The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Three: The Return of the KOing!

[ironduck]

This reminds me of a visit to Dunarobba in Italy earlier this year.. there's a pliocene forest that has been excavated.. the amazing thing is that the trees are not fossils, they are, well, I'm not sure what they are, but they appear to be preserved. They have the texture, feel, and fragility of dried wood (I personally tested them). They are quickly deteriorating and they're desperately trying to preserve them in a number of ways. We're talking about two million year old trees that are like trees, not anything like normal fossilized wood. Worth a trip if you're interested.

http://tetide.geo.uniroma1.it/sciterra/pubdip/publicaz/05_paich.html

http://www.thecincinnatosdream.com/storie/Dunarobba-Foresta.htm

 

[bgast1]

Hello all. I just started reading these threads again, and I am still at the beginning pages. I would like to make a few comments and hope I am not dredging up old re-hashed material.

By way of introduction, I am a creationist. I am not a scientist, but I am interested in science. I am not here to argue with anyone. I just feel with what I have read, that I cannot answer and science cannot truly answer where this universe came from without honestly considering that it just didn't come from nothing. Where did the Big Bang come from? (I realize that not everyone believes in the Big Bang, but is the most widely accepted theory among the most knowledgeable scientists isn't it?)

I have some questions.
1. Has spontaneous generation of life ever been observed?
2. Have scientist ever been able to combine chemicals in a test tube and arrive at a DNA molecule?

Iron Duck-- You asked some questions about rain and rainbows, and I think the flood came up as well. I am curious as to why you ask this question? Certainly from a scientific standpoint you have aroused my curiosity as well, but my motive for wanting to know might be different than yours. I think that the answers to the question are probably more important theologically than scientifically. But I speak for myself.

I don't know if it ever rained before the flood. I don't think so, and the reason I don't think so is because of the vast amount of water that it took to flood the earth. Also, I think part of the answer might be deduced by the rainbow question which I will answer a little later.

Regarding the flood the Bible says (and I paraphrase) that the under ground water burst forth from the earth, and the rain fell in mighty torrents from the sky. The rain fell for forty days and forty nights. When it was all over, the Bible says the water covered the highest mountains on the earth, standing more than twenty-two feet above the highest peaks. It also says the water covered the earth for 150 days.

As for rainbows, I don't know the answer to that either. Perhaps you are correct in assuming that colors around a waterfall would or could have been seen. But, would this technically be considered a rainbow? Nevertheless, the rainbow in the sky in the clouds has another purpose. The Bible says that the rainbow seen in the clouds is God's covenant to all mankind to never send another flood on earth that will destroy all life.

My answer is not to discuss the relevance, or accuracy of the Bible, or contradictions or lack thereof. But you asked the question and I wanted to answer as accurately as I know how. Thanks, now my interest is piqued and perhaps I will look into a more scientifically satisfying answer.

 

[Souron]

I have some questions.
1. Has spontaneous generation of life ever been observed?
2. Have scientist ever been able to combine chemicals in a test tube and arrive at a DNA molecule?

They have been able to create organic molecules from inorganic material. So while they have not created DNA, they have created the almino asids that it is made up of. The famus The Miller-Urey experiment was the first such experiment.

This and other experiments like it do not paint a compleat picture of exactly what happened in what order, but do suggest that abiogenisis was possible in the early premordial earth.

 

[Souron]

By way of introduction, I am a creationist. I am not a scientist, but I am interested in science. I am not here to argue with anyone. I just feel with what I have read, that I cannot answer and science cannot truly answer where this universe came from without honestly considering that it just didn't come from nothing. Where did the Big Bang come from? (I realize that not everyone believes in the Big Bang, but is the most widely accepted theory among the most knowledgeable scientists isn't it?)

I don't really consider people who believe in the Big Bang Creationists. If the big bang happened as the theory sais then the earth is billions of years old and must have evolved to become the way it is today.

As for where the big bang came form: The theory states that there was no such thing as before the Big Bang; space and time simply did not exist. That does not answer why the univerce exists, However. The best answer science can give to that is that it was random. To this it is perfectly appropriet to apeal to religion for answer, IMHO.

 

[bgast1]

They have been able to create organic molecules from inorganic material. So while they have not created DNA, they have created the almino asids that it is made up of. The famus The Miller-Urey experiment was the first such experiment.

This and other experiments like it do not paint a compleat picture of exactly what happened in what order, but do suggest that abiogenisis was possible in the early premordial earth.

I own a book which discusses the Miller-Urey experiment. There is the question about whether Miller used the correct atmosphere or not. While many scientists thought that his atmosphere of a hydrogen-rich mixture of methane, ammonia, and water vapor was the consistent with the atmosphere back then (1953), that is not what they believe now. Science magazine in 1995 said that experts now dismiss Miller's experiment because 'the early atmosphere looked nothing like the Miller-Urey simulation.'

If you replay the experiment with a more accurate atmosphere you do not get amino acids. You still get organic molecules, but they aren't the precursers of life. You get Formaldehyde and Cyanide. Hardly the substrate for the origin of life. A good organic chemist can turn formaldehyde and cyanide into a biological molecule, but when you do you get embalming fluid.

 

[bgast1]

I don't really consider people who believe in the Big Bang Creationists. If the big bang happened as the theory sais then the earth is billions of years old and must have evolved to become the way it is today.

As for where the big bang came form: The theory states that there was no such thing as before the Big Bang; space and time simply did not exist. That does not answer why the univerce exists, However. The best answer science can give to that is that it was random. To this it is perfectly appropriet to apeal to religion for answer, IMHO.

Well then, by your definition, I suppose I would not be considered a creationist. Nevertheless, I believe whole heartedly that God did it, but that is a matter of faith and not science, and I did not arrive at that conclusion though by accepting science alone, because that would never satisfy all the requirements for my belief. It did have a considerable impact but I suppose I just drew different conclusions than many of you. I don't believe in a young earth. (at this point I think that conclusion is preposterous) I don't believe in macro-evolution, but I do accept micro-evolution.

 

[Souron]

I own a book which discusses the Miller-Urey experiment. There is the question about whether Miller used the correct atmosphere or not. While many scientists thought that his atmosphere of a hydrogen-rich mixture of methane, ammonia, and water vapor was the consistent with the atmosphere back then (1953), that is not what they believe now. Science magazine in 1995 said that experts now dismiss Miller's experiment because 'the early atmosphere looked nothing like the Miller-Urey simulation.'

If you replay the experiment with a more accurate atmosphere you do not get amino acids. You still get organic molecules, but they aren't the precursers of life. You get Formaldehyde and Cyanide. Hardly the substrate for the origin of life. A good organic chemist can turn formaldehyde and cyanide into a biological molecule, but when you do you get embalming fluid.

If the new revised model of early atmosphere does not yeald organic molecules, perhalps it's not so accurate either. Life had to come from somewhere. Science postulates that if we can reproduce the conditions accurately, we will be able to achieve the same result. In this case that means we have to create early earth.

Now it is possible that life on earth came from aliens. In that case no mix of chemicals will yeald the correct result. But there has never been any reliable evidence of aliens exiting, so most scientsts dismiss this hypothsis. Simmilarly they dismiss the notion that God came and created life, because God is not a scientific construct -- belief in god taskes faith. Indead, even a christian scientist will not be satisfied with the answer "God did it" to any verifiable question.

Just because science does not yet have as compleate explasination of how life came to be does not mean that scientists will not ever come up with one.

 

[Souron]

I don't believe in macro-evolution, but I do accept micro-evolution.

May I suggest that "you do not understand how small evolutionairy changes could lead to the huge veriaty of species we have today." Admit to that for me please.

Assuming you do, I will attempt to demonstrate how it is plausable that a lot of small changes can lead to drastically different species within 4,500,000,000 years.

 

[bgast1]

May I suggest that "you do not understand how small evolutionairy changes could lead to the huge veriaty of species we have today." Admit to that for me please.

Assuming you do, I will attempt to demonstrate how it is plausable that a lot of small changes can lead to drastically different species within 4,500,000,000 years.

I don't understand where you are going with this. Try to breed a fish with a pig.
Yes, you can breed different breeds of dogs with each other, but you still get a dog. Genetic limits seem to be built within types.

 

[Souron]

May I suggest that "you do not understand how small evolutionairy changes could lead to the huge veriaty of species we have today." Admit to that for me please.

Assuming you do, I will attempt to demonstrate how it is plausable that a lot of small changes can lead to drastically different species within 4,500,000,000 years.

I don't understand where you are going with this. Try to breed a fish with a pig.
Yes, you can breed different breeds of dogs with each other, but you still get a dog. Genetic limits seem to be built within types.

Don't try to understand where I am going. Just take it one step at a time.

Macro evolution has nothing to do with breading a pig with a dog.

Macro evolution is just micro evolution happening again and again and again . . . for about 4,000,000,000 years.

 

[bgast1]

If the new revised model of early atmosphere does not yeald organic molecules, perhalps it's not so accurate either. Life had to come from somewhere. Science postulates that if we can reproduce the conditions accurately, we will be able to achieve the same result. In this case that means we have to create early earth.
Yes indeed it did. On the other hand what if the postulation of science is wrong? I don't understand where you come up with the young earth idea.

Now it is possible that life on earth came from aliens. In that case no mix of chemicals will yeald the correct result. But there has never been any reliable evidence of aliens exiting, so most scientsts dismiss this hypothsis. Simmilarly they dismiss the notion that God came and created life, because God is not a scientific construct -- belief in god taskes faith. Indead, even a christian scientist will not be satisfied with the answer "God did it" to any verifiable question.

Please excuse the way this came out, I am not that saavy when it comes to formatting these threads.

Just because science does not yet have as compleate explasination of how life came to be does not mean that scientists will not ever come up with one.

I guess I can accept the premise that none of this is proveable empirically. Certainly God is not a scientific construct. Nevertheless, Christian scientists are satisfied with the answer "God did it" when they are faced with no other option. But, yes faith is a necessary element. Part of life and the way we are made is to put the entire picture together. At some point we have to make a reasonable induction. No one can rely entirely on science. But then by introducing these other elements I run the risk of thread jacking which I don't want to do. We will have to agree to disagree here.

 

[bgast1]

Macro evolution has nothing to do with breading a pig with a dog.

Macro evolution is just micro evolution happening again and again and again . . . for about 4,000,000,000 years.

Our defintions do not line up here. At least, I don't think that they do. Genetic limits seem to be built into basic types.

Also, it seems that not only are genetic changes limited to types, but they are also cyclical. In other words the changes ae not directional toward the development of new life forms, as macroeveolutionary theory requires, but they simply shift back and forth within a limited range. Finches will grow varying beak sizes, but they are correlated with the weather. They still remain finches.

 

[Souron]

On the other hand what if the postulation of science is wrong?
Without assuming this one postulate which essentually states that "The laws of science are universal", how can people seak to explain the world in an objective way?
We can dismiss science all together, but then we would have only the literal word of ancient holy books to give us guidence. And those do not seem to have all the answers.

I don't understand where you come up with the young earth idea.
Where did I say anything about a young earth? I'm sorry if you got that impression. The earth is 4,500,000,000 years old, and that is not young.

I guess I can accept the premise that none of this is proveable empirically. Certainly God is not a scientific construct. Nevertheless, Christian scientists are satisfied with the answer "God did it" when they are faced with no other option. But, yes faith is a necessary element. Part of life and the way we are made is to put the entire picture together. At some point we have to make a reasonable induction. No one can rely entirely on science. But then by introducing these other elements I run the risk of thread jacking which I don't want to do. We will have to agree to disagree here.
What do you mean by "when they are faced with no other option"?

I agree that Chistian scientists take by faith religious answers to things that are unanswerable by science like "Why are we (ultimately) here", "what happens to our cousiousness when we die", and other such question. And I do not condone this. As you put it I "agree to disagree" on the answers to these types of questions.

However, I would consider it unscientific to dismiss a natural phenominon as an act of god. Biblical mirricles are one thing, but to say that an event which is not described in the Bible is a miricle is contrairy to even the thought patterns of scientists. So even Christian scientists can postulate that any event not described as a miracle must be explained by science -- even if they have no clue what that explanation might be.

To reenforce: Just because science cannot explain something 100%, does not mean that that phenominon is not explainable, mearly that the explanation has not yet been discovered.

 

[Souron]

Our defintions do not line up here. At least, I don't think that they do. Genetic limits seem to be built into basic types.

Also, it seems that not only are genetic changes limited to types, but they are also cyclical. In other words the changes ae not directional toward the development of new life forms, as macroeveolutionary theory requires, but they simply shift back and forth within a limited range. Finches will grow varying beak sizes, but they are correlated with the weather. They still remain finches.

1)The reason they are cyclical is because climate is cyclical. If climate where to gradually change, finches would still change. Eventually they will change so much they will not be recognisable as finches. They won't go "back and forth", but only forth.

2)The is no real limmit to the range. Atleast none has been observed. This is best seen in dogs where every possible variation is taken to extremes. True, there are traits that are common to all dogs, but those traits are either unnoticible, or benificial to the dog (such as a digestive system).

It must also be recognised that it is hard to evolve to the point of loosing a trait compleatly, because if a trait becomes sufficently negligable there is no pressure to get rid of the trait compleatly. Gaining a trait can however be very benificial.

2)Finches from island to island differ significantly, even though the climate does not. Cyclical evoluytion does not account for this. Darwin theorised that the same pressures that lead to cyclical evolution also lead to this individualism from island to island.

Please do not take this as a debate. I am only trying to explain what many people believe. You do not have to agree with them (evolutionist), but I ask you to try to understand the theory and why it seems to some many people a very very plausable explanation.

 

[bgast1]

Souron -- I agree we need science to explain our world, but even it does not have all the answers. We need more. The Bible does not have all the answers when it comes to science. It was not written for that purpose. Although, I firmly believe that there is no scientific error in it. But again, that is a matter of faith.

No other option. -- Can we explain previous to the Big Bang? Can we explain where something from nothing came about? Even Einstein when he was developing is general theory of relativity was so irritated with where his conclusions were taking him that he had to introduce a fudge factor. He eventually believed the universe was created. -- No other option, 1.) Everything has a cause. (2.) The universe had a beginning (3.) Therefore the universe had a cause.

When one makes a reasonable induction based upon evidence, does not make it blind faith, neither does it make bad science.

I personally believe that it takes more faith to not believe God created the universe than to accept that it just happened, and we can't explain it yet. Then there is also something else, which of course isn't scientific at all, but deep down inside of me, I just know that all of what is around us didn't just happen by chance. I can't explain it. It's just like we all know that murder is wrong. Again, to introduce these concepts violates the rules of the thread but I have no other explanation.

 

[Souron]

Question for Creationists: Why do you accept some scientific theories, even though you do not understand it, but not others. Even though the same level of scrutiny is applied. It makes sence if you apply a higher level of scrutiny to all science, but it is unobjective to pick and choose which facts you want to agree with.

I mean there is about as much evidence for dinosaurs as there is for the existance of the Inca Civilisation. Yet you believe that Incas existed but not dinosaurs.

bgast1, you believe in Inflation Theory (the explanation of what happend just after the big bang), yet you don't to believe in abiogenisis.

Now granted, perhalps your physics teacher was better than your biology teacher, but that does not mean your biology teacher was wrong.

 

[Souron]

Souron -- I agree we need science to explain our world, but even it does not have all the answers. We need more. The Bible does not have all the answers when it comes to science. It was not written for that purpose. Although, I firmly believe that there is no scientific error in it. But again, that is a matter of faith.

I understand this.

What I don't understand is what part of the bible contradicts evolution that does not also contradict Big Bang theory.

No other option. -- Can we explain previous to the Big Bang? Can we explain where something from nothing came about? Even Einstein when he was developing is general theory of relativity was so irritated with where his conclusions were taking him that he had to introduce a fudge factor. He eventually believed the universe was created. -- No other option, 1.) Everything has a cause. (2.) The universe had a beginning (3.) Therefore the universe had a cause.

When one makes a reasonable induction based upon evidence, does not make it blind faith, neither does it make bad science.

I personally believe that it takes more faith to not believe God created the universe than to accept that it just happened, and we can't explain it yet. Then there is also something else, which of course isn't scientific at all, but deep down inside of me, I just know that all of what is around us didn't just happen by chance. I can't explain it. It's just like we all know that murder is wrong. Again, to introduce these concepts violates the rules of the thread but I have no other explanation.

Einstein also did not believe in Quantum Theory. That does not mean he was right.

As for your three statements, the first is unbased: "Everything has a cause."
Causality requires time. Time did not exits untill the big bang. Therefore there was no cause for the Big Bang.

I don't see why this has to disagree with religion. God is the reason you are here, that's all that's important. It was not chance.

 

[bgast1]

Question for Creationists: Why do you accept some scientific theories, even though you do not understand it, but not others. Even though the same level of scrutiny is applied. It makes sence if you apply a higher level of scrutiny to all science, but it is unobjective to pick and choose which facts you want to agree with.

I don't think that I pick and choose which scientific data applies to creation and what doesn't. If it is truly evidence, and the evidence leads in a certain direction I am willing to accept it. But all experiments are not infallible. Truth is truth no matter what.

I mean there is about as much evidence for dinosaurs as there is for the existance of the Inca Civilisation. Yet you believe that Incas existed but not dinosaurs.

How could I possibly deny that dinosaurs exist. The evidence is all around us. This is in no way in conflict with the Bible. I haven't read anywhere in the Bible where dinosaurs were even discussed.

bgast1, you believe in Inflation Theory (the explanation of what happend just after the big bang), yet you don't to believe in abiogenisis.
Short answer, and unscientific as well, because it is very late and I should get some sleep, life is too complex to just appear out of nothing.

Now granted, perhalps your physics teacher was better than your biology teacher, but that does not mean your biology teacher was wrong.

It's been a very long time since I was in school. I never took a physics class, and they taught the theory of evolution to me in school. I leared to reject that theory on my own.

 

[bgast1]

Souron -- The Bible does not contradict Big Bang theory that I am aware of. I think where a lot of people get hung on in the creation story is the word "day". I don't think that we are talking about a 24 hour period of time. But verse 20 in Genesis 1 is pretty specific that creatures were created after their kind. (I take that to mean "type"), and that pretty much eliminates macro-evolution to me.

 

[Souron]

First of all, can you keep your own text out of quote tags. This can be done by enther removing the quote tags altogether, or adding seperate quote tags for every section that you quote. The reason is that it makes it much harder to quote you.

I don't think that I pick and choose which scientific data applies to creation and what doesn't. If it is truly evidence, and the evidence leads in a certain direction I am willing to accept it. But all experiments are not infallible. Truth is truth no matter what.

How could I possibly deny that dinosaurs exist. The evidence is all around us. This is in no way in conflict with the Bible. I haven't read anywhere in the Bible where dinosaurs were even discussed.

The dinosaur part was not refering to you but to other creationists, like civ2. Yet, you too seem to accept most of science but you regect evolution for faith based reasons. This is inconsistant. Evolution theory is one of the most well grounded of scientific theories.

It's been a very long time since I was in school. I never took a physics class, and they taught the theory of evolution to me in school. I leared to reject that theory on my own.

I was just reenforcing that you should not dismiss something as false because you do not understand it.

Short answer, and unscientific as well, because it is very late and I should get some sleep, life is too complex to just appear out of nothing.

Then this is the notion that we should be talking about. Still, you should dismiss your philosophy for a moment and try to understand Evolution. Evolution is a valid scientific theory ad I want you to understand it as such -- even if you don't believe it.

Secondairy to that, I would like to make these points:
1) Life is not that complex.
2) Given enough monkeys typing on type writers, one of them will eventually produce the great works of Shakespear.
3) In truth I think you ment not complex but "sacred" and if that is really what you think, it's very hard to argue over.