Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism - a clearer picture?
Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 64 (5929)
03-01-2002 8:59 PM


It seems to me a vast majority of creationist on this board are dedicated to trying to find fault with evolution, as if disproving TOE would somehow validate "creationist science".
I am willing to listen the the other side of the arguement. I would like for a creationist to please lay down some of the theories of creation science and put forth supporting evidence. Experiments that test solid hypothesis of creation science, along with their data would be wonderful. I am willing to listen to evidence for a creationsist view of the universe. Science is about understanding. Please explain it to me.

  
Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 64 (5938)
03-01-2002 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by quicksink
03-01-2002 10:07 PM


Well, for the most part I would agree with you, but as logical and open minded person, I am willing to listen to the other side's evidence if they have it. However, if they aren't willing to step forward and have their evidence peer reviewed (a critically important part of the scientific process) then they should stop trying to pass creationism off as science. I believe I should at least make the offer and be open minded.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by quicksink, posted 03-01-2002 10:07 PM quicksink has not replied

  
Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 64 (5946)
03-02-2002 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Punisher
03-01-2002 11:42 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Punisher:
As far as I know both parties in this 'great debate' share the same universe, earth, and facts. This is not a debate about facts; we have the same facts. This is about an interpretation of those facts.
To quote Dr. Don Batten "Both evolution and creation fall into the category of origins science. Both are driven by philosophical considerations. The same data (observations in the present) are available to everyone, but different interpretations (stories) are devised to explain what happened in the past."

*sigh* If you don't understand the basic principles of scientific investigation , I suppose it means little to you when I say that your statement is a sad commentary for creation "science". What dear Dr. Batten ( a doctor of what, by the way) seems to confuse is the difference between philosophy and science. Philosophy seeks knowlege and truth through logical thought, sometimes intuition. Philosophy also seeks to explain morality. Science is interested in trying to find a framework to explain "past" and current natural phenomena and proccesses, and attempts to make predictions. Those predictions are dependant on observable data. If a hypothesis is invalidated by observation and data, it needs either to be revised or replaced. Evolution falls under the definition of science. The reason TOE is widely accepted is that it is the theory that best explains observerved data , and makes predicitions, that are supported by experiments, observations, and correlating data.
Since creationist science is being put forth as just that, science, I simply ask what is its basic theory. What hyopotesis have been formulated on it, and what experiments have conducted to verify these hypothesis. I ask for scientific evidence in support creationism. I am willing to consider valid scientific evidence and theories. Your commentary doesn't put forth a coherent scientific theory , or evidence, in support of the creationist position.
I find it strange that the even the Roman Catholic church accepts the validity of TOE, and geoligical evidence of and old earth. It seems they don't find a conflict between science and their philosophical beliefs, since TOE isn't a philosophy. Additionaly , TOE makes no predictions about the existance of a God or lack there of, and doesn't put forth a code of morals or beliefs. ( I think the Roman Catholic Church may have had some permenant reservations about TOE if it did. )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Punisher, posted 03-01-2002 11:42 PM Punisher has not replied

  
Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 64 (5951)
03-02-2002 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by TrueCreation
03-02-2002 12:38 AM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"As far as I know both parties in this 'great debate' share the same universe, earth, and facts. This is not a debate about facts; we have the same facts. This is about an interpretation of those facts."
--Exactly right, this is the crux of the debate, interperetation.

Well, science is about interpretating observed data and formulating hypothesis and theories. If you have evidence that supports a creationist theory, please share. If there are experiments based upon creationist hypothesis (ie. a creationist "interpretation" of data that explains natural phenomena and puts forth testable predicitions) that has data supporting it ( ie those facts you were talking about) then please tell us about them. I am not asking for anything that wouldn't be required of any scientific theory.
Your refusual to put forth suppporting evidence seems to be an indicator that creationism is a "belief" and not science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by TrueCreation, posted 03-02-2002 12:38 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by TrueCreation, posted 03-02-2002 1:03 AM Darwin Storm has replied

  
Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 64 (5964)
03-02-2002 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by TrueCreation
03-02-2002 1:03 AM


Cool, I will look into the other thread. The main reason I put up this thread is that I have repeatadly heard creationism refered to as "creationism science". If there is such a cat, I just wanted to see his stripes. Scientifically, even creationist genisis would leave tell tale signs that science could observe, and regardless of religious belief, would be supported by physical evidence if it took place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by TrueCreation, posted 03-02-2002 1:03 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by TrueCreation, posted 03-02-2002 3:53 AM Darwin Storm has replied

  
Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 64 (5971)
03-02-2002 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Theo
03-02-2002 1:35 AM


Theo,
My original question for this thread still stands. I am willing to here the creatist side of things, theories and evidence, as put forth by creationists. However, no one has yet been forthcoming with scientific theory to support the creationist model. This is not an attack on straw men, it is a simple request that the creationist side be stated and supported by observable data. If you have credible science to back you up, please put it forth, something that no other creationist has done so far in this thread.
I am not asking for a refutation of evolution. I am asking for strong evidence to support creationist theory.
As for predicting the first and second laws, please support this statement. Where did the bible postulate the laws of thermodynamics? Where is the supporting evidence for this claim? Additionaly, what observable data did the bible publish to support this theory?
(And I would be very interested to hear how evolution violates any of the laws of thermodynamics. Mind you this question is off topic, since I am asking that creationists put forth their theories and support them, not asking for a refutation of evolution. Its for my own personel curiousity that I ask why you think evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Theo, posted 03-02-2002 1:35 AM Theo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Theo, posted 03-08-2002 12:53 AM Darwin Storm has replied

  
Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 64 (5985)
03-02-2002 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by TrueCreation
03-02-2002 3:53 AM


TrueCreation,
Well, by conceding that creationism is faith based, as such, it doesn't meet scientific standards and therefore isn't a valid model for genesis. However, you refer to science which supports a young earth. If you have evidence for such, it should stand on its own, even without faith. I am willing to examine the scientific studies which you claim support the young earth model.
Truecreation:
quote:Creation science for instance, is science, and looked upon as 'creation science' for its interperetation for a young earth, which is fully evidence/science based. When looked upon by Creationism, creationism uses creation science to then apply it to the biblical doctrine, which is why it is intertwined with faith. Thus Creation science is not based on the validity of the bible or faith in it to substantiate it as scientific, it simply is.
Again, I am not asking you to prove creationism, which by your own standard is faithbased and religious is nature. However I doubt the veracity of your claims for science which clearly supports a young earth model. You should be able to present this without once mentioning the bible, and still be able to prove its true, by you definition. Also, I would like to see the evidence that supports other aspects of creation science.
If there is no body of scientific evidence which supports your claims, then creationism is just faith, without scientific support, and as such is simply a religion who's impact only applies to those who choose to believe in it. In the US you have the right to worship how you wish, and I fully support that right. However, just because you have faith in it doesn't make it scientifically true, or relevant to the rest of the people who don't share your beliefs.
I am dogged in my persuit. I am willing to listen to scientific evidence that supports "creation science". If there is none, please say so, and I won't ask it again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by TrueCreation, posted 03-02-2002 3:53 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by TrueCreation, posted 03-02-2002 12:21 PM Darwin Storm has not replied

  
Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 64 (5993)
03-02-2002 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by TrueCreation
03-02-2002 1:10 PM


Still waiting for scientific theories in support of creationism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by TrueCreation, posted 03-02-2002 1:10 PM TrueCreation has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Darwin Storm, posted 03-02-2002 1:23 PM Darwin Storm has not replied

  
Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 64 (5994)
03-02-2002 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Darwin Storm
03-02-2002 1:22 PM


My bad, still waiting for scientific theories in support of "creationist science" , since we have established creationism is faith based, not science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Darwin Storm, posted 03-02-2002 1:22 PM Darwin Storm has not replied

  
Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 64 (6058)
03-03-2002 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Punisher
03-02-2002 2:48 PM


Punisher,
Before I make any commentary, I want to thank you for actually posting material. In a serious debate, both sides need to be willing to say not only what they believe, buy why they believe it. You are the first one to post information in this thread in support of your arguement.
However, the evidence itself has some flaws. You may be interested in them or not. anyways, here we go.
1>)Salty ocean. : Yes there is quite of bit of salt in the ocean. Each year more and more salt is deposited in the ocean due to erosion and runoff. However, the vast majority of the salt in the ocean comes from the land covered by the ocean itself. (Hence nearly 2/3 of the oceans salt comes from the land it covers, not run off) Also, The output equations ignore a process called albitization, where the the free ions of salt in water are consumed near oceanic volcaninc activity to form basalt, thus removing salt from the oceans. Also, salt, (along with alot of other minerals deposited in the ocean) are also bound up in living organisms. Even after death, these atoms are bound up in complex molecules, thus removing salt from the ocean.
By the assumption that salt isn't removed fast enough, you must consider other elements alike aluminum. Using the same logic for aluminum, that it statically accumulates in the ocean, we can extrapolate a old age of 100 YEARS! It is a false assumption to say that the oceans are static dumping grounds. Free ions, by there very nature, are unstable, and tend to form molecules with other free ions or other molecules to achieve more stable form ( which has less free energy). Isn't Entropy grand. Its the basis of all chemistry.
For further support I will turn to a quote by Melvin Cook, another creationist. [quote] The validity of the application of total salt in the ocean in the determination of age turned out to have a very simple answer in the fact shown by Goldschmidt (1954) that it is in steady state and therefore useless as a means of determining the age of the oceans. [Cook, 1966, p.73] (Dalrymple, 1984, pp.115-116)
[endquote]
If even other creationists doubt the validity of this evidence, then it kinda makes me wonder why it is still used.
2>)Helium, O helium, where art thou Helium? Well, first off, by the article cited, it states that the helium could have a accumulated in only 2 million years. Hmmm, kinda goes past the whole 6 k age limit thing.
But even then, the physics used to prove it are faulty. First off, there are two common forms of helium H3 and H4. Being extremly light molecules, the energy required to accelerate these atoms to escape velocities is actually very low ( roughly a fourth that needed for nitrogen to escape) . Helium 3 is quite able to reach escape velocities in the exosphere. The main point that the article seems to sieze upon is Helium 4, where the escape rate from the exosphere doesn't equal input from particle decay.
Another factor that of helium loss is photoionization by polar winds. [quote] The most probable mechanism for helium loss is photoionization of helium by the polar wind and its escape along open lines of the Earth's magnetic field. Banks and Holzer [1969] have shown that the polar wind can account for an escape of 2 to 4 x 10^6 ions/cm^2 sec of Helium-4, which is nearly identical to the estimated production flux of (2.5 +-1.5) x 10^6 atoms/cm^2 sec. Calculations for Helium-3 lead to similar results, i.e., a rate virtually identical to the production flux. Another possible escape mechanism is direct interaction of the solar wind with the upper atmosphere during the short periods of lower magnetic- field intensity while the field is reversing. Sheldon and Kern [1972] estimated that 20 geomagnetic-field reversals over the past 3.5 million years would have assured a balance between helium production and loss. (Dalrymple, 1984, p.112)
Dr. Dalrymple goes on to explain that even though our understanding of the helium balance in the atmosphere is incomplete, the situation being very complicated because of various hard-to-calculate factors, we do know one thing. "...it is clear that helium can and does escape from the atmosphere in amounts sufficient to balance production." (1984, p.113)
[end quote]
Note, these are probable mechanisms. However, as also stated such a stituation is complex, and the factors involved are difficult to calculate various factors. Needless to say, using helium in the atmosphere is a poor way to try and calculate the earth's appearant age.
3.>Exponential growth of people? It is only in light of modern science (medicine, more effecient agricultural techniques, and a centralization of the population into cities) and culture that we have seen an exponential growth of the human population over the last 200 years. Previous to that, the human population was mostly zero growth, except where the population moved into new regions, and thus new resources were available. The population had swells and falls, but usually net growth remains near zero. As certain technological advances were made, you would see a swell in the population that would plateau as the population expanded due to new resources.
Another major factor we must consider is disease. During the black plauge in europe, nearly 25 million people died, nearly a THIRD of all people in europe at the time. There was a flu epidemic during the first part of this century that killed more than 20 million people, more than was lost in WW2. Disease and hunger are effective population controls.
Using the same logic of unrestricted exponential population growth, lets examine ANY species with a more rapid growth rate. For example, a bacteria population of 8, doubling every hour, you could cover every square inch of the planet with a million bacteria in a week.
Another (very funny example) is using bunny rabbits.
http://riceinfo.rice.edu/armadillo/Sciacademy/riggins/noabun.htm
However, these two previous examples are proposterous. We readily accept as common logic that these populations are kept in check by availability of resource, by predators, and by disease. The same holds true for humanity through most our history. Its is only due to modern scientific advances that we have created and enviroment where exponential growth of our population could occur.
In conclusion, peer review is the best way to improve and refine scientific ideas. If you are able to modify the theory to explain new data, that is wonderful. Inability to do so means the theory must be discarded and a new hypothesis must be created to explain and predict based on the observable data.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Punisher, posted 03-02-2002 2:48 PM Punisher has not replied

  
Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 64 (6193)
03-06-2002 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by quicksink
03-06-2002 5:01 AM


Amusing though. : )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by quicksink, posted 03-06-2002 5:01 AM quicksink has not replied

  
Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 64 (6288)
03-08-2002 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Theo
03-08-2002 12:53 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Theo:
This is for Darwin Storms questions:
I believe that macro-evoltion violates the first and second laws of thermodynamics because the first law has seen no exceptions (vacuum fluctuations not withstanding see previous post). Creationists generally believe that for macro-evolution to be true it must account for the origin of matter via a natural cause. There appears to be no satisfactory natural explanation, the Big Bang has too many problems such as too much unburned hydrogen, the angular momentum of galaxies, the origin of the original super compressed hydrogen egg etc... The alt's are steady state or oscillating both of which have many problems as well. Oscillating universe just delays the question, where did the original matter come from? It seems that these theories are super-natural by definition as super just means beyond. If there are no natural mechanisms as explanations and one still believes that there will be a natural cause found one day, then by definition that is a super-natural explanation.
[[STOP! TOE has NOTHING do to with the creation of the universe! The big bang theory is a seperate theory and is part of astrophysics! Now, if you want to debate astrophysics and its theories, that is fine, but PLEASE know which theories you are discussing. It is a serious blow to your integrity as a debater when you make missrepresentations of such theories. As for the big bang and astrophysics, if you want to discuss that, that is fine. However, please don't lump seperate theories from different disciplines together. You do some research on what TOE actually states, and then lets talk about it. As for the astrophysics, lets both research into that, and have a meaningful debate. You make alot of half formed assertions statements without any supporting evidence.
You also state that, "Creationists generally believe that for macro-evolution to be true it must account for the origin of matter via a natural cause". Nowhere does TOE does it say anything about the creation of matter. This is invalid logic used to try and link TOE and the Big Bang Theory as if they were the same theory. If this is what creationists believe, it is a sad commentary on the creationist side's basic comprehension of TOE.]
The second law is entropy. property of matter to move to simplicity. [1] In order for macro-evolution to be true creationists believe adherents have to demonstrate an inherent self-organizing property of matter, which has never been observed.[2] This would be crucial to the first cell forming and then being able to replicate and then move towards complexity, multiple celled animals ect. That's why we make such a big deal of the first cell, then single cell to man. [2] By no known natural mechanism can a cell form by chance then evolve to the complexity of man no matter how much time is given.[3] It is a violation of Entropy.[4] False responses will tell you that if a system has an influx of material and energy that localized reversals of entropy are possible but they leave out the fact that to utilize the materials and energy a 'program' is needed but a program has always required intelligence to preceed it. [5] In the case of life, the program is DNA but it is too complex to ever have occurred by chance.[6]
Hence we believe that macro-evolution theory violates the first two laws but creation science predicts them. [7]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Theo, posted 03-08-2002 12:53 AM Theo has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024