Jump to content


Photo

Positive Evididence For Creationism


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
67 replies to this topic

#21 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philly

Posted 14 September 2007 - 04:00 PM

pwnagepanda,
What about the halos?

#22 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 14 September 2007 - 05:11 PM

like evolution?

View Post


Evolution depends on if you are capable of showing what I asked for.

#23 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 September 2007 - 03:00 AM

As I've said before, DNA is a physical construct like a crystal or an enzyme.  It is no more a code carrying medium than a punch die is.

View Post


I'm sorry, but that's almost absurd beyond further comment.

DNA contains information, information can only be stored via code system, therefore DNA is based on a code system

To deny that is to deny reality as we understand it. This is not a creationist ploy, everyone in the educated world understands that.

Terry

#24 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 September 2007 - 03:30 AM

Yes but what is information? How can we judge what is information and what is not?


Information is never a physical thing itself, and its always an abstract representation of something else that is not present at the time.

Whenever a coding system is employed to represent something else, then that object contains information.

Are DNA and RNA (and the huge variation that exists amongst them) intelligent in origin? How are sequences of DNA that dont code for anything intelligent? How can sequences coding for viral DNA be considered intelligent?


These are interesting questions, but they have no bearing on the primary discussion. You must keep in mind that we are talking about the origin of life. You must be able to demonstrate how the genetic code came about through 100% materialistic processes. Questions about what happened after the origin are less important.

DNA and RNA had to have had mental origins. They are both based on code systems that store information. The origin of non-coding regions have no bearing on the discussion.

No one is claiming that a sequence itself is intelligent, only that at the point of origin, that life was created by an intellgent being.

What allows us to say "humans understand the properties of creation, so everything was created". You can't generalise what humans can do and apply it to the natural world. Everything we do requires an intelligent origin by default - because humans are doing it. So does every action perfomed by a chimp.



This has nothing to do with what anyone does. Its a simple fact that everywhere information exists, that a code system is required to store it, even its only momentary. E.g. consider the dance of the honey bee. Their dance is a symbol seet that is an abstract preprenstation of something else, i.e. distance and direction.

It has long been known that successfully foraging Western honey bees perform a dance on their return to the hive, known as waggle dance (the round dance is a short version of the waggle dance). The laden forager dances on the comb in a circular pattern, occasionally crossing the circle in a zig-zag or waggle pattern. Aristotle in 330 BC, described this behaviour in his Historia Animalium. It was thought to attract the attention of other bees.

In 1947, Karl von Frisch correlated the runs and turns of the dance to the distance and direction of the food source from the hive. The orientation of the dance correlates to the relative position of the sun, and the length of the waggle portion of the run is correlated to the distance from the hive. There is no evidence that this form of communication depends on individual learning.


Honey Bee Dance

again, its not really. Such an assumption is based on the genetic code being an intelligent code, and its not. Even then, theres not enough evidence to catagorically state: "this is intelligent in origin".


"intelligent code" is a red herring or strawman or something..... No one is saying that any code system is intelligent. Only thinking beings are intelligent... There is absolutely enough evidence to say that the genetic code had a metal origin. Whether you accept it or not is a different question.

Could you say a bit about these laws? Who have they been discovered by? Where is the concensous about such laws?


No information can exist without a code.

No code can exist without a free and deliberate convention.

No information can exist without the five hierarchical levels: statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics.

No information can exist in purely statistical processes.

No information can exist without a transmitter.

No information chain can exist without a mental origin.

No information can exist without an initial mental source; that is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity.

No information can exist without a will.

Information and Biology

Laws are not subject to concensus opinion. They are simple reality.

Well will it? Does thinking alone lead us to the conclusion that god created everything? Some might say that thinking and analysis would lead us to the conclusions of mainstream science. How much of a part does the bible have in "creation worldview"?


Yes, thinking should lead you to thte conclusion that God created everything. The Bible explains what everyone knows in their heart, whether they have misled themselves down the road of human stupidity or not.

... a natural process we havent discovered yet?


There is no such process....., and holding out for it is simply blind faith....

Terry

#25 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 15 September 2007 - 07:15 AM

Polonium halos show a rapid creation of granites...rather than a slow cooling process.
Click here if you want to learn more.

View Post


One anomaly based on shaky evidence isn't going to overturn the mountains of evidence discovered by other independent lines of inquiry.

#26 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 15 September 2007 - 07:22 AM

Information is never a physical thing itself, and its always an abstract representation of something else that is not present at the time.

View Post


DNA isn't an abstract though is it? There is only one way of interpreting it as it is a template for constructing proteins.

#27 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philly

Posted 15 September 2007 - 08:01 AM

One anomaly based on shaky evidence isn't going to overturn the mountains of evidence discovered by other independent lines of inquiry.

View Post



Did you ever think that there are more than one anomalies?

#28 pwnagepanda

pwnagepanda

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 16
  • Judaism non-orthodox
  • Agnostic
  • Piedmont, California

Posted 15 September 2007 - 10:48 AM

Did you ever  think that there are more than one anomalies?

View Post

perhaps, but until we know about them, they are irrelevant

#29 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philly

Posted 15 September 2007 - 11:07 AM

perhaps, but until we know about them, they are irrelevant

View Post



Well.....like the halos we DO KNOW about them. That makes them relevant.

#30 pwnagepanda

pwnagepanda

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 16
  • Judaism non-orthodox
  • Agnostic
  • Piedmont, California

Posted 15 September 2007 - 11:16 AM

Well.....like the halos we DO KNOW about them. That makes  them relevant.

View Post

well, I did some very quick research, and it seems like the scientific consensus says that polonium halos are based on selective evidence, faulty experimental design, mistakes in geolofy and physics, and unscientific investigations. Also, it seems that most people cant ind a reason why it has to be polonium, not a longer lived isotope.

#31 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philly

Posted 15 September 2007 - 11:41 AM

well, I did some very quick research, and it seems like the scientific consensus says that polonium halos are based on selective evidence, faulty experimental design, mistakes in geolofy and physics, and unscientific investigations. Also, it seems that most people cant ind a reason why it has to be polonium, not a longer lived isotope.

View Post



I think you ought to do a bit more research....did you read the article on the halos?

Your closing line baffles me..Also, it seems that most people cant ind a reason why it has to be polonium, not a longer lived isotope.

When you examine the rings....polonium is the only one with the correct number of rings and distance betwen the rings.

You also said, scientific consensus says that polonium halos are based on selective evidence.faulty experimental design, mistakes in geolofy and physics, and unscientific investigations....can you present a reference to that statement....or retract it.

#32 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 15 September 2007 - 11:52 AM

DNA isn't an abstract though is it?  There is only one way of interpreting it as it is a template for constructing proteins.

View Post


Any Code is Abstract. The DNA is only the physical way used to represent it, in the same way we use ink to represent words.

#33 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philly

Posted 15 September 2007 - 11:54 AM

Let us also not forget the Helium found in Zircon crystals.
If you want to see why they are positive evidence for creation click here

#34 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 15 September 2007 - 01:42 PM

and for a succinct refutation of that argument click here

View Post


and for a succinct refutation of your refutation click Here

#35 rbarclay

rbarclay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Tower, Minnesota

Posted 22 September 2007 - 09:14 AM

Let us also not forget the Helium found in Zircon crystals.
If you want to see why they are positive evidence for creation click here

View Post


There is also the fact that there are only enough supernova remnants to account for about 7,000 years, not enough silt has accumulated on the sea floor to account for the 3 billion years of erosion, the magnetic field of the earth is losing energy to fast to support the billions of years theory, and DNA only lasts about 10,000 years yet DNA is recovered form Neanderthal and dinosaur fossils suposedly much older than the DNA will last. A more complete list you can go to this website:

http://www.icr.org/article/1842

I find it interesting that it is always turned around so that the creationists are asked to provide the evidence when evolutionists have not provided the same kind of evidence to prove evolution is valid.

I have read several postings and have yet read any compelling evidence for evolution.

Bob Barclay

#36 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 23 September 2007 - 07:28 PM

There is also the fact that there are only enough supernova remnants to account for about 7,000 years

View Post


This is an interesting one. I am sure you aware that a superova is a type explosion that diminishes very quickly over time. How long do you think the remnants of a supernova should be visible considering the rate at which they diminish? Do you think they should be visible for hundreds of thousands of years after they explode?

Thanks

#37 rbarclay

rbarclay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Tower, Minnesota

Posted 25 September 2007 - 11:05 AM

This is an interesting one. I am sure you aware that a superova is a type explosion that diminishes very quickly over time. How long do you think the remnants of a supernova should be visible considering the rate at which they diminish? Do you think they should be visible for hundreds of thousands of years after they explode?

Thanks

View Post


Supernovas remnants (SNR) are supposed to last 100 – 100,000 years at approximately one every 25 years. If you take the upper limits of 100,000 divided by 25 we should see 4000 SNRs. If you take a middle of the road figure of 50,000 divided by 25 we should see 2000. So far there have been 265 recorded SNRs according to the D. A. Green list of Cambridge as of April 2006.

There are not enough SNRs recorded to support the old age of the earth. D.A. Green states that from 2004 to 2006 34 SNRs have been added to the list so if we use this number we would divide this number 34 in half to cover a half a year so let’s add 17 more SNRs to the list to make additions for the year 2006 to 2007. That would make it 285 SNRs I could be wrong I open to any one who would know this number.

Regardless there just are not enough SNRs recorded to support old earth theory.

Bob Barclay

#38 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 25 September 2007 - 07:46 PM

Supernovas remnants (SNR) are supposed to last 100 – 100,000 years at approximately one every 25 years. 

View Post


First, thank you for bringing this up. I have been doing a bit of reading and there are certainly some wonderful images and sites. You are quite right, that under ideal circumstances, supernova remnants are still visible after 100,000 years. One needs VERY sensitive telescopes to see the dim ones - and they need to be relatively nearby or they get lost in the background. But if you do a search for "old supernova remnants", you get quite a few. And they relatively simple to date by just working backwards from the speed that the remnants are expanding. Below are a couple of them...

Here's a story on one that is about 100,000 years old.
http://www.ingentaco...ce?format=print

Simeis 147 has got to be one of the coolest ones. Also about 100,000 old years by most recent estimates. But visible because it is surprisingly close at just 3000 light years - and it takes up over 6 times of thewidth of the full moon in the night sky, just so dim you need to average over 12 hours with a good telescope (this image is from Palomar)
Attached File  simeis_demartin_big.jpg   978.03KB   79 downloads
Edit because of picture size.

http://antwrp.gsfc.n...d/ap051129.html
"The area of the sky shown covers over 70 times the area of the full Moon. This supernova remnant has an apparent age of about 100,000 years - meaning light from the massive stellar explosion first reached Earth 100,000 years ago - but this expanding remnant is not the only aftermath. The cosmic catastrophe also left behind a spinning neutron star or pulsar, all that remains of the original star's core."


Here's a story from Harvard on a supernova remnant HB3
http://adsabs.harvar...ApJ...294..183L

"HB 3 is in the late adiabatic blast-wave phase of evolution, 30,000 to 50,000 yr old and with an initial blast energy of 3 x 10 to the 50th ergs."



I should note that these are supernova's that would have been visible on earth 10s of thousands of years ago. There are many supernovas that have been spotted in neighboring galaxies such as the neighboring Andromeda galaxy. Since this nearby galaxy is over 2 million light years away, the standard explanation is that the supernova blew up over 2 million years ago, but we are just now seeing the light.

However, I do not see how any of these point towards a young universe. The seem to provide very clear evidence of a very old universe. Either that or God created the universe with the supernova remnants already in mid flight.

But maybe you have a better explanation of these?

#39 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 27 September 2007 - 06:17 AM

Abiogenesis may be one of those incorrect theories that will be replaced when more information is gained or some discovery may prove it to be correct.  Proving Abiogenesis wrong would not prove a creator's hand in any or all of it nor would it mean that a scientific answer doesn't exist.  Lack of proof of A does not automatically prove B.

View Post


Disproving A does automatically prove B if there are only two choices. It's called deductive reasoning... something used all the time in scientific quest for truth. Your argument is a clever oft-repeated con employed by evolutionists. They're not interested in truth... they just want to "win" an argument.

#40 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 27 September 2007 - 06:27 AM

As I've said before, DNA is a physical construct like a crystal or an enzyme.  It is no more a code carrying medium than a punch die is.

View Post

Apparently you believe that the term "genetic code" printed in thousands of textbooks and research papers is a misnomer. You have talked yourself into this in a vain attempt to force evolution to fit the facts of nature.

If DNA is as simple as a crystal there should be no problem in manufacturing it in a laboratory. If it's not that simple, then let's at least be honest.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users