Creationism: Last Debate of 2010 on the subject.

fossten

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
12,460
Reaction score
6
Location
Louisville
Actally, like you I'm also waiting for the missing link to be found which will show one species evolving into another.

However the earth and universe being only 6000 years old contention is so ludicrous as to be disqualifying in and of itself.

The light from celestial events we can see takes longer than that to reach us.
So, you really want to discuss this? If so, let's set some ground rules.

1. Stay on the specific issue (such as speed of light etc.) until it's finished
2. No flaming (using words like 'ludicrous' or 'ridiculous')
3. No copy/pasting of semi-technical articles
4. Each person gets to take a turn and bring up a topic which is then discussed

Agreed?
 
So, you really want to discuss this? If so, let's set some ground rules.

1. Stay on the specific issue (such as speed of light etc.) until it's finished
2. No flaming (using words like 'ludicrous' or 'ridiculous'
3. No copy/pasting of semi-technical articles
4. Each person gets to take a turn and bring up a topic which is then discussed

Agreed?

Ok
I just want to keep this fun.
Give me your own arguments and or paraphrases instead of walls of cut and paste.

How about some plausible deniability to the contention the earth and the universe is 4.5 billion years old or more.
How could it have been formed in 6 earth days( if there is a day then there has to already be a sun star in order to have a day time measurement) when science hypothesizes it took billions of years with comets bringing water and primitive bacterial life forms when they collided into and helped form the planet.
 
Ok
I just want to keep this fun.
Give me your own arguments and or paraphrases instead of walls of cut and paste.

How about some plausible deniability to the contention the earth and the universe is 4.5 billion years old or more.
How could it have been formed in 6 earth days( if there is a day then there has to already be a sun star in order to have a day time measurement) when science hypothesizes it took billions of years with comets bringing water and primitive bacterial life forms when they collided into and helped form the planet.
Evolution's hypothesis that the universe took billions of years starts with the assumption that there is no God who created it in 6 days. All evidence must fit around that premise.

God putting scientific laws into place does not mean that He is bound by any of them - after all, He's omnipotent. Of course, I have no proof of this, but I can give you some evidence of a young earth. At the same time, you also cannot answer the question "Where did the material for these collisions/the big bang come from?"

The earth's magnetic field has been discovered to be waning in its strength over the last couple of hundred years. Scientists mathematically determined the field's half-life and concluded that the field has to be less than 10,000 years old, else the earth would have melted from the heat the field would have had to generate. The strength the field would have had to have had if the earth were 4.5 billion years old, given the calculated rate of decay, wouldn't have been possible.
 
The Earth has a magnetic field known as the Magnetosphere, which protects us against harmful incoming cosmic radiation.

The Earth’s core produces a geodynamo generated field energy, that originates from deep inside the Earth’s molten core. The turbulent motion from the active molten core creates electrical impulses, that transforms into magnetic lines of force, which extends well outside of Earth’s atmosphere.

The Earth’s Magnetosphere is weakening, preparing to drop to zero, then invert polarity in a magnetic polar reversal. North becomes South, and positive charges become negatively charged within the Earth.

______________________________________________________________

The magnetic field weakening could be the beginning of magnetic pole reversal.

6000 years is a very short time celestially and the distance to stars is so great the light can take a million years or longer to reach us.
Plastic can take 500 years or longer to break down and that's already almost 10% of that 6000 year old earth time.
If the earth is 6000 years old as well as the rest of the universe this is not enough time to explain what we can observe unless one falls back on the supernatural omnipotence contention.
 
The Earth has a magnetic field known as the Magnetosphere, which protects us against harmful incoming cosmic radiation.

The Earth’s core produces a geodynamo generated field energy, that originates from deep inside the Earth’s molten core. The turbulent motion from the active molten core creates electrical impulses, that transforms into magnetic lines of force, which extends well outside of Earth’s atmosphere.

The Earth’s Magnetosphere is weakening, preparing to drop to zero, then invert polarity in a magnetic polar reversal. North becomes South, and positive charges become negatively charged within the Earth.

The magnetic field weakening could be the beginning of magnetic pole reversal.

______________________________________________________________
Are you trying to make the case that the 'dynamo' theory proves the earth is old?

The dynamo theory has already been discredited by Dr. Russell Humphreys as having too many problems to account for - one of which being the amount of current being generated by the earth's core. Furthermore, there have already been reversals documented, and they can happen in as little time as 2 weeks. Even the sun reverses itself every 11 years. It doesn't have to take billions of years for this to happen.

6000 years is a very short time celestially and the distance to stars is so great the light can take a million years or longer to reach us.
Plastic can take 500 years or longer to break down and that's already almost 10% of that 6000 year old earth time.
If the earth is 6000 years old as well as the rest of the universe this is not enough time to explain what we can observe unless one falls back on the supernatural omnipotence contention.
I'll answer your question as soon as you account for the problem in the evolutionary theory that the universe had reached uniform temperature after only 300,000 years, which is mathematically and physically impossible.

Plastic is just a red herring and has no basis in this discussion. I can talk carbon-14 as well if you want to chase rabbits all day.

If you want to discuss astronomy, go ahead. But please stay on topic.
 
I'll answer your question as soon as you account for the problem in the evolutionary theory that the universe had reached uniform temperature after only 300,000 years, which is mathematically and physically impossible.



Plastic is just a red herring and has no basis in this discussion. I can talk carbon-14 as well if you want to chase rabbits all day.

If you want to discuss astronomy, go ahead. But please stay on topic.

There's just no way that 6000 years can fit in with the size and scope of the universe.
If you believe in the 6000 year time frame then discussing things that take 300,000 years would be before time itself in the creationist view.

And your sidestepping and not addressing my light speed argument which empirically proves that there was existence (way) before 6000 years ago.

I think that alone demolishes the creationist argument, at least as the evangelicals present it.
 
There's just no way that 6000 years can fit in with the size and scope of the universe.
Proof by assertion. But in a way, YOU'RE RIGHT - BUT - neither can 4.5 billion years! Example: Spiral galaxies would have “wound up” if they have existed for billions of years. They can’t be shaped the way they are!

If you believe in the 6000 year time frame then discussing things that take 300,000 years would be before time itself in the creationist view.
You clearly don't understand my argument, and you aren't actually constructing one yourself.
And your sidestepping and not addressing my light speed argument which empirically proves that there was existence (way) before 6000 years ago.
No, it doesn't PROVE that. I'm holding back my response because you have yet to address any of my arguments.
I think that alone demolishes the creationist argument, at least as the evangelicals present it.
No, it doesn't. The creationist allows for the supernatural. The evolutionist does not - therefore, you have a BIGGER PROBLEM than I do - how to account for the hole in your theory.

So, I can infer from your lack of attention to my arguments that I've demolished evolution as well? Are you saying that the ONLY thing you're hanging your hat on vis-a-vis believing in evolution is the light speed problem? Because I CAN answer it, but I thought this was supposed to be a debate where we both addressed arguments. You're not arguing in good faith, it appears.
 
You clearly don't understand my argument, and you aren't actually constructing one yourself.
Can both of you explain the view your representing, or is SCTLS simply arguing the negative, that something can't be?
 
Can both of you explain the view your representing, or is SCTLS simply arguing the negative, that something can't be?



I'm using the best argument that contradicts the 6000 year assumption.
If I can knock down that part then there is no need to attack the rest.

If the evangelicals would concede that point then it would be harder to laugh about and dismiss evangelical creationism outright.

My view is that the universe is God, the giver of life and creator of everything, but not a personal God that cares about and passes judgement on his creation(s)
 
So, I can infer from your lack of attention to my arguments that I've demolished evolution as well?

Evolution theory is still a work in progress.

I'm concentrating on arguing my best position to attack creationism
as the evangelicals see it.
 
No, it doesn't. The creationist allows for the supernatural. The evolutionist does not - therefore, you have a BIGGER PROBLEM than I do - how to account for the hole in your theory.

The evolutionist allows for the unknown.
That is why it is called a theory.
Our knowledge grows as time goes by.
Scientists have just discovered an arsenic based life form here on earth which is throwing some assumptions about life out the window.

As new knowledge comes to life we change our assumptions.
 
Evolution theory is still a work in progress.

I'm concentrating on arguing my best position to attack creationism
as the evangelicals see it.
So, you dismiss my refutation of your speculation-without-evidence with a casual wave of the keyboard by escaping with 'it's a work in progress,' but you get to call evangelicals ludicrous? Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

I'm using the best argument that contradicts the 6000 year assumption.
If I can knock down that part then there is no need to attack the rest.

If the evangelicals would concede that point then it would be harder to laugh about and dismiss evangelical creationism outright.

My view is that the universe is God, the giver of life and creator of everything, but not a personal God that cares about and passes judgement on his creation(s)
Do you realize that your argument is self-refuting and completely unscientific? And you mock the evangelicals...that's rich. :rolleyes:

Nevertheless, I'll present my explanation, but if you don't then respond with an explanation that addresses my arguments, then I will conclude you have no knowledge of this issue and are only interested in mocking. Of course, you've all but admitted that already, haven't you?

***

If the light has been traveling for billions of years, then surely the universe has been around that long, hasn’t it? Interestingly, the evolutionary cosmologists have a related problem called the “horizon problem.” One of the most famous evidences for a big bang cosmology is the presence of the cosmic microwave background radiation, which comes from all parts of the sky with incredible uniformity (1 part in 100,000). This radiation is supposedly the left over “heat” from the early stages of the big bang. As the universe expanded over billions of years, everything cooled down (except for stars and galaxies!), leaving the universe in radiative thermal equilibrium.

But there’s a problem. The universe is now at least 50 billion light years across (estimates vary), yet is allegedly “only” 14 billion years old. For equilibrium to occur there must be continual interchange of energy among all regions enjoying that equilibrium. Yet the speed of light is nowhere fast enough to produce that equilibrium for such a huge universe. Furthermore, the uniformity was a shock to cosmologists because of the serious “lumpiness” of the universe. Galaxies are “lumps” and are lumped into clusters of galaxies which are distributed (lumped) in nonuniform ways throughout the universe.

The evolutionists’ ad hoc way around this problem is termed “inflation.” When the universe was VERY young and VERY small, it may have lingered long enough in this state (10^-35 seconds) to achieve thermal equilibrium, and then the universe expanded (inflated) much faster than the speed of light for a time (“FTL” on a universal scale!), then dropped out of FTL and resumed the current normal expansion. The speculative details keep changing, but anyone with any scientific training should appreciate the imaginative ad hoc inventions used to avoid the bigger problem – Big Bang cosmology is a bad model. Just consider a short list of the unexplainables:

1. Out of nothingness (get your head around that!) popped the entire universe with space, time, and all of its carefully balanced physical laws and variety of interacting particles. How? Why? There is no science supporting this point.

2. This universe-crammed-into-a-point decided to expand. How? Why? There is no science supporting this point.

3. Once the right mix of particles and radiation achieved thermal equilibrium, the universe decided to accelerate its expansion far beyond the speed of light. How? Why? There is no science supporting this point.

4. When the universe got to a size so that we could eventually enjoy it, it dropped out of hyper-speed. How? Why? There is no science supporting this point.

5. Matter coalesced into nice tidy stars arranged into picturesque, orderly galaxies. How? Why? There is no science supporting this point.

6. Some of the matter coalesced into nice tidy planets arranged into picturesque, orderly solar systems. How? Why? There is no science supporting this point.

7. The universe continue to expand at a reduced (from before), but still accelerating rate. How and Why is it still accelerating? There is no science supporting this point.

The continued accelerating expansion is “explained” by the presence of “dark energy” in the universe. What is dark energy? It must be a “negative” energy, because the gravitational acceleration from all the matter of all the galaxies would produce DEceleration, not acceleration. How can energy be negative? Nobody knows. Just what/why/where is dark energy? There is no science.

Furthermore, galaxies exhibit rotational structure (orbits of stars) that just can’t exist for a universe billions of years old. And galactic clusters have similar problems. Thus “dark matter” is invoked to explain observables that just can’t be in an evolutionary universe.

It’s fascinating. Cosmologists estimate (in order to make their models believable) that dark energy accounts for 73% of all the stuff/energy in the universe, that dark matter must account for 23%, and the stars/galaxies make up the other 4%. Evolutionists proclaim that their cosmology/philosophy is FACT, and yet they have not observed the first two (96% of everything!) and still have no credible science supporting the formation of the remaining 4%.

Now that’s a long discussion to make the point that although creationists have a real challenge – worthy of continued research – to lock down the speed of light problem, the “other side” is sunk without a trace.

So how are creationists doing on their problem?

Russ Humphreys (see ref below) has developed a “white hole” cosmology, using the theory of general relativity. This cosmology assumes a center of expansion and a bounded, finite universe. (Big bangers assume no center and no edge – get your head around that!) With the Biblical book of Genesis in mind, Humphreys postulates a universe that is localized to within a few light years of earth, which then expands continuously until the present day. At the center of this gravitational well, clocks run slower, while in the expanding universe they run faster at the edges. Expansion produces the red shifts that we presently observe in astronomy. The results from general relativity allow the entire process to take place in days (under a guided hand – God’s), while up to several hundred million years (NOT many billions!) of time tick by in far away galaxies. This allows for some galactic rotation and distant events such as supernovas without the destruction of spiral structures that would occur in a billions-of-years-old universe.

There is much more to this, of course, and many issues to investigate both mathematically and observationally, and that’s why Humphreys has written a book on the subject. Please check it out.

Another book-length creationist treatment is available by John Hartnett. Hartnett employs Einstein’s general relativity, plus modifications of the theory generated by Moshe Carmeli in the 1990s, and constrains it to a Biblical time frame. His theory also involves accelerated clocks in the distant universe, and is able to explain much of what astronomers observe in galactic/universal structure while avoiding ideas like dark matter and dark energy.

In both of the models of Humphreys and Hartnett are found solutions to the speed of light problem – namely, that within the bounds of known physics (general relativity), the earth and universe are young (by earth clocks) and yet we enjoy distant starlight.

CAUTIONARY NOTE: Getting your head around these theories will require some real work on your part. You’ll probably want to have taken at least graduate work in physics if you really want to check these guys out.

The main point is that there are dueling cosmologies out there and the creationist view should not be dismissed out of hand.

[Much of the above summary was contributed by my father]

Paul M. Steidl, “The Earth, the Stars, and the Bible,” Baker Book House, 1979.
D. Russell Humphreys, “Evidence for a Young World,” Creation Matters, a publication of the Creation Research Society, July/August 1999.
D. Russell Humphries, Starlight and Time – Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe, Master Books, 1998.
Jean-Marc Perelmuter, “Chiaroscuro in Space: The Suggestion of Matter Bears Much Meaning for the Universe,” Fox News on the web, 8.00 a.m. ET (1200 GMT) July 14, 1999.
John Hartnett, Starlight, Time and the New Physics, Creation Ministries International, 2007.
Alex Williams and John Hartnett, Dismantling the Big Bang – God’s Universe Rediscovered, Master Books, 2005.
Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Compromise – A Biblical and Scientific Refutation of Progressive Creationism (Billions of Years) As Popularized by Astronomer Hugh Ross, Master Books, 2004.
 
Hello my name is Foss and I'm a theoretical physicist :D

This is quite a meal to digest.
Your points are very interesting in and of themselves but still don't
negate my light speed argument.
All you've done (as it looks to me)is furiously generated a cloud of intellectual puzzles.
The lights we see in the sky at night are the light generated by the stars
and the rest of the light that got diffused is like background noise.
I have still proven that the universe is older than the 6000 years evangelical creationism claims.

You know I had an idea....

I don't know you beyond this board and your online persona ;) but perhaps you should consider grabbing a piece of the christian pie that this for profit commercial enterprise Kentucky theme park project is and will be generating.

An opportunity for you is possibly presenting itself but maybe you haven't looked at it that way.

This is in your home state.

You have the knowledge, intellect, enthusiasm and beliefs to do well somewhere in there.

Think of your talents and how exciting and satisfying it could be.:):):):)

That I got you to put up this big a response to my teasing is an indication to me of what you could do outside this for fun board.

I'll have to read and research your points further if I'm to make an intelligent response.(to them):p

I'm kinda busy this weekend refinishing the plow for my new 4x4.

I'm not a die hard evolutionist but to me evolution flawed as it is more reasonable than religion.
 
Hello my name is Foss and I'm a theoretical physicist :D

This is quite a meal to digest.
Your points are very interesting in and of themselves but still don't
negate my light speed argument.
All you've done (as it looks to me)is furiously generated a cloud of intellectual puzzles.
The lights we see in the sky at night are the light generated by the stars
and the rest of the light that got diffused is like background noise.
I have still proven that the universe is older than the 6000 years evangelical creationism claims.

You know I had an idea....

I don't know you beyond this board and your online persona ;) but perhaps you should consider grabbing a piece of the christian pie that this for profit commercial enterprise Kentucky theme park project is and will be generating.

An opportunity for you is possibly presenting itself but maybe you haven't looked at it that way.

This is in your home state.

You have the knowledge, intellect, enthusiasm and beliefs to do well somewhere in there.

Think of your talents and how exciting and satisfying it could be.:):):):)

That I got you to put up this big a response to my teasing is an indication to me of what you could do outside this for fun board.

I'll have to read and research your points further if I'm to make an intelligent response.(to them):p

I'm kinda busy this weekend refinishing the plow for my new 4x4.

I'm not a die hard evolutionist but to me evolution flawed as it is more reasonable than religion.
I don't know why you keep claiming that you've 'proven' anything. You've failed to generate one solitary argument in this entire discussion. All you've really done is mock and demand answers. It's funny that my points 1 through 7 don't give you any pause regarding how 'reasonable' evolution is. Perhaps you're clinging to your bubble from an emotional standpoint. Your lack of direct response to ANY of my points is lustrous. It's obvious that you're in over your head.

I gave you a theory that explains the light speed problem. As you so blithely like to say, "It's a theory that is still in progress." But it DOES account for the discrepancy. Now you're complaining that you don't understand it. As I've said, much of what you believe about evolution involves what you've been told. I've done my own research.

Here's a short list of evidence that supports a young earth:

1. Carbon 14 dating
2. Zircons in granite
3. Spiral galaxies spinning too fast
4. Globular star clusters moving away from us
5. Galaxies moving away from us
6. Comets should have burned up by now
7. Not enough supernovas
8. Not enough sodium in the sea
9. Not enough mud in the sea
10. The earth's magnetic field
11. Geologic strata bent without cracking
12. Not enough Cro-magnon skeletons buried
13. Stone age people should have discovered seeds grow into food
14. Oldest pyramid and written records go back only 4-5,000 years

So, you're all wrapped up in the light speed problem and you don't recognize that the preponderance of evidence is on my side because you are determined not to see the bigger picture. It's like the little kid that runs around in circles with his fingers in his ears yelling "LALALALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"


If you recall, your earlier posts were dismissive taunts that implied that Creationists were a bunch of dumb Bible thumping hicks that don't have science on their side. Now you are forced to decide if you want to research this further. Frankly, I'm satisfied that you're not inquisitive enough to bother, but I'm certain that several other people reading this thread will see my arguments and find them convincing. That's good enough for me.
 
You didn't follow the rules.

I don't know why you keep claiming that you've 'proven' anything. You've failed to generate one solitary argument in this entire discussion. All you've really done is mock and demand answers. It's funny that my points 1 through 7 don't give you any pause regarding how 'reasonable' evolution is. Perhaps you're clinging to your bubble from an emotional standpoint. Your lack of direct response to ANY of my points is lustrous. It's obvious that you're in over your head.

I gave you a theory that explains the light speed problem. As you so blithely like to say, "It's a theory that is still in progress." Now you're complaining that you don't understand it. As I've said, much of what you believe about evolution involves what you've been told. I've done my own research.

Here's a short list of evidence that supports a young earth:

1. Carbon 14 dating
2. Zircons in granite
3. Spiral galaxies spinning too fast
4. Globular star clusters moving away from us
5. Galaxies moving away from us
6. Comets should have burned up by now
7. Not enough supernovas
8. Not enough sodium in the sea
9. Not enough mud in the sea
10. The earth's magnetic field
11. Geologic strata bent without cracking
12. Not enough Cro-magnon skeletons buried
13. Stone age people should have discovered seeds grow into food
14. Oldest pyramid and written records go back only 4-5,000 years

So, you're all wrapped up in the light speed problem and you don't recognize that the preponderance of evidence is on my side because you are determined not to see the bigger picture.


If you recall, your earlier posts were dismissive taunts that implied that Creationists were a bunch of dumb Bible thumping hicks that don't have science on their side. Now you are forced to decide if you want to research this further. Frankly, I'm satisfied that you're not inquisitive enough to bother, but I'm certain that several other people reading this thread will see my arguments and find them convincing. That's good enough for me.


You like religion in politics so I'm not surprised you like it in science as well.
Our knowledge of the universe is tiny and we have only begun to learn more in the last 150 years.
Who's really to say if one of us is right or even close.
What's the old adage about being born stupid and dying stupid despite all our knowledge.
If you chose to believe that everything was created at once 6000 years ago, dropped into place as it would seem by God of the Old Testament (which is my view of what creationism ultimately implies) then talk about events in the 100s of thousands of light years that is your right.
I'm just pointing out a IMO big contradiction.
 
You like religion in politics so I'm not surprised you like it in science as well.
Our knowledge of the universe is tiny and we have only begun to learn more in the last 150 years.
Who's really to say if one of us is right or even close.
What's the old adage about being born stupid and dying stupid despite all our knowledge.
If you chose to believe that everything was created at once 6000 years ago, dropped into place as it would seem by God of the Old Testament (which is my view of what creationism ultimately implies) then talk about events in the 100s of thousands of light years that is your right.
I'm just pointing out a IMO big contradiction.
You continue to claim that I'm injecting religion into this discussion, yet you can't find one single shred of evidence that I've done so. My arguments have been completely scientific - unlike yours, which have been anecdotal, dismissive, and evasive.

Again, you're welcome to debate this issue. Honestly I was expecting at least somewhat of a scientific approach from you, considering the way you started out mocking Creationism. But all you're doing now is rambling feebly.

And now you're backpedaling from 'I proved creationism wrong' to 'I pointed out IMO a big contradiction.'

But I've squashed that accusation as well.

Again, WHERE is your EVIDENCE?

I'm still waiting...
 
I'm criticizing christian evangelical creationism, a tenet of which is that the earth and heavens are only 6000 years old.

I think the fact that there are stars whose light has taken more than 6000 years to get to us proves that creationism as defined by evangelicals in this Kentucky theme park is wrong, therefore that calls into question the veracity of the rest of the Bible.

It seems like we're arguing about different definitions of creationism.
You're arguing about a scientific approach whereas I'm dismissing the religious one based on the (to me) silly 6000 year assumption.

Creationism was created by christians upset about Darwin's theories and that is the creationism I'm arguing about.
Creationism is concieved to try to undermine and prove evolution wrong because noble but childish bible stories(Einstein's view) are not enough any more in the face of science and reason.

It is a reaction to the challenge posed by evolution theory, biological and celestial.
Evolution theory did not set out to prove religion wrong( although some people have run with that), it merely states observations and puts forth theories and hypothesis.
 
There certainly are Creationists who, as was said, sing "LALALA".

And there are Scientists who do the same thing.

My God is big enough to cover the whole thing. The Old Testament speaks of 'days' mostly due to the limited understanding of those for whom it was originally written. Modify your understanding of 'day' and the difficulties disappear.

We people of modern times are likewise not yet able to understand the entirety of the mechanisms used to create the universe. That shouldn't stop us in our pursuit of knowledge.

God has it all in hand.

KS
 
I'm criticizing christian evangelical creationism, a tenet of which is that the earth and heavens are only 6000 years old.

I think the fact that there are stars whose light has taken more than 6000 years to get to us proves that creationism as defined by evangelicals in this Kentucky theme park is wrong, therefore that calls into question the veracity of the rest of the Bible.

It seems like we're arguing about different definitions of creationism.
You're arguing about a scientific approach whereas I'm dismissing the religious one based on the (to me) silly 6000 year assumption.

Creationism was created by christians upset about Darwin's theories and that is the creationism I'm arguing about.
Creationism is concieved to try to undermine and prove evolution wrong because noble but childish bible stories(Einstein's view) are not enough any more in the face of science and reason.

It is a reaction to the challenge posed by evolution theory, biological and celestial.
Evolution theory did not set out to prove religion wrong( although some people have run with that), it merely states observations and puts forth theories and hypothesis.
That's the stupidest thing anybody's ever said in this forum. Creationism was invented AFTER Darwinism? Are you out of your mind? Creationism has been taught for thousands of years. Darwin lived in the 1800s.

Go read some history and then come back.

You cannot mock the 6000 year 'assumption' without dismissing the science that I've presented. You're continuing to FAIL.

Furthermore, you're continuing to use SELF-REFUTING arguments. You've refused to answer my points in any way whatsoever. It's as though you're having a conversation with yourself. You've not abided by the rules we agreed to.

I really have no more use for this debate considering you've demonstrated no willingness or ability to engage in it. You're only interested in repeating yourself in an immature fashion.

But I tried.

Enjoy your denial.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well now that I'm done refinishing the plow for my new 4x4 (business before pleasure) I have some time to research this further.
Gonna have it installed tomorrow.
We've got another foot of snow coming after last weeks 2 feet.
I find that there are many Creationisms out there and not just
the young earth creationism we are arguing about here.
I thought foss you would have mentioned some of these old earth creationists in dismissing my 6000 year contention.
Therefore I think some definitions and background is in order before further discussion.

Here's a few things I've gathered up from various sites that are pertinent:

Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being. However, the term is more commonly used to refer to religiously motivated rejection of certain biological processes, in particular much of evolution, as an explanation accounting for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth. As science developed from the 18th century onwards, various views developed which aimed to reconcile science with the Genesis creation narrative. At this time those holding that species had been separately created were generally called "advocates of creation" but they were occasionally called "creationists" in private correspondence between Charles Darwin and his friends. As the creation–evolution controversy developed, the term "anti-evolutionists" became more common, then in 1929 in the United States the term "creationism" first became specifically associated with Christian fundamentalist opposition to human evolution and belief in a young Earth, though its usage was contested by other groups who believed in various concepts of creation.
Since the 1920s, creationism in America has contested scientific theories, such as that of evolution which derive from natural observations of the universe and life. Strict creationists believe that evolution cannot adequately account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on Earth. Strict creationists of the Christian faith usually base their belief on a literal reading of the Genesis creation narrative.Other religions have different deity-led creation myths while different members of individual faiths vary in their acceptance of scientific findings. In contrast to the strict creationists, evolutionary creationists maintain that, although evolution accounts for the nature of the biosphere, evolution itself is cosmologically attributable to a Creator deity.

When mainstream scientific research produces theoretical conclusions which contradict a strict creationist interpretation of scripture, creationists often reject the conclusions of the researchor its underlying scientific theories or its methodology.The rejection of scientific findings has sparked political and theological controversy.Two offshoots of creationism—creation science and intelligent design—have been characterized as pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community. The most notable disputes concern the evolution of living organisms, the idea of common descent, the geological history of the Earth, the formation of the solar system and the origin of the universe.

The history of creationism relates to the history of thought based on a premise that the natural universe had a beginning, and came into being supernaturally. The term creationism in its broad sense covers a wide range of views and interpretations, and was not in common use before the late 19th century.
Throughout recorded history, many people have viewed the universe as a created entity. Many ancient historical accounts from around the world refer to or imply a creation of the earth (and also the universe). Although specific historical understandings of creationism have used varying degrees of empirical, spiritual and/or philosophical investigations, they are all based on the view that the universe was created, as opposed to not being created. This is essentially a cosmological premise in metaphysics, however popularity for and theories of creationism are related to the history of religions.
The most influential force on more recent history of creationism has been the Genesis creation narrative, which was accepted as a historical account until the advent of modern geology. It has provided a basic framework for Jewish, Christian and Islamic epistemological understandings of how the universe came into being - through the supernatural intervention of God, Yahweh, or Allah. Historically, literal interpretations of this narrative have been more dominant than allegorical interpretations of Genesis


Young Earth creationism (YEC) is a form of creationism that asserts the Heavens, Earth, and all life were created by direct acts of the Abrahamic God during a relatively short period, sometime between c. 5,700and 10,000 years ago.Its adherents are those Christians and Jews who believe that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days, taking a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative as a basis for their beliefs and include around 10-45% of American adults, depending on various polls.

Old Earth creationism (OEC) is an umbrella term for a number of types of creationism, including Gap creationism and Progressive creationism. Their worldview is typically more compatible with mainstream scientific thought on the issues of geology, cosmology and the age of the Earth, in comparison to Young Earth creationism; however, they still generally take the accounts of creation in Genesis more literally than theistic evolution (also known as evolutionary creationism) in that OEC rejects evolution by purely natural means.

Gap creationism (also known as Ruin-Restoration creationism, Restoration creationism, or "The Gap Theory"), is a form of Old Earth creationism that posits that the six-day creation, as described in the Book of Genesis, involved literal 24-hour days, but that there was a gap of time between two distinct creations in the first and the second verses of Genesis, explaining many scientific observations, including the age of the Earth. In this it differs from Day-Age creationism, which posits that the 'days' of creation were much longer periods (of thousands or millions of years), and from Young Earth creationism, which although it agrees concerning the six literal 24-hour days of creation, does not posit any gap of time.

Day-Age creationism, a type of Old Earth creationism, is an interpretation of the creation accounts found in Genesis. It holds that the six days referred to in the Genesis account of creation are not ordinary 24-hour days, but rather are much longer periods (of thousands or millions of years). The Genesis account is then interpreted as an account of the process of cosmic evolution, providing a broad base on which any number of theories and interpretations are built. Proponents of the Day-Age Theory can be found among both theistic evolutionists (who accept the scientific consensus on evolution) and progressive creationists (who reject it). The theories are said to be built on the understanding that the Hebrew word yom is used to refer to a time period, with a beginning and an end, and not necessarily that of a 24 hour day.
The differences between the Young-Earth interpretation of Genesis and modern scientific theories such as Big Bang, abiogenesis, and common descent are significant: the Young-Earth interpretation says that everything in the universe and on Earth was created in six 24-hour days (with a seventh day of rest), estimated by them to have occurred some 6,000 years ago; whereas recent mainstream scientific theories put the age of the universe at 13.7 billion years and that of the Earth at 4.6 billion years, with various forms of life, including humans, being formed continually thereafter.
The Day-Age Theory tries to reconcile these views by arguing that the Creation "days" were not ordinary 24-hour days, but actually lasted for long periods of time—or as the theory's name implies: the "days" each lasted an age. According to this view, the sequence and duration of the Creation "days" is representative or symbolic of the sequence and duration of events that scientists theorize to have happened, such that Genesis can be read as a summary of modern science, simplified for the benefit of pre-scientific humans.
Progressive creationism is the religious belief that God created new forms of life gradually, over a period of hundreds of millions of years. As a form of Old Earth creationism, it accepts mainstream geological and cosmological estimates for the age of the Earth, but posits that the new "kinds" of plants and animals that have appeared successively over the planet's history represent instances of God directly intervening to create those new types by means outside the realm of science. Progressive creationists generally reject macroevolution because they believe it to be biologically untenable and not supported by the fossil record, and they generally reject the concept of universal descent from a last universal ancestor.

Intelligent design is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."It is a form of creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which deliberately avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer. Its leading proponents—all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.
Intelligent design was developed by a group of American creationists who revised their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science.Proponents argue that intelligent design is a scientific theory.In so doing, they seek to fundamentally redefine science to include supernatural explanations.The overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science, and indeed is pseudoscience.
Intelligent design originated in response to the United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling, which barred the teaching of "creation science" in public schools as breaching the separation of church and state.The first significant published use of intelligent design was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high-school biology classes.From the mid-1990s, intelligent design proponents were supported by the Discovery Institute which, together with its Center for Science and Culture, planned and funded the "intelligent design movement". They advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula, leading to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, where U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Neo-creationism is a movement whose goal is to restate creationism in terms more likely to be well received by the public, policy makers, educators, and the scientific community. It aims to re-frame the debate over the origins of life in non-religious terms and without appeals to scripture. This comes in response to the 1987 ruling by the United States Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard that creationism is an inherently religious concept and that advocating it as correct or accurate in public school curricula violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
One of its principal claims is that ostensibly objective orthodox science, with a foundation in naturalism, is actually a dogmatically atheistic religion. Its proponents argue that the scientific method excludes certain explanations of phenomena, particularly where they point towards supernatural elements, thus effectively excluding religious insight from contributing to understanding the universe. This leads to an open and often hostile opposition to what they term "Darwinism", which generally is meant to refer to evolution, but may be extended to include such concepts as abiogenesis, stellar evolution and the Big Bang theory.
Various neo-creationist groups claim to run scientific enterprises that conduct legitimate scientific research. Notable examples are the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture. Neo-creationists have yet to establish a recognized line of legitimate scientific research and thus far lack scientific and academic legitimacy, even among many academics of evangelical Christian colleges who are presumed to be their natural constituency. Neo-creationism is considered by Eugenie C. Scott and other critics as the most successful form of irrationalism.
The main form of neo-creationism is intelligent design.A second form, abrupt appearance theory,claims that first life and the universe appeared abruptly and that plants and animals appeared abruptly in complex form, has occasionally been postulated.

Do Creationists think Creationism is science?
Even prominent creationists like Henry Morris and Duane Gish (who pretty much created scientific creationism) admit that creationism is not scientific in creationist literature. In Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science, Morris, while discussing catastrophism and the Noachic flood, says:
“We cannot verify this experimentally, of course, any more than any of the various other theories of catastrophism [e.g. Velikovsky], but we do not need experimental verification; God has recorded it in His Word, and that should be sufficient.”
This is a statement of religious faith, not a statement of scientific discovery.
Even more revealing, Duane Gish in Evolution? The Fossils Say No! writes:
“We do not know how the Creator created, [or] what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator.”
So, even leading creationists basically admit that creationism is not testable and clearly state that biblical revelation is the source (and “verification”) of their ideas. If Creationism is not considered scientific by the movement’s own leading figures, then how can anyone else be expected to take it seriously as a science?

Is Creationism logically consistent?

Creationism is usually internally consistent and logical within the religious framework in which it operates. The major problem with its consistency is that creationism has no defined boundaries: there is no clear way to say that any particular piece of data is relevant or not to the task verifying or falsifying creationism. When you deal with the non-understood supernatural, anything is possible; one consequence of this is that no tests for creationism can really be said to matter.
Is Creationism parsimonious?

No. Creationism fails the test of Occam’s razor because adding supernatural entities to the equation when they are not strictly necessary to explain events violates the principle of parsimony. This principle is important because it is so easy for extraneous ideas to slip into theories, ultimately confusing the issue. The simplest explanation may not always be the most accurate, but it is preferable unless very good reasons are offered.

Is Creationism empirically testable?
No, creationism is not testable because creationism violates a basic premise of science, naturalism. Creationism relies on supernatural entities which are not only not testable, but are not even describable. Creationism provides no model that can be used for making predictions, it provides no scientific problems for scientists to work on, and does not provide a paradigm for solving other problems unless you consider “God did it” to be a satisfactory explanation for everything.

_______________________________________________________________

The most interesting premise is that the universe was not created as opposed to created meaning that it always was and will always be.
 
11. Geologic strata bent without cracking
12. Not enough Cro-magnon skeletons buried
14. Oldest pyramid and written records go back only 4-5,000 years

The Earth is currently in an interglacial period of the Quaternary Ice Age, with the last glacial period of the Quaternary having ended approximately 10,000 years ago with the start of the holocene.

The previous ice ages wiped out previous peoples and their civilizations.
 
1. Out of nothingness (get your head around that!) popped the entire universe with space, time, and all of its carefully balanced physical laws and variety of interacting particles. How? Why? There is no science supporting this point.

The universe was not created as opposed to being created therefore
it always was.
 
How can energy be negative? Nobody knows. Just what/why/where is dark energy? There is no science.

Antimatter?
We're just getting going on that.
 
3. Once the right mix of particles and radiation achieved thermal equilibrium, the universe decided to accelerate its expansion far beyond the speed of light. How? Why? There is no science supporting this point
.

4. When the universe got to a size so that we could eventually enjoy it, it dropped out of hyper-speed. How? Why? There is no science supporting this point.

Matter cannot travel faster than the speed of light. But the expansion of the Universe is due to the expansion of *space* itself. And that can happen faster than the speed of light. In fact it did, during a short period called Inflation, very shortly after the Big Bang.
Some of the energy that propelled the expansion has been used to form stars causing it to slow down.
 

Members online

Back
Top