|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,488 Year: 3,745/9,624 Month: 616/974 Week: 229/276 Day: 5/64 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Most convincing evidence for creation theory | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I accept Divine Revelation as truth, just as you scientists accept the Scientific Method This would be a good topic for another thread An analysis of why such things as prediction and independent corroboration of theories are so compelling to scientists. A discussion as to which of divine revelation and scientific method is the best means of investigating reality and why each camp believes their methods to be superior. However as Admin has stated we need to let this thread get back on track. Personally I think the lack of evidence that is likely to be presented on topic in this thread will speak volumes about the creationist position (or more exactly the lack of it)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2499 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Grizz writes: Convincing to whom? That's my point. Non-creationists. Not necessarily evolutionists, it could be those who have not made their minds up. On this thread's opposite number, the convincing evidence for evolution one, there was no lack of ideas.
So my best evidence for Creationism is Divine Revelation itself Meaning you have no evidence, just blind faith. Scientific method is a tool, not a faith, and isn't presented as evidence of anything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 307 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Before you post about the theory of evolution again, you might consider finding out what it is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EltonianJames Member (Idle past 6117 days) Posts: 111 From: Phoenix, Arizona USA Joined: |
Considering the title of the topic, and your view that creationists have ample evidence to support their position, would you like to tell us what that ample evidence is? Or at least, some of it? I am guessing that you missed the gist of the post or you wouldn't be asking for something which you have most likely already rejected a hundred times in a hundred other forums. A bit disingenous, don't you think? Whether evo or creo, most likely you have already entrenched yourself in a specific camp of thought, a camp you have absolutely no intention of leaving, regardless of which path the evidence is actually leading you down. Evidence is just that. It can prove nothing, it can only stimulate your mind and each individual is fully capable of following the evidence down the wrong path and that means all of us. Proof I cannot offer you and any evidence presented, whether by myself or another, can and will only be accepted or rejected contingent on personal belief. To emphasize this point, I offer the following...
Based on the observed rotational speeds of the stars about the center of our own galaxy, "if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless smear of stars instead of its present spiral shape." Evidence for Creation At the current rate of erosion from water and winds "it would only take 15 million years to erode all land above sea level," depositing it into the ocean. At the current rate of sedimentation, the accumulation of sedimentation from the continents "implies that the present ocean floors have existed less than 15 million years." Fossil evidence supports the current rate of sedimentation. Assuming that the oceans had no salt to start with, at the current rates of sodium entering and leaving the oceans, the oceans would have accumulated their present amount in less than 42 million years. Using the most generous allowances for evolutionary scenarios, still gives a maximum possible age for the oceans of only 62 million years. The earth's magnetic field energy has been decaying at a factor of 2.7 over the past 1,000 years. At this current decay rate, the earth could not be greater than 10,000 years old. Many erect fossil trees in Nova Scotia were found "throughout 2,500 feet of geologic strata, penetrating 20 geologic horizons. These trees had to have been buried faster than it took them to decay. This implies that the entire formation was deposited in less than a few years." "Many strata are too tightly bent. In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic timescale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition." All naturally-occurring families of radioactive elements generate Helium (in the form of an alpha particle) as they decay. Taking into account the amount of helium flowing into and out of the atmosphere, "it would take less than 2 million years to accumulate the small amount of helium in the air today." "Helium produced by radioactive decay in deep, hot rocks has not had time to escape. Though the rocks are supposed to be billions of years old, their helium retention suggest an age much less than millions of years." There are not enough stone-age skeletons to account for the approximately 4 billion Neanderthal and Cro-magnon people that evolutionary anthropologists say lived during the 100,000 years of the stone age. "Yet only a few thousand skeletons have been found implying that the stone age was much shorter, a few hundred years in many areas." I have not conversed with any evo who has not already seen and rejected the above. If the evidence does not support the particular camp to which we belong, we will reject that evidence or mold it until if fits nicely into our pre-conceived notions of life and how it came to be. It is understandable and acceptable that evidence contrary to one position can and often does give greater credence to an opposing position. This happens all the time in law enforcement. Evos and creos are notorious for rejecting out of hand any evidence that contradicts their preferred position. This forum has not shown itself to behave any differently, nor would I expect it to. The opposing camps have become far too polarized. Neither camp has evidenced that they openly accept new concepts and ideas if same contradicts long held beliefs. "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed." Albert Einstein
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 307 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
So far, we have:
(1) A nice case of petitio principii. Creationism, we are told, is true because "the appearance of design is real". This is like saying that the best evidence that pigs can fly is that the genus Sus is volant. (2) Unsupported claims of divine revelation. (3) Claims that there is "abundant" evidence, which the claimant does not produce. Well, I'm convinced. I think I'll burn my evil biology textbooks and enter a monastery. Unless, of course, I can manage to get into a convent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Which of your evidences listed do you consider to be the most compelling?
How does this chosen line of evidence fare in terms of prediction and independent corroboration? Do you even accept that prediction and independent corroboration are useful criteria for assessing the validity of a theory/interpretation?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Based on the observed rotational speeds of the stars about the center of our own galaxy, "if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless smear of stars instead of its present spiral shape." Please explain the model and rational for that assertion. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 307 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Evidence is just that. It can prove nothing ... The final, shameful, creationist retreat. In order to put your fairy-story on a par with science, you have to deny the possibility of finding things out by studying the evidence.
I have not conversed with any evo who has not already seen and rejected the above. Yes, of course. What I'm wondering is why you haven't rejected the fatuous blunders in your cut-and-paste. Oh, right, because you don't think evidence is relevant to determining what is true. I notice, by the way, that nothing in there is positive evidence for the story with the magic tree and the talking snake. It seems to be mostly whining about geology. You were asked for positive evidence for your fairy-story, not more whining about science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Is Humphrey's Diffusion rates paper. It isn't convincing evidence that the world was created, but it's the most likely to convince people that the earth might younger than scientists would have them believe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EltonianJames Member (Idle past 6117 days) Posts: 111 From: Phoenix, Arizona USA Joined: |
Which of your evidences listed do you consider to be the most compelling?
My personal opinion does not matter. Only the evidence matters, and as we have seen over the last several decades, if the evidence does not lead where one wants to go...reject it or reevaluate it until it fits where one needs it to fit.
How does this chosen line of evidence fare in terms of prediction and independent corroboration?
Depends on the camp examining the evidence, now doesn't it.
Do you even accept that prediction and independent corroboration are useful criteria for assessing the validity of a theory/interpretation? Useful yes...last word no. Consider this. A honeycomb is a facinating structure and no one can deny the fact that the design is an extremely intelligent one. The design of the honeycomb is not the issue...the designer is. This honeycomb is a marvelous example of evidence for intelligent design, but only for the creationist. The evolutionist may accept the fact that the design is an intelligent one but this will not bring them any closer to acknowledging the possibility of an "Intelligent Designer" or a "Creator" that is anything beyond the time/random mutation equation. "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed." Albert Einstein
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2499 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
I am guessing that you missed the gist of the post or you wouldn't be asking for something which you have most likely already rejected a hundred times in a hundred other forums. Yes, you are guessing.
A bit disingenous, don't you think? No, I don't. I said this:
quote: I was making a very reasonable request. This thread is for creationists to present what they think is the most convincing evidence for creationism. You weren't doing that, and now, following my request, you have. Well done. You could've done it on your first post, without all the preliminary philosophizing, couldn't you? Edited by bluegenes, : punctuation!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
While admitting that, as is the case with any hypothesis/theory, there are debatable and problematic areas of mystery, I go with the wholistic corroborative quantity argument for intelligent design, each and all of which would be required for explanation of the observed data.
As with healthcare, focusing on symptoms alone is not very effective for lasting health. One can argue for some positive isolated good evidence for just about any origins viewpoint. The most convincing aspect of ID creationism is the quantity of evidences for ID, all of which are needful to bring about what is observed in the cosmos and upon earth, some examples as follows: 1. The precise position of the sun, moon and earth so far as distance, size, temperature, lightrays et al. 2. All of the needful properties of planet earth's atmosphere. 3. Harmonious balance required for ecobalance in oxygen/hydrogen et al relative to survival of plants and animals, the discharge of one becoming the needful life sustaining inhalant of the other. 4. Complexity of billions of organisms, most of which are ecologically in balance for sustenance of the whole. 5. The mathmatical improbabilities of the original biogenesis of life itself as well as the ability to progress/evolve in the early stages of life relative to entropy and 2LoT without a designer would be argument in favor of ID creationism. 6. Evidence of ID so far as fulfilled Biblical prophecy, the religious mindset of all cultures of mankind throughout history, explanations for the phenomena observed in human cultures, relative to the male/female relationships, reproduction, male dominance (so far as brute strength/family headship/size/et al) 7. The properties of planet earth itself as to properties, core, chemical makeup, all aspects of water, polarity, electrolysis, rotation, orbit, gravity, properties of soil, et al. There are many more, but since this thread pertains to honing in on our best argument the above are examples for my best argument which would be corroborative quantity perse. In order for this message not to draw off topic, I suggest that responses pertain to my best argument, being quantity of needful corroborating evidences for ID, all wholistically supportive to ID creationism. One may pick any one of the above items and cite arguments for and against in attempting to divide and conquer but as with evolutionists, we creationists have quite a significant arsenal of good corroborative evidences which give us good reason to remain entrenched, if you will, into our mindset. For that reason, imo, evolutionists often are too condescending toward us for tenaciously holding to IDist hypotheses. Edited by Buzsaw, : Missed a spelling error in review BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 307 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
My personal opinion does not matter. Only the evidence matters, and as we have seen over the last several decades, if the evidence does not lead where one wants to go...reject it or reevaluate it until it fits where one needs it to fit. There is an alternative --- but that involves changing your mind; as exmplified by Glenn Morton, say, or Michael Denton. Or William Buckland, for that matter. Or Darwin.
Depends on the camp examining the evidence, now doesn't it. So far as I'm aware, only one camp examines the evidence. We call 'em scientists.
Consider this. A honeycomb is a facinating structure and no one can deny the fact that the design is an extremely intelligent one. The design of the honeycomb is not the issue...the designer is. Bees. Glad I could clear that one up for you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2192 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
What you now need to do, Buz, is list all the evidence that contradicts your version of ID.
If you don't do that, you are just cherry-picking the evidence which appears to support your notion and ignoring the rest.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 757 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
I have not conversed with any evo who has not already seen and rejected the above. If the evidence does not support the particular camp to which we belong, we will reject that evidence or mold it until if fits nicely into our pre-conceived notions of life and how it came to be. Not quite. If all the evidence does not support a conclusion, I reject that conclusion. The "salt in the oceans" argument, for example, might at first sniff seem to support a young-ocean scenario. But a couple of dozen other lines of evidence - magnetic striping, dating of seafloor cores, rates of opening of ocean basins, etc. - contradict that "evidence." Anbd the original assertion of "salt in the oceans" leaves out the known consumption of sodium by reactions with "new" rock at spreading centers. And it is further flawed by ignoring metals like iron and aluminum - their concentrations in seawater "prove" that the Earth is less than about 150 years old!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024