Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Proof of Creationism

theta_pinch
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2014 11:21:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Can any creationist give proof for creationism?
Any sufficiently complex phenomenon is indistinguishable from magic--Me

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
Niel deGrasse Tyson
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2014 12:27:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/1/2014 11:21:03 AM, theta_pinch wrote:
Can any creationist give proof for creationism?

Sure, there are thousands of experiments that show the workings of natural organisms to be too complex in their regularities to be due to chance. They can only have been designed, and design requires a designer. Look up "Michael Behe experiments" on google and you can read about ID experiments and what they prove about the natural order.
theta_pinch
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2014 12:31:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/1/2014 12:27:43 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 2/1/2014 11:21:03 AM, theta_pinch wrote:
Can any creationist give proof for creationism?

Sure, there are thousands of experiments that show the workings of natural organisms to be too complex in their regularities to be due to chance. They can only have been designed, and design requires a designer. Look up "Michael Behe experiments" on google and you can read about ID experiments and what they prove about the natural order.

That's intelligent design not creationism. I'm talking about proof of creationism as in the kind that views genesis as a historical account. Though yes I do know about irreducible complexity but I've also found that new evidence is emerging that could explain so called irreducibly complex structures.(However it's doubtful that they couldn't have evolved anyways.)
Any sufficiently complex phenomenon is indistinguishable from magic--Me

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
Niel deGrasse Tyson
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2014 2:24:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/1/2014 12:31:17 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 2/1/2014 12:27:43 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 2/1/2014 11:21:03 AM, theta_pinch wrote:
Can any creationist give proof for creationism?

Sure, there are thousands of experiments that show the workings of natural organisms to be too complex in their regularities to be due to chance. They can only have been designed, and design requires a designer. Look up "Michael Behe experiments" on google and you can read about ID experiments and what they prove about the natural order.

That's intelligent design not creationism. I'm talking about proof of creationism as in the kind that views genesis as a historical account.

I doubt very much you will find anyone who will defend that interpretation of Genesis. Even Priests and Vicars will not translate it literally.
theta_pinch
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2014 7:54:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/1/2014 2:24:26 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 2/1/2014 12:31:17 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 2/1/2014 12:27:43 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 2/1/2014 11:21:03 AM, theta_pinch wrote:
Can any creationist give proof for creationism?

Sure, there are thousands of experiments that show the workings of natural organisms to be too complex in their regularities to be due to chance. They can only have been designed, and design requires a designer. Look up "Michael Behe experiments" on google and you can read about ID experiments and what they prove about the natural order.

That's intelligent design not creationism. I'm talking about proof of creationism as in the kind that views genesis as a historical account.

I doubt very much you will find anyone who will defend that interpretation of Genesis. Even Priests and Vicars will not translate it literally.

Actually I have found quite a few people who defend that interpretation. In fact pollls show that 45% of Americans are young earth creationists.
Any sufficiently complex phenomenon is indistinguishable from magic--Me

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
Niel deGrasse Tyson
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2014 10:23:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/1/2014 7:54:07 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 2/1/2014 2:24:26 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 2/1/2014 12:31:17 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 2/1/2014 12:27:43 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 2/1/2014 11:21:03 AM, theta_pinch wrote:
Can any creationist give proof for creationism?

Sure, there are thousands of experiments that show the workings of natural organisms to be too complex in their regularities to be due to chance. They can only have been designed, and design requires a designer. Look up "Michael Behe experiments" on google and you can read about ID experiments and what they prove about the natural order.

That's intelligent design not creationism. I'm talking about proof of creationism as in the kind that views genesis as a historical account.

I doubt very much you will find anyone who will defend that interpretation of Genesis. Even Priests and Vicars will not translate it literally.

Actually I have found quite a few people who defend that interpretation. In fact pollls show that 45% of Americans are young earth creationists.
If you can accept Intelligent Design as a possibility, why wouldn't you be able to accept Creationism (the account in Genesis) as a possibility?

As far as a young earth, although there are Bible literalists who embrace an old universe/earth (I lean towards a young earth quite strongly), I do find it interesting that recorded history (ancient civilizations) fall within the young earth time frame. That, and the oldest age-confirmed trees fall into a young earth time frame. Anything beyond the young earth time-frame falls into the speculation camp.
theta_pinch
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2014 10:32:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/2/2014 10:23:45 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 2/1/2014 7:54:07 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 2/1/2014 2:24:26 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 2/1/2014 12:31:17 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 2/1/2014 12:27:43 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 2/1/2014 11:21:03 AM, theta_pinch wrote:
Can any creationist give proof for creationism?

Sure, there are thousands of experiments that show the workings of natural organisms to be too complex in their regularities to be due to chance. They can only have been designed, and design requires a designer. Look up "Michael Behe experiments" on google and you can read about ID experiments and what they prove about the natural order.

That's intelligent design not creationism. I'm talking about proof of creationism as in the kind that views genesis as a historical account.

I doubt very much you will find anyone who will defend that interpretation of Genesis. Even Priests and Vicars will not translate it literally.

Actually I have found quite a few people who defend that interpretation. In fact pollls show that 45% of Americans are young earth creationists.
If you can accept Intelligent Design as a possibility, why wouldn't you be able to accept Creationism (the account in Genesis) as a possibility?

Nope I don't accept intelligent design as a possibility but I reject a literal interpretation of genesis even more because a literal interpretation conflicts with almost all of modern science.

As far as a young earth, although there are Bible literalists who embrace an old universe/earth (I lean towards a young earth quite strongly), I do find it interesting that recorded history (ancient civilizations) fall within the young earth time frame. That, and the oldest age-confirmed trees fall into a young earth time frame. Anything beyond the young earth time-frame falls into the speculation camp.

Nope; not speculation for multiple reasons. We have radiometric dating; it's been extensively tested to try and affect decay rates. We have Thermoluminescence dating; that checks the last time an object was heated above 500 degrees celsius. Optically stimulated luminescence which dates the last time an object was exposed to light. We have 3 other absolute dating techniques which basically rules out the idea that the earth is 10,000 years old. Then we also have "continental drift" we can actually measure the continents moving and the continents are shaped in such a way that they fit together. We also find the same fossils on different continents where the continents were once connected. All of this is happened way to slowly to have happened in 10,000 years.
Any sufficiently complex phenomenon is indistinguishable from magic--Me

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
Niel deGrasse Tyson
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2014 11:31:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/2/2014 10:32:47 AM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 2/2/2014 10:23:45 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 2/1/2014 7:54:07 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 2/1/2014 2:24:26 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 2/1/2014 12:31:17 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 2/1/2014 12:27:43 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 2/1/2014 11:21:03 AM, theta_pinch wrote:
Can any creationist give proof for creationism?

Sure, there are thousands of experiments that show the workings of natural organisms to be too complex in their regularities to be due to chance. They can only have been designed, and design requires a designer. Look up "Michael Behe experiments" on google and you can read about ID experiments and what they prove about the natural order.

That's intelligent design not creationism. I'm talking about proof of creationism as in the kind that views genesis as a historical account.

I doubt very much you will find anyone who will defend that interpretation of Genesis. Even Priests and Vicars will not translate it literally.

Actually I have found quite a few people who defend that interpretation. In fact pollls show that 45% of Americans are young earth creationists.
If you can accept Intelligent Design as a possibility, why wouldn't you be able to accept Creationism (the account in Genesis) as a possibility?

Nope I don't accept intelligent design as a possibility but I reject a literal interpretation of genesis even more because a literal interpretation conflicts with almost all of modern science.

Fair enough. However, what you personally reject has nothing to do with the legitimacy of Creationism. You do realize that I hope. Remember, science does not prove non-existence of God. It's just your personal opinion. One of the things I've noticed here is a tendency for some evolutionists to make certain declarations like "I don't want to see creationism taught in school", as if the issue was about what they personally want. And then sort of throw in references to court trials where the verdict just happened to coincide with their viewpoint.

As far as the Bible conflicting with modern science, do you have anything specific in mind other than the age of the earth issue?

And, do you also reject the theory of alien panspermia?

As far as a young earth, although there are Bible literalists who embrace an old universe/earth (I lean towards a young earth quite strongly), I do find it interesting that recorded history (ancient civilizations) fall within the young earth time frame. That, and the oldest age-confirmed trees fall into a young earth time frame. Anything beyond the young earth time-frame falls into the speculation camp.

Nope; not speculation for multiple reasons. We have radiometric dating; it's been extensively tested to try and affect decay rates. We have Thermoluminescence dating; that checks the last time an object was heated above 500 degrees celsius. Optically stimulated luminescence which dates the last time an object was exposed to light. We have 3 other absolute dating techniques which basically rules out the idea that the earth is 10,000 years old. Then we also have "continental drift" we can actually measure the continents moving and the continents are shaped in such a way that they fit together. We also find the same fossils on different continents where the continents were once connected. All of this is happened way to slowly to have happened in 10,000 years.
What I'm talking about is the oldest living organisms that are currently living today. The oldest confirmed tree is in the 3,000-4,000 year old range.
bulproof
Posts: 25,218
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2014 12:03:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/2/2014 10:23:45 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 2/1/2014 7:54:07 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 2/1/2014 2:24:26 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 2/1/2014 12:31:17 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 2/1/2014 12:27:43 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 2/1/2014 11:21:03 AM, theta_pinch wrote:
Can any creationist give proof for creationism?

Sure, there are thousands of experiments that show the workings of natural organisms to be too complex in their regularities to be due to chance. They can only have been designed, and design requires a designer. Look up "Michael Behe experiments" on google and you can read about ID experiments and what they prove about the natural order.

That's intelligent design not creationism. I'm talking about proof of creationism as in the kind that views genesis as a historical account.

I doubt very much you will find anyone who will defend that interpretation of Genesis. Even Priests and Vicars will not translate it literally.

Actually I have found quite a few people who defend that interpretation. In fact pollls show that 45% of Americans are young earth creationists.
If you can accept Intelligent Design as a possibility, why wouldn't you be able to accept Creationism (the account in Genesis) as a possibility?

As far as a young earth, although there are Bible literalists who embrace an old universe/earth (I lean towards a young earth quite strongly), I do find it interesting that recorded history (ancient civilizations) fall within the young earth time frame. That, and the oldest age-confirmed trees fall into a young earth time frame. Anything beyond the young earth time-frame falls into the SCIENCE/EVIDENCE camp.

Fixed that for ya.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
theta_pinch
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2014 7:19:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/2/2014 11:31:33 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 2/2/2014 10:32:47 AM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 2/2/2014 10:23:45 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 2/1/2014 7:54:07 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 2/1/2014 2:24:26 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 2/1/2014 12:31:17 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 2/1/2014 12:27:43 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 2/1/2014 11:21:03 AM, theta_pinch wrote:
Can any creationist give proof for creationism?

Sure, there are thousands of experiments that show the workings of natural organisms to be too complex in their regularities to be due to chance. They can only have been designed, and design requires a designer. Look up "Michael Behe experiments" on google and you can read about ID experiments and what they prove about the natural order.

That's intelligent design not creationism. I'm talking about proof of creationism as in the kind that views genesis as a historical account.

I doubt very much you will find anyone who will defend that interpretation of Genesis. Even Priests and Vicars will not translate it literally.

Actually I have found quite a few people who defend that interpretation. In fact pollls show that 45% of Americans are young earth creationists.
If you can accept Intelligent Design as a possibility, why wouldn't you be able to accept Creationism (the account in Genesis) as a possibility?

Nope I don't accept intelligent design as a possibility but I reject a literal interpretation of genesis even more because a literal interpretation conflicts with almost all of modern science.

Fair enough. However, what you personally reject has nothing to do with the legitimacy of Creationism. You do realize that I hope. Remember, science does not prove non-existence of God. It's just your personal opinion. One of the things I've noticed here is a tendency for some evolutionists to make certain declarations like "I don't want to see creationism taught in school", as if the issue was about what they personally want. And then sort of throw in references to court trials where the verdict just happened to coincide with their viewpoint.

As far as the Bible conflicting with modern science, do you have anything specific in mind other than the age of the earth issue?

Well really the main problem is the age of the earth issue because that leads to conflict in are's such as nuclear physics, astrophysics, earth science, astronomy, and cosmology.(There are probably several more I'm not thinking of.)


And, do you also reject the theory of alien panspermia?

No but that's neither creationism or intelligent design.

As far as a young earth, although there are Bible literalists who embrace an old universe/earth (I lean towards a young earth quite strongly), I do find it interesting that recorded history (ancient civilizations) fall within the young earth time frame. That, and the oldest age-confirmed trees fall into a young earth time frame. Anything beyond the young earth time-frame falls into the speculation camp.

Nope; not speculation for multiple reasons. We have radiometric dating; it's been extensively tested to try and affect decay rates. We have Thermoluminescence dating; that checks the last time an object was heated above 500 degrees celsius. Optically stimulated luminescence which dates the last time an object was exposed to light. We have 3 other absolute dating techniques which basically rules out the idea that the earth is 10,000 years old. Then we also have "continental drift" we can actually measure the continents moving and the continents are shaped in such a way that they fit together. We also find the same fossils on different continents where the continents were once connected. All of this is happened way to slowly to have happened in 10,000 years.
What I'm talking about is the oldest living organisms that are currently living today. The oldest confirmed tree is in the 3,000-4,000 year old range.

It's not all speculation; it's hypotheses that have been tested.
Any sufficiently complex phenomenon is indistinguishable from magic--Me

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
Niel deGrasse Tyson
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2014 7:41:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/3/2014 7:19:28 AM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 2/2/2014 11:31:33 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 2/2/2014 10:32:47 AM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 2/2/2014 10:23:45 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 2/1/2014 7:54:07 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 2/1/2014 2:24:26 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 2/1/2014 12:31:17 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 2/1/2014 12:27:43 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 2/1/2014 11:21:03 AM, theta_pinch wrote:
Can any creationist give proof for creationism?

Sure, there are thousands of experiments that show the workings of natural organisms to be too complex in their regularities to be due to chance. They can only have been designed, and design requires a designer. Look up "Michael Behe experiments" on google and you can read about ID experiments and what they prove about the natural order.

That's intelligent design not creationism. I'm talking about proof of creationism as in the kind that views genesis as a historical account.

I doubt very much you will find anyone who will defend that interpretation of Genesis. Even Priests and Vicars will not translate it literally.

Actually I have found quite a few people who defend that interpretation. In fact pollls show that 45% of Americans are young earth creationists.
If you can accept Intelligent Design as a possibility, why wouldn't you be able to accept Creationism (the account in Genesis) as a possibility?

Nope I don't accept intelligent design as a possibility but I reject a literal interpretation of genesis even more because a literal interpretation conflicts with almost all of modern science.

Fair enough. However, what you personally reject has nothing to do with the legitimacy of Creationism. You do realize that I hope. Remember, science does not prove non-existence of God. It's just your personal opinion. One of the things I've noticed here is a tendency for some evolutionists to make certain declarations like "I don't want to see creationism taught in school", as if the issue was about what they personally want. And then sort of throw in references to court trials where the verdict just happened to coincide with their viewpoint.

As far as the Bible conflicting with modern science, do you have anything specific in mind other than the age of the earth issue?

Well really the main problem is the age of the earth issue because that leads to conflict in are's such as nuclear physics, astrophysics, earth science, astronomy, and cosmology.(There are probably several more I'm not thinking of.)

Then do you embrace a possibility of old-earth creationism?

And, do you also reject the theory of alien panspermia?

No but that's neither creationism or intelligent design.

Sure it is. What else would you call the purposed creation of another species? No, they would not be deities in a religious sense. But the reason why some proponents of panspermia avoid alien panspermia (in favor of accidental panspermia) is probably because of it's relevance to intelligent design. That, and the over-the-top idea of extraterrestrial life on other planets.

As far as a young earth, although there are Bible literalists who embrace an old universe/earth (I lean towards a young earth quite strongly), I do find it interesting that recorded history (ancient civilizations) fall within the young earth time frame. That, and the oldest age-confirmed trees fall into a young earth time frame. Anything beyond the young earth time-frame falls into the speculation camp.

Nope; not speculation for multiple reasons. We have radiometric dating; it's been extensively tested to try and affect decay rates. We have Thermoluminescence dating; that checks the last time an object was heated above 500 degrees celsius. Optically stimulated luminescence which dates the last time an object was exposed to light. We have 3 other absolute dating techniques which basically rules out the idea that the earth is 10,000 years old. Then we also have "continental drift" we can actually measure the continents moving and the continents are shaped in such a way that they fit together. We also find the same fossils on different continents where the continents were once connected. All of this is happened way to slowly to have happened in 10,000 years.
What I'm talking about is the oldest living organisms that are currently living today. The oldest confirmed tree is in the 3,000-4,000 year old range.

It's not all speculation; it's hypotheses that have been tested.
Whatever one may call it, my main point is that I find it interesting that actual proof of human civilization falls within the young earth time frame, and as far as living organisms, there is nothing confirmed (just hypothesis) of anything alive beyond the young earth time frame. I'm not claiming this is proof of a young earth, but that I find it interesting.
theta_pinch
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2014 8:06:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/3/2014 7:41:27 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 2/3/2014 7:19:28 AM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 2/2/2014 11:31:33 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 2/2/2014 10:32:47 AM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 2/2/2014 10:23:45 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 2/1/2014 7:54:07 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 2/1/2014 2:24:26 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 2/1/2014 12:31:17 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 2/1/2014 12:27:43 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 2/1/2014 11:21:03 AM, theta_pinch wrote:
Can any creationist give proof for creationism?

Sure, there are thousands of experiments that show the workings of natural organisms to be too complex in their regularities to be due to chance. They can only have been designed, and design requires a designer. Look up "Michael Behe experiments" on google and you can read about ID experiments and what they prove about the natural order.

That's intelligent design not creationism. I'm talking about proof of creationism as in the kind that views genesis as a historical account.

I doubt very much you will find anyone who will defend that interpretation of Genesis. Even Priests and Vicars will not translate it literally.

Actually I have found quite a few people who defend that interpretation. In fact pollls show that 45% of Americans are young earth creationists.
If you can accept Intelligent Design as a possibility, why wouldn't you be able to accept Creationism (the account in Genesis) as a possibility?

Nope I don't accept intelligent design as a possibility but I reject a literal interpretation of genesis even more because a literal interpretation conflicts with almost all of modern science.

Fair enough. However, what you personally reject has nothing to do with the legitimacy of Creationism. You do realize that I hope. Remember, science does not prove non-existence of God. It's just your personal opinion. One of the things I've noticed here is a tendency for some evolutionists to make certain declarations like "I don't want to see creationism taught in school", as if the issue was about what they personally want. And then sort of throw in references to court trials where the verdict just happened to coincide with their viewpoint.

As far as the Bible conflicting with modern science, do you have anything specific in mind other than the age of the earth issue?

Well really the main problem is the age of the earth issue because that leads to conflict in are's such as nuclear physics, astrophysics, earth science, astronomy, and cosmology.(There are probably several more I'm not thinking of.)

Then do you embrace a possibility of old-earth creationism?

No; because there is no reason to believe that God had any part in the formation of the universe or life.

And, do you also reject the theory of alien panspermia?

No but that's neither creationism or intelligent design.

Sure it is. What else would you call the purposed creation of another species? No, they would not be deities in a religious sense. But the reason why some proponents of panspermia avoid alien panspermia (in favor of accidental panspermia) is probably because of it's relevance to intelligent design. That, and the over-the-top idea of extraterrestrial life on other planets.

Two things; first the idea of extraterrestrial life is unavoidable in a place the size of the universe. Two; alien Panspermia would simply be aliens setting life on earth; they couldn't design the life that we see now because there is no way to do that. Basically they could supposedly insert genes but there would be no way to get them to express at a specific time; something required for life to have been designed.

As far as a young earth, although there are Bible literalists who embrace an old universe/earth (I lean towards a young earth quite strongly), I do find it interesting that recorded history (ancient civilizations) fall within the young earth time frame. That, and the oldest age-confirmed trees fall into a young earth time frame. Anything beyond the young earth time-frame falls into the speculation camp.

Nope; not speculation for multiple reasons. We have radiometric dating; it's been extensively tested to try and affect decay rates. We have Thermoluminescence dating; that checks the last time an object was heated above 500 degrees celsius. Optically stimulated luminescence which dates the last time an object was exposed to light. We have 3 other absolute dating techniques which basically rules out the idea that the earth is 10,000 years old. Then we also have "continental drift" we can actually measure the continents moving and the continents are shaped in such a way that they fit together. We also find the same fossils on different continents where the continents were once connected. All of this is happened way to slowly to have happened in 10,000 years.
What I'm talking about is the oldest living organisms that are currently living today. The oldest confirmed tree is in the 3,000-4,000 year old range.

It's not all speculation; it's hypotheses that have been tested.
Whatever one may call it, my main point is that I find it interesting that actual proof of human civilization falls within the young earth time frame, and as far as living organisms, there is nothing confirmed (just hypothesis) of anything alive beyond the young earth time frame. I'm not claiming this is proof of a young earth, but that I find it interesting.

Why is that interesting? That creation myth was formed probably less than a millenia after humans started making permanent settlements.
Any sufficiently complex phenomenon is indistinguishable from magic--Me

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
Niel deGrasse Tyson
bulproof
Posts: 25,218
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2014 8:13:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/3/2014 7:41:27 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Whatever one may call it, my main point is that I find it interesting that actual proof of human civilization falls within the young earth time frame, and as far as living organisms, there is nothing confirmed (just hypothesis) of anything alive beyond the young earth time frame. I'm not claiming this is proof of a young earth, but that I find it interesting.

Try reading a book not written by long dead goatherds.

You never know you might actually gain knowledge.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2014 8:33:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/3/2014 8:06:56 AM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 2/3/2014 7:41:27 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 2/3/2014 7:19:28 AM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 2/2/2014 11:31:33 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 2/2/2014 10:32:47 AM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 2/2/2014 10:23:45 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 2/1/2014 7:54:07 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 2/1/2014 2:24:26 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 2/1/2014 12:31:17 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 2/1/2014 12:27:43 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 2/1/2014 11:21:03 AM, theta_pinch wrote:
Can any creationist give proof for creationism?

Sure, there are thousands of experiments that show the workings of natural organisms to be too complex in their regularities to be due to chance. They can only have been designed, and design requires a designer. Look up "Michael Behe experiments" on google and you can read about ID experiments and what they prove about the natural order.

That's intelligent design not creationism. I'm talking about proof of creationism as in the kind that views genesis as a historical account.

I doubt very much you will find anyone who will defend that interpretation of Genesis. Even Priests and Vicars will not translate it literally.

Actually I have found quite a few people who defend that interpretation. In fact pollls show that 45% of Americans are young earth creationists.
If you can accept Intelligent Design as a possibility, why wouldn't you be able to accept Creationism (the account in Genesis) as a possibility?

Nope I don't accept intelligent design as a possibility but I reject a literal interpretation of genesis even more because a literal interpretation conflicts with almost all of modern science.

Fair enough. However, what you personally reject has nothing to do with the legitimacy of Creationism. You do realize that I hope. Remember, science does not prove non-existence of God. It's just your personal opinion. One of the things I've noticed here is a tendency for some evolutionists to make certain declarations like "I don't want to see creationism taught in school", as if the issue was about what they personally want. And then sort of throw in references to court trials where the verdict just happened to coincide with their viewpoint.

As far as the Bible conflicting with modern science, do you have anything specific in mind other than the age of the earth issue?

Well really the main problem is the age of the earth issue because that leads to conflict in are's such as nuclear physics, astrophysics, earth science, astronomy, and cosmology.(There are probably several more I'm not thinking of.)

Then do you embrace a possibility of old-earth creationism?

No; because there is no reason to believe that God had any part in the formation of the universe or life.

Why not?
And, do you also reject the theory of alien panspermia?

No but that's neither creationism or intelligent design.

Sure it is. What else would you call the purposed creation of another species? No, they would not be deities in a religious sense. But the reason why some proponents of panspermia avoid alien panspermia (in favor of accidental panspermia) is probably because of it's relevance to intelligent design. That, and the over-the-top idea of extraterrestrial life on other planets.

Two things; first the idea of extraterrestrial life is unavoidable in a place the size of the universe. Two; alien Panspermia would simply be aliens setting life on earth; they couldn't design the life that we see now because there is no way to do that. Basically they could supposedly insert genes but there would be no way to get them to express at a specific time; something required for life to have been designed.

The idea of extraterrestrial life may be unavoidable, but that doesn't change the fact that there is no proof of their existence, or that there are even planets habitable.

And as I stated, aliens would not be deities, but how can you place any restrictions on what they could do? How would you know that they couldn't design life that we see now?

I understand that the concept of alien life is more intriguing for many than the concept of God. That's why Hollywood gives us all of these movies to entertain your idea. It doesn't have anything to do with reality.

And in light of what these discussions often generate around (evolution vs. creationism in the classroom), personal opinions is not a criteria.
As far as a young earth, although there are Bible literalists who embrace an old universe/earth (I lean towards a young earth quite strongly), I do find it interesting that recorded history (ancient civilizations) fall within the young earth time frame. That, and the oldest age-confirmed trees fall into a young earth time frame. Anything beyond the young earth time-frame falls into the speculation camp.

Nope; not speculation for multiple reasons. We have radiometric dating; it's been extensively tested to try and affect decay rates. We have Thermoluminescence dating; that checks the last time an object was heated above 500 degrees celsius. Optically stimulated luminescence which dates the last time an object was exposed to light. We have 3 other absolute dating techniques which basically rules out the idea that the earth is 10,000 years old. Then we also have "continental drift" we can actually measure the continents moving and the continents are shaped in such a way that they fit together. We also find the same fossils on different continents where the continents were once connected. All of this is happened way to slowly to have happened in 10,000 years.
What I'm talking about is the oldest living organisms that are currently living today. The oldest confirmed tree is in the 3,000-4,000 year old range.

It's not all speculation; it's hypotheses that have been tested.
Whatever one may call it, my main point is that I find it interesting that actual proof of human civilization falls within the young earth time frame, and as far as living organisms, there is nothing confirmed (just hypothesis) of anything alive beyond the young earth time frame. I'm not claiming this is proof of a young earth, but that I find it interesting.

Why is that interesting? That creation myth was formed probably less than a millenia after humans started making permanent settlements.
My point is that we don't see historical evidences of any kind of human or sub-human civilizations beyond around 6,000 years ago.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2014 8:34:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/1/2014 12:27:43 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 2/1/2014 11:21:03 AM, theta_pinch wrote:
Can any creationist give proof for creationism?

Sure, there are thousands of experiments that show the workings of natural organisms to be too complex in their regularities to be due to chance. They can only have been designed, and design requires a designer. Look up "Michael Behe experiments" on google and you can read about ID experiments and what they prove about the natural order.

Who says it had to have happened either by chance, or intelligent design? Why should anyone believe that is a true dichotomy?
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2014 9:14:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/3/2014 8:34:32 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/1/2014 12:27:43 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 2/1/2014 11:21:03 AM, theta_pinch wrote:
Can any creationist give proof for creationism?

Sure, there are thousands of experiments that show the workings of natural organisms to be too complex in their regularities to be due to chance. They can only have been designed, and design requires a designer. Look up "Michael Behe experiments" on google and you can read about ID experiments and what they prove about the natural order.

Who says it had to have happened either by chance, or intelligent design? Why should anyone believe that is a true dichotomy?

Because order doesn't come from nature... that's high school biology for you.
theta_pinch
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2014 1:15:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/3/2014 9:14:54 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 2/3/2014 8:34:32 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/1/2014 12:27:43 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 2/1/2014 11:21:03 AM, theta_pinch wrote:
Can any creationist give proof for creationism?

Sure, there are thousands of experiments that show the workings of natural organisms to be too complex in their regularities to be due to chance. They can only have been designed, and design requires a designer. Look up "Michael Behe experiments" on google and you can read about ID experiments and what they prove about the natural order.

Who says it had to have happened either by chance, or intelligent design? Why should anyone believe that is a true dichotomy?

Because order doesn't come from nature... that's high school biology for you.

Actually order does; for example snow flakes: they form complex crystalline patterns which are not disorderly. Or water molecules; they are always made of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, the two hydrogen atoms have a tilt of 104.45 degrees and are 95.84 picometers away from the oxygen atom; that is very orderly. You need to go back to high school biology.
Any sufficiently complex phenomenon is indistinguishable from magic--Me

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
Niel deGrasse Tyson
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2014 1:22:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/4/2014 1:15:27 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 2/3/2014 9:14:54 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 2/3/2014 8:34:32 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/1/2014 12:27:43 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 2/1/2014 11:21:03 AM, theta_pinch wrote:
Can any creationist give proof for creationism?

Sure, there are thousands of experiments that show the workings of natural organisms to be too complex in their regularities to be due to chance. They can only have been designed, and design requires a designer. Look up "Michael Behe experiments" on google and you can read about ID experiments and what they prove about the natural order.

Who says it had to have happened either by chance, or intelligent design? Why should anyone believe that is a true dichotomy?

Because order doesn't come from nature... that's high school biology for you.

Actually order does

Basic order, not complex order.
theta_pinch
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2014 1:34:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/3/2014 8:33:00 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 2/3/2014 8:06:56 AM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 2/3/2014 7:41:27 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 2/3/2014 7:19:28 AM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 2/2/2014 11:31:33 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 2/2/2014 10:32:47 AM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 2/2/2014 10:23:45 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 2/1/2014 7:54:07 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 2/1/2014 2:24:26 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 2/1/2014 12:31:17 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 2/1/2014 12:27:43 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 2/1/2014 11:21:03 AM, theta_pinch wrote:
Can any creationist give proof for creationism?

Sure, there are thousands of experiments that show the workings of natural organisms to be too complex in their regularities to be due to chance. They can only have been designed, and design requires a designer. Look up "Michael Behe experiments" on google and you can read about ID experiments and what they prove about the natural order.

That's intelligent design not creationism. I'm talking about proof of creationism as in the kind that views genesis as a historical account.

I doubt very much you will find anyone who will defend that interpretation of Genesis. Even Priests and Vicars will not translate it literally.

Actually I have found quite a few people who defend that interpretation. In fact pollls show that 45% of Americans are young earth creationists.
If you can accept Intelligent Design as a possibility, why wouldn't you be able to accept Creationism (the account in Genesis) as a possibility?

Nope I don't accept intelligent design as a possibility but I reject a literal interpretation of genesis even more because a literal interpretation conflicts with almost all of modern science.

Fair enough. However, what you personally reject has nothing to do with the legitimacy of Creationism. You do realize that I hope. Remember, science does not prove non-existence of God. It's just your personal opinion. One of the things I've noticed here is a tendency for some evolutionists to make certain declarations like "I don't want to see creationism taught in school", as if the issue was about what they personally want. And then sort of throw in references to court trials where the verdict just happened to coincide with their viewpoint.

As far as the Bible conflicting with modern science, do you have anything specific in mind other than the age of the earth issue?

Well really the main problem is the age of the earth issue because that leads to conflict in are's such as nuclear physics, astrophysics, earth science, astronomy, and cosmology.(There are probably several more I'm not thinking of.)

Then do you embrace a possibility of old-earth creationism?

No; because there is no reason to believe that God had any part in the formation of the universe or life.

Why not?

Because there is nothing that needs a supernatural power to be explained.
And, do you also reject the theory of alien panspermia?

No but that's neither creationism or intelligent design.

Sure it is. What else would you call the purposed creation of another species? No, they would not be deities in a religious sense. But the reason why some proponents of panspermia avoid alien panspermia (in favor of accidental panspermia) is probably because of it's relevance to intelligent design. That, and the over-the-top idea of extraterrestrial life on other planets.

Two things; first the idea of extraterrestrial life is unavoidable in a place the size of the universe. Two; alien Panspermia would simply be aliens setting life on earth; they couldn't design the life that we see now because there is no way to do that. Basically they could supposedly insert genes but there would be no way to get them to express at a specific time; something required for life to have been designed.

The idea of extraterrestrial life may be unavoidable, but that doesn't change the fact that there is no proof of their existence, or that there are even planets habitable.

There is proof of habitable planets; however you are correct; there is no proof of alien life.

And as I stated, aliens would not be deities, but how can you place any restrictions on what they could do? How would you know that they couldn't design life that we see now?

Because they can't violate the laws of physics. I know they couldn't design the life we see now because we know animals evolved which means that they would've had to cause the genes to express themselves millions of years after they were implanted.

I understand that the concept of alien life is more intriguing for many than the concept of God. That's why Hollywood gives us all of these movies to entertain your idea. It doesn't have anything to do with reality.

Yes the hollywood version of aliens is unrealistic.

And in light of what these discussions often generate around (evolution vs. creationism in the classroom), personal opinions is not a criteria.

Yes.
As far as a young earth, although there are Bible literalists who embrace an old universe/earth (I lean towards a young earth quite strongly), I do find it interesting that recorded history (ancient civilizations) fall within the young earth time frame. That, and the oldest age-confirmed trees fall into a young earth time frame. Anything beyond the young earth time-frame falls into the speculation camp.

Nope; not speculation for multiple reasons. We have radiometric dating; it's been extensively tested to try and affect decay rates. We have Thermoluminescence dating; that checks the last time an object was heated above 500 degrees celsius. Optically stimulated luminescence which dates the last time an object was exposed to light. We have 3 other absolute dating techniques which basically rules out the idea that the earth is 10,000 years old. Then we also have "continental drift" we can actually measure the continents moving and the continents are shaped in such a way that they fit together. We also find the same fossils on different continents where the continents were once connected. All of this is happened way to slowly to have happened in 10,000 years.
What I'm talking about is the oldest living organisms that are currently living today. The oldest confirmed tree is in the 3,000-4,000 year old range.

It's not all speculation; it's hypotheses that have been tested.
Whatever one may call it, my main point is that I find it interesting that actual proof of human civilization falls within the young earth time frame, and as far as living organisms, there is nothing confirmed (just hypothesis) of anything alive beyond the young earth time frame. I'm not claiming this is proof of a young earth, but that I find it interesting.

Why is that interesting? That creation myth was formed probably less than a millenia after humans started making permanent settlements.
My point is that we don't see historical evidences of any kind of human or sub-human civilizations beyond around 6,000 years ago.

That's because that's the time humans started making permanent settlement. We have found 40,000 year old human/neanderthal camp sites.
Any sufficiently complex phenomenon is indistinguishable from magic--Me

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
Niel deGrasse Tyson
theta_pinch
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2014 1:35:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/4/2014 1:22:42 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 2/4/2014 1:15:27 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 2/3/2014 9:14:54 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 2/3/2014 8:34:32 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/1/2014 12:27:43 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 2/1/2014 11:21:03 AM, theta_pinch wrote:
Can any creationist give proof for creationism?

Sure, there are thousands of experiments that show the workings of natural organisms to be too complex in their regularities to be due to chance. They can only have been designed, and design requires a designer. Look up "Michael Behe experiments" on google and you can read about ID experiments and what they prove about the natural order.

Who says it had to have happened either by chance, or intelligent design? Why should anyone believe that is a true dichotomy?

Because order doesn't come from nature... that's high school biology for you.

Actually order does

Basic order, not complex order.

Define complex order and I'll give you an example made by nature.
Any sufficiently complex phenomenon is indistinguishable from magic--Me

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
Niel deGrasse Tyson