Young earth creationism is valid and the macroevolutionary hypothesis is not valid

To: Lindumre: loudmouthI would still say that the materialist have given no plausible explanation for their abiogenesis hypothesis. Using a common "creed" of the skeptics I would say that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". They simply do not have any credible explanations for their abiogenesis hypothesis let alone extraordinary evidence for this claim. I would refer you to what a encyclopedia says regarding this issue:"A few facts give insight into the conditions in which life may have emerged, but the mechanisms by which non-life became life are elusive."taken from: Abiogenesis - WikipediaThe DNA is a code. Codes show intelligence. The cells are irreducibly complex creations that are inscrutable to materialistic explanations. I realize that materialist say someday we may find the answers regarding a materialistic explanation but I see this as mere atheist hope. I do not believe in relying on atheist hope. I see the materialists always relying on manana when the best possible explanation is clearly a designer.I see Loudmouth speculating on their being a certain type of first life and speculation is fine and has its place but after all is said and done mere speculation does not compare to the strong evidence for the Christian position.re: the othersI believe I have adequetely addressed the other individuals posts.Lastly, if you should choose to investigate Christianity further I would recommend the following resources:First, these resources:http://www.home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/books.htm
and http://www.tektonics.org/arsenal.htmlSecond, these resources:"Kenneth Kitchen, professor emeritus at the University of Liverpool, has just recently come out with a massive new work on the Old Testament. This well-regarded Egyptologist is one of the top maximalists who contends for a high view of the Old Testament and its historicity. I have just ordered On the Reliability of the Old Testament and will make my own comments on it in the future.....I am really looking forward to receiving it in the mail soon. If you go to scholarsbookshelf.com you can order it for an incredibly reduced price, down to $15 instead of 45. With taxes and shipping it came out to $20.45 total. That's way better than Amazon's markdown price of 31 (pre-shipping)..........James K. Hoffmeier's Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition."Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-13-2004]

Good to see you back, ken... lets get straight to the topic shall we?You seem to disagree with abiogenesis - this is all well and good, as it is still just a hypothesis. So let's just say that we don't know how life started, and 'goddidit', panspermia, and abiogenesis are all equally likely and valid.Take a look at the topic of this thread. If we accept this, how is evolution invalid?Oh, and get your facts straight - evolution is not a hypothesis - it is a theory.The Rock Hound

But there is no connection between abiogenesis and evolution. Evolution states that current observations reveals certain mechanics and patterns in the development of life.Evolution does not as such depend on a materialistic start of life. It might *imply* it, given that if evolution is correct, it is a reason to put trust in the assumtion that other things regarding life follows similar reason.However, it is not *required*. Since we have little direct evidence of the creation of life except, and this is important, that is exists, we can not say that for certain.But the evidence for evolution is MUCH clearer, and we have to agree with the evidence.If you want to say that the theory of evolution is incorrect, you MUST do so on the grounds of the evidence it relies on, or the mechanics of the actual theory, and NOT on the basis that we can't explain something the ToE leaves alone.

Dear Irishrockhound,The title of the thread contains the following words: "young earth creationism is valid." Now if young earth creationism is valid then abiogenesis is not. I therefore believe I have every right to speak regarding the abiogenesis hypothesis being inadequate even though the materialist may not like it. I am not raising the abiogenesis hypothesis issue solely because the materialist due not like it, however. I just believe it is right and proper to point out that the materialist have a hypothetical house that has no real foundation.I also believe that the creationist model is the best fit regarding the life and non-life issue. If creationism were true, and of course I believe it is true, then one would expect there to be a wide gulf between life and non-life and one would also expect the abiogenesis researchers to fail to bridge this gap via their naturalistic explanations for first life. I know the abiogenesis researchers have failed. I fully expect the abiogenesis researchers to continually fail. So far the abiogenesis researchers have not let me down and I fully expect they will never let me down in regards to their continual failure. I realize that failure is sometimes a stepping stone in the climb to success. I believe, however, that the abiogenesis researchers are the modern day alchemist who will never turn materialist lead into gold. I still believe that the atheist are relying on atheist hope regardikng this issue and that the strong evidence for Christianity shows that they have a misplaced hope. I would also point out that life still does show irreducible complexity. Also, the DNA is a code and codes show intelligence.As far as the macroevolutionary hypothesis being untrue I would say that I have already addressed this issue.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-13-2004]

The title also contains "macroevolutionary hypothesis is not valid". You've failed to address this. No. You've completely failed to address this issue. Abiogenesis != evolution.To use your own tactics, please provide emperical, observable and repeatable scientific evidence of your god's existence. Without this, creationism is not valid.

If you can prove that YEC is valid in it's important aspects, then yes; it would say that both abiogenesis and evolution occuring in the past is incorrect.This does not in any way conclude that evolution requires abiogenesis.Proving abiogenesis wrong does NOT prove YEC right, hence proving abiogenesis wrong does NOT prove evolution wrong. Okay?

Kendemyer, the earth is old, and life has a very ancient history. There is plenty of evidence to that fact. I tried to present to you some of the evidence - you have not yet adequately respond to it, but seeing how busy you are in several threads I don't hold that against you. But the evidence is there, and nothing that you say about abiogenesis will erase that evidence. If you want to disprove evolution or to cast doubt to its validity, you must deal with the evidence that does exist.

Dear Lindum:You say that you want scientific evidence of God's existence or creationism is not valid. You do not say, however, why this is so. Creationism predicts that the universe was created supernaturally during the time outlined in the Torah (although God certainly does create somewhat after this). This certainly fits what we see. We certainly do not see new matter and energy being created naturally. The law of the conservation of matter and energy is one of the most established laws in science and accords well with creationism. Creationism also predicts a universe that had a beginning. Thermodynamacs in regards to the universe certainly shows this. Creationism predicts that there would be a wide gulf between life and non-life. Again, this is what we see.Secondly, you seem to be implying although I am not sure, that the only truth is scientific truth. If you are saying that the only truth is that which is gained by science and I am not sure if you are, then I would disagree. I believe the historical and legal methodology has vaildity also for example. I certainly do believe that George Washington, Socrates, and the Apostle Paul existed for example although I largely do not rely on scientific evidence for this (although science may provide inferences since archaeology does use science). I also see a secondary problem. If the only truth is truth gained through science then how would we know the statement "The only truth that is valid is that which is gained by science" is true. You certainly cannot test this statement in a laboratory.Next, I would argue that since the macroevolutionary hypothesis and the creationist hypothesis are historical questions and the best we can do is make a "infererence to the best explanation" using science to borrow the words of Mr. Meyer who's essay I provided a link to. I do not believe you could call creationism or the macroevolutionary models theories. I do not think, for example, you can provide the name of a scientists who observed the various kinds of animals and plants who first arrived on the scene.I do think I am right to point out, however, that the materialist who says extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is being inconsistent because the abiogenesis hypothesis certainly does not have extraordinary evidence.Lastly, I do know there is excellent evidence for Christianity. For example, I refer you to Home | CS LewisSincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-13-2004]

quote:

---

The title of the thread contains the following words: "young earth creationism is valid." Now if young earth creationism is valid then abiogenesis is not. I therefore believe I have every right to speak regarding the abiogenesis hypothesis being inadequate even though the materialist may not like it.

---

Granted, but so what? We already know that abiogenesis has problems. But proving it wrong will not prove young Earth creationism correct, so in essence you have only accomplished a tiny part of your goal.This stinks of dishonesty - you are essentially attacking a weak hypothesis instead of a robust theory in an effort to support your own ideas.

quote:

---

I just believe it is right and proper to point out that the materialist have a hypothetical house that has no real foundation.

---

I give up. What's a materialist, and what do they have to do with the ToE?

quote:

---

I also believe that the creationist model is the best fit regarding the life and non-life issue. If creationism were true, and of course I believe it is true, then one would expect there to be a wide gulf between life and non-life and one would also expect the abiogenesis researchers to fail to bridge this gap via their naturalistic explanations for first life. I know the abiogenesis researchers have failed. I fully expect the abiogenesis researchers to continually fail. So far the abiogenesis researchers have not let me down and I fully expect they will never let me down in regards to their continual failure. I realize that failure is sometimes a stepping stone in the climb to success. I believe, however, that the abiogenesis researchers are the modern day alchemist who will never turn materialist lead into gold. I still believe that the atheist are relying on atheist hope regardikng this issue and that the strong evidence for Christianity shows that they have a misplaced hope.

---

Utterly irrelevent. Your belief will not change reality; this amounts to your opinion and little else. Like I said before, you are attacking a weak hypothesis instead of a robust theory - even though the theory is far more threatening to your own hypothesis!

quote:

---

I would also point out that life still does show irreducible complexity. Also, the DNA is a code and codes show intelligence.

---

No, it doesn't. How I wish you would quit making unsupported assertations.

quote:

---

As far as the macroevolutionary hypothesis being untrue I would say that I have already addressed this issue.

---

Where? How could I have missed it? You've posted little of relevence and little to support your statements, Ken. Your say-so that you addressed the issue is worthless here.The Rock Hound[This message has been edited by IrishRockhound, 03-13-2004]

quote:

---

Next, I would argue that since the macroevolutionary hypothesis and the creationist hypothesis are historical questions and the best we can do is make a "infererence to the best explanation" using science to borrow the words of Mr. Meyer who's essay I provided a link to.

---

Guess what? The best explanation is evolution - the Theory of Evolution. Note the word 'theory' - not hypothesis.

quote:

---

I do not believe you could call creationism or the macroevolutionary models theories. I do not think, for example, you can provide the name of a scientist who observed the various kinds of animals and plants who first arrived on the scene.

---

*sigh* We have this little thing called evidence, Ken. You might have heard of some of your creationist friends sweeping it under the rug or ignoring it, but over here in the evolutionists camp we like it a lot. It says that the Earth is old.

quote:

---

I do think I am right to point out, however, that the materialist who says extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is being inconsistent because the abiogenesis hypothesis certainly does not have extraordinary evidence.

---

See my last post.

quote:

---

Lastly, I do know there is excellent evidence for Christianity.

---

You were not asked for evidence for Christianity. You were asked for evidence for god, in the same manner as you have asked us for evidence.You might have noticed that in a fair discussion, people are expected to answer the questions that others ask, not the ones that they would like to answer.The Rock Hound

To: IrishrockhoundI forgot to say thank you for saying you are glad to see I am back. Also, I believe I will answer at least one or more of your questions when you continue reading this post.TO: ALLFirst of all what is materialism?Here is how a dictionary defines materialism:"Philosophy. The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena."taken from: http://www.dictionary.comI know that materialism conflicts with one of the following:1. The law of the conservation of mass and energy which is very well established in science.2. The second law of thermodynamics in terms of astronomy (the universe).3. The inductive logic of scienceHere is some information taken from a website:"The first law says that although matter and energy can be changed in form, the total quantity of mass/energy is always the same."(This is the law of the conservation of matter and energy)."The second law says the amount of energy in the universe available for work is running down, which is sometimes called entropy....We can see from every day experience the 2nd law functions in various ways: energy becomes less available, systems become disorganized, information becomes garbled, matter disintegrates, stars burn out or explode, organisms become extinct, environments decay, comets disintegrate, and people get old and die.If the total amount of mass/energy is fixed and limited (1st law), and the amount of usable energy is decreasing (2nd law), then this universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would have already exhausted all usable energy.The second law of thermodynamics applied to the cosmos indicates the universe is running down like a clock. If it is running down, there must have been a time when it was fully would up. - Robert Jastrow
NASA Space Scientist
Ps. 102.25-27IF THE UNIVERSE
IS WINDING DOWN,
WHO WOUND IT UP?
Ps. 33.6"The author has found that the 2nd law tends to increase his conviction that there is a creator who has the answer for the future destiny of man and the universe."-Gordon Van Whyden
author of Thermodynamics"The community of science has now considered the idea that 'God created the Universe' a more respectable hypothesis today than at any time in the last hundred years."-Science historian, Frederick BernhamThis is the problem: the 1st law states that matter/energy cannot be created out of nothing, neither can it be destroyed. So where did the energy in the universe come from? The only possibility is an act of creation. "The first law asserts that matter, under natural circumstances, can neither be created nor destroyed. Therefore, since creation is not a natural event, it is by definition a supernatural event - a miracle! ... Since matter is not eternal we are left with only one option - it arose out of nothing at a finite point in the past." - Chuck MisslerSo how do you get SOMETHING out of NOTHING?"What is a big deal - the biggest deal of all - is how you get something out of nothing! Don't let the cosmologists try to kid you on this one. They have not got a clue either... 'In the beginning,' they will say, 'there was nothing - no time, space, matter or energy. Then there was a quantum fluctuation from which...' Whoa! Stop right there. You see what I mean? First there is nothing, then there is something. And the cosmologists try to bridge the two with a quantum flutter... Then they are away and before you know it, they have pulled a hundred billion galaxies out of their quantum hats."
- David Darling, On creating something from nothing
New Scientist, 1996
Heb 11:3THE LAW OF CAUSE AND EFFECT -One very fundamental law of science is the principal of cause and effect: no effect can be greater than its cause. In other words, there can be nothing created which is greater than the thing that created it. Follow this reasoning:The universe cannot be self-caused - nothing can create itself, because it would need to exist before it came into existence.
Everything which has a beginning has a cause
The universe has a beginning
Therefore the universe has a causeThe skeptic asks, "If God created the universe, then who created God?" This is an illogical question. If God is the uncreated creator of the universe, He is the creator of time. He is not limited by the time dimension he created, so he has no beginning in time. Therefore, he does not have, or need to have, a cause.
Gen 1.1" "taken from: http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.phpMY COMMENTARYSo materialism, if it attempts to use a eternal universe (the universe is all matter and energy that exist) model breaks the second law of thermodynamics.If materialists try to use a non-eternal universe, they break the law of the conservation of matter and energy. It is true that some propose speculation regarding the law of the conservation of matter and energy being broken at one point but the creationist have the stronger poker hand so to speak. A scientific law trumps quantum physics speculation.If materialists try to say that these two laws did not always apply or they do not apply everywhere, then they are going against the inductive logic of science.There you have it. Creationism breaks no science laws and materialism breaks at least one if we use the inductive logic that science uses.I believe it is further compounded by skeptics having a abiogenesis hypothesis that points to creationism. The creationist model predicts a wide gulf between life and non-life and one would expect the abiogenesis researchers to be unable to bridge this gap. I believe the abiogenesis reasearcher have been unable to bridge this gap.I would say Rockhound that the creationist have science laws working on their behalf. I do not believe the macroevolutionary hypothesis (which you say is a theory but we disagree) is nothing comparable to scientific laws. I really do not believe the macroevolutionary hypothesis has any sound evidence. I realize that not all proponents of macroevolution are materialist. It does seem, however, they are very prevalent at EvcForum and they are also the most vociferous spokespeople of the macroevolutionary hypothesis in the public forum at least in my lifetime. I also believe I addressed the people who call themselves Christian theistic macroevolutionist via my Bible exegesis.I also believe that we have good corroborative evidence of God via the social sciences of history and archaeology (I believe archaeology
is a social science). I would refer you to: Home | CS Lewis and Page not found - Apologetics.com and http://www.home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/historical.htmAdditional Note to ALL:The late winter through the early summer are particularly busy times for me because my supplier emphasizes his yearly inventory allocation to me particularly based on what I do this time of year with a great emphasis on the first half of this period. This time has now kicked in for me. I also have taxes. So please do not base my lack of response on indifference. After today, I will be making no post for the next 7 days at all. My participation after that will be sporadic and perhaps nothing during this time period outlined above (I am leaning towards sporadic).Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-14-2004]

quote:

---

I know that materialism conflicts with one of the following:

---

Actually, materialism does not confict with any of the laws that you list. A scientific "law" is not an absolute law that must always be obeyed. It is simply a description of what we usually observe and sometimes what we always have observed. There is always the possibility that the law may be violated under some circumstances that we have not yet observed. The beginning of the universe is obviously such a unique event that one cannot definitely state which, if any, of our laws apply to it.

quote:

---

They have not got a clue either... 'In the beginning,' they will say, 'there was nothing - no time, space, matter or energy. Then there was a quantum fluctuation from which...'

---

This is true. If we extrapolate the universe's expansion back in time, we get a point, just after the "creation", where the density and temperature of the universe is so high that our current laws of physics simply do not work. We cannot, as yet, push our knowledge of the history of the universe past this point until we have better theories.And, I, for one, have never really found the "quantum fluctuation" hypothesis very satisfying. The question: how did the universe begin?, my answer is "I don't know." I am comfortable with this. I see no problems with not knowing the ultimate origin of the universe.

quote:

---

The universe cannot be self-caused - nothing can create itself, because it would need to exist before it came into existence.

---

Why do you believe that nothing can create itself? This is an assertian that needs to be backed up.
If there was something that "caused" the universe, who's to say that it was a conscious entity that we could call a deity? Again, saying the "cause" was God is a unproven assertian.

quote:

---

Creationism breaks no science laws and materialism breaks at least one if we use the inductive methodology of science.

---

This is false. Christian traditionalists have their god breaking the laws of science repeatedly in history. Materialism doesn't break any laws since the laws are never considered absolute.

quote:

---

The creationist model predicts a wide gulf between life and non-life and one would expect the abiogenesis researchers to be unable to bridge this gap.

---

Unfortunately for the creationists, researchers have been putting in various pieces in the gaps for a long time - like putting together a jigsaw puzzle by putting together unconnected pieces of the picture until they finally are merged together. We do not have a single, connected picture of how life arose (yet), and even when we do there is no guarantee that that will be the exact way it actually occurred oh-so-long-ago, but we have enough of the pieces that there really is no conceptual difficulty in imagining how the various steps went. It is mainly details that need to be worked out.

quote:

---

So please do not base my lack of response on indifference.

---

Understood. Although I have taken quite a lot of time on this and other message boards this past few days, I have a dissertation to write before June, so I, too, need to get cracking.

To: ChiropteraYou bet that a scientific law was at one time violated. I bet it was not. I believe it is fair to say that I have the stronger poker hand especially since these two laws are among the most established laws in science. I also believe I am using the inductive logic of science although I recognize the principle of inductive fallacies. Nevertheless, inductive logic has served science very well.I am about to drop my hat on my desk. I am betting it will hit the desk. It just did hit the desk when I dropped it.In short, I am using the inductive methodology of science and I know I have the stronger poker hand. I will also remind you that a scientific law trumps a scientific theory like the Big bang theory.I suggest the following links (especially the comprehensive essay):BIG BANG THEORY PROBLEMS AND CRITICISMSExcellent Comprehensive Essay:Page not found - Apologetics PressBrief webpages:http://www.origin-of-the-universe.com/Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation ResearchThe page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)Page not found - Apologetics PressIn short, creationism still holds the great cards. In a two choice scenario of materialism and Christianity I will take Christianity in Pascals wager. I also see God working in my life and He has done miracles. I know anyone can witness miracles if they repent and have faith. I also know from expereince that a skeptic can visit a Bible believing Church and witness God moving in others lives. In short, Christianity and Jesus are real and materialism is a mere philosophy with no real foundation or evidence.Lastly, miracles are outside of nature. Miracles do not contradict science. There is a difference. Materialism clearly contradicts science laws if we use the inductive logic of science.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-14-2004]

Kendemyer, you are correct that the conservation of energy and the laws of thermodynamics are the most established scientific laws that we have. There has been no verified instance where these laws were violated. Nonetheless, these are laws that, if they are valid, govern what can happen in the universe. If we are now speaking about the beginning of the universe from nothing (and since time itself doesn't exist outside the universe, I'm not even sure what "beginning" even means in this context) it is not clear to me that these laws need necessarily apply to that "event". As I said, it is a singularly unique event.And miracles are, by definition, violations of established laws of nature. But I see no point in a semantic argument.To sum up: How did the universe begin? I don't know. I don't see how that makes the case of materialism weak.You think you know how the universe begins, but that doesn't explain why that makes your beliefs any better than mine.

To: Chiroptera1. I believe you are doing special pleading in regards to these laws being violated in regards to materialism.Here is how a encyclopedia defines special pleading:"Special pleading is a logical fallacy wherein a double standard is employed by the person making the assertion. Special pleading typically happens when one insists upon less strict treatment for the argument one is making than one would make when evaluating another's argument. For a completely non-controversial example:John: "I think the chicken crossed the road because somebody put food at the other side."
Mary: "You have no evidence that someone put food there. I think the chicken crossed the road because someone pushed it."
In that example, Mary was using special pleading on John. For John's argument, Mary required that everyone involved be specified, while she didn't do the same for her argument."taken from: Special pleading - Wikipedia2. A scientific law as well established as the two laws we are discusing still trump a theory, namely, the big bang theory (which I see as a theory which is not valid besides).In summary, when we use the most established science, creationism still holds the strongest cards and materialism still loses a 2 player poker game of Christianity versus materialism and thus loses Pascal's wager in this scenario.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-14-2004]