Part 2, an attack on creationism (Creator, Earth, tradition, beliefs)

[Pinecone]

I know that this post is somewhat weak, but taken with the other one, I think I provide a pretty complete argument. This is an old post from another place, but I like it enough to bring it over here.

A CRITIQUE OF CREATIONISM

This post will cover New Earth Creationism (by far the most fun, like shooting fish in a barrel), Theistic Evolution (completely harmless, but not rational). I will also provide all the evidence of evolution that creationists ask for (transitional fossils and, observed evolution, etc...) and correct myths spread by creationists today in another post.

I hope ya'll enjoy it, and I hope a few of you once again take the time to read through the entire post and share your thoughts on it.

YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISM

Young Earth Creationism is the belief in a literal interpretation of the creation myth found in Genesis; Young Earth Creationists also typically regard the entire Bible as true. It is hard to dispute the evidence for Young Earth Creationism because it is hard to FIND evidence for it; most of what you find on the topic is criticisms of Evolution or misinterpretation of science. After a bit of searching I did discover a site that treats Young Earth Creationism theory (makes predictions that can be disproven). (Evidence for Creation) If anyone finds something else please show me, I was disappointed to not find more. I’m going to skip over anything that is a criticism of evolution, this post is going to focus on evidence FOR creationism, not evidence against evolution.

“Decay of Earth's Magnetic Field... Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field.4 Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the molecules necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand of years.”

Searching Google I found out a couple things. First off Dr. Thomas Barnes did not have a real doctorate in physics; it was an honorary degree from a Christian school, Hardin Simmons University. I doubt he taught physics at UTEP with that. (Thomas Barnes (creationist)) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. As for his theory, the “Doctor” does not produce any evidence that the rate of decrease is exponential. In fact the earths magnetic field is not constant, looking at geological evidence it can be shown that the field increases and decreases over time. There is no evidence of any exponential trend. (Earths Magnetic Field) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

“The Global Flood... The Biblical record clearly describes a global Flood during Noah's day. Additionally, there are hundreds of Flood traditions handed down through cultures all over the world. 5 M.E. Clark and Henry Voss have demonstrated the scientific validity of such a Flood providing the sedimentary layering we see on every continent. 6 Secular scholars report very rapid sedimentation and periods of great carbonate deposition in earth's sedimentary layers..7 It is now possible to prove the historical reality of the Biblical Flood.”

I almost feel sorry for Young Earth creationists when it comes to the flood. Seeing them try to defend it is sad, I can imagine how frustrating it must be for them.

There are many flood myths in many cultures, floods are a scary thing, and they happen almost everywhere on earth. It’s natural for myths to center around natural disasters, and there’s really nothing surprising about most cultures having a story about a terrifying flood at some point.

I have no Idea who Henry Voss on M.E Clark are, their research couldn’t have been very impressive though, google doesn’t know who they are either. There’s really not too else much I can say about this, the quote is vague but sounds scientific (until it uses the word “prove”, you don’t prove anything in science). So I think I’ll use this as an excuse to very quickly talk about Noah’s Ark

Note every species could possibly have fit in the ark, the amount of food needed to keep them alive would have been staggering, most of the species would have died out from not being in the correct climate and lastly, how the hell did all the marsupials end up in Australia? There, a very quick criticism of Noah’s ark, I could go into more detail, but I don’t see much point. Back to the creationist arguments.

“Population Statistics...World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 1089. 9 The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies.”

There is actually a name for this argument; it’s called “The Bunny Blunder”. It assumes that rates of population growth have been constant through all of history as has the rate of death from disease. I’ll admit I’m terrible with math, so I’m probably the worst person to counter this argument. Instead of saying anything else about it I’ll just link a couple sites that give a full rebuttal. (The Bunny Blunder) and (NCSE Resource)

“Helium Content in Earth's Atmosphere... Physicist Melvin Cook, found that helium-4 enters our atmosphere from solar wind and radioactive decay of uranium. At present rates our atmosphere would accumulate current helium-4 amounts in less than 10,000 years.”

This Assumes that helium never escapes the atmosphere, and besides I thought they claimed the earth was only 6,000 years old or was it 4500? I suppose they were hoping we’d forget for the moment.

“Expansion of Space Fabric...Astronomical estimates of the distance to various galaxies gives conflicting data.13 The Biblical Record refers to the expansion of space by the Creator14. Astrophysicist Russell Humphries demonstrates that such space expansion would dilate time in distant space.15 This could explain a recent creation with great distances to the stars.”

These are getting easier and easier to find answers to. We know the rate at which the universe is expanding; in fact that’s how we know how old the universe is. The expanding universe does not support Young Earth Creationism, it doest exactly the opposite.

That’s about it for young earth Creationism, I will answer the other arguments on that page in my next post.

THEISTIC EVOLUTION

This is a more moderate creationist belief, and it’s probably held by many of you who will read this. It’s the belief that a supreme being had a guiding hand in evolution and the design of the universe. It’s very difficult to debate because it isn’t much of a scientific theory. Basically it says “yep, evolution is right, but God helped out”. Many also believe that God kick started the whole process by creating the first life. I have two issues with this. The first is “The God of the Gaps” and the second is Occam’s Razor.

THE GOD OF THE GAPS

God is retreating, at least according to this belief, many religious people say things like “Well, we don’t know how the universe was made, or where the laws of Physics came from, so God must have done it” this doesn’t make any sense. There is no reason to fill gaps in scientific knowledge with God. We learn more about the universe every day and our knowledge is constantly expanding. The entire purpose of science is to find answers to what we don't know.

OCCAM’S RAZOR

Why would God decide to work through the process of evolution? Is he hiding? The simplest solution tends to be the best one. Evolution explains why life in this world looks the way it does, and does a great job of it. No one can prove that there isn’t a divine hand behind evolution, but there is no evidence that there is.

Once again, if you have any questions, would like to challenge me, or provide some other evidence for creationism, I'd love to hear it, I probably won't agree with you, but I'm always up for hearing new things.

[rocketman]

Originally Posted by Pinecone

This post will cover New Earth Creationism (by far the most fun, like shooting fish in a barrel),

How noble of you.

Judging from your other thread you might want to sharpen your aim.

Originally Posted by Pinecone

After a bit of searching I did discover a site that treats Young Earth Creationism theory (makes predictions that can be disproven). (Evidence for Creation) If anyone finds something else please show me, I was disappointed to not find more.

Lol! You just don't get it. You won't find a single complete model to argue against. Creationist models will come and go with new findings in science. They don't care if that happens, because everything is based on the bible first, science second. Many try to argue against them and end up frustrated because they think the argument is science vs psuedoscience. It is not. The quality of their science varies from very good to plain weird but their argument is not science, it is one of faith. The reason they get involved in science at all is more to do with outreach and having an answer than anything. They don't aim or claim to be able to prove all of their faith based ideas or to be experts on creation models and it is silly for people who want to go 'fish shooting' to think that they do.

If they are right, then eventually the evidence will coalesce in their favour, and we might see a fixed model. In the meantime, read the following link and quit while you are ahead:

Can Creation Models Be Wrong? - Answers in Genesis

[Bishka]

Originally Posted by Pinecone

Part 2, an attack on creationism

What is your purpose here other then attacking other people's beliefs?

[Bishka]

What's the point? Why can't you let people believe what they want to believe?

[painted wolf]

Not when they want to replace myth with science.

Our future as a species is just as dependent on our scientific literacy as it is our religious literacy.
Sadly Americans are woefully lacking in both.

wa:do

[Seyorni]

Originally Posted by beckysoup61

What's the point? Why can't you let people believe what they want to believe?

It's wrong and dangerous to believe what you want to believe. We should strive to believe what's true, weather we like it or not.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by beckysoup61

What's the point? Why can't you let people believe what they want to believe?

Mainly compassion and concern, IMO.

If someone believes that their car runs on pixie magic and not gasoline, then regardless of how much joy this belief gives them, it will probably lead them to a long, unhappy walk when the mistaken nature of that belief makes itself apparent.

By the same token, I believe that denial of evolution, while not having quite the same immediacy as denial of internal combustion, has negative effects for the individual and for society. In addition to what I see as the inherent value in truth and inherent cost in falsehood, I think creationist beliefs have led to very real damage to the education system, primarily in the US, but to lesser degrees in other countries, for example.

[Jose Fly]

YOUNG-EARTH CREATIONISM

YEC requires that the entire univese, including the earth and its life, be less than 10,000 years old. It also requires that the earth was recently flooded around 4,000 years ago and all life wiped out save what road aboard a wooden boat.

This requires that the physical sciences be so far off base as to be essentially useless. Cosmology, physics, geology, biology, etc. would all have to have been 99.99% wrong for the last 100+ years. Given this, it's rather amusing when YEC's say things like "I like science".

IMO, YEC ranks just barely (and I mean just barely) above flat-earth geocentrism on the absurdity scale, and is usually not worth arguing about.

OLD EARTH CREATIONISM

This belief includes a few sub-categories, including "day age creationism" and "gap theory creationism".

Day-age creationism holds that the "days" in Genesis 1 refer to long periods of time rather than literal 24-hour days. But for the most part, advocates of this belief still have a tough time with common descent, especially humans and other primates.

Gap theory creationism holds that there is a gap of (usually) millions of years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 and the fossil record evidences some sort of Satan-created life/evolution that God ended when "the earth became formless and void". Gap theorists also typically don't accept universal common descent, especially regarding humans.

IMO, both are half-hearted attempts to reconcile the Bible with the findings of science. It represents progress over YEC to a degree, but not much.

THEISTIC EVOLUTION

Theistic evolutionists typically accept an ancient earth and universe and the common ancestry of life. They usually just believe God either directed evolution towards a desired end (us) or set up the rules of evolution such that humans were guaranteed to arise.

Theistic evolutionists aren't very well liked by most other creationists. YEC's don't like them because they feel they are making the Genesis accounts meaningless and denying the special creation of man by God. Other creationists, such as ID creationists, view them as "sell outs" to modernism.

IMO, theistic evolution is pretty much inarguable. If someone wants to say "Yeah, all that happened, but God made it happen", unless said person offers a means by which we can differentiate between things God made happen and things that happen on their own, there's nothing to discuss.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONISM

ID creationism was spawned after the federal courts ruled that teaching Biblical creationism in public schools is unconstitutional. In response, creationists simply stripped their arguments of overt references to the Bible and other aspects of conservative Christianity, slapped on the label "intelligent design", and started working on getting it into public schools. They also resurrected a few very old arguments (e.g. "irreducible complexity"), renamed them, and applied them to the findings of modern biochemistry.

ID creationism operates under what they refer to as the "big tent approach", where creationists of all stripes are welcome (as long as they keep their religious motivations quiet when in public). Thus, you can find YEC's, OEC's, gap theorists, and all manner of beliefs within ID creationism. One thing you won't find however, is theistic evolutionists. They are genearlly despised by ID creationists.

IMO, ID creationism is currently undergoing a startlingly quick death. While it was stillborn from a scientific standpoint, as a social-political movement it is rapidly losing its steam. The federal court ruling in Dover, PA was much more of a deathblow than most anticipated. That, plus the fact that most conservative Christians don't really like ID creationism's attempts to downplay and hide references to the Bible, is quickly eroding the public support of ID creationism.

I think that's enough for now.