A Christian (and creationist)'s condemnation of "Creation Science"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:
Only that which pertains to mankinds past, mankinds present, and mankinds future is relevant.

---

If that's your opinion (and I must say I disagree), then why are you discussing the age of the Earth, or the origin of life?As schrafinator says, evolution meets all the requisites to be a science: It is based in the observation of "natural" facts, and its predictions can be tested by following experiments.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
First you say that you disbelieve the ToE because it goes against the Bible, which is fine.

​

They you say that it is unscientific, to boot, which is wrong.

​

Of course the ToE is falsifiable, just like any other scientific theory. It has been refined and changed as better information has come to light, so I suppose, in a way, small parts of it have been shown to be inaccurate, or holes have been filled in and questions anwered as we make new discoveries.

​

I think you are confusing the fact that it hasn't yet been falsified with the idea that it is not falsifiable. I can think of many evidences, if discovered, which would falsify at least big parts of the ToE, such as finding a human skeleton in the same geologic layer as a dinosaur, for instance.

​

---

***Actually, there are a vast number of discoveries that have disproved big parts of the TOE. However, proponents of the TOE have either dismissed them outright, given a less than acceptable answer to the discoveries, or have simply chosen to ignore them completely. That is not what I call honest science. As far as the TOE being unscientific in its applications, I have posted material on that before. As to the TOE being falsifiable, I would love for someone to explain how to falsify the TOEs many claims.For instance, how does one go about falsifying the assertion that the Cambrian explosion actually did happen in the manner that EVOs claim, or that man(or any creature for that matter), through the evolutionary process, went from a single celled creature to what they are today? The fossil record cannot be used, as it is vastly incomplete. So how is the TOE falsifiable?*** Shalom Jet------------------
Please limit signatures to at most a couple hundred characters. --Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:

***Actually, there are a vast number of discoveries that have disproved big parts of the TOE. However, proponents of the TOE have either dismissed them outright, given a less than acceptable answer to the discoveries, or have simply chosen to ignore them completely. That is not what I call honest science.

---

Perhaps you can share some motive as to why all scientists would conspire to undermine a religious view ? Why THAT particular view ?
Do you not think this sounds even a little paranoid ? [b] [QUOTE] As far as the TOE being unscientific in its applications, I have posted material on that before. As to the TOE being falsifiable, I would love for someone to explain how to falsify the TOEs many claims. [/b][/QUOTE]How many ?
What many ? You may have to be more specific. [b] [QUOTE] For instance, how does one go about falsifying the assertion that the Cambrian explosion actually did happen in the manner that EVOs claim, .[/b][/QUOTE]ErrWhat SPECIFIC manner are you talking about ? We can’t address questions that you fail to ask. [b] [QUOTE] or that man(or any creature for that matter), through the evolutionary process, went from a single celled creature to what they are today?
[/b][/QUOTE]I would think if YECs could provide evidence of a creation week some 6 — 9000 years agomight do the trick.Orshow us the specific geologic layers laid down by Noah’s flood.Show us a Crocodile fossil beneath a Cambrian layershow us how ALL organisms have identical DNAshow us a dog giving birth to a catshow the biological barrier that prevents small changes from accumulating over millions of generations, allowing the formation of new taxonomic groups. [b] [QUOTE] The fossil record cannot be used, as it is vastly incomplete.
[/b][/QUOTE]Please explain what this means. Incomplete in what way ?
How ‘vastly’ ? We found entire progressions of simplicity leading to complexity, of primitive characteristics leading to specific adaptations. It sounds like you’re just closing your eyes to the evidence rather than addressing it and refuting it.
I suppose that would be easier, though. [b] [QUOTE] So how is the TOE falsifiable?*** Shalom Jet
[/b][/QUOTE]In addition to the examples above, Introduce us to Yahweh and have Him explain his creation methods used in Genesis. Perhaps then He might also explain why He chose to leave abundant evidence that evolution occurred, when it actually didn’t. Might He fess up to being the Cosmic Prankster ?
Please don’t wave an ancient sacred text at us either, that’s not the same thing.
If I promised to introduce you to George Washington & Ben Franklin, you’d be quite disappointed if all I did was wave a flag at you.jeff------------------
"Freedom of Religion" equates to Freedom -FROM- those religions we find unbelievable.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:

***Actually, there are a vast number of discoveries that have disproved big parts of the TOE.

​

---

Let's have them, then.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Here, once again, is the link I started this topic with:
http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/new_index.htmlI don't really know where this topic is going, but I had intended it as an exploration of (I guess) "thesistic evolution", or something like that. Basicly, a "evolution and creationism can get along" topic.Not that I have anything to add to what's said in the above linked.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

Perhaps you missed message 19. Shalom Jet------------------
There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming.Professor Paul Davies

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mark24:
[B] Let's have them, then.Mark

---

Are you serious? Are you implying that you have never seen any of these examples? Without getting too elaborate, I will give a very short list.Evidence #1
There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.
Evidence #2
Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".
Evidence #3
Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.
Evidence #4
The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.
Evidence #5
Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/ monkeys and not part human at all.
Evidence #6
The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ ape or fully modern human but not as something in between.
Evidence #7
Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies.
Evidence #8
Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies.
Evidence #9
The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution. This is supported by the finds of polystratic trees that extend through several layers, something not possible if the layers were layed down year upon year upon year but is perfectly possible if the layers are the result of a universal flood. Polystratic trees are fossil trees that extend through several layers of strata, often twenty feet or more in length. There is no doubt that this type of fossil was formed relatively quickly; otherwise it would have decomposed while waiting for strata to slowly accumulate around it.

---

Bias Towards Evolution
Evolutionists often have come forth and admitted their own and their colleagues' extreme degree of bias in this matter. Some have admitted that their approach has not been scientific or objective at all. Many admit to the severe lack of evidence for evolution and that they have accepted their conclusions only because they are unwilling to accept that evolution never occurred. (And other final considerations.)

---

Many ...believe in evolution for the simple reason that they think science has proven it to be a `fact' and, therefore, it must be accepted... In recent years, a great many people...having finally been persuaded to make a real examination of the problem of evolution, have become convinced of its fallacy and are now convinced anti-evolutionists."
-- Henry Morris, former evolutionist. http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htmscientific_case_against_evolution[Edited to fix too long link. --Percy] http://www.planetkc.com/puritan/EvolutionIsNotScience_f.htm Shalom Jet------------------
There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming.Professor Paul Davies[Edited to replace too long lines of asterisks with an HTML horizontal rule. Suggest you try it. --Percy]

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 06-12-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 06-12-2002]

OK, I'm going to try to bump this sucker back to on topic.Is Christian fundimentalist creationism, and the related "creation science", harmful to Christian credibility?Is it counter-productive toward building or maintaining a Christian faith?Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:

Originally posted by Jet:

​

***Actually, there are a vast number of discoveries that have disproved big parts of the TOE.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:

Mark

---

Are you serious? Are you implying that you have never seen any of these examples? Without getting too elaborate, I will give a very short list.
Evidence #1
There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.

---

Yes there are. Tell me, what would you expect a reptile mammal transitional to look like?

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:

Evidence #2
Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".

---

Strawman.In broad terms, this is demonstrably incorrect. If evolution is the change in allele frequency over time, then ns causes evolution.
As regards higher level changes, no one is saying ns alone is responsible for macroevolution.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:

Evidence #3
Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.

---

Irrelevant, you are supposed to be presenting evidence that disproves the ToE, not Abiogenesis.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:

Evidence #4
The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.
Evidence #5
Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/ monkeys and not part human at all.
Evidence #6
The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ ape or fully modern human but not as something in between.

---

How does this represent positive evidence that the ToE is false. Without entering into an argument of whether these are true or not, so what? How has evolutionary theory been stymied by this? It’s like saying Ha, there’s no fossil evidence that organism A is related to organism B, therefore the entire ToE is false.I am not here to defend inferred hominid lineages, but to comment on your "disproof" of the ToE. If there is no fossil evidence of hominid to human evolution, then this is positive evidence of what?No evidence disproves nothing. Positive evidence please.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:

Evidence #7
Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies.

---

Biological evolution has NO social inconsistencies!!! LOL. Please present the practical inconsistencies that present such a problem to the ToE . Did you even read this trash?

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:

Evidence #8
Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies.

---

So why is ns observed?

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:

Evidence #9
The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution. This is supported by the finds of polystratic trees that extend through several layers, something not possible if the layers were layed down year upon year upon year but is perfectly possible if the layers are the result of a universal flood. Polystratic trees are fossil trees that extend through several layers of strata, often twenty feet or more in length. There is no doubt that this type of fossil was formed relatively quickly; otherwise it would have decomposed while waiting for strata to slowly accumulate around it.

---

And what part of the ToE does this falsify? Polystrate fossils are far better explained by mainstream GEOLOGY (not the ToE). If the flood happened, please tell me how successive layers of forest, with ROOTED trees (amongst transported examples) with identifiable, mature soil horizons form 5/6ths of the way up the geologic column during a catastrophic flood.The flood, utterly fails to explain the fossil record. Why are single celled bacteria buried before single celled eukaryotes? Why are single celled organisms buried before multicellular? Why are fossil forests not found at the bottom of the gc, given entire layers of paleosols have rooted trees in them, in fact, why are angiosperms & gymnosperms found so consistently at the layers they are found at, given they both produce small plants to large trees?This is one of the more amusing sites I’ve seen, I must admit. No positive scientific evidence WHATSOEVER to back up your claim that there are a vast number of discoveries that have disproved big parts of the TOE.Whats the qualifier? Whining that science is biased in favour of the ToE. Sour grapes, Jet, pure sour grapes.Jet, POSITIVE evidence that disprove the ToE, pls. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[Replaced too long line of asterisks with an HTML horizontal rule. --Percy]

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 06-12-2002]

Since the evidences Jet lists are not his own but are posted at Creationist sites all over the net, I doubt that he's able to address rebuttals himself. I believe they originate with ICR, which is a YEC organization, while Jet is an OEC. Interesting that Henry Morris is referrred to as a "former evolutionist". He was the founder of ICR.These are the same kinds of objections RvX raised last week, ones that are meant to sound good from the pulpit, but which have no scientific merit or basis. I'm not sure they're really worth rebutting.--Percy

Schraf has addressed most of LaPointe's "9 disproofs". If you care to pick one or two you feel most compelling for more detailed discussion, I'm sure several of us would be happy to show you the evidence against the contentions.As to your other two websites, Fernandes is another phony like Hovind with a spurious "doctorate" from an unacredited organization (the "Greenwich University", a degree-mill organization that failed to get accreditation in the US, in New Zealand, etc, but briefly got accreditation on a tax-haven island belonging to Australia. here's an expose). His "doctoral thesis" to which you linked is simply a re-hash of old Morris (whom he describes as an "ex-evolutionist" ROTFLMAO), Ross, and other YECreationists - all of which have been thoroughly rebutted - some of 'em on this forum. Fernandes is currently president of the "Institute for Biblical Defense". I would say he ranks up there with Hovind, Hamm, and Bauer as probably one of the worst examples of quack pseudoscientists in the game.As for Mitch Cervinka's little essay ("Evolution is Not Science"), his virulent screed lends nothing to your position. His science and understanding of science is so bad even I was able to write a point-by-point refutation a year or so ago. (If anyone's interested, I'd be happy to email the article to them.)Try again, Jet.

quote:

---

Originally posted by minnemooseus:
OK, I'm going to try to bump this sucker back to on topic.

​

Is Christian fundimentalist creationism, and the related "creation science", harmful to Christian credibility?

​

Is it counter-productive toward building or maintaining a Christian faith?

​

Moose

​

---

I think it is counterproductive among educated people, because it means you must make the choice between your faith and intellectual honesty with yourself. My husband stopped going to his Christian church when he was about 11 or 12 because what he had learned about dinosaurs and astonomy (both interests of his, then and now) was at odds with what he was being taught in Church. Even at that young age, it didn't make any sense to him to believe something taken literally from an ancient book in spite of the evidence found in nature. He tells me that he might have remained a Christian if his church hadn't insisted that he leave his mind and reason behind.On the other hand, dumbing down the bible to a literal interpretation, rather than having to teach the nuance of context and all the other such complexities certainly makes being a fundamentalist Christian simpler. It is much more black and white, and therefore much less struggle to learn and understand takes place.Like I have said before, in America we would much rather feel good than think well. Thinking well is hard, and it's scary. It is much easier to be told what to think, and religions which are big on strict dogma make thinking and internal struggle a non-issue.

Nice try Q! But your opinion is totally worthless to me. Sorry! Shalom Jet------------------
"A full frontal attack on the dumbing down so endemic in American society today. The book itself is dangerously close to being an example of the dumbth it attacks, but it is easy to read and may help to bring this problem to mind in a common sense sort of way. It is not all too intellectual, and not at all scientific."From A Review of the Book "Dumbth" by Steve Alle

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:
Nice try Q! But your opinion is totally worthless to me. Sorry!

​

Shalom

​

Jet

​

---

Gee, I'm crushed. So glad you're here for debate. Thanks for your feedback.

You are most welcome. Shalom Jet------------------
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?Prof. George Greenstei