Creationism - a clearer picture?

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.

​

---

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...

​

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"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.

​

---

Oh i did,when i was younger,i couldn't get enough biology. And you know what biology has taught me? 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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Theo:
I find the lack of understanding in these posts of what creationism claims to be appalling. The straw man fallacy is repeated over and over.

​

I suggest that if one want's to understand the creationist view before critiquing it they read Oliver Wendel Bird's two volume set "The Origin of the Species Revisited." Evolutionist scientists recommend it. In volume one he reviews the scientific data. In volume two he reviews the philosophy of science, definitions of science and legalities. He does not address the issue of the Young Earth however.

​

If one did their homework they would find that creationism does make testable predictions. I have found no one critical of creationism in these posts that even have a clue as to what they are. Shouldn't one know what one is critiquing before one critiques it?

​

Evolution made predictions, mutation and natural selection for change from a single cell to man and then when science proved that mutation and natural selection could not have done this, evolution simply changed the theory to punctuated equilibrium to explain the lack of evidence. Yet Punk Eek cannot provide a mechanism. This is blind faith and begging the question. One cannot interpret the evidence in light of one's beliefs. That method will always confirm one's original beliefs. That's what evolution has done. Popper's criteria of falsifiability as part of the definition of science apparently doesn't apply to evolution science. Evolution science is to plastic violating definitions of science. For starters on testable predictions, creationism predicts the first and second laws of thermodynamics which evolution science violates.

​

We'll go from there

​

---

Would you care to give us a few exemples of those testable predictions of creationism?

Actually,its likely that vitamin deficiency is exactly what caused Tyke to die from a viral infection. The Lion obviously was never very healthy and would likely have dies in mere months in the wild. 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

"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.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------LUD:And the level of health of a given creature is usually quite relevent to weather or nor it dies from pneumonia...This Lion has lived all her existance in captivity,being cared for by people that made every efforts for her not to die...which she did nevertheless. The logical conclusion is that in the wild,Type would never have reached adulthood,even if her own mother haden't been bent of killing her at birth."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.htmquote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------This particular big cat, in her prime and perfect health, chose a more gentle way of life, vegetarian!--------------------------------------------------------------------------------LUD: Thats their opinion and it is not substanciated by the fact that she died from pneumonia IN CAPTIVITY WHILE BEING CARED FOR. As for a "gentler" way of life,thats actually dependent on a given POV...i'm not sure the plants she devoured would agree with this "notion of gentleness"..."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).LUD:Its not significant because they are obviously what intelligent people refer to as "exceptions to a rule"...every rule has them. Some people have actually been born with two heads,each with a distinct personality. Is this an indication that at one time in the past,we were all two headed beings? No,of course no...its a mutation,more or less isolated from the rest of the human race,just like Tyke was a mutant to her race...and as i said,not even a viable one,since she required constant supervision and care to even reach 1/4 of normal lion life expectancy....as for her playing with chick without harming them,thats not unusual....my sister's cat does the same with our budgee Philiss....the two were inseparable when she lived here. I can name several exemples of animals,normaly carnivores,who actually have loving relationships woth animals they would normally feast upon. Perhaps it was one such exception being observed in the distant past that prompted the biblical quotation of wolves lying down with sheep. It certainly would make a hellavulot more sense than all carnivores having been vegetarians until they were all taken aboard a huge mythical boat to be saved from a mythical global flood.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punisher:
Darwin Storm:

​

Perhaps some of the following articles will satisfy your long awaited request to "lay down some of the theories of creation science and put forth supporting evidence."

​

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3910.asp

​

LUD:Hum..."Our planet, Earth, is the only place in the universe known to have liquid water."...seems to me like a wild claim to be making for someone who never went on other planets....not a good premise for this article....and there is evidence that Europa contains an ocean underneath its ice sheets and that there was once a large sea on Mars...so there goes that theory. The rest of the article is merely nonsense about the salinity of the seas indicating a 6000 years old earth,nonsense which has allready been debunked decades ago....see the explanation at talkorigin.com

​

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1401.asp

​

LUD: see talkorigin for debunking about helium : http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debate-age-of-earth.html

​

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v23n3_people.asp

​

LUDh my...another baloney sandwitch? the population figures given in AIG assumes that populations have been doubling every 156 years since the flood....thats would mean that 150 years after the flood,16 people build the gigantic tower of Babel....must have been some engineering feat!!!

​

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punisher:
Maybe my math is wrong; according to the figures in the article, the population was possibly doubling every 19 years after the flood as noted below. Where did you come up with the 150 year 16 people figure?

​

"Let us take the average of all births in the first two post-Flood generations as 8.53 children per couple. The average age at which the first son was born in the seven post-Flood generations in Shem’s line ranged from 35 to 29 years (Genesis 11:10—24), with an average of 31 years,7 so a generation time of 40 years is reasonable. Hence, just four generations after the Flood would see a total population of over 3,000 people (remembering that the longevity of people was such that Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth, etc., were still alive at that time). This represents a population growth rate of 3.7% per year, or a doubling time of about 19 years."

​

---

Punisher,read the coincidence part of this "article"...they clearly state that it is estimated that the population doubled every 156 years. In any event,the entire thing is completely bogus. First,they give the sons of Noah a given number of sons...then they ASSUME an equal number of daughters,doing this with no scriptural or scientific evidence WHATSOEVER to come up with an average of 8.1 kids per couple...then,that figures becomes 8.53 in the next paragaph,with no explanation for the .43 that was added and the entire thing is build on the ALLREADY PROVEN WRONG assumption that there was a constant population growth....until 80 years ago,the world's population growth looked more like a mild swelling than a growth...then,it exploded to the levels we know today. Oh,and they base much of the article on the COMPLETELY UNSUBSTANCIATED NONSENSE BELIEF of people living to be 900...the whole calculation is so shaky that a breeze will topple it any day of the week and twice on sunday...the only way for anyone to buy even half of this nonsense calculation is to be terminally stupid!!!