Creationism - a clearer picture?

"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.------------------

"Indeed that may well be the case. Interpretation,which varies from individuals to individuals...like say for instance someone like myself who would interpret a vegetable eating lion as evidence that some animals species can produce some intriguing and unique mutants,while someone else,who shall remain nameless,would interpret said lion as the proof that 4500 years ago,big cats were all herbivores..."
--I think it would be more accurate to say from theory to theory. Also, I would suggest a good biology book, with a coarse introduction.------------------

"Well, science is about interpretating observed data and formulating hypothesis and theories."
--Right."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."
--We've been discussing much regarding theoretical implications in various threads. Try 'Falsifying Creation'."Your refusual to put forth suppporting evidence seems to be an indicator that creationism is a "belief" and not science. "
--Creationism is a belief, who told you differently.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 03-02-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 03-02-2002]

"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."
--I'll quote myself from a former post on the subject:

quote:

---

--Creation Science and Faith are intertwined to form Creationism. Thus Creationism has included faith and science, and is unscientific in its whole, contrary to creation science.

---

quote:

---

Creation science is simply 'science' that is given the name creation science by the perspective of the higher classified 'creationism' in the hierarchy. Creation science and faith form creationism. 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.

---

--I hope this answers some of your possible questions, or brings about new ones.------------------

"Oh i did,when i was younger,i couldn't get enough biology."
--Hm.. I think you forgot some of it. "And you know what biology has taught me?"
--No, but I know what It has taught me, that the old saying that 'biology makes no scence without evolution', is quite wrong, and that biology makes perfect scense untill you come to these words: 'Scientists think...', or 'scientists believe...', then you know what they are about to say."That the Lion is a carnivore,that it is born to be a carnivore and that it starves to death if it runs out of meat and that there is no fact in science that would lend credence to the hypothesis that lions or their ancestors ever grazed the fields side by side with the antilopes and the gazelles and that ONE MUTANT LION living on vegetables in a CONTROLED ENVIRONEMENT does NOTHING to alter those FACTS."
--If you can tell me two things, I will subside to your argument and withdraw it as invalid if: 1. Tell me why this lion, even being a single one, with its ability means that it is not valid for a population to do the same. 2. Avoid the assertion that because it is a single that it means nothing to alter these very flexible facts (that is if you know some basic biology, genetics, and inheritance).------------------

"I think you're incorrect. Biology is critically dependent on evolutionary theory, except the part that simply catalogs existing species. Anything beyond that, unless you have a mechanism for how the particular organism developed over time, you have no way of determining anything (i.e., ecosystem interractions, population dynamics, speciation, etc.) Without evolutionary theory, biology is relegated to simple gardening..."
--I think that you are almost right, biology does infact need evolution. I should have been clearer, it would have been more appropriate to say Evolution by common descent. Variation and Speciation being a type of evolutionary process is the theoretical and well supported (to a degree) supposition on the reason for such diverse life."The simple explanation is that your mutant fruit-eating lion is a "hopeful monster" that has literally no chance of survival in the wild."
--What is this assertion based on? What would be a threat if the population of proto-lions had such a diet."Given lion behavior, social structure, reproductive behaviors, etc, any lion that did not have the capability to harness the energy potential of meat protein (for which their digestive systems have evolved over the course of 45 million years or so) would be at a net disadvantage physically when attempting to overthrow a male group (see the lion behavior thread on this forum for ex.)."
--Right, this could be a reason for why we don't see such lions anymore, could have been a recessive gene or a broken link of genes at a locus in the chromosome. I havent the material for how it attained its died accept that it was a given since birth, that is, it was an 'instinct' or built in desire. A hypothesis could be that little-tyke is what all the proto-lions were like directly post-flood and pre-flood. After a population had a taste for meat, the other dieted population would be at the disadvantage."I have read some general info on the so-called vegetarian lion raised in captivity in the early '20s or '30s, but haven't seen any comparative physical data on it. Do you have any references for this freak that is so often used by creationists to claim ALL carnivores were vegetarians before the putative fall?"
--If you go to Amazon.com you can find the book on it. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0835606058/qid=1015087639/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/002-5725929-4409663--Thats the book on it. I am not sure what it would be to tell you but it by looking at the table of contents you can see that it shows greatly on its actions and its nature of living with its environment and such.------------------

"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."
--Your correct on the first part, but I'm not quite sure what you are getting at to say it '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."
--Yes it should."I am willing to examine the scientific studies which you claim support the young earth model."
--Allright, well lets see, considering the assumption that the earth is 6000 years old if you want to base it on faith in the bible. Or if you just wan't to say the earth is young by science, you would have to lower the ages for many of the things that evolution claims is millions of years old, there is an argument in anything that claims this."Again, I am not asking you to prove creationism, which by your own standard is faithbased and religious is nature."
--Well you can never 'prove' creationism anymore than you can 'prove' atheistic evolutionism, I'm glad you didn't assert that this is what should happen to be valid as some may do."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."
--It 'clearly supports a young earth model' through interperetation."You should be able to present this without once mentioning the bible, and still be able to prove its true, by you definition."
--Yes, as I stated above, you can always show that the earth is plausably young in its thousands that is. Its just as the model shows that when you apply those findings to the bible you intertwine it with faith in it and say its 6,000 as a creationist belief."Also, I would like to see the evidence that supports other aspects of creation science."
--Like what?"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."
--Something like that yes, though whether I would be to argue well for any YEC interperetation, keep in mind my standard, as I am not someone that you would be asking for some conclusive answer on creationism. That is, if I cannot answer your question possibly, that doesn't mean someone else can."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."
--Allright, this is true if it requires faith."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."
--We are discussing my theory on Flood deposition in 'Falsifying creaitonism', unless you would like to bring up another specific matter that you wish to find a valid YEC answer. (as long as it isn't Radioisotopic dating or 'new' information theory, their rather poor arguments on my part )------------------

"1)The Lion in question died at age 8, average life span of lions in captivity 25... so she lived less than 25% of her expected life span..."
--Actually it was 9 years, also, do you know the cause of death? Wound infliction, heart attack, or mabye it was vitamin deficiency, you would need to get the book on Little-tyke to find the relevance."2)Lions need certain vitamins and the like they can only get from meat, there is no record of this veggy lion ever breeding, given that it is known that malnutrition can cause infertillity I doubt that on a veggy diet she could have bred."
--You doubt, but we don't know, see above."3)If a veggy lion can`t breed then lions as a species cannot be veggy..."
--You would have to know what the deficiency was, or whether it was infertile, also what the supplements were of the diet."Well TC?"
--You pose good question, though they can't be answered with out a reference to them, I think that I might wan't to get that book.------------------

I found something very significant on Little-tyke and her death:Vegetarian Lioness: Little Tyke - http://www.vegetarismus.ch/vegepet/tyke.htm

quote:

---

Unfortunately, while spending three weeks in Hollywood for the show, Little Tyke contracted virus pneumonia, a disease that took her life a few weeks later. The sudden change in climate may have been a contributing factor. She succumbed quietly in her sleep, retiring early after watching television.

---

--Turns out it was nothing along the lines of a vitamine deficiency the way I would have speculated.--This also on the significance of little-tyke in the scientific dillemma:

quote:

---

Science is at a loss when it comes to Little Tyke. Felines are the strictest of carnivores. Without flesh she should have developed blindness, as well as dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM), a degenerative disease that turns heart muscles flabby and limits their ability to pump blood. This is because her diet didn't contain an adequate source of the amino acid, taurine.

---

quote:

---

Taurine is non-existent in natural non-animal sources. It is present in minute amounts in milk and eggs. Little Tyke could have gotten her taurine requirement from milk, if she drank 500 gallons per day, or from eggs, if she ate more than 4000 per day. How did Little Tyke get taurine?

---

Also, it isn't the only one:

quote:

---

Little Tyke wasn't alone. A photograph taken at Allahabad, India in 1936 shows another awesome lioness.
In Autobiography of a Yogi, Paramahansa Yogananda wrote:
...Our group left the peaceful hermitage to greet a near-by swami, Krishnananda, a handsome monk with rosy cheeks and impressive shoulders. Reclining near him was a tame lioness. Succumbing to the monk's spiritual charm - not, I am sure, to his powerful physique! - the jungle animal refuses all meat in favor of rice and milk. The swami has taught the tawny-haired beast to utter "Aum" in a deep, attractive growl - a cat devotee!

---

------------------

"Actually,its likely that vitamin deficiency is exactly what caused Tyke to die from a viral infection."

quote:

---

Most cases of viral pneumonia are usually mild and resolve spontaneously without specific treatment.

​

"Pneumonia." Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2001. 1993-2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

---

"The Lion obviously was never very healthy and would likely have dies in mere months in the wild."
--By what cause would it have died? Also, little-tyke was 'very' healthy:Vegetarian Lioness
by James A. Peden - http://www.newveg.av.org/animals/vegetarianlioness.htm

quote:

---

This particular big cat, in her prime and perfect health, chose a more gentle way of life, vegetarian!

---

"As for the other Lion in 1936 thats at best hear say,although i understand the need for creationist to cling to whatever shred of would be evidence they can find,since the bulk of science does not support their wild claims"
--Lets not be ignorant, you have yet to explain to me why this feline is not significant by its number, being just one example (along with the other I gave you).------------------

"You still haven't explained how wild lions get milk and processed rice, TC. And malnutrition would have contributed to disease susceptibility, so you can't make a claim that the premature death of the animal wasn't related to its diet, it is a distinct possibility. You seem to have overlooked again the fact that captive lions should live to be 25, Tyke only made it to 9."
--See Previous post."So you're wasting our time with a non-scientific presumption, because if we were to completely defeat your argument this view of the pre-Flood world would persist."
--Note: TC isn't AiG. Yes it would still persist, just as Evolution persisted when Piltdown man was found a fraud. And it is falsifiable, you have to show me that this was from vitamin deficiency and then explain why it lived to such an age withough the vitamines it supposedly must have had in much larger quantities than she did.------------------