What is creation science?

[Arakhor]

I fully believe that the God I was brought up with could certainly have shaped the world with natural forces as we understand them or even simply poofed it into existence, as in the Genesis story. I do not believe that he created the world in six days and then went to town, making the world (and the universe) look identical to a world shaped by billions of years of natural forces.

 

[timtofly]

How do you think fossils are found Tim?

Paleontologists do not spent the decades sifting through entire rock formations, they walk about, talk to locals and get to work on whatever is they find. This means that the actually obtained specimins are only those that are both exposed at the surface and spotted either by the paleontologists or by someone else who then tells the Paleontologists and also (crucially) by whether or not the specimin is considered worth collecting (a big therapod is going to be worth more than a million more ammonites). The proportion of fossils collected is therefore likely to be a tiny fraction of the whole.

If you make a claim to prove a point, should you be able to back up that claim? An exaggerated claim does not prove a point until all test are completed and no assumptions remain. Would you call an unproven claim pseudo-science?

 

[brennan]

Two things strike me about your reply:

Firstly you do not appear to have considered what has just been said to you. Do you accept that there are perfectly simple reasons why Paleontologists have not uncovered every fossil in the Karoo formation?

Secondly, it seems at first glance that you appear to be asking for evidence. But you have already rejected the evidence. What you are asking for is an impossibly high standard of proof..

 

[timtofly]

If you grasp that about my post, then you understand the position that some people place those who accept the biblical record in.

It is rather simple that if there are the remains of 800 billion entities (that seems to be the extraordinary claim) that it will take a very long time to prove that even if people accept the claim on face value.

 

[Harv]

When Gordon Davison asked the director of the Bernard Price Institute for Paleontology
in Johannesburg how many Karoo fossils have actually been collected; he broadly estimated
around 40,000. Doing searches of the Bernard Price Institute do not bring up much information. They do advertise that there is a collection of 30,000 plant and insect fossils

I appreciate getting the source. In order to comment any further on this specific subject, I am going to have to access a copy of The Genesis Flood. I hear there is a 50th anniversary edition out there.

 

[brennan]

What is extraordinary about the claim?

800 billion is a big number in human experience. But considering the Karoo formations occupy most of South Africa, you are looking at an awful lot of rock.

If you were to assume only 1 fossil per cubic metre, 800 billion fossils would require only 800 cubic kilometres of rock. Since the Karoo appears to be at least a kilometre thick and extends for several hundred miles in all directions it seems safe to assume there is at least an order of magnitude more rock than that - meaning that even if you assume one fossil per ten to one hundred cubic metres of rock there's plenty of space for the 800 billion.

One fossil per 10-100 cubic metres of rock does not strike me as an extraordinary claim.

 

[timtofly]

It is not extraordinary if you accept all the assumptions involved. Can we replace proof with assumption?

 

[brennan]

Yes. You prove the assumptions.

 

[Harv]

Yes. You prove the assumptions.

I have nothing against using assumptions. It is very difficult to get anywhere in a calculation or discussion without making assumptions somewhere. I do appreciate it if the assumptions are laid out in front. That way we can revisit our assumptions when we reach our conclusions and evaluate whether the said assumptions are reasonable or not.

Example: Assuming an intial population of 2 and a [geometric] average population growth rate of 1.0%, the population after 1500 years would be approximately 6.1 million.

I appreciate getting the source. In order to comment any further on this specific subject, I am going to have to access a copy of The Genesis Flood. I hear there is a 50th anniversary edition out there.

I just ordered a copy of the 50th anniversary edition. I trust it will say the same thing as the orignal. It will take about a week.

 

[peter grimes]

I fully believe that the God I was brought up with could certainly have shaped the world with natural forces as we understand them or even simply poofed it into existence, as in the Genesis story. I do not believe that he created the world in six days and then went to town, making the world (and the universe) look identical to a world shaped by billions of years of natural forces.

That's really the meat of it, right?

Every field of science points towards a universe that's 14ish billion years old and earth that's 4ish billion years old. There is strong observational support that the speed of light has remained constant through time.

If a god built this universe, they took great care to make it appear to be an old natural world devoid of divine intervention.

 

[Arakhor]

That is the main problem with all creationist/intelligent design thought, yes.

 

[timtofly]

It took God an instant to send the light to every point in the universe and that light failed to return to all points in the next step? God did not create the big bang. He created the universe in an instant. Why would it be hard to make it appear like it had been operating in co-operation with the actual distance between all galaxies?

 

[peter grimes]

It took God an instant to send the light to every point in the universe and that light failed to return to all points in the next step? God did not create the big bang. He created the universe in an instant. Why would it be hard to make it appear like it had been operating in co-operation with the actual distance between all galaxies?

What are you saying here? I honestly don't understand a single sentence.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

... I recognize that origins and unobserved historical events cannot be proven. This is where my faith comes in, but usually the atheist doesn't realize his beliefs on these unproven areas are also based upon faith. There can be evidences that confirm or deny the hypothesis, but ultimately it can't be proven.

Say whut?

Archaeology. Forensic anthropology. Artifacts. Dating methods. Checking to see if the results from these observations match what the bibles say. So far, they haven't matched. At the time when Joshua supposedly blew a horn and the walls fell down, there wasn't even a city on that site.

Please stop claiming atheists base what we believe to be true on faith. It's not a religion.

Well what else do you think Jesus could have been reincarnated as? Resurrection does not always mean he woke up after being crucified. I for one am going to use what you just said and apply general Buddhist and Hindu thought to this episode. Now in that case, I conclude that he could have come back as a cheeseburger, and don't you tell me that isn't possible.

It would make sense of the expression "Holy cow!".

It took God an instant to send the light to every point in the universe and that light failed to return to all points in the next step? God did not create the big bang. He created the universe in an instant. Why would it be hard to make it appear like it had been operating in co-operation with the actual distance between all galaxies?

You do know that the distance between all galaxies has not remained constant, right?

 

[Harv]

Fossils and Animals:

If you divide the 40,000 actual fossils found into 800 billion you get the fact that we need 20 million more archeologist to verify that amount.

The number 800 Billion came from the book that was cited. (page 160, 50th Anniversary Edition)

Robert Broom, the South African paleontologist, estimated that there are eight hundred thousand million skeletons of vertebrate animals in the Karroo Formation.

A source was cited for this number too: N.O. Newell, "Adequacy of the Fossil Record," Journal of Paleontology, Volume 33, May 1959, page 492.

What is extraordinary about the claim?

Claiming that those 800 billion vertebrate animals were alive the day before the Flood is extraordinary.

800 billion is a big number in human experience. But considering the Karoo formations occupy most of South Africa, you are looking at an awful lot of rock.

Let's just say 1 million square kilometers for simplicity of calculation. That would be about 80% of South Africa's land area. 800 billion skeletons of vertebrate animals would mean an average of 800 thousand vertebrate animals per square kilometer.

40 thousand fossils actually found would be one every 25 square kilometers. [EDIT: I am just surprised that the author did not question the number 800 billion and just rolled along with it.]

 

[timtofly]

God did not create a human as a single cell. He created a mature human. God did not create the universe from a single point. He created a mature universe that has a 14 billion light year horizon. It is not that it took that long to get to a mature product. How would you define a "mature" universe much less a "newborn" one? I am basing my point on the fact that we cannot prove that it actually happened. Evidence is believed to be proof, but evidence in itself cannot be proof. It is only a representation of things that might have been. I would also point out that it is not possible to prove that God did it either. But either side will continue to claim evidence to prove their point. Humans are wired to accept what they find plausible.

 

[El_Machinae]

The Church of Last Thursday approves. Our belief is that the entire universe was created Last Thursday, including you and your memory of having read the Bible. There is no proof that we are wrong.

 

[brennan]

I am basing my point on the fact that we cannot prove that it actually happened. Evidence is believed to be proof, but evidence in itself cannot be proof.

If you are automatically rejecting evidence you must realise there is absolutely no point in having this conversation.

 

[timtofly]

If you are automatically rejecting evidence you must realise there is absolutely no point in having this conversation.

The evidence is just fine unless we force people to believe one way or the other.

 

[brennan]

That makes no sense. No one is forcing any conclusions, the conclusions come from examining the evidence and its implications. You have already declared that you think the evidence is irrelevant, your position then is one of irrational belief, you are just trying to justify it.