Questions Creationists Never Answer-still waiting!

I am disappointed that this topic that I posted was paid so little attention, so I'm going to try to revive it. this is a cut n paste:I have been involved in these on-line Creation/Evolution discussions for several years now, and there are some basic questions which I always ask of Creationists who claim that "Scientific Creationism" is scientific. I have yet to get any answers to them.Perhaps the Creationists in this forum will provide. I will list a few of them to get us started.1)Define "kind".In other words, how do we tell one "kind" from another?2) If ALL of the various radiometric dating methods are wrong, then how is it that they are ALL wrong in such a way that they are almost always remarkably consistent with one another? (And we understand the conditions under which they give strange dates; i.e. they are predicted)3) Why do we never find flowering plants, including trees, grasses, etc., in the lower levels of the geologic column if all fossils were laid down in one Biblical Flood event?------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Originally posted by RetroCrono:
[b]schrafinator, I cannot believe your bias and ignorance towards creation. Especially after all you taught me. I could quite easily come up with a massive list on things that evolutionist never answer, what should I do? Abandon the ToE because they won't answer my questions? Or abandon Creation because they won't answer my questions? Try perhaps do your own research instead of expecting to just be spoonfed the answers.[/QUOTE]

​

When I say that these are "questions Creationists never answer", I am actually including all of those sites and books written by Creationists, not just the people I have spoken to directly. I would sggest that I have done a great deal more study of both science and Creationism than you have, which was made abundantly clear to you, I think, when you came here as a YEC some months ago.

​

So, my dear, I have done a great deal of research to try to find the answers to these questions, and I have yet to. What makes this a problem for Creationists is that they make specific CLAIMS relating to these unanswered questions, OR they are inconsistencies which are ever left unaddressed.

​

quote:

---

1. Your argument is a straw men. Creationist don't claim to know what a kind is. That's why they have scientist working it out. They do however have a good idea on some kinds, such as the cow kind and the dog kind. It's the same as evolutionist won't tell me how life just amazingly spontaneously arrised. If I ask that question I get accused. No fair!

---

​

Of course it's a fair question if Creationists are going to use the term, which they have for years, to state something factual about nature. The fact that they don't have a clear definition even now means that they have, for many years, simply asserted that "kinds" exist, having nothing but "because the Bible says so" to support the assertion.

​

So, how do I tell the difference between the cow "kind" and the horse "kind"? What about between the dog "kind" and the hyena "kind"?

​

As far as my research has shown me, according to Baraminology, chimpanzees and humans are never considered the same "kind", and in fact are not considered to be related at all, despite sharing 99% of the exact same genes. There is never any other reason given for this assertion other than something from the Bible. However, all cats, are all the same "kind", and therefore considered very closely-related. This means that my fluffy little house cats are considered to be very closely-related to a Bengal tiger, but a Chimp and a human are not related in the least, even though genetic evidence puts humans and chimps much closer and domestic cats and tigers farther apart.

​

So, I still don't know how to tell one "kind" from another.

​

quote:

---

2. I have a good idea on how they conclude there dates, but not enough of an understanding to even have a crack at falsifying them. I've read of many problems given by creationist as to the current dating methods. So what am I to believe? Neither, both, or just pick out the bits that support pre-conceived ideas and be biased like everyone else?

---

​

Non-responsive hand-waving.

​

If ALL the dating methods are wrong, then HOW is it they are they wrong is an AMAZINGLY CONSISTENT WAY?

​

quote:

---

3. Because you don't understand the flood model. Saying never is not science. I'm uncertain about wood not being found there, but for the "flowering plants", that is easily answered. Go get some leaves/flowers and chuck them in some water. They float!

---

​

The problem is, we find leaves from non-flowering plants in the lower, older layers of the column, and in several hundred years of looking, we have thusfar not found any flowering plants in the deepest layers of the Geologic column along with them. Not ANY.

​

Are you saying that ONLY flowering plants float, and not non-flowering plants??

​

Also, how do you explain fossil forests, upright, stacked on top of one another in the layers, somtimes dozens of sucessive forests?

​

quote:

---

...on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open... Genesis 7:11

​

Take note on that passage. I'm assuming it means volcanoes. If so, then that means all the volcanoes!

---

​

Great. Your whole scenario is based upon an assumtion that you are correctly interpreting a ancient holy book of which no original copies exist. I could say that "fountains of the deep" mean waters, not volcanoes. Show me how my interpretation is wrong.

​

quote:

---

This was no ordinary flood. There would of been that many natural disasters going on (mud slides, earthquakes, etc.) that what the evidence reveals could be pretty much anything. It wasn't just the water sorting out our geologic column!

---

​

What are the predictions that your flood "model" (since you don't have a scientific theory of the Flood) makes about how we should find nature, if all happend as you interpret the bible to mean. What you have done is simply hand wave and say "all kinds of stuff could have happened". This is not an explanation.

​

[QUOTE]Please, if you wish to argue the creation views, get some real arguments.[/b]

---

You seem to display a lot of attitude for such a poor debater.

Like I have said before, Brad, I don't have a flipping clue what the heck you are trying to say.Like, why on earth bring up nanotechnology, the Pope, or New Orleans?Either get off the drugs or get back on your meds, man!

Marry, this well carried shall on her behalf Change slander to remorse; that is some good: But not for that dream I on this strange course, But on this travail look for greater birth. She dying, as it must so be maintain'd, Upon the instant that she was accused, Shall be lamented, pitied and excused Of every hearer: for it so falls out That what we have we prize not to the worth Whiles we enjoy it, but being lack'd and lost, Why, then we rack the value, then we find The virtue that possession would not show us Whiles it was ours. So will it fare with Claudio: When he shall hear she died upon his words, The idea of her life shall sweetly creep Into his study of imagination, And every lovely organ of her life Shall come apparell'd in more precious habit, More moving-delicate and full of life, Into the eye and prospect of his soul, Than when she lived indeed; then shall he mourn, If ever love had interest in his liver, And wish he had not so accused her, No, though he thought his accusation true. Let this be so, and doubt not but success Will fashion the event in better shape Than I can lay it down in likelihood. But if all aim but this be levell'd false, The supposition of the lady's death Will quench the wonder of her infamy: And if it sort not well, you may conceal her, As best befits her wounded reputation, In some reclusive and religious life, Out of all eyes, tongues, minds and injuries.

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
That was scary I thought you had contracted Brads condition for a minute. then I realised it sounded suspiciously like Shakespeare, is it Measure for measure?

---

Sorry, didn't mean to scare you! LOL!!It is, indeed, The Bard, and it is from the scene in the church during Much Ado About Nothing.Brad's response to my Shakespeare quote is the strangest one yet.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[b]"There is no potential reason why abiogenesis, big bang etc. are not natural, so please give reasons, given so much is unknown about abiogenesis & the big bang, why it is a reasonable inference to invoke the supernatural, above the highly observed natural mechanistic "framework"? What logic allows this?"
--Number one being because abiogenesis is simply eroneous in my logic, because there simply is no mechenism known to man that can bring about anything that would produce life that reproduces itself and carry's on natural processes to stablize it for further development.[/QUOTE]

​

This is an Argument from Ignorance. Just because you don't know of something at this time, doesn't mean we will never know.

​

Also, just because humans can't figure something out does not then mean that "Godidit". It could be that we lack the brain power to understand how it happened.

​

This is, again, the God of the Gaps argument.

​

quote:

---

The Big Bang being eroneous to me, not as much as abiogenesis but in my opinion, i falt in logic when taken as an accepted theory.

---

​

Why don't you explain, here, what you think is flawed, SPECIFICALLY, about the Big Bang Theory or the Abiogenesis Theory.

​

I am willing to bet a shiny new nickel that you don't have much of a grasp on what the theories claim, nor the evidence supporting them.

​

quote:

---

We are eons from contemplating a mechenism for both these concepts,

---

​

So why claim that you know anything at all? Why not say "I don't know?"

​

Also, what happens to your faith if/when we do figure it out??

​

[QUOTE]second, I simply invoke the supernatural God as my accurrate book tells me, created the heavens and the earth, this is my creationist faith. Its not that I am fighting toward abiogenesis or the Big Bang being natural or not, its that you have to have alot more faith than I do to believe in either one in fully natural processes.
[/b]

---

I could see how someone who doesn't know anything about the Big Bang Theory or the Abiogenesis theory would think that.It is much easier to decide that the Bible is right ahead of time than to do any study of science.

quote:

---

--If this is your argument, then it isn't to be argued against either way, I would be to point this out, and to believe in a natural process that is unconceivable requires a little more faith than I have.

---

No.The point is, in science, we do not "believe" in things that do not have evidence to support them. We say "I don't know".

quote:

---

The thing is about abiogenesis atleast is that thousands have attempted to bring about life in a test tube, per se,

---

Yes, but so? We cannot reproduce the exact conditions of the planet when life first came about.This might be something that we never know the anwer to, but not knowing does not = Godidit.

quote:

---

I do believe that if the rapture doesn't happen before then, we will make life, but my speculation is that it will be eroneously complex and still inconceivable towards natural processes.

---

So, you will not accept the evidence for Abiogenesis, even if it is acheived? Sounds like a creationist. [QUOTE]"As for your "accurate" book,thats a matter of opinion and i'm afraid that despite pretense to the contrary,yours is very much clouded on the subject."
--All attempts to discredit it have simply failed, even in your own various arguments requiring interperetation of the bible, as it is obvious, discussion on this subject is no problem if you desire it, i do not see it as an opinion because it isn't an opinionated assertion, it is factually based with my current knowledge, and if anyone would like to inform me otherwize, you can attempt.
[/B][/QUOTE]They haven't failed. You are just very slippery and interpret and reinterpret the Bible at whim to never be wrong.Do you believe that the Bible has no contradictions? If so, have a look at my post on the crucifiction in the "Is the Bible the Word of God?" thread.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RetroCrono:
[b]

quote:

---

I'm not just talking about reading books, discussing, etc. I mean, do your own real research.

---

Um, what? I am not a Biologist. Are you actually trying to say that I should be doing original research out in the field or something, otherwise my views are not valid? Give me a break. If that was the case then you should reject nearly all of the stuff Creation "scientists" put out there, because they certainly aren't doing much original research, even though they are supposed to be professionals.

quote:

---

You seem to accuse me of not writing my own flood model. Why don't you try work some things out for yourself if they are giving you that much trouble.

---

No, I am not expecting you, personally, to write your own flood model. I am expecting you to be able to provide that which you argue for. I can, for example, go to a well-referenced scientific site and find a stated scientific theory concerning, let's say, common descent. I can, IOW, find out what the current consensus of the scientific community is about a given scientific idea.All I am asking for is for you to do the same thing with the flood "model" or theory, if there is one. How can you discuss the validity of a theory if you can't say, precisely, what it is?

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
Of course it's a fair question if Creationists are going to use the term, which they have for years, to state something factual about nature. The fact that they don't have a clear definition even now means that they have, for many years, simply asserted that "kinds" exist, having nothing but "because the Bible says so" to support the assertion.

---

quote:

---

Yes creationist are throwing the word around to much. But the problem is there is no need to accuse the Bible for mens understanding, or lack of. You have the kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus and species used to decide upon classifying life. Which I'm sure you know. Most evolutionist make the rash decision that kind means species even though it is last upon deciding what a form of life is to be grouped into.

---

No, evolutionists are not rash. It is Creationists that explain "kind" to mean "species" at times (but not all the time)."Kind" has no meaning as a scientific term.

quote:

---

No man was around at the time God did all this creating, so this must be the closest thing to the word of God you can get. What does God mean by kind? Who's to say what He classifies as a kind is the same as us? I'd be surprised if it even became known within my life.

---

If you are saying that it is impossible to know what "kind" really means because man cannot know what God meant, then why attempt to use the word in a scientific context? Also, how is consensus ever going to be reached if the basis for all of it is revelation rather than evidence? One person's "word of God" is another person's heresy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
As far as my research has shown me, according to Baraminology, chimpanzees and humans are never considered the same "kind", and in fact are not considered to be related at all, despite sharing 99% of the exact same genes. There is never any other reason given for this assertion other than something from the Bible. However, all cats, are all the same "kind", and therefore considered very closely-related. This means that my fluffy little house cats are considered to be very closely-related to a Bengal tiger, but a Chimp and a human are not related in the least, even though genetic evidence puts humans and chimps much closer and domestic cats and tigers farther apart.

---

quote:

---

Wow, talk about giving of misinformation. 99%? Did you make that up? The correct number is 97%, even then by simply doing it a different way (mean or mode, take your pick?, you can just as easily get 96.4%.

---

OK, let's use your number; 97%

quote:

---

And if you stop comparing the similarities and look at the differences. How could anyone think they are related? The amount of genes that a human and a chimpanzee have is quite incredible. 3% = 3.6% is a lot of genes. Compare the chromosomes between the two and there not even in the ball park. Lets not resort to making up stuff now.

---

Um, RC, 97% is a LOT of similarity between species, even though you are trying to convince yourself otherwise. You don't even sound too convinced after trying to convince yourself.You should also know that even the pseudogenes are largely identical in Chimps and humans.Besides, the point is that Baraminology states that humans and chimps are not related AT ALL. If this were true, we should see 0% similarity in genes, right? (except that all life forms on the planet share some genes, but it seems that Creationists don't like to talk about genetics much.)If chimps and humans are so very different, after all, why are primates so valuable for medical research which pertains to humans? Why do we test human drugs and procedures on any primates at all if they are not really related to us? Why do results of primate tests tend to be so reliable when applied to humans if we aren't very similar creatures?

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
So, I still don't know how to tell one "kind" from another.

---

quote:

---

Neither do I. Just like I don't know of this evidence for evolution is except what is done purely on a philosophical nature.

---

Cute, but unrelated points. I asked a specific question about specific terminology.Evidence for evolution can be seen here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genetic-drift.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.htmlI have more if you want them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
Non-responsive hand-waving.

---

quote:

---

Whatever you say oh wise one. What am I to do if I don't know much about that subject? Get accused?

---

No, just say that you don't know the answer. Or you could take a page from your own advice to me and "do your own research".

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
Are you saying that ONLY flowering plants float, and not non-flowering plants??

---

quote:

---

No, I said leaves and flowers float. Wasn't that made pretty clear?

---

Saying "leaves and flowers float" doesn't address the problem of the clear line between non-flowering plants and flowering plants in the geologic record. Why aren't flowering plants mixed in with non-flowering in the deepest layers, if a flood happened?

quote:

---

Great. Your whole scenario is based upon an assumtion that you are correctly interpreting a ancient holy book of which no original copies exist. I could say that "fountains of the deep" mean waters, not volcanoes. Show me how my interpretation is wrong.

---

quote:

---

Who's to say you are wrong? We must be both right. Since it did say all. Lava and water it was.

---

So, you are free to interpret the bible any way you want to? OK, I say that the "fountains of the deep" were actual fountains, like those you see in front of big office buildings. Show me that my interpretation is wrong.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
What are the predictions that your flood "model" (since you don't have a scientific theory of the Flood) makes about how we should find nature, if all happend as you interpret the bible to mean. What you have done is simply hand wave and say "all kinds of stuff could have happened". This is not an explanation.

---

quote:

---

I was just showing to you that this ancient book that you are so quick to accuse doesn't make any actual assertions as to what exactly happened so don't be so quick to say it contradicts any given evidence.

---

I agree that the Bible doesn't necessarily make any assertions, depending upon who is interpreting it. However, some PEOPLE (namely, those at the ICR, AIG, and CRS) DO very much make assertions based upon their interpretation of the Bible.

quote:

---

What's this, my flood model? Give me a break. I'm trying to get through school so I can go onto univerity and who knows what the future may hold. Perhaps I might right a possible flood model. For now I'm just getting my education so I can be in a position to decide what to believe.

---

Look, YOU are the one who says that this flood model exists, and that I misunderstand it. Well, help me to understand. Show me this flood model that you say exists and that I don't understand.I don't think you should have to write it, but I do think that you should have to find it and provide it, since you claim it exists.If you can't provide it, then you have been talking out of your arse.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-01-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-01-2002]

['QUOTE]"Also, just because humans can't figure something out does not then mean that "Godidit".[/QUOTE]

quote:

---

--Like I have emphesized continuously, I don't claim that just because we can't figure it out that 'Goddidit'. I said that this is what my pre-conseived faith tells me, and I believe it, this has nothing to do with science.

---

You do not separate your religious faith and your science. You haven't approached any subject in a scientific way thus far. You think you have, to be sure, but you have not.If you do not see that, after so many people here (including several professional scientists) have tried to explain how science is done to you, I fear that you are choosing to not learn.

quote:

---

"It could be that we lack the brain power to understand how it"

---

quote:

---

--Interesting, this applies to the supernatural as well, you seem as if you would not like this comment if I used it though.

---

It might apply to the supernatural, but as science ignorses the supernatural, it is a moot point.My original point remains; People may not have the brain power to understand a lot of things, but this in no way constitutes positive evidence for Godidit. This is the basis of your argument for why science's logic is flawed and why yours is better, and it is the God of the Gaps argument.

quote:

---

--This has no relevance to a God of the Gaps. You missunderstand what I have said.

---

You have said, over and over, that the reason why God "had" to have been the cause of this or that is because we either do not know how something happened, or you cannot even imagine humans ever figuring out how this or that happened.This is the God of the Gaps argument, pure and simple. I understand it all too well.

quote:

---

"Why don't you explain, here, what you think is flawed, SPECIFICALLY, about the Big Bang Theory or the Abiogenesis Theory."

---

quote:

---

--Big Bang - Initial conditions and problem of singularity conflicting with physics and imaginitive contemplations.

---

This is not specific at all In fact, it is a general hand-wave.Present some equations or some specific physical properties and consequences which you think are flaws in the theory.

quote:

---

--Abiogenesis - The Odds and Fine tuning.

---

More vague hand-waving. SPECIFICS are what I asked for. Which odds, exactly? What do you mean, exactly, by "fine-tuning"? Fine tuning of what, exactly?

quote:

---

"I am willing to bet a shiny new nickel that you don't have much of a grasp on what the theories claim, nor the evidence supporting them."

---

quote:

---

--Maybe not as much as you, but I know what the problems are, if you want to discuss this in another forum, great.

---

You haven't listed any problems, only vague assertions.My point is not to discuss the Big Bang or Abiogenesis, althoug we can do that. My point is to show you that you hold very strong opinions about subjects that you know LITTLE TO NOTHING about. Why do you think you have any business holding forth about how the Big Bang is such a flawed theory when it is clear that you cannot even identify SPECIFIC problems with the physics or the math? This is a very arrogant attitude.

quote:

---

"So why claim that you know anything at all? Why not say "I don't know?"

---

quote:

---

--Basically what I said. We can't figure it out yet with our knowledge, thus, my speculation is that it requires emense 'finely tuned environments'

---

Speculation is all you have got. That means that you don't know, and because you don't want to just "not know", you decide that you actually DO know...Godidit!

quote:

---

"Also, what happens to your faith if/when we do figure it out?"

---

quote:

---

--If My speculation is true, nothing really. I will simply again state that it takes intelligence to create life.

---

So, you will renounce YEC, the Flood, etc. and retreat to ID?Well, then you retreat to non-science, because ID is not science, but philosphy. It provides no theory, makes no predictions, and is not supported by positive evidence.

quote:

---

"It is much easier to decide that the Bible is right ahead of time than to do any study of science."

---

[QUOTE]--Again I don't say that the bible is inerant, pre-conseively. But with our known understanding on the way things work, it sure is correct.
[/B][/QUOTE]If you mean that with YOUR OWN understanding of how things work in nature the Bible is correct, then that is one thing.However, who do you mean when you say "we" in the above sentence? I know you cannot mean AIG, the ICR or the CRS, because you have already told me that these groups, even though they are the most prominent Creation "science" organizations, do not actually represent current Creation "science" study or thought.

Um, then why are they called "Evolutionary Biologists?"LOL!

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:

​

John Paul:
It's been a while but here goes:

​

1)That is what science is for. Through science we should be able to make the determination schraf is asking for. If we had all the answers we wouldn't need science.

---

Science doesn't use the word "kind", therefore science cannot define it. Creation "science" uses the word kind, so it therefore needs to define what it means and by what method and criterion different "kinds" are identified. Since Creation 'science' claims to be real science, then it must define it's terms, yet I have never been provided, nor have I ever been able to find, a sufficently firm and clear, non-Bible-based reasoning behind the criterion used to tell one 'kind' from another.The only conclusion that can be reached is that "kind" is a religious term, not a scientific one, despite Creationist's claim to the contrary.

quote:

---

2)This question refers to YECs. The fact is the radiometric dates aren't always remakably consistent with each other.

---

Right, like I mentioned above, the times that they are not consistent are well-understood and predicted.Even still, let's hypothetically say that they were incorrect 20% of the time. (In reality, it is only wrong a few percent of the time, but I'll give you this huge number just for argument's sake)How do you explain the other %80 of the time that all the dating methods corroborate each other remarkably well?So, since when do scientific methods have to be 100% perfect at all times for them to be reliable??

quote:

---

It is more likely that three different dating methods on one sample will yield three different "dates".

---

Really? Please provide evidence of this rather fantastic claim!

quote:

---

3) Who said "all the fossils were laid down in one Biblical Flood event"?

---

True Creation, for one. Anyone who says that the GC was formed by a Noachian flood, for others. [QUOTE]Death occurred before the flood and continued after the flood. Also not everything that has lived and died has become fossilized and we haven't looked in every place for these fossils. What if what you seek is under the Antartic ice cap, well below the land surface?
[/B][/QUOTE]You still have to explain the GC and the fossils that are known, and these do not indicate a worldwide flood event that happened a few thousand years ago.You also completely avoided my question. Why have we not found a SINGLE flowering plant fossil in the lower layers of the GC??

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-24-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-24-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by degreed:
Salute to Brad, of course, for illuminating that particular dark corner of our respective universes...

​

Schraf, what if most creationists with scientific backgrounds believed that the accepted dating forms worked perfectly, that fossils were laid down over millions of years, etc.

​

What questions remain? Why would God put a beautiful physical framework in place, leave plenty of evidence for the age of the universe, and then rush it in 6,000 years?

​

I realize that you are asking some of the same questions, but i'm not sure that yec will ever allow for real, objective debate. Of course, if we all read Hebrew, there might have never been yec's...

​

But if God really did take the kind of time that we can measure cosmologically, then what other creationist questions do you have?

---

Hmm. Maybe first you could explain what stripe of creationist you are. OEC? ID? How literally do you interpret Genesis/the Bible?What do you believe?------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"