Jump to content


Photo

Give Creation A Chance


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

#1 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 23 July 2009 - 09:05 PM

Many times since I've joined these forums I've seen creationists saying creation science doesn't get it's fair share, and that evolutionism holds the scientific community to an absolute.

So I wanted to give creationism a chance to stand on it's own. I'd like to see the creationist science that explains what we see in our world today. Obviously this is a rather large area to cover, so this forum may need to be broken off into different sections later.

My only rule is this: "The creationist is always right".

What this means is, I don't care how much you disagree with the creation science or opinion, you must accept it as true.
What you are allowed to do however, is to ask questions. If you think something presented is inaccurate, you are allowed to ask how this theory accounts for 'x'. You are not allowed to link information that contradicts the creationist viewpoint unless it is in relation to asking a question.

What I hope to achieve with this is to either have a collection of creation theories that explain our world, or we'll end up seeing that creation science has too many holes in it to be regarded as an acceptable theory.

If possible, could a creationist give us a rough idea of the different theories explaining a young earth? Feel free to start anywhere, but the earlier the better.

(Obviously this is an extremely large topic to cover, so if listing all the theories is too much, can we start at the beginning?

Adam and Eve are said to be the first humans. From what we know of genetics, only have two people breeding would inevitably lead to inbreeding and humanity should have breed itself into extinction a long time ago. How does creation account for this?)

Regards,

Arch.

P.S. Just to clarify, I'm not looking for the hundreds of ways creationists disagree with mainstream science. I'm hoping to see the theories creationists have come up with themselves.

#2 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 23 July 2009 - 09:19 PM

You have basically made a thread that would require the creationists to do tons of work. Only to be rejected again and again.

I just put up a thread basically on this subject but in reverse. More or less asking for evolutionists to prove that science through evolution is not bias.

http://www.evolution...t=0

The order you want filled here is way to tall. And let's be honest. You will reject everyone of them in the end, correct? And what will you base your rejection on? That it does not support evolution, correct?

#3 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 23 July 2009 - 09:45 PM

You have basically made a thread that would require the creationists to do tons of work. Only to be rejected again and again.

View Post


Yes, there is lots of work. Unfortunately if you want your theories to be taken seriously someone will need to do that work. I made it very clear that the creation science is only to be questioned, never rejected in this forum.

I just put up a thread basically on this subject but in reverse. More or less asking for evolutionists to prove that science through evolution is not bias.

View Post


Lol, so first you complain that I've asked for too much, then turn around and ask for the same thing. Just seems a little odd to me.

Anyway, this forum is about trying to avoid bias, not about proving it doesn't exist. I'll take a look at this other forum shortly ;)

The order you want filled here is way to tall. And let's be honest. You will reject everyone of them in the end, correct? And what will you base your rejection on? That it does not support evolution, correct?

View Post


Nope, as I've said I don't intend to reject anything. Actually I was planning on being more of a moderator in this forum than a participant. I'm interested to see how creation science tries explains things, not rejecting it.

You are correct though, I am asking for a great deal. If it helps things get going please feel free to pick any major creation theory to present and we can go from there.

Regards,

Arch.

#4 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 23 July 2009 - 10:05 PM

Adam and Eve are said to be the first humans. From what we know of genetics, only have two people breeding would inevitably lead to inbreeding and humanity should have breed itself into extinction a long time ago. How does creation account for this?)


The first genetic code had no deleterious mutations,so inbreeding would'nt have been a serious problem for many generations.The problem is getting around deleterious mutations so uphill evolution can happen.The other problem is explaining why the mutation rate divided by the number of mutations gives us an mtDNA Eve of ~6,500 years ago and why it "By chance" just happens to be exactly as creationists predicted.

In 1987, a team at the University of California at Berkeley compared the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of several groups of people from different geographic locations. They concluded that all of these people had the same female ancestor and called her Mitochondrial Eve. They then proceeded to calculate the mutation rate based on such evolutionary assumptions as the time of our alleged divergence from a supposed common ancestor with chimps. They concluded based on this estimated mutation rate that Mitochondrial Eve lived 100,000-200,000 years ago.

In 1997, a paper entitled A High Observed Substitution Rate in the Human Mitochondrial DNA Control Region by Parsons, Thomas J., et al. was published in Nature Genetics. They compared the mtDNA of many mother-child pairs and found that mutations in mtDNA occur about 20 times more rapidly than previously thought. Based on these measurements, they calculated Mitochondrial Eve lived only about 6,500 years ago.

The fact is, when you strip away all the evolutionary terminology and assumptions you get:

1)The Berkeley team measured differences in human mitochondria DNA.

2)Parsons’ study measured the rate of change in human mitochondria DNA.

When these two sets of empirical data are put together, they yield a date for Mitochondrial Eve of about 6,500 years. This is about the time the Bible gives for when the real Eve lived. The only real reason this figure is rejected is because it agrees with the Bible, while being contrary to evolution.


Source





Enjoy.

#5 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 23 July 2009 - 10:29 PM

Hey Jason, good explanation. I was expecting something similar to this. You are suggesting that the original genetic code was perfect correct?

Do you know of any genes we can point to today that would be considered imperfect? I assume this is something we would expect to find nowadays due to the fall and human genes slowly deteriorating? Something akin to junk DNA I guess?

Regards,

Arch.

#6 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 24 July 2009 - 02:17 AM

Hey Jason, good explanation. I was expecting something similar to this. You are suggesting that the original genetic code was perfect correct?

Do you know of any genes we can point to today that would be considered imperfect? I assume this is something we would expect to find nowadays due to the fall and human genes slowly deteriorating? Something akin to junk DNA I guess?

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


Hi Arch,

Here is a good place to start.The list of genetic disorders is so long i don't even have time to read them all.LOL

#7 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 24 July 2009 - 05:01 AM

Hi Arch,

Here is a good place to start.The list of genetic disorders is so long i don't even have time to read them all.LOL

View Post


Blah! That's a huge list ;)

I'm with you though, such a large list I wouldn't have a clue what half of them are. Perhaps someone else can answer this quesiton then. To my knowledge none of these disorders are expected to occur; they are an unfortunate accident that happen to a small number of people.

If the fall is a real issue, shouldn't we expect just about everyone to have some sort of disorder? Once a mistake is put into a persons genes, shouldn't we expect every single child that person bears to have the same or similar disease? Why do you think it is that children often don't have the same genetic disorders as their parents?

Regards,

Arch.

#8 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 24 July 2009 - 05:30 AM

Blah! That's a huge list ;)

I'm with you though, such a large list I wouldn't have a clue what half of them are. Perhaps someone else can answer this quesiton then. To my knowledge none of these disorders are expected to occur; they are an unfortunate accident that happen to a small number of people.

If the fall is a real issue, shouldn't we expect just about everyone to have some sort of disorder? Once a mistake is put into a persons genes, shouldn't we expect every single child that person bears to have the same or similar disease? Why do you think it is that children often don't have the same genetic disorders as their parents?

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


Hi Arch,

That was a list,or more like a small book,of genetic disorders.If your looking for the actual number of deleterious mutations per individual,then this is the most recent study i know of.

Each human carries a large number of deleterious mutations. Together, these mutations make a significant contribution to human disease. Identification of deleterious mutations within individual genome sequences could substantially impact an individual's health through personalized prevention and treatment of disease. Yet, distinguishing deleterious mutations from the massive number of non-functional variants that occur within a single genome is a considerable challenge. Using a comparative genomics dataset of 32 vertebrate species we show that a likelihood ratio test can accurately identify a subset of deleterious mutations that disrupt highly conserved amino acids within protein coding sequences and that are likely to be unconditionally deleterious. The likelihood ratio test is also able to identify known human disease alleles and performs as well as two commonly used heuristic methods, SIFT and PolyPhen. Application of the likelihood ratio test to three human genomes reveals 796-837 deleterious mutations per individual, ~40% of which are estimated to be at less than 5% allele frequency. However, the overlap between predictions made by the likelihood ratio test, SIFT and PolyPhen is low; 76% of predictions are unique to one of the three methods and only 5% of predictions are shared across all three methods. Our results indicate that only a small subset of deleterious mutations can be reliably identified but that this subset provides the raw material for personalized medicine.


Source

Sometimes one parent has a disease and during reproductuion the parent that does'nt have the disease is the genes that become dominant.It's a 50% chance unless both parents have the same disease.





Enjoy.

#9 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 24 July 2009 - 11:51 AM

If original genetic codes were perfect, and now they're not as a result of the fall, I'd be interested to learn what the fall mechanisms are. How does it work? Is it directed? What processes are in place?

#10 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 24 July 2009 - 05:46 PM

If original genetic codes were perfect, and now they're not as a result of the fall, I'd be interested to learn what the fall mechanisms are. How does it work? Is it directed? What processes are in place?

View Post


I'd take a guess and say the mechanics aren't too different from what mainstream science predicts, only that all mutations are negative rather than some being beneficial. But I'll let a creationist confirm that, as I'm only guessing.

Sometimes one parent has a disease and during reproductuion the parent that does'nt have the disease is the genes that become dominant.It's a 50% chance unless both parents have the same disease.


If the odds are 50/50, isn't it theoretically possible to eliminate at least some of these genetic diseases? What keeps genes in a constant state of decline?

Oh, and on a slightly off-topic note, if gene therapy becomes a reality, is it theoretically possible technology could stop the effects of the fall?

Regards,

Arch.

#11 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 01 August 2009 - 01:13 PM

i actually love this thread!!!!!

Let me ask a question...If all mutations occurred after the fall why would there be beneficial mutations such as the family with nearly unbreakable bones?

#12 Guest_Franklin_*

Guest_Franklin_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 August 2009 - 03:05 PM

deleted post

#13 Guest_Franklin_*

Guest_Franklin_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 August 2009 - 03:41 PM

  I'd like to see the creationist science that explains what we see in our world today.

View Post



“The order you want filled here is way to tall” ikester7579

That surprises me.

Creationist science has one explanation for what we see in our world troday, and that explanation is to be found in Genesis.
Any explanation that contradicts the Genesis account is not acceptable, right?

"Science", as understood outside the Creationist school of thought, consists in part of collecting, testing and analysing data, and then attempting to account for it in the most comprehensive manner possible.
It will, of course, sometimes happen that the original data was misinterpreted, and as more, correctly-recorded data is added, the original explanation is seen to be erroneous and must therefore be dumped entirely, or is shown to be inadequate and must therefore be amended.
We see, then, that science is a “work in progress” and never able to produce a definitive explanation because who knows what new facts will turn up in the future and turn the most respected theory on its head?
A scientist who accepts a theory or hypothesis as dogma has ceased to be a scientist, though of course it must be the case that every scientist can only apply theories or hypotheses which are currently considered viable. If, in applying them, he comes across an instance which proves they are flawed, then he’s probably on his way to a Nobel Prize.

A Creationist scientist who finds evidence that what we see in our world today is not explained by Genesis, has ceased to be a Creationist.
But he may have begun to be a scientist.

#14 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 01 August 2009 - 04:12 PM

“The order you want filled here is way to tall” ikester7579

That surprises me.

Creationist science has one explanation for what we see in our world troday, and that explanation is to be found in Genesis.
Any explanation that contradicts the Genesis account is not acceptable, right?

"Science", as understood outside the Creationist school of thought, consists in part of collecting, testing and analysing data, and then attempting to account for it in the most comprehensive manner possible.
It will, of course, sometimes happen  that the original data was misinterpreted, and as more, correctly-recorded data is added, the original explanation is seen to be  erroneous and must therefore be dumped entirely, or is shown to be inadequate and must therefore be amended.
We see, then, that science is a “work in progress” and never able to produce a definitive explanation because who knows what new facts will turn up in the future and turn the most respected theory on its head?
A scientist who accepts a theory or hypothesis as dogma has ceased to be a scientist, though of course it must be the case that every scientist can only apply theories or hypotheses which are currently considered viable. If, in applying them, he comes across an instance which proves they are flawed,  then he’s probably on his way to a Nobel Prize.

A Creationist scientist who finds evidence that what we see in our world today is not explained by Genesis, has ceased to be a Creationist.
But he may have begun to be a scientist.

View Post


No Franklin, Creationist collect, test and analyze data for a Creationist point a view. An Evolutionist on the other hand collects, tests and analyzes for their belief in evolution. While a theory may have certain facts about the theory, a theory in and of itself is not a complete fact or truth for that matter. Therefore a truth, will always be a truth, no matter what new truths we find. Evolution itself has not been proven as a fact, or truth therefore it's still a theory, or hypothesis.

#15 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 01 August 2009 - 07:55 PM

No Franklin,  Creationist collect, test and analyze data for a Creationist point a view.  An Evolutionist on the other hand collects, tests and analyzes for their belief in evolution.  While a theory may have certain facts about the theory, a theory in and of itself is not a complete fact or truth for that matter.  Therefore a truth, will always be a truth, no matter what new truths we find.  Evolution itself has not been proven as a fact, or truth therefore it's still a theory, or hypothesis.

View Post



Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Gravity still just a Theory? As far as I know we still don't know everything there is to know about gravity, how it works, why it works...heck we don't know the truth of gravity.

So dismissing Evolution based on it being just a "theory" is about as wrong as you can get.

#16 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 01 August 2009 - 11:33 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Gravity still just a Theory? As far as I know we still don't know everything there is to know about gravity, how it works, why it works...heck we don't know the truth of gravity.

So dismissing Evolution based on it being just a "theory" is about as wrong as you can get.


OK,you stand corrected.

Gravity is a valid theory because it's predictions can be observed and repeated.Evolution is not a theory because it meats neither of the above requirements of a theory.

Creation is a valid theory because it's predictions of limited variation can be observed and repeated in real time.Hence,the reason why we have biological laws (e.g. The Law of Heredity,The Law of Biogenesis).Evolution has to violate both of these laws through hypothetical "Ad Hoc".




Enjoy.

#17 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 02 August 2009 - 07:55 AM

OK,you stand corrected.

Gravity is a valid theory because it's predictions can be observed and repeated.Evolution is not a theory because it meats neither of the above requirements of a theory.

Creation is a valid theory because it's predictions of limited variation can be observed and repeated in real time.Hence,the reason why we have biological laws (e.g. The Law of Heredity,The Law of Biogenesis).Evolution has to violate both of these laws through hypothetical "Ad Hoc".
Enjoy.

View Post


Thanks! I did enjoy your refutation : :P

Going by what you said then the fight for Creationists is to prove that Evolution is not a valid Theory, and not that it isn't valid because it's just a "theory"

But I have to argue that Creationism isn't a valid Theory. You can't just say that God did it, and have that be the basis of your theory.

As far as testing and re-testing this you would need God to show that he did it over and over again, such as re-creating man from clay, and woman from his rib. He would need to show how he flooded the earth over and over again. These things aren't happening.

Now I may be ignorant on the theory of creationism so I am willing to learn about it. But I really do not see a whole lot of proofs of Creationism on any board I have been on.

#18 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 02 August 2009 - 09:59 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Gravity still just a Theory?  As far as I know we still don't know everything there is to know about gravity, how it works, why it works...heck we don't know the truth of gravity. 

So dismissing Evolution based on it being just a "theory" is about as wrong as you can get.

View Post


Parts of gravity that we don't know about are the THEORY, but gravity itself is a fact that I can demonstrate in my own house, at this very moment. Verified, end of discussion.

Evolution on the other hand, cannot be tested at this very moment or verified as a fact, so you do stand corrected. I haven't seen any proofs for evolution actually, on any board, or any fossil site I've been to, ever.

#19 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 02 August 2009 - 10:14 AM

Eighteen posts in and no-one has come up with any theories of creation. science yet. In fact, it looks like this thread is just being turned into the usual attack on evolution. Pity.

#20 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 02 August 2009 - 10:19 AM

Eighteen posts in and no-one has come up with any theories of creation. science yet. In fact, it looks like this thread is just being turned into the usual attack on evolution. Pity.

View Post


Creation, it doesn't need a theory. You find evidence that fits the Creation account. It's that simple. What are you asking for when you mean Creation Theory???

A Flood Model??? got it

A Flood Model on the assorment of layers??? Got it.

May I ask... what in the entire universe are you asking for???

Edit: Why are people trying to turn a historical account into a theory??? This just doesn't make any sense. If we find evidence that proves the Creation account, then it's a fact, end of discussion, game over.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users