Search This Blog

Saturday, March 04, 2006

Creation Statement - a pause before boxes and horses

Questions, we have questions. Radaractive is delaying the next segment of Behe's Box and Huxley's Horse to put out an outline of origins according to a creationist. What follows is a general narrative, an outline, of this particular creationist's view.

God Created - Genesis 1:1 - "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Reading the narrative (the testimony of our star witness) of creation in Genesis, God creates the world in six days with man being created on day six. He makes all living things according to kind. "Kind" was already defined in a previous post. But, to repeat, The word for "kind" in the Hebrew is "miyn" and is defined by Strong's Lexicon of Old Testament Hebrew as:

"kind, sometimes a species (usually of animals) ++++ Groups of living organisms belong in the same created "kind" if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool. This does not preclude new species because this represents a partitioning of the original gene pool. Information is lost or conserved not gained. A new species could arise when a population is isolated and inbreeding occurs. By this definition a new species is not a new "kind" but a further partitioning of an existing "kind"."

This was the definition for the differences in animals long before men decided to come up with words like "species" and "genus". A scientist may look at a Mercury or a Ford Crown Victoria and say that there are two species of car. But the manufacturer may say that they are both different types of the same kind, Ford. Just a matter of terms, you say? Not really, because the difference between the two comes out when looking at evidence of macroevolution. But that is for another post.

Interestingly, Genesis keeps a geneology of men from Adam all the way to Noah and it continues onward. During the time of Christ, a Jew could trace his genology all the way from Adam and there were books in the Temple that recorded this. Furthermore, it is of great interest that the famous "Mitochondrial Eve" would be calculated to have lived about 6,500 years ago by rather straightforward dating of the "mutation clock" used to determine how long ago she lived. Eve, the mother of all living humans, just as the Bible says. Darwinists use other methods to determine the dating of "Eve", usually coming up with a date of about 150,000 to 200,000 years ago. They will also say that Eve was just one woman within an entire population of already existing humans. There is no proof of this and no way to ever prove it, but it fits their scenario and so they say it. In short, both creationists and Darwinists look at "Eve" and point to her as evidence to bolster their position.

The Noahic Flood, a world wide flood that lasted covered the entire planet for 150 days and rendered the earth unihabitable for approximately one year wiped out most of land life (not including invertabrates, microorganisms, etc) on earth. The exception is Noah, his family, and the animals that were brought with him aboard the Ark, a large boat with dimensions equivalent to that of a large ocean liner. Genesis goes on to tell us that "Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind." (Genesis 7:21) The word for creatures used here is for animals that generally have backbones, breath air, and live on the land. These are the kinds of animals that God caused to come to Noah to take with him on the Ark.

A world-wide flood is the kind of event that would explain the sedimentary layers of rock found around the world. Uniformitarians know that such rocks don't just happen and most of them posit catastrophic events to explain them. Limited by their philosophical bent, they will suggest that the rock layers are explained by dozens, no, hundreds of very large but local floods. These are the kinds of floods that would make the recent New Orleans experience look like a puddle. It is difficult to imagine all the catastrophes required and it is even more difficult to imagine how the records of such catastrophes are found all around the world.

But a world-wide flood explains the layering. The simpler forms of life would be buried first, and many of the higher forms would run to higher ground and evade death at the first. Once all of the earth was covered, the various currents associated with flooding would begin to leave layers behind and some sorting of animals and other remains would be done according to size and specific gravity.

You don't find dinosaur fossils in the Grand Canyon, but you do find dinosaur tracks. It is remarkable that largely without exception all dinosaur tracks point uphill. At first, paleontologists speculated that dinosaurs of this kind always backed downhill, which in retrospect is humorous indeed! According to Stephen Austin, the tracks show signs of being associated with water. In fact, testing proved that the likeliest scenario for the tracks was that the dinosaurs were completely or nearly completely under the water and running towards higher ground while making these tracks. The tracks are found on more than one level, indicating an inflow of water, fleeing animals, and then later another inflow and another herd of animals heading for higher ground.

A world-wide flood explains polystrate fossils and megabreccias, layers that are out of order or reversed, and other aspects of the actual layers found in the world. It explains why there is so much sedimentary rock.

The dynamic world-wide flood came complete with oceans that would be deeper, mountains that would thrust far higher than before and climatic changes. So much water in the coldest regions of earth, when the flood began to recede, would become ice and therefore there was a short "ice age" as large glaciers and sheets of ice extended out far beyond the poles, ice that would take years to eventually retreat to the polar regions as we have now.

After the flood receded and the passengers of the Ark were released, the animal population and also man spread out across the new and very different world. Many of the animal kinds that thrived in the antediluvian world were not suited to the differences in terrain and climate in the new world. Dinosaurs are said to continue to exist at the time of the writing of the book of Job and of course there are dragon stories (as well as flood stories) in cultures around the world.

The total human population in the world today is consistent with a population that began with one family about 4-4,500 years ago, which would be the time that Noah, his wife and his three sons and their wives stepped out of the Ark.

Briefly, the fossil record is full of animals of varied kinds. But a Darwinist would expect to find a continuum of animals changing from one thing into another and have to add corollary assumptions to explain why this is not so. There are up to 29 so-called transitional form possibilities that are being studied at this time and not one of them is compelling enough for the Darwinists to present as a certain transitional animal. The suppositions are humorous, in that whales are thought to have been large land animals who decided to go back into the sea after they had millions of years earlier decided to come onto land. Couldn't they make up their minds?

Siimilarities between the living organisms of the world are cited as a proof of macroevolution. But I say they are the proof a a common Designer, God. Just as art students study the similarities in brush strokes and colors, etc, to try to nail down works done by a particular artist, God has left us hints of his handiwork. DNA, amino acids, similarities in jawbones, the structure of limbs, all of which Darwinists try to shoehorn into evolutionary theory actually are evidences that one God created all things.

What a creationist would expect to find in the world today is this: Some kinds of animals will become extinct. Some will adjust to changing environs by adjustments within the kind already programmed into the DNA of the animal and produced by natural selection. Natural selection will bring about changes in the commonly found animals within the kind. Sometimes genetic information will be lost, limiting the kind but never will one see a kind of animal turning into a different kind. Salamanders may become largely blue, they may not be able to mate with red ones, but they will never become frogs. This is what is actually found in the world.

Darwinist scientists must continually make up fanciful stories about how the things that are could have come to be. Reading carefully what they post about early living things and how they would evolve into more complex beings, one is reminded more of the Brothers Grimm than Louis Pasteur.

The sedimentary rock layers, complete with fossils, are the record of a catastrophic world-wide flood. The result apparently changed one large continent surrounded by shallower seas into split continents with taller mountains separated by much deeper seas. Evidences of a resulting ice age are there. Formations such as the Grand Canyon fit into the scenario of receding waters through wet layers of not-yet-hard sediments, as do so many of the twisted and rolling rocks found in the wild. In fact, the rock record has anomalies that must be continually explained away if you are a uniformitarian.

We creationists are often ridiculed and asked large numbers of questions at once about what we post, while many of the points we present are left unaddressed. Ad hominem attacks are so commonplace as to be expected. No doubt more will be forthcoming after this post. But you who have open minds, go ahead and read through this. It may be outside of your belief system, but you do have to admit that it is entirely logical and fits with what is seen in the real world.

27 comments:

Anonymous said...

[Dan S. says . . .
The pause that depresses

"you do have to admit that it is entirely logical and fits with what is seen in the real world"

Wow.

I don't, actually.

Here it is, folks. He's rejecting all or most of modern biology, geology, archaeology, etc. in favor - not of religion, not of Christianity, but in favor of a specific literal reading of Genesis.

And of course, that's his choice, and his right. The reason I'm at all involved in this issue is that for the last few decades there have been more or less constant attempts here in the U.S. to undermine public science education in order that people holding this view don't have it challenged. Our host has not expressed an opinion about this in anything I've seen, and may or may not support it. If you want to find out more about what modern science says, you can - quick and dirty version, go to one of several big pro-science sites, with perhaps the most famous being TalkOrigins. They have a nifty Index to Creationist Claims that addresses many of the quasi-scientific claims* found here, briefly discussing them and presenting a quick response from modern mainstream:
biology, paleontology, geology, astronomy, cosmology, physics, mathematics, along with philosophy, theory-of-science stuff, and etc.
But while you can pick up stray odds and ends of knowledge there, it's primarily reactive. Even better - if you want to know right now, head on over there, but long term - go to the library/bookstore/.com, and get a good book on geology or evolution or etc. See not just where creationists go wrong, but what science is doing to explain the mysteries of the physical world around us.

* and that is what he's doing - making his faith hinge on specific scientific findings, something that never turns out well for either field.

And radar -
1) check your code - you have haloscan and blogger comments. Did you do that on purpose?
2) so, how do you explain modern linguistic diversity?

-Dan S., waving bye-bye for now

Anonymous said...

[Dan S. says . . .]
Well, not bye-bye yet - let me fix this:

with perhaps the most famous being TalkOrigins. They have a nifty Index to Creationist Claims . . .

Dan S.

radar said...

yes, I have been to the talk origins to see about that. The first argument made for life from non-life was the discredited 1953 Miller and Urey experiment! I also noticed Neanderthal there. Neanderthal skulls were deliberately altered to appear more apelike and any access to the skulls now is carefully locked down.

No, I am only rejecting the modern biology, geology, etc, that is Darwinist. I am not alone, there are great scientists, award winners, with whom I share such a viewpoint. I am willing to look at another point of view but that doesn't mean I have to believe it. That is also your right.

A literal reading of Genesis is the narrative, the clue, that helps me understand what is seen in the world today. Genesis was NOT written by three (or four) sources, that is a canard. I have seen textural criticism of Genesis that is amazing in its creativity. The attempt is to discredit the book. The preponderance of evidence says that it was inspired by God and authored by Moses with possibly some aid from Joshua or another peer as he approached death, although that is uncertain.

That some older copy of a copy was copied by more than one source is understandable. But trying to find differing "voices" within the text is a stretch. I believe that the Old Testament is far and away the most reliable and verifiable of history books available to mankind. Archaelogists continue to find cities and cultures identified in the Bible and otherwise previously unknown.

I believe that both macroevolution and ID should be taught in schools. I have always taught my kids to carefully learn what they are taught in school including Darwinism. I believe scientific arguments for both points should be presented. This would be beneficial to the students to see that there is more than one side to the issue of origin and how organisms function. It amazes me how Darwinists are in such fear of information from the ID side that they seek to censor it whenever possible. Is that YOUR position, Dan S? Censorship? I'd like to know why...Scientists fearing ideas, that sounds like a problem stemming from a religious or philosophical fanaticism.

Again, the Bible says that the languages were deliberately scrambled by God at the tower of Babel.

Blogger and Haloscan are, indeed, both allowed. This is a convenience for me and the posters and will remain as long as everyone stays reasonably courteous.

Anonymous said...

[Dan S. said . . . ]

"The first argument made for life from non-life was the discredited 1953 Miller and Urey experiment!"

Well, discredited? Some of the initial assumptions turned out to be mistaken, that's true.

"Neanderthal skulls were deliberately altered to appear more apelike"
What? By who?!
And anyway, Homo neanderthalensis (well, almost certainly, but maybe they were a subspecies, I haven't paid enough attention lately) is not at all apelike (in the sense being used - as mentioned, we could all be consisdered apes in a biological sense). Really, really strong, no chin, jutting, really big nose big browridge and not much of a forehead, long, low skull, . . . but not ape-like! These are also the guys that seem to have buried their dead with flowers and such. Not ape-like.

Compare H, neanderthalensis and H. sapiens (and H. habilis) here.

"No, I am only rejecting the modern biology, geology, etc, that is Darwinist"

Like 'Jewish physics' - well, no, that's not fair (and jeez, did we get lucky there!) Maybe like
'bourgeois genetics''? That Lysenko fellow, he wasn't a big fan of Darwin either . . .

". I am willing to look at another point of view but that doesn't mean I have to believe it. "
Very true. If that right is ever actually challenged, I'll be out there protesting . . .

" Is that YOUR position, Dan S? Censorship? " (re: teaching ID in schools).
My position vis-a-vis ID in public elementary/secondary schools is pretty much the same as my position towards ideas with a similar amount of mainstream acceptance, though often less cultural/popular controversy - ie, astrology, Chariots of the Gods?-style aliens built the pyramids stuff (and similar examples of pseudoarcheaology), Ice people/Sun people silliness and (this last in terms of formal correspondences only, not moral equivalence!) Holocaust denial.

"Again, the Bible says that the languages were deliberately scrambled by God at the tower of Babel."
Sorry, missed the last time you said it - too many comment threads! Do you think they've changed since then? To what degree?

"Blogger and Haloscan are, indeed, both allowed."
Nifty.

-Dan S., really going now! Honest!

highboy said...

I agree with Dan that ID shouldn't be taught in public schools, but I also believe evolution shouldn't be taught either. I believe this because public education is totally un-Constitutional, whether the science you teach is valid or not.

In regard to comments about the Bible, whether you interpret it literally or not, the argument that the documents have been altered over time is not valid. There is no evidnece of such a thing, and an objective historical study into ancient Hebrew culture shows how intensely careful (some might say anal or obsessive) they were in copying and translating the books of the Bible over thousands of years. Source criticism over that same amount of time has shown the Bible's ability to stand up against any claim to its being unreliable.


"style aliens built the pyramids stuff

Never heard of it, but would be interested to hear what that is all about.

Anonymous said...

[Dan S. said . . .]

highboy -
Public school unconstitutional? How odd. Why?

More about the Chariots fo the Gods? guy here. It's kinda like ID for archaeology - it's impossible to imagine how primitive (brown) people could have built mysterious, difficult things like the pyramids, stonehenge, the Easter Island statues, the Nazca lines - so aliens did it (or taught people how to). Anything that can only be properly seen from the air is a message/landing strip/etc. for the aliens. Depictions of seated/odd-looking/etc. people (ie, Pacal's engraved tomb lid in the Mayan city of Palenque) Ezekiel's odd account in the Bible is really an eyewitness account of a UFO landing, etc . .

Not only is it quasi-racist crud, it has an unfortunate and perniicous effect - people who are taken in by this sort of cheap trashy wonder are immunized, in a sense, from learning about the real wonders of the world - what archaeologists are doing to discover what really happened, and how - and why - people made such things.

I'm not going to draw the obvious parallel . . .

-Dan S.

Anonymous said...

That should be
"Depictions of seated/odd-looking/etc. people (ie,Pacal's engraved tomb lid in the Mayan city of Palenque) are pictures of aliens driving spaceships, etc."

The scifi movie and TV series Stargate (etc.) is based on this idea - but they don't take it seriously, of course. You know, gods were really just powerful aliens, etc, etc, . . .

-Dan S.

Ido said...

Hilareous post. I especially liked the bit about nearly all dinosaur tracks going uphill, the interpretation being that they tried to avoid drowning in the Great Flood. Does anyone have a reference to the original research showing this?

highboy said...

I did door to door two weeks ago and woman, with all sincerity, told be Billy Idol was the second coming of Christ. No joke.

creeper said...

highboy,

" I did door to door two weeks ago and woman, with all sincerity, told be Billy Idol was the second coming of Christ. No joke."

How do you know he's not?

Anonymous said...

Radar wrote:
It amazes me how Darwinists are in such fear of information from the ID side that they seek to censor it whenever possible.

And that is complete twaddle. You are welcome to teach creationism and ID in religious education lessons. You can not have them in science classes until you can meet scientific standards for them - something that you have singluarly failed to do. Behe claims that Intelligent Design is a scientific theory - but by his standards, Astrology is a scientific theory. Do you really want astrology taught in science lessons?

When ID and Creationism can meet higher scientific standards than the works of Erich von Daniken, there will be a case for having them taught in science lessons. Until then, if they are theories based on real world observations they can try getting things published in scientific journals. But the research output by the combined ID and creationist movement has been minimal. So minimal that the belief that they acutally aren't interested in the truth and instead are trying to play politics (see the Wedge Strategy for details) looks likely.

As in any field, burden of proof rests on the heterodox theory - in this case ID.

Incidently, where is your real world evidence for Mitochondrial Eve having lived only a few thousand years ago. Does it all come from the bible? Also, how did Noah make his ark? And how do you get round all the incest involved with only Noah and his family on the ark? And were dinosaurs not "living things of flesh" - wouldn't there have been a pair of each of them on the ark? And as for food for all these animals...

highboy said...

"How do you know he's not?"

You're kidding right?

creeper said...

Radar,

"Genesis was NOT written by three (or four) sources, that is a canard. I have seen textural criticism of Genesis that is amazing in its creativity. The attempt is to discredit the book. The preponderance of evidence says that it was inspired by God and authored by Moses with possibly some aid from Joshua or another peer as he approached death, although that is uncertain."

So now you're telling us, in one and the same paragraph, that the preponderance of the evidence is on board with the so-called "canard"? "Inspired" by God, "authored" by Moses with "possibly some aid from Joshua or another peer" - which is also "uncertain".

Coralius said...

Radar,

How do you explain a tree, alive until 1964, that was over 5000 years old?

Doesn't this at least push back the age of the flood by a thousand years, which in turn throws all your other (somewhat specious anyway) calculations off?

Here's a link, if you're curious:

The Prometheus Tree

radar said...

Out of the entire book of Genesis, the only question is whether the last verse (yes, one verse) was written BY Moses or for him. Big controversy, eh?

The Prometheus tree is only considered 5,000 years old by those who count all the rings, etc, in a way to give the longest age. Experts know that trees sometimes produce multiple rings in the same year and see that regularly in trees that are observed today that are not as old. Prometheus could be 3,500-4,000 years old and the more conservative estimates are closer to 4,000 than 5,000.

Creationism/catastrophism was the accepted scientific doctrine for centuries and it truly is a shame that it was thrown away hastily to accomodate the Darwinists.

Yes, there is deliberately misleading information on Talkorigins, which is why I just ignore the site now. It is also true that some creationist sites go overboard. Dr. Dino was certain for years that the carcass of a basking shark found by Japanese fishermen was that of a dinosaur. Another site claims to have proof of human footprints with and even within dino prints. (Paluxy River area). In fact, the evidence is not strong enough to prove or disprove the tracks as being human, so it may be worth investigation but one cannot say with certainty that we know those are human prints.

This is why I only blorgroll-link to sites I know are reliable and associated with strong scientific minds, guys who make either myself or the commenters here look amateurish by comparison in many cases.

In any event, as I suspected the Darwinists among you are for censorship and not because you really equate creationism with astrology. I have gone to Darwinist sites that actually have astrologer's ads, or link to the "ten best places to find aliens", etc. Many of you guys have your pet supernatural or spooky avocation but that is okay as long as it has nothing to do with a Creator.

As I said, the creationist model predicts conditions on earth that we do see. It fits in consistently with what is found, much better than the Darwinist model. I thought there would be at least one of you that would acknowledge this and follow it with "..but," and yet no one has been able to even do that.

"Hilareous post. I especially liked the bit about nearly all dinosaur tracks going uphill, the interpretation being that they tried to avoid drowning in the Great Flood. Does anyone have a reference to the original research showing this?"

"hilareous" is defined as witty and concise? I attributed the book and author in the post, google and follow. You have to wade through a few Darwinist sites first but you probably won't mind.

Dan S, to me the obvious parallel is people who believe in Darwinism, panspermia and so on. I have the advantage of being to believe in a Supernatural God so that my field of belief and understanding is not limited.

Also, Habilis , much like the Australopithecines, Kenyanthropus Platyops2, Zinjanthropus and etc, turn out to be very small quasi-bipedal apes. I have seen no evidence that these kinds of animals are more closely related to humans that a Gorilla. If we were to see one in a zoo, we would tell our kids, "hey, look at the ape, guys!"

creeper said...

1. Mitochondrial Eve:

”it is of great interest that the famous "Mitochondrial Eve" would be calculated to have lived about 6,500 years ago by rather straightforward dating of the "mutation clock" used to determine how long ago she lived. Eve, the mother of all living humans, just as the Bible says. Darwinists use other methods to determine the dating of "Eve", usually coming up with a date of about 150,000 to 200,000 years ago.”

While this matter is still far from settled, I take it you are aware that this calculation of 6500 years is based on a number of underlying assumptions, including (1) man and ape sharing a common ancestor, and (2) radiometric dating being accepted as accurate. Do you accept these assumptions? If you don’t, then how can you accept their result?

What do you make of the most recent common ancestor from whom the X-chromosomes of all people alive today descended, which indicates a much longer time? This should also indicate no more than 6500 years, shouldn’t it?

”They will also say that Eve was just one woman within an entire population of already existing humans.”

True, the calculation whose results you’re touting does depend on the assumption of a population of already existing humans (or proto-humans) as they split off from other evolutionary branches at an earlier time, including apes.

2. ”The Noahic Flood, a world wide flood that lasted covered the entire planet for 150 days and rendered the earth unihabitable for approximately one year wiped out most of land life (not including invertabrates, microorganisms, etc) on earth. The exception is Noah, his family, and the animals that were brought with him aboard the Ark, a large boat with dimensions equivalent to that of a large ocean liner.”

How many “kinds” on the Ark would be necessary to account for the variety of life we see around us every day? How much would it take to feed them for at least a year? How much space would all this take up? Would a boat the size of a large ocean liner suffice?

”The word for creatures used here is for animals that generally have backbones, breath air, and live on the land. These are the kinds of animals that God caused to come to Noah to take with him on the Ark.”

How does “creation science” account for marine animals who were unable to live in either saltwater or freshwater, not a mix? Were there dinosaurs on the Ark, or weren’t there?

3. ”A world-wide flood is the kind of event that would explain the sedimentary layers of rock found around the world.”

An old earth would explain that just the same. A world-wide flood at that particular time (2348 BC) is contradicted by, for example, civilizations who were supposedly wiped out continuing to exist without a mention of the flood.

4. "It is remarkable that largely without exception all dinosaur tracks point uphill. At first, paleontologists speculated that dinosaurs of this kind always backed downhill, which in retrospect is humorous indeed!”

Could you point us to the research on this? The only pictures I’ve seen of dinosaur tracks were on level ground, but this sounds like a fascinating study.

5. ”A world-wide flood explains polystrate fossils and megabreccias, layers that are out of order or reversed, and other aspects of the actual layers found in the world.”

How does it explain layers being out of order, or reversed? Does it do so in a different way from “old earth” geology?

6. ” After the flood receded and the passengers of the Ark were released, the animal population and also man spread out across the new and very different world. Many of the animal kinds that thrived in the antediluvian world were not suited to the differences in terrain and climate in the new world. “

Does this mean that the Ark not only had to carry all the “kinds” whose offspring we see around us today, but all the extinct ones as well? Golly. I guess that means we have to add a few to those 16,000 or so you mentioned earlier.

7. ” Briefly, the fossil record is full of animals of varied kinds. But a Darwinist would expect to find a continuum of animals changing from one thing into another and have to add corollary assumptions to explain why this is not so.”

No, no corollary assumptions needed. Simply the recognition that we’re not talking about orthogenesis. Allopatric speciation allows for living beings evolving into different niches and reacting to all kinds of survival pressures. An animal evolving in one direction, then reversing, then evolving in another direction is not contradictory. It simply depends on the circumstances at the time. There is no reason why “bigger” or “hairier” are always advantageous – if your environment changes, the opposite may become more advantageous.

” There are up to 29 so-called transitional form possibilities that are being studied at this time and not one of them is compelling enough for the Darwinists to present as a certain transitional animal.”

Transitional between what and what?

” The suppositions are humorous, in that whales are thought to have been large land animals who decided to go back into the sea after they had millions of years earlier decided to come onto land. Couldn't they make up their minds?”

The creatures who found the water more hospitable at one point in time, or the creatures who found the land more hospitable at a completely different point in time, under different circumstances? They weren’t the same, Radar. When they went on land, there was an advantage to that; when they went back into the sea, there was an advantage to that.

It’s like saying my great-grandfather decided to move from the countryside into the city, because it presented an advantage to him at that time, and I decided to move from the city to the countryside, because that presents an advantage to me right now. It’s nothing to do with either of us not being able to “make up our minds”.

8. ” Siimilarities between the living organisms of the world are cited as a proof of macroevolution.”

They are highly consistent with macroevolution, and large-scale dissimilarity between the living organisms of the world would be a strike against evolution, and proof for creationism.

” But I say they are the proof a a common Designer, God.”

Since we can not make any predictions about how God would design something (he works in mysterious ways, right?), we can not say that this is proof of God having designed it. Since He is all-powerful and all-knowing, he could have designed it this way, or he could have designed the “kinds” truly distinctively, without any re-use, certainly of redundant or harmful parts.

The similarities among organisms and genomes makes evolution along a certain path (parallel to the phylogenetic tree) more likely than design. It does not conclusively “prove” either. It doesn’t disprove either, though the absence of this would have disproven evolution.

The high number of extinctions throughout the ages makes design less likely than evolution, unless we’re talking about a highly “trial-and-error” oriented design process, which is tantamount to evolution anyway. Again, what speaks against God having used what we call evolution as his design process? Only the stubborn insistence on seeing a document of dubious authorship as intended to be taken literally, unlike any other creation myth out there. (When I say creation myth, I use the definition of myth as “A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society”)

” Sometimes genetic information will be lost”

Could you name a specific example? How does genetic information get lost in microevolution?

” Salamanders may become largely blue, they may not be able to mate with red ones, but they will never become frogs. This is what is actually found in the world,”

Given, for argument’s sake, that an old earth and macroevolution are true, what rate of change would you expect to see in your human lifetime, or even in historical times? Is it your impression that the theory of evolution says you would see macroevolution in such a short time?

9. ” Darwinist scientists must continually make up fanciful stories about how the things that are could have come to be.”

Okay, which fanciful stories are you talking about? Are they more fanciful than an omnipotent being waving a magic wand?

” The result apparently changed one large continent surrounded by shallower seas into split continents with taller mountains separated by much deeper seas. Evidences of a resulting ice age are there. Formations such as the Grand Canyon fit into the scenario of receding waters through wet layers of not-yet-hard sediments, as do so many of the twisted and rolling rocks found in the wild.”

This is easily covered by old-earth geology.

”In fact, the rock record has anomalies that must be continually explained away if you are a uniformitarian.”

The theory of evolution does not argue against uniformitarianism. Who defends uniformitarianism?

10. ”We creationists are often ridiculed and asked large numbers of questions at once about what we post, while many of the points we present are left unaddressed.”

Which points did we leave unaddressed? Tell us and we’ll get on it. I thought we’d covered them all, but just let us know. While we’re at it, there is quite a stack of questions you have yet to get around to.

By the way, there is no reason why you, Radar, a non-scientist who has been the victim of some horrendous educational experiences (I still think you should warn others about whatever that school was), blogging away in the Midwest, should have to plague yourself with such questions in the first place – creation scientists should be on this, engaged in active research to show that what is empirically true is 100% in line with a literal reading of Genesis. There are many ways to do this, and many rather obvious questions that can be asked and, if pursued successfully, would give “creation science” much of the credibility it so disastrously lacks. Perhaps you don’t wonder why they don’t do this, and instead constrict themselves to taking dishonest potshot at evolutionary theory, but I certainly do.

I’ve posted questions about how, if creationism were valid, and if such a thing as “creation science” actually existed in any meaningful sense, it would explain the world around us in scientific terms. Here are some of them:

If eight people of one particular race existed in approx. 2350 BC, how were they able to evolve so quickly into the different races we see today? It supposes not only that evolution doesn’t exist, but that it exists and is much more rapid than anything proposed by the theory of evolution. (Cranky old fart brought this up as well, calling it super-evolution, in response to which you played dumb.) Why don’t we still see this kind of rapid evolution going on today?

Is it possible for the variety of life to have bloomed to such an extent from what could be contained on Noah’s Ark?

If there was a global flood in approx. 2350 BC, is it possible for the variety of life we see around us today to have bloomed to such an extent? What rate of evolution would this require, and do we see this rate around us today?

Where did Noah’s Ark land? Can we come to a reasonable conclusion based on migration patterns? If there were two elephants on the Ark when the Ark landed, how did their offspring migrate and evolve? What about all the other "kinds"? The migration spreading out from the Ark's landing point should be well recognizable in the migration and evolution of these "kinds" as they spread to all the other continents. How long did it take them to reach the other continents, now separated by oceans, and how did they get there?

What were the “kinds”, how many of them were there, how much space did they take up? (If dinosaurs lived after the flood, as Radar now also claimed, they would need space on the Ark too.) How much would it take to feed them for six months or a year, or even longer – a year plus whatever time it takes to grow food on soil ruined by saltwater?

What about saltwater and freshwater marine animals? Were they left to die?

Endless questions that would require scientific research to answer, but in response we get people like Radar making stuff up. Seriously, in addressing these questions, do you go to your big book about the scientific view of creationist natural history, or are you left to your own devices and a couple of websites? Do you now have to make up an answer about what happened to the marine animals, or will you go to AiG or ICR... or will you have an actual scientific study you can go to that addresses this?

11. ” It may be outside of your belief system, but you do have to admit that it is entirely logical and fits with what is seen in the real world.”

No, Radar, it doesn’t seem all that logical, and it doesn’t seem to fit in with a great many things seen in the real world. You could surprise me, though, with your answers. You really could. As a matter of fact I would be astonished.

But somehow I get the feeling there is no such thing as “creation science”. Really. I look around on the Internet, and for evolutionary science there is a seemingly endless parade of scientific research conducted, building on existing knowledge, and vigorous debate among scientists. Next up is Intelligent Design, and people like Dembski who at least make a genuine effort to track down instances of irreducible complexity.

And then there’s “creation science”, which consists of little more than some religious content and, for the most part, potshots at the theory of evolution that have a difficult time surviving the first rebuttal. Not one of them (none of the ones I’ve seen anyway) takes itself seriously and says: “Genesis is true, which gives us these testable hypotheses, and we’re going to set out to test these – and confirm them.”

I may well be wrong on this, and I have asked you before about such a site. I suspect that you put up this post in response to that question, but what I was really more interested in was the scientific angle on this, and if that is the case, I appreciate your effort. But where is the scientific research that attempts to show us that it is indeed possible for people of one race to evolve into the races we know today in a few thousand years? Or that bothers to delineate the “kinds”?


Dan S., I hope this blog hasn’t seen the last of you yet. I’ve really enjoyed your contributions on this topic.

creeper said...

"Out of the entire book of Genesis, the only question is whether the last verse (yes, one verse) was written BY Moses or for him. Big controversy, eh?"

The documentary hypothesis, according to Vatican estimates accepted by 90% of academics in the field of biblical scholarship, states that Moses acted more as an editor, due to many incongruities in the text.

The creation story in Genesis first describes a somewhat evolutionary process, with first the planet created, then the lower forms of life, then animals, and finally man and woman being created together. It then begins the story again, but this time man is created first, then animals to assuage man's loneliness, and when this failed, Adam's wife Eve was created.

The flood story in Genesis appears to claim that two of all kinds of animal went on the ark, but also that seven of certain kinds went on, and that the flood lasted a year, but also lasted only 40 days.

But for some reason it's essential to interpret this all literally...

Is accepting it as a metaphor really such a problem?

"Creationism/catastrophism was the accepted scientific doctrine for centuries and it truly is a shame that it was thrown away hastily to accomodate the Darwinists."

No shame at all: science moves on according to discoveries. If creationism was not supportable scientifically, there was no reason to hang on to it as science. Even today creationism is abandoned by science.

Catastrophism doesn't need to be thrown out to accommodate the theory of evolution.

"Yes, there is deliberately misleading information on Talkorigins, which is why I just ignore the site now."

Did the links that were provided to you in the course of this discussion deliberately misleading?

"This is why I only blorgroll-link to sites I know are reliable and associated with strong scientific minds, guys who make either myself or the commenters here look amateurish by comparison in many cases."

Which sites?

"In any event, as I suspected the Darwinists among you are for censorship and not because you really equate creationism with astrology."

I'm not for censorship in the slightest. Nobody is stopping anybody from doing the research to explore their ideas. Heck, I wish creation scientists even existed.

But wedging any old pseudo-science into science classes - Radar, you have to admit that that's not how it works with any other subject, so why should creationism be given a free pass? Hypotheses are proposed, the research is conducted, tested, a concensus view emerges. Since when do we throw stuff into science classes without doing the science first? IDers and creationists are trying to put the cart before the horse.

All both ID and creation science have to do is present testable, falsifiable hypotheses, test and verify them, and they will be in an excellent position to have their notions accepted as science. It's at that point that they can whine about censorship with some justification. In the meantime, nobody is stopping them from conducting the research.

It's not censorship to have some kind of standards for public education, and there is no need to lower them to make an exception for one specific topic. That has nothing to do with censorship.

"I have gone to Darwinist sites that actually have astrologer's ads, or link to the "ten best places to find aliens", etc. Many of you guys have your pet supernatural or spooky avocation but that is okay as long as it has nothing to do with a Creator."

I've asked you about this before - where is this "Darwinist" site with the ten best places to find aliens? You didn't respond, and the link we had under discussion at the time was actually an anti-evolutionist one.

Please provide the link.

"As I said, the creationist model predicts conditions on earth that we do see."

The young earth one sure would not predict a civilization surviving the flood unscathed and without mention of the flood, or a continuous record of tree rings stretching back over 10,000 years.

"It fits in consistently with what is found, much better than the Darwinist model."

Example?

"I thought there would be at least one of you that would acknowledge this and follow it with "..but," and yet no one has been able to even do that."

Because you have presented a litany of bad arguments, and have yet to respond to most of the "buts". Don't play victim because you didn't get a pat on the head for presenting bad arguments.

creeper said...

Here's a testable, falsifiable prediction that arises from a young earth worldview, including a flood in the year 2348 BC:

We would expect to see no tree rings indicating continuous life older than 4,400 years or, if we leave out the flood, older than 6,000 years.

"The Prometheus tree is only considered 5,000 years old by those who count all the rings, etc, in a way to give the longest age. Experts know that trees sometimes produce multiple rings in the same year and see that regularly in trees that are observed today that are not as old. Prometheus could be 3,500-4,000 years old and the more conservative estimates are closer to 4,000 than 5,000."

Okay, how do you explain a continuous cross-dated record of tree rings (with no disruption from a global flood) going back 8,500 years?

How about one going back 10,000 years?

At what point will you stop scoffing "bad science" without even thinking about the argument, and admit that the evidence is stacked against you, and it's not because of some tinfoil hat conspiracy?

highboy said...

I just thought I'd chime and say "you're wrong!" to somebody. Doesn't matter who. Feel free to refute.

Anonymous said...

[Dan S. says]

Hopefully it's understood, but I meant to say
"ideas with a similar amount of mainstream [scientific] acceptance."

Remember, science isn't some squishy feel-good everybody's right let's all hold hands and sing- sillinesss (not to say there isn't a place for that elsewhere). It's all about what works - and if something doesn't, well, buh-bye. So let's take the Flood and the fossil record.

Modern biology, geology and paleontology predicts you'll find specific things - on the simplest level, groups of organisms turning up in the order that they evolved, and continuing on (unless they go extinct); to the extent that our understanding of evolutionary history is correct, you shouldn't have mammoths in the Mesozoic, or peaches in the Precambrian. Organisms will be found- within reasonable expectations - in relation to environmental conditions and in ecological assemblages (this gets a little tricky, because fossilization doesn't present a representative cross-sample, but importantly scientists have worked to understand how the conditions under which fossilization is likely, and how this affects our understanding of the fossil record).

What does creation-science predict?
Radar, you say: "The simpler forms of life would be buried first, and many of the higher forms would run to higher ground and evade death at the first . . . [and later] some sorting of animals and other remains would be done according to size and specific gravity."

This isn't quite correct. "Simple" and "higher" are not really relevent in this context. I was going to go through and explain how, but luckily, since I'm lazy, TalkOrigins will do it for me:
Creationist Claim CH561.3: Fossil sorting by ability to escape

". . . we would expect to see slow-moving species like sloths and tortoises and every low-elevation plant at the bottom of the fossil record, while fast-moving species, such as velociraptors, pterosaurs, and giant dragonflies, would be at the top. . . .
[I would add that small, short-legged creatures (little mammals/amphibians/reptiles) should be near the bottom, while larger, longer-legged equivalents (such as the ancient giant amphibians) should be further along]

Even common present-day floods trap all manner of people and animals. The violence of a flood that could cover the entire earth in forty days would be bound to trap many individuals from even fast-moving species, especially those that were old and infirm, crippled, or trapped in low-lying areas. Therefore, we would expect to find the occasional member of fast-moving species near the bottom of the fossil record. . . .

If fossil distribution is dependent on the ability to escape rising floodwaters, then all the species within an ecosystem must be equally capable of escape for them to be preserved together . . ."

And Creationist Claim CH561.2:Hydrologic sorting (Buoyant ammonites would be near the top, brachipods and clams should be close together, sediments should show clear evidence of hydrologic sorting - rocks at the bottom, very fine grain particles on top, etc.)

Which prediction is best supported by the available data? The modern science one. (Two possible objections: a)but that's not my prediction! - in which case, show why that wouldn't be what we would expect with a Flood model, and b) modern science is simply using circular logic (these theories were made to explain those observations, so they're simply predicting what they've already observed) - except we keep finding fossils, and they continue to match these predictions.

Don't forget, the early geologists believed in the historical reality of the Flood, and tried valiantly to find evidence for it - the fact that they couldn't is why they don't teach about a worldwide Flood in modern geology.

Creationists can keep explaining facts away, but -to the degree they attempt to do or use science - they're in the same kind of situation that astronomers supporting a Ptolemaic model were . . . one has to keep adding complexities upon complexities to match real-world observations, until it becomes simply unworkable.

But let's come to the crux of the matter. Imagine the following scenario: someone invents a visual time machine, a device that allows people to see into the past. You can start at any time and move backwards or forwards until you reach the beginning or the present day. You can speed things up immensely, zipping through time, and also move the viewpoint through space. Assume, for the purposes of the scenario, that it is recognized as being incapable of error.The machine, after careful testing, is deployed for a selected (or mass, whatever) audience, and set to 4.5 billion years ago. The creationists in the audience have their (what - hope? wonder? suspense? glee that finally all those scientists will have to admit they were wrong? I dunno) turn to despair as the screen shows the modern scientific account as being roughly right - they watch the earth come together in the infant solar system ,the forming of the moon, the filling of the seas . .. .zooming in, they see life emerge, proliferate, evolve . . . and so on, for several billion years - fish turning into frogs, and all that - up to the present day, right after watching a certain hominoid a few million years ago give rise to a number of species whose surviving descendents include us.

So, imagining that you witnessed all this, radar -
well, I assume you would then accept the account given by modern science. The important question, however:

Would you abandon your God and your faith as a result?

-Dan S., a slow moving species

creeper said...

"I just thought I'd chime and say "you're wrong!" to somebody. Doesn't matter who. Feel free to refute. "

Consider your point refuted. :-)

creeper said...

Dan S.,

Amen to that.

Anonymous said...

creeper wrote:
The flood story in Genesis appears to claim that two of all kinds of animal went on the ark, but also that seven of certain kinds went on, and that the flood lasted a year, but also lasted only 40 days.

*sigh*

Get what you are arguing against right please.

Genesis 7:2 says that all non-Clean animals went on in pairs- but that all Clean animals went on in sevens. This is usually read as an expansion of the earlier verse which only refers to all the animals going to Noah in pairs in order for the animals to be rescued. There is no contradiction between saying that a pair of each animal shall go to Noah to be rescued and that seven of each clean animal shall go to Noah and a pair of everything else - presumably Noah (and family) would eat or otherwise use the clean animals and just rescue the rest.

Genesis 7 and 8 also say that the rains were for 40 days and 40 nights and that the water level rose for 40 days - but that the waters only started receeding after 150 days, with the ark beaching on Mt Ararat after seven and a half months. It took a year for the flood waters to recede entirely.

We would (and do) pounce on radar and highboy for making such mistakes and finding such false contradictions in their knowledge of science. We should therefore keep ourselves to the sort of standards we try to hold radar to when it comes to his texts.

Oh, scholars and theologians differ as to who wrote Genesis.

- F

creeper said...

F,

I stand corrected. My apologies, and thank you.

creeper said...

highboy,

"How do you know he's not?"

"You're kidding right?"


The Lord works in mysterious ways, highboy.

highboy said...

But why Billy Idol? Why does he make more sense than say, Ozzy?

creeper said...

"But why Billy Idol? Why does he make more sense than say, Ozzy?"

Why does it have to make sense?