are in disagreement with it.

If there’s something like 95% consensus among scientific experts I’m quite willing to assume they represent the best of our current knowledge. It’s dishonest to side with the 5% and claim equal support. It’s even worse to side with people with theology “degrees” who aren’t even expert in the field they criticize.

The more you scoff, the more you drool, the more rabid you appear (and Pook my Buddha apologist compadre, you DO all of these things, if you could only see yourself), the more pious you become.

Even if that were the case, it changes nothing in regards to my arguments being valid or not. The claim that kangaroos are annoying to reconcile with the Ark story remains true whether I say it, or anyone else says it, or you read it in a fortune cookie.

Constantly attacking the messenger instead of presenting counter arguments doesn’t make a convincing case for your claims.

[quote]You actually appear as the very caricature of the person(s) you despise the most. You do this with a bit of a literary flair and so you attract those here who shout and cheer and stomp their feet in unison to your liturgical regurgitations and much like a tent revival preacher of old, you can sway the masses to come forward, take a bended knee and denounce “the devil” right along with you.

Like I said, if you could only see yourself…[/quote]

Yes, you’ve made the claim repeatedly, I think everyone gets it by now. What I don’t see is any attempts at counter arguments. Whenever any of your claims are contested, you’ll go on and on about “preacher pookie” and how I’m an evil atheist high-priest, but will never address the argument themselves.

Except for when I mentioned that I wasn’t aware of militant buddhists; THEN the URLs and refutations really rained down, didn’t they? So, yeah, I sure was wrong about that claim. Apparently, I’m right about all the others ones? I can live with that.

[pookie]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Flood geology addresses your concerns. I’m not going to type a an exhaustive review. If you’re interested you do the homework. I’m trying to run a business and simply can’t give it the requisite time. There is the matter also that no matter what I typed up, you, as a faithful believer, would dismiss it. Others would find it interesting though, I’m sure.[/quote]

I’m not asking for a exhaustive explanation; we usually manage just fine with Cliff Notes type summaries.

Nor will I. See above. As an aside, if I asked you to write a treatise on the human genome or traditional uniformitarianism geology I doubt you would indulge me either.

No, but if I had used that as the basis for an argument, I could probably provide enough of a short summary to bolster my argument.

I do note that when you were trying to get someone to say that some type of preservation was required for fossils, you went on and on for about half a dozen posts. You didn’t seem to mind the effort required then.

Is the kangaroo explanation less panty-blowing?

[quote]You would do well to study creationism if you are so hell-bent on dismissing it on a public internet site. “Know your enemy”, friend. (Or should I address you as Buddha from now on?)

There are way too many fantasy claims made by creationists…

You don’t think much of the doctrine of Sun Tzu, do you?[/quote]

Maybe I just don’t see you as an enemy.

[quote]I can simply scoff at a creationist - or whatever other “woo-woo” proponent - and make a claim that contradicts known scientific fact. I then let the spittle fly and attempt to humble my opponent through sheer ridicule. I really offer nothing else.

Fixed that for ya, Budd.[/quote]

Ok, I’m good at that too.

Read the links I’ve provided.

But they have none of your quaint charm, nor any of your pleasing demeanor.

[pookie]

I found this about kangaroos and the flood:

[i]* Kangaroos did not need to travel continents to get to the ark.

• Today kangaroos only live in Australia. But prior to the flood, kangaroos and other animals most likely lived near Noah’s home.

• Prior to the flood, the earth may have been one large landmass. Australia did not exist in its present location. Our present continents are shaped as a result of re-disposition of flood sediments, and receding flood waters.

• After the flood there were land bridges (because of a lower sea level) that connected many of the continents.

• Years later, the glaciers started to melt and the water level rose. This caused many land bridges to disappear.

• The animals that were on these continents would be stuck there. Keep in mind too, that many animals were brought to the United States by explorers. They did not travel there themselves. The same may be true for animals in Australia.

• For the animals that did migrate on foot, keep in mind one kangaroo would not have to hop all the way to Australia. A group could travel, dying and reproducing for many years along the way. There was probably a lot of trial and error looking for a climate that suited them, in combination with a ample source of food. It’s not as if they had Australia as a goal.[/i]

Is that a fair summary of flood “science” concerning marsupials?

[Gradstudent78]

[quote]ephrem wrote:
‘Lucy’ is 8,5 million years old…[/quote]

Lucy is a little over 3 million years old.

[pookie]

[quote]pookie wrote:
Is that a fair summary of flood “science” concerning marsupials?
pusharder wrote:

Yes.[/quote]

Well, don’t any of those affirmations raise any questions for you?

* Kangaroos did not need to travel continents to get to the ark.

• What evidence, Biblical or otherwise, is there that separate continents did not exist prior to the flood?

• Even if the Earth was previously one big landmass, how did animals manage to get the Ark anyway? Even a perfectly circular landmass would be over 6,000 km in radius. Assuming Noah’s Ark is in dead center, that doesn’t really make the trip much easier.

• You also have to assume that plants were uniformely dispersed, so that animal with particular diets could eat on the trip.

* Today kangaroos only live in Australia. But prior to the flood, kangaroos and other animals most likely lived near Noah’s home.

Holy shit. Noah must’ve been unable to make a single step without stepping in manure.

* Prior to the flood, the earth may have been one large landmass. Australia did not exist in its present location. Our present continents are shaped as a result of re-disposition of flood sediments, and receding flood waters.

• If the flood was so powerful as to completely pulverize and reorganize continents, how could it preserve any fossils? Any water strong enough to plow through a giant landmass and reorganize it to it’s present configuration is more than powerful enough to grind any bones or living tissue to a fine powdery mist. If granite was being reorganized, well so where bones.

• Such a thorough mixing should lead to fossils being randomly dispersed. After all, all the animals where evenly distributed on the initial large landmass; it makes no sense for a chaotic event like the flood to distribute the fossils with any sense of order.

• There are also very few human fossils, compared to other types and human fossils tend to be found above the fossils of extinct animals. How could a flood manage that?

* After the flood there were land bridges (because of a lower sea level) that connected many of the continents.

* Years later, the glaciers started to melt and the water level rose. This caused many land bridges to disappear.

Glaciers? What glaciers? Where does the bible mention post-flood glaciers? How could glaciers form while the water was churning hard enough to rearrange continents? If the Earth was covered for about 300 days with churning waters, how do you form ice? You might have some at the poles, but the claim here is that all continents were connected by land bridges.

Also, it fails to explain why only marsupials manage to find Australia, and how so few stayed elsewhere.

* The animals that were on these continents would be stuck there. Keep in mind too, that many animals were brought to the United States by explorers. They did not travel there themselves. The same may be true for animals in Australia.

Explorers would bring every single reprensentative of a specie to Australia? There was this big “Let’s get rid of marsupials” consipiracy going on? Not a single mammal managed to stow away?

* For the animals that did migrate on foot, keep in mind one kangaroo would not have to hop all the way to Australia. A group could travel, dying and reproducing for many years along the way. There was probably a lot of trial and error looking for a climate that suited them, in combination with a ample source of food. It’s not as if they had Australia as a goal.

Well, we should find a few marsupial fossils elsewhere, where some random kangaroo died when he didn’t make it. Or are fossils ONLY possible in a flood?

Note that many fossils we have (not of kangaroos) are found in amber. I don’t know if you’re familiar with how amber forms, but I’d like to see a “flood” explanation for that one too.

I will say this, catastrophism scientifically explains much about our present world so, so much better than uniformitarianism does.

I think catastrophism raises much more questions than it answers. If you look at the “before” picture of a big landmass with everything somewhat uniformly distributed (required so that Noah doesn’t have to trek far distances to get anything) and the “after” picture of vastly separated continents with different environments, different fossil records (both for plants and animals) and consider that going from the “before” to the “after” happened in 150-300 days (150 of flooding followed by 150 days of receding), it simply makes no sense. America is what? 6500km away from Europe? That mass has to cover 43km a day to get where it is now… all the while absorbing well preserved bones.

Oh, sorry, forgot that fossils aren’t bone. They’re rock. Sediments who have slowly (well in reality, in the flood, I’d have to say “magically”) replaced the former living tissue.

So that giant landmass was being lifted and moved at over 30 miles per day, but also managing to deposit animal and plant remains - some quite intact - in various strata. That apparently chaotic process was also sorting the fossils by strata and using the same sorting order the world over?

That makes sense to you?

That’s without going into how large the boat had to be; how the animal got fed; how did Noah and his family manage to keep the boat clean? How did fresh water fish manage to survive for a year in sea water? How did they survive the continental churning for that matter? How did insects survive? Plants? Bacteria? Viruses? Fungi?

How uncurious must someone be to be able to swallow those claims?

[pookie]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I believe most scientists accept some form of continental drift as fairly certain. The Flood does provide an ideal mechanism for it. If you were to study Flood geology you might just get a bit of a grip on the “catastrophic” hydraulics it entailed. You are obviously correct in assuming the Bible has little to say about the details of geology.[/quote]

Plate tectonics is not really in doubt, as far as science is concerned. But the scales involved are movements in centimeters per year. Flood geology requires 30 miles per day. These are many order of magnitudes of difference and the evidence for each would be vastly different, and many observed phenomenas are possible with a slow movement, but not with billions of years of tectonics recapitulated in 150 days.

No one doubts the global wide effects of say an ancient asteroid impact on the earth but can you possibly imagine the massive effects from global flooding? In reference to the Flood the Bible does speak of the “fountains of the deep” being “broken up”, indicating the possibility that large, I mean mega-humongous, reservoirs of water were contained beneath the earth’s surface in antediluvian times.

Why is there no evidence of such reservoirs ever existing? Other than mentions in a Biblical story?

Combine the release of these waters with the theoretical collapse of the water vapor canopy (also mentioned in Genesis)

Again, why no evidence of such a canopy? Either here, or on some other planet?

The only conclusion the canopy claim supports, is that primitive humans envisioned the Earth as circular and flat, with a dome overt it: bay-of-fundie.com

Of course, if you have no means of examining the planet other than living on it, it’s not an unreasonable conclusion. (Although the Greeks figured out it’s spherecity…)

in the earth’s atmosphere (FTR, our atmosphere today would differ radically) and you have a vast mechanism in place for some big shit going down (T-Nation laymen’s terms).

I can imagine vast mechanism for dishing out shit all day long. Unfortunately, with no evidence for their existence, my stories have little chance of being accepted.

Now here is where I can “appeal to authority” legitimately. Read Dr. Henry Morris’ works. He was a hydraulic engineer and made this subject his life work. If you just out of hand dismiss him because he was a creationist then we might as well end this discussion right here and now. It would be a sign that for you this is really all about contention for the sake of contention and has nothing to do with the intelligent exchange of ideas and contemplation.

Because someone makes something his life works, it means it’s valid? Einstein devoted his last 30 years or so trying to disprove quantum mechanics, because he didn’t like the randomness involved. Guess what? He was wrong.

He was right about many other things though, and much of his works has been verified and tested and readily accepted by millions of scientist since.

Why is Henry Morris and “flood geology” considered a joke in science? Could it be because he made the creationist mistake of taking the conclusion and expending all efforts trying to fit known observations into it? Poo-pooing the misfits and raving about the matches?

Say you’ve never heard of evolution nor the flood. You’re completely innocent. You’re shown all currently known facts about geology, fossils, plate tectonics, etc. Do you think that examining the evidence would lead to you posit a 6,000 year old Earth having experienced a 150 day flood after about 2,000 years?

[Edit] All of the water contained in the antediluvian subterranean reservoirs as well as the atmospheric water vapor canopy would have made it so the world was a much, much different place then with a lot more dry ground, i.e., larger continents (continent?); a more stable, warmer, uniform climate; lack of harmful solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface; a more even distribution of the earth’s plants and animals, etc.

Where did all that water go when it was done? Did God suck it up? More dry land with larger continents makes it even more unlikely for animals to be able to reach Noah’s Ark. Where did the canopy go? Did God need a large salad bowl and took it off?

Come on man, you’re trying to fit a children’s story into a mold it’ll never fit in.