Creation model Vs. Evolution model

[Steve]

Neither the Evolution model or Creation model can "Prove" scientifically how life got started to everyones satisfaction, either theory requires "faith" thats not based soley on science eg abiogenesis is far from proven and likewise God did it at the beginning also isnt what people except in a thread like this. Abiogenesis must be excepted at the outset of one theory and some would argue this wiould be a miracle and outside the scope of "science", Initial Creation must be excepted if the creation model is except also, this also would be considered a miracle outside the scope of "science". So please lets just discuss the 2 models in this thread.
We know life is here so what model explains what we see the best is the point of this thread. Lets try to present our arguments and the facts that we base these arguments on as much as possible.

(The following is from another of my posts in this forum)
I belive the Bible, the account it presents as our history i belive, here are some "evidences" that support the Creation Model and history presented in the Bible.

These are some things you would expect to find if the Bibles account of history is true.

1. Evidence of a global flood.
2. The earth is "young" not millions of years old.
3. Animals producing after their kind.
4. Awsome order and complexity right from the cells to the solar system.


1. Evidence to support a global flood which is part of the Creation model.

There is evidence that the different layers are not vastly different ages, Squashed radio halos in coalified wood in 3 supposedly different ages from 35 to 245 million years.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i4/geologictime.asphttp://www.answersingenesis.org/cre...eologictime.asp

There is evidence that the strata has been all soft together at the one time.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i1/grandcanyon.asphttp://www.answersingenesis.org/cre...grandcanyon.asp

Polystrate Fossils.
Fossils that go through multiple layers (some fossilized trees upside down), show that its more likely that the layers all formed by a catastrophic flood and it shows that the strata couldnt have taken millions of years to form because the thing to be fossilized wouldnt remain while waiting for the next layer.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/yellowstone.asphttp://www.answersingenesis.org/cre...yellowstone.asp
http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-081b.htm
http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/polystrate.shtml

There is alot of evidence that many of the things we see is the result of catastrophy.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i1/warped.asphttp://www.answersingenesis.org/cre...5/i1/warped.asp

Massive amounts of sandstone in some areas and the way it has been deposited.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i2/sisters.asphttp://www.answersingenesis.org/cre.../i2/sisters.asp

Cultures and flood stories.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-153b.htm

Marine fossils ontop of the worlds highest mountains.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-177b.htm


2. Evidence to support the earth is young and not millions of years old.

Recent dinosaur bone discoveries which show that dinosaurs have been around much more recently then we are led to belive.
"Not only have more blood cells been found, but also soft, fibrous tissue, and complete blood vessels. The fact that this really is unfossilized soft tissue from a dinosaur is in this instance so obvious to the naked eye that any scepticism directed at the previous discovery is completely “history”." from
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0325Dino_tissue.asphttp://www.answersingenesis.org/doc...Dino_tissue.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0328discovery.asphttp://www.answersingenesis.org/doc...28discovery.asp

The decline of the Earths magnetic field.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/magnetic.asphttp://www.answersingenesis.org/cre...i2/magnetic.asp
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-100.htm

mitochondrial DNA
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4055.asp

Wood found in layers suppose to be 142–205.7 million years old was carbon dated at around 23,500 years. This wood was found near index fossils for the Jurrasic period.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i2/geology.asphttp://www.answersingenesis.org/cre.../i2/geology.asp

Revival of bacteria by scientist from a layer claimed to be 250 million years old. Not possible if it really is 250 million years old.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i4/saltysaga.asphttp://www.answersingenesis.org/cre...4/saltysaga.asp

Lack of equilibrium of Carbon-14/Carbon-12 ratio. This ratio should reach equilibrium in the atmosphere in only some thousands of years, but it hasn't reached that point yet. --Morris, J. D. 1994. The Young Earth. Master Books. pp. 73-74

For more go too http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp
or for information about radiometric dating methods http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp

3. Evidence that Animals produce after their kind.
We all know this is what happens. Speciation is not a problem for creationists the original "kind" would have had the genetic information that now exists in the various species we now see. Speciation is a loss of information not a gain.
However to say that we see changes in life forms so we now have proof of evolution is not proof at all because the changes witnessed must add information to the lifeform. Mutations cause loss of information or scrambling, they do not increase the information. Mutations are mostly harmful (cause defects, desease etc), and the ones that actually prove benificial to the life form are because they have lost information not gained it, http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v3/i4/poison.asp shows examples of how animals can "become" resitant to poisions etc.
"Polyploidy (multiplication of the number of chromosomes), chromosome translocations, recombination and even (possibly) mutations can generate 'new species', but not new information, not new characteristics for which there were no genes to start with." - http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/dogs.asp

Increased amounts of DNA dosnt mean increased function or information.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter5.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/DNAduplication.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/cre...duplication.asp

Id say there is more evidence that supports the world was created with all this information and we are now losing it through mutations etc not gaining it.


4. Awsome order and complexity right from cells to the solar system.
Many of you know how complex a sigle cell is then consider the average adult has around 100 trillion cells.

A plants ability for photosynthesis.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-363.htm

Symbiotic relationships show signs of design.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/sylvan.asphttp://www.answersingenesis.org/cre...0/i3/sylvan.asp
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-064.htm
Just to name a few.

I know that if i created somthing as complex as the human brain it wouldnt impress me much if someone went around saying its the product of random chance.

*edit*
fixed some broken links

 

[Pah]

Rebutal -

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/other_papers/rapid_post_flood_speciation.shtml

http://www.evolutionpages.com/Mitochondrial Eve.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_dialog.htm

http://www.pandasthumb.org/

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/1609_creationists_and_the_pope39_12_22_2003.asp

In late October of 1996, John Paul II addressed the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in Rome, reiterating the Catholic view that the human body evolved according to natural processes, but God specially infuses the soul which, like other spiritual phenomena, cannot arise from material causes. He added that the evidence for evolution has increased greatly since Pius XII's Humani generis, emphasizing that the convergence of independent lines of evidence pointing to the same conclusion provides considerable support for evolution. Evolution is "more than a hypothesis"; it is a well-accepted theory of science (Thavis 1996).

http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=11

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/other-links.html with many links

http://www.antievolution.org/topics.html

There are many more.

I belive the Bible, the account it presents as our history i belive, here are some "evidences" that support the Creation Model and history presented in the Bible.

Because of your belief in the Bible and as a stated supposition, you should first address the veracity of the Bible itself.

Off-topic but revelant if true - Are you on the list of AIG scientists?

 

[linwood]

Because of your belief in the Bible and as a stated supposition, you should first address the veracity of the Bible itself.

Thank you for that.
Considering the creation account in the Christian Bible is contradictory it`s quality as evidence is in serious question.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Lets try to present our arguments and the facts that we base these arguments on as much as possible.

What truly pathetic nonsense: on the one hand, academia and the world of peer-reviewed science and, on the other, icr and answeringgenesis -- and still the Exodus is nowhere to be found.

 

[Steve]

What truly pathetic nonsense: on the one hand, academia and the world of peer-reviewed science and, on the other, icr and answeringgenesis -- and still the Exodus is nowhere to be found.

It wouldnt be the first time theories that are widely accepted by the majority of Scientists are proven wrong. Just because you dont like the particluar organisations ive used dosnt mean their theories are flawed.
How bout you show which of the points i presented you disagree with and back it up with evidece? If you dont want to do that then dont bother posting, I know quite well that my opinion on this topic is in minority.

linwood for the sake of this topic can we just address the creation model i put forth and address the points i made? I would disagree that the creation account is contradictory but can we make another thread for that topic if you want to discuss it.

Pah can you address the specific points if you are doing a rebutal and show which ones are what for the benifit of discussion.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Theology answers theological questions, science answers scientific questions. http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11359&highlight=theological+questions

The point of the creation story in Genesis is to show the power and essence of God as the Creator outside of nature. It is a rebuttal to other creation stories that describe the gods becoming nature, it is not a scientific explanation for creation as it defies physics and common sense. Therefore, creationism and evolution or any other scientific inquiry are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Steve, Steve Steve...

You can't prove the spiritual by using physical evidences.

You can't prove the physical by using spiritual evidences.

As AE pointed out, God does not try to teach us science, and science can not hope to describe God or the absence of God.

Trying to force the proof of either in such a manner is ill advised and especially on this forum: an invitation to personal ridicule.

 

[Steve]

Theology answers theological questions, science answers scientific questions. http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11359&highlight=theological+questions

The point of the creation story in Genesis is to show the power and essence of God as the Creator outside of nature. It is a rebuttal to other creation stories that describe the gods becoming nature, it is not a scientific explanation for creation as it defies physics and common sense. Therefore, creationism and evolution or any other scientific inquiry are not mutually exclusive.

Steve, Steve Steve...
You can't prove the spiritual by using physical evidences.
You can't prove the physical by using spiritual evidences.
As AE pointed out, God does not try to teach us science, and science can not hope to describe God or the absence of God.
Trying to force the proof of either in such a manner is ill advised and especially on this forum: an invitation to personal ridicule.

Listen(well read)
I obviously created this thread to discuss the creation theory i presented, lets do that. If you disagree that genesis should be taken the way i have then lets discuss it in another thread, fair ennough?

 

[Scuba Pete]

I did discuss it. I pointed out the fallacy of presenting your argument in such a manner. Did you expect everyone to grovel at your feet and tell you that it was an excellent piece when we see it otherwise?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Listen(well read)
I obviously created this thread to discuss the creation theory i presented, lets do that. If you disagree that genesis should be taken the way i have then lets discuss it in another thread, fair ennough?

That's why I posted a link to another thread

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Just because you dont like the particluar organisations ive used dosnt mean their theories are flawed.

Quite right. Their theories are flawed because their methodology, that of backfilling doma-mandated conclusions with pseudoscientific justification, is fundamentally dishonest and bankrupt.

How bout you show which of the points i presented you disagree with and back it up with evidece?

In part because such effort is wasted on the willfully ignorant ...

1. Evidence to support a global flood which is part of the Creation model.

There is evidence that the different layers are not vastly different ages, Squashed radio halos in coalified wood in 3 supposedly different ages from 35 to 245 million years.

Gentry's polonium halo hypothesis for a young Earth fails all tests. Gentry's entire thesis is built on a compounded set of assumptions. He is unable to demonstrate that concentric haloes in mica are caused uniquely by alpha particles resulting from the decay of polonium isotopes. His samples are not from "primordial" pieces of the Earth's original crust, but from rocks which have been extensively reworked. Finally, his hypothesis cannot accommodate the many alternative lines of evidence that demonstrate a great age for the Earth. Gentry rationalizes any evidence which contradicts his hypothesis by proposing three "singularities" - one time divine interventions - over the past 6000 years. Of course, supernatural events and processes fall outside the realm of scientific investigations to address. As with the idea of variable radioactive decay rates, once Gentry moves beyond the realm of physical laws, his arguments fail to have any scientific usefulness. If divine action is necessary to fit the halo hypothesis into some consistent model of Earth history, why waste all that time trying to argue about the origins of the haloes based on current scientific theory? This is where most Creationist arguments break down when they try to adopt the language and trappings of science. Trying to prove a religious premise is itself an act of faith, not science.

In the end, Gentry's young Earth proposal, based on years of measuring discoloration haloes, is nothing more than a high-tech version of the Creationist "Omphalos" argument. This is the late nineteenth century proposition that while God created the Earth just 6,000 years ago according to the Genesis account, He made everything appear old. Unfortunately, because Gentry has published his original work on haloes in reputable scientific journals, a number of basic geology and mineralogy text books still state that microscopic discoloration haloes in mica are the result of polonium decay.

- see "Polonium Haloes" Refuted

But, again, presenting this to someone capable of maintaining that vesigial limbs are examples of 'Intelligent Design' is likely a waste of time.

If you dont want to do that then dont bother posting, ...

You presume too much.

 

[Steve]

I did discuss it. I pointed out the fallacy of presenting your argument in such a manner. Did you expect everyone to grovel at your feet and tell you that it was an excellent piece when we see it otherwise?

What i presented was a theory, i then showed scientific evidence i belive backs up my theory. This is what i want to discuss.
You didnt discuss the theory i put forth you just said

You can't prove the spiritual by using physical evidences.
You can't prove the physical by using spiritual evidences.
As AE pointed out, God does not try to teach us science, and science can not hope to describe God or the absence of God.

You never once made a point about the evidence i put forth neither did you provide any of your own.
I havnt tried to prove the spiritual by using physical evidences neither have am i trying to prove the physical by using spiritual evidences.
All the evidence i put forth is physical evidence, to back up a theory. Thats it.
If you disagree with the points in the model i presented (1. Evidence of a global flood. 2. The earth is "young" not millions of years old. 3. Animals producing after their kind. 4. Awsome order and complexity right from the cells to the solar system.
)then address the points i made.
I certainly dont expect everyone to "grovel at your feet and tell you that it was an excellent piece" especially in this forum, but if they do disagree with the evidence i put forth and my interpretation of it then lets discuss it!

 

[angellous_evangellous]

And I disagree with the fundamental supposition that Genesis addresses scientific questions.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I disagreed with the initial premise. Why bother with the details if the premise is a fraud?

 

[Steve]

Just because you dont like the particluar organisations ive used dosnt mean their theories are flawed.

Quite right. Their theories are flawed because their methodology, that of backfilling doma-mandated conclusions with pseudoscientific justification, is fundamentally dishonest and bankrupt.

So do you intend on backing any of that up? Show me some examples where their methodology is flawed or that their conclusions are justified with pseudoscientific and are dishonest and bankrupt. Like i said "Just because you dont like the particluar organisations ive used dosnt mean their theories are flawed." Just because you say they are dosnt make it so either.

In part because such effort is wasted on the willfully ignorant ...But, again, presenting this to someone capable of maintaining that vesigial limbs are examples of 'Intelligent Design' is likely a waste of time.

You know full well that was not what i maintained! You are only showing how dishonestly you can represent someone. I maintained that what you claimed to be vestigal was not, that they indeed had a function therefor were not vestigal. It wont take long for anyone reading this to go and check what was said and if they bother they will realise that you are flat out lying about what was said. Why should anyone regard your opionion of someone or somthing as reasonable after seeing the way you have misrepresented my claim in such a way? Why shouldnt they think that your discrptions above about AIG and ICR arnt just as flawed and deceitful?
Actually i think ill save people the hassel of searching for what your accusing me of, this is apparently me "maintaining that vestigial limbs are examples of 'Intelligent Design'."

"Many evolutionists support whale evolution by alleging that there are vestigial hind legs buried in their flesh. However, these so-called ‘remnants’ are not useless at all, but help strengthen the reproductive organs—the bones are different in males and females. So they are best explained by creation, not evolution."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/hom...e1/chapter5.asp"

 

[Steve]

I disagreed with the initial premise. Why bother with the details if the premise is a fraud?

Ill make it easy for you, for the sake of the thread pretend i never mentioned the bible.

Pretend i just said i belive that their was once a global flood, that the earth is not millions of years old and that animals only produce after their kind ie a reptile cant grow wings and become a bird ect
Then to back up what i say i present scientific evidence that supports my claims. Now for the rest of the thread please address the evidence's i provided and tell me how you instead would interpret the same evidence if you dissagree.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So do you intend on backing any of that up? Show me some examples where their methodology is flawed or that their conclusions are justified with pseudoscientific and are dishonest and bankrupt. ...

You know full well that was not what i maintained! You are only showing how dishonestly you can represent someone. I maintained that what you claimed to be vestigal was not, that they indeed had a function therefor were not vestigal. ...

Figure 2.2.1. Bones from the atavistic hind-limbs of a humpback whale. A. From top to bottom, the cartiliginous femur, tibia, tarsus, and metatarsal, arranged as found in situ in the whale. B. Enlarged detail of the femur and tibia shown in A. (scale is not the same as A). C. Detail of the tarsus and metatarsal shown in A. (Image reproduced from Andrews 1921, Figures 2, 3, and 4.)

Actually you did a bit more than that. You ignored or, what is far more likely, refused to read, the material provided. Perhaps an example of backfilling dogma-mandated conclusions with pseudoscientific justification in a manner fundamentally dishonest and bankrupt.

 

[Scuba Pete]

What has this got to do with the Bible? I have no problem with the Bible (that's Deut's area).

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Now for the rest of the thread please address the evidence's i provided and tell me how you instead would interpret the same evidence if you dissagree.

Your issue with the refutation of "Polonium Haloes" is what?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What has this got to do with the Bible? I have no problem with the Bible (that's Deut's area).

I have no problem with the Bible - I own many myself.