[_ Old Earth _] Evidence against the creation myth

[reznwerks]

Here is the evidence against the creation myth. We have fossils, sedimentary rock formations and a few bodily organs that we apparantly can do quite well without such as tonsils, flat feet, appendix etc. The DNA from other primates match us almost identically. ALL mammals operate and function the same way in how they exist. Mammals have all evolved in a certain way, reptiles , insects etc.
If you use the arguement "common sense" as most creationists try to claim to use it is quite evident that the human race was not created out of dust with a little hocus pocus. We evolved. If you are not blinded by faith without evidence you can see that. The existence of fossils points out that the earth is much older than 6000 years. How does the creationist respond to this arguement?
They will claim fossils are planted by "evilutionist" scientists who are in league with the devil. This claim is usually the only arguement they use to discount the evidence or that "evilutionists" are "atheists" and against God and really have no idea what an atheist is. When asked where is the evidence that fossils and strata evidence are phoney they repeatedly point to some guy who was caught back in such and such a year . Again if true they somehow forget to point out it was scientists that discovered the fraud not creationists. Sadly in response the creationist still fails to accept the evidence and will probably respond by claiming he was found out because other scientists didn't want him invading their turf. Blinded by faith or born again in the truth, you decide.

 

[Drew]

I agree that a lot of things some creationists say are downright silly. You see a lot of these dubious arguments presented on this very board. I have enough faith in the scientific community to believe that they cannot be engaged in a massive conspiracy to suppress truth.

One should realize, of course, that not all those who believe that the universe (and our world) was created necessarily reject evolution. I believe that evolution did occur and if the scientific community tells me that there are "natural" mechanisms that can account for the role that some IDers attribute to the hand of God, then I will go along with that.

However, I think the real place where the mystery lies is in the "initial conditions" of the Universe. One can indeed assert that evolution has occurred "naturally" and yet that the initial conditions that allowed this to happen were "designed". This is more or less the position I hold: God created the Universe with the potentiality for evolution to occur, and then evolution indeed occurred.

There is a lot more I would like to say, but I will wait to see if anyone wants to pursue this....

 

[ThinkerMan]

Drew:

First off, I wanted to let you know that you have a valid position. Obviously, I feel that way certainly with respect to the evolution piece of your two-pronged approach. With respect to your other prong, I think it is a tenable position because science does not yet have a fully supportive position to verify there are natural cause for the initial conditions. The universe is fundamentally very simple and follows distinct laws. Since I don't think what you stated is contrary to any demonstrated science, I don't have a major problem with it (so long as it isn't instructed in science classes.)

However, a few points I'm sure you have heard before.

1. God of the Gaps

Your argument seems to have squeezed God into one of the last unexplained cracks of knowledge. If not one of the last, certainly the most primary.

Given the past performance of science to "peel back the onion" and continue to explain natural processes, why do you believe that this primary condition is unexplainable?

2. Occum's Razor

You essentially state that natural processes appear to explain pretty much everything in the universe, yet claim that it cannot (or will not) explain these initial conditions. Why the exception?

3. We're getting close

While I admit I am not a professional scientist, I do follow what is going on in the field, and there are theories that are gaining support. M-theory, multiple universes, theories on the weakness of gravity, etc. These may allow us to ascertain what happened "before" the big bang.

This certainly leads into the antropic principle, with which I think you are familiar, about the probability of the right "initial conditions" existing (or the certainty of it, if there are infinite universes).

Of course, I will admit that only reveals another layer of the onion, the multiverse, and how it came about, but let's stick with this infinite space-time continuum for the time being. :D

In short, I don't see a reason to have to believe in a creator (at least not in the traditional sense of an omnipotent concious being). But I look at this without belief in the supernatural claims of the bible. Does your belief in some or all of these claims set a necessary precedent for other, prior supernatural events?

 

[Drew]

Hello ThinkerMan (and others):

Wow....the discusion around here is getting far too responsible. I remember days of yore when our good friend Ryu (who I still think was a poser) wanted to settle a disagreement with you through the administration of a "good ass-whoopin", or something to that effect. Ah, memories.....

The "peeling back the onion" argument contains a hidden assumption that I think is at least questionable. It very subtly presumes an "argument by the force of numbers" - that if millions of phenomena have been explained "naturalistically", then the one or two that are still mysteries (e.g. where the universe "comes from") will be subject to a naturalistic explanation. I see no reason to believe this. I think this issue is related to the first cause kind of argument. Once one has a first cause, the zillions of other events in the Universe are gravy. But that first cause is a nasty problem - and one certainly would not argue that since the zillions of events after the first cause have been explained, then there will an "explanation" for the first cause soon enough. Boundary conditions are a special class of problem and I think we are dealing with such here.

I am familiar with the anthropic argument. I do think that "naturalists" are forced into a multi-verse position, otherwise the existence of only one universe, which seems so precisely tuned for life, is too much to take (unless one can make a case that life-producing universe is logically necessary, which I kind of doubt). In a multi-verse, there is at least a context within which you naturalists can argue that our particular universe "got lucky". Very, very crudely speaking, I think that the argument for a creative God boils down to a choice of which "seems" more believable: an infinite number of universes and no God or a single universe with a God.

By the way, naturalists and theists alike will never, in my view, be able to answer the question "why does anything exist at all". At bottom, our existence is ultimately unfathomable.

I don't understand your last question. Could you please rephrase?

 

[ThinkerMan]

Hello ThinkerMan (and others):

Wow....the discusion around here is getting far too responsible. I remember days of yore when our good friend Ryu (who I still think was a poser) wanted to settle a disagreement with you through the administration of a "good ass-whoopin", or something to that effect. Ah, memories.....

haha!

Agreed. I think the reason why almost everyone here is to articulate their personal views and learn about those of others, so it nice when people actually do so.

The "peeling back the onion" argument contains a hidden assumption that I think is at least questionable. It very subtly presumes an "argument by the force of numbers" - that if millions of phenomena have been explained "naturalistically", then the one or two that are still mysteries (e.g. where the universe "comes from") will be subject to a naturalistic explanation. I see no reason to believe this.

A very valid position. Mine is I simply see no reason to suppose otherwise based on the "argument by force of the numbers", since the exception is a rather amazing item (supernatural being capable of creating the laws).

I don't think your position is necessarily logically invalid, I just hold mine because I find it more logically valid.

I think this issue is related to the first cause kind of argument. Once one has a first cause, the zillions of other events in the Universe are gravy. But that first cause is a nasty problem - and one certainly would not argue that since the zillions of events after the first cause have been explained, then there will an "explanation" for the first cause soon enough. Boundary conditions are a special class of problem and I think we are dealing with such here.

It is a nasty problem, but one that is not exclusive to those supporting "naturalistic" first cause. It is an old atheist line, but if God gets to be the "prime mover", then why can't the universe/multiverse be so as well?

To say that God by his nature is the prime mover I think is a tautology, since that defined God into existence.

I am familiar with the anthropic argument. I do think that "naturalists" are forced into a multi-verse position, otherwise the existence of only one universe, which seems so precisely tuned for life, is too much to take (unless one can make a case that life-producing universe is logically necessary, which I kind of doubt). In a multi-verse, there is at least a context within which you naturalists can argue that our particular universe "got lucky". Very, very crudely speaking, I think that the argument for a creative God boils down to a choice of which "seems" more believable: an infinite number of universes and no God or a single universe with a God.

Again, I don't dispute your position as meritless. However, what "God" are you talking about? Simply a clock maker? One who shoved the multiverse into creation? An omnipotent, omnipresent and concious God who tinkers with our natural laws through the miracles of the bible?

I could accept the fact that a "god" started things going, but I would insist on continuing back to what caused that god. I would contend that we can't know any more about that "god" then he started the universe, so there is no reason to suppose he is the first or prime mover. There could be universes and gods behind him.

By the way, naturalists and theists alike will never, in my view, be able to answer the question "why does anything exist at all". At bottom, our existence is ultimately unfathomable.

I pretty much agree with you. ID-Deism versus atheist-naturalism is generally a philosophical position. It is only when you get into theology and how it affects society does "the rubber meet the road" in the disagreement.

I don't understand your last question. Could you please rephrase?

haha...that was badly written. I think I was reemphasizing my argument based on the "force of the numbers". Since as a Christian you do believe other miracles and supernatural events have occurred, that argument is likely less compelling to you.

I am curious if you see these as two distinct intellectual excerises. Essentially, from a cosmology standpoint you are a deist, in that all you can ascertain from the creator is that he created...nothing else as to whether he is good or evil or knows about us or still intervenes in the world.

On the other hand, as a Christian, you have very specific beliefs about who the creator is and belief in many miracles and supernatural events.

Are they seperate beliefs for you, or does one weigh in on the other?

 

[Heidi]

Here is the evidence against the creation myth. We have fossils, sedimentary rock formations and a few bodily organs that we apparantly can do quite well without such as tonsils, flat feet, appendix etc. The DNA from other primates match us almost identically. ALL mammals operate and function the same way in how they exist. Mammals have all evolved in a certain way, reptiles , insects etc.
If you use the arguement "common sense" as most creationists try to claim to use it is quite evident that the human race was not created out of dust with a little hocus pocus. We evolved. If you are not blinded by faith without evidence you can see that. The existence of fossils points out that the earth is much older than 6000 years. How does the creationist respond to this arguement?
They will claim fossils are planted by "evilutionist" scientists who are in league with the devil. This claim is usually the only arguement they use to discount the evidence or that "evilutionists" are "atheists" and against God and really have no idea what an atheist is. When asked where is the evidence that fossils and strata evidence are phoney they repeatedly point to some guy who was caught back in such and such a year . Again if true they somehow forget to point out it was scientists that discovered the fraud not creationists. Sadly in response the creationist still fails to accept the evidence and will probably respond by claiming he was found out because other scientists didn't want him invading their turf. Blinded by faith or born again in the truth, you decide.

Blind faith? :o What's blind faith is finding a rock and simply deciding what it is. You have no clue how much scientists don't even consider other variables when determining the meaning of a fossil, other than what they've already decided the fossil is. A classic example of this is now scientists are saying that DNA shows we all came from one person. But they refuse to look in Iraq where the bible says we first appeared on earth, because that would prove the bible true. Instead, they look elswhere and declare that was the first man. So the bias of scientists is where you're getting your information.

But reality bares out creationism perfectly. Humans rule over the animals and each animal breeds its own kind. In addition, the bible explains the different races and languages which the fallible human mind hasn't even gotten around to explaining yet. Sorry.

 

[Quid]

A classic example of this is now scientists are saying that DNA shows we all came from one person.

Cite please.

 

[Quadeshet]

Blind faith? :o What's blind faith is finding a rock and simply deciding what it is. You have no clue how much scientists don't even consider other variables when determining the meaning of a fossil, other than what they've already decided the fossil is.

>What other variables? What can a fossil be, other than what it is?

A classic example of this is now scientists are saying that DNA shows we all came from one person.

>Which scientists?

But they refuse to look in Iraq

>Shanidar Cave? What exactly are 'they' refusing to look for?

where the bible says we first appeared on earth, because that would prove the bible true. Instead, they look elswhere and declare that was the first man.

>No scientist today would claim we've found 'the first man' because there isn't one.

So the bias of scientists is where you're getting your information.

>How do you explain your own knee-jerk refusal to understand evolutionary processes and their influence on the human animal, then?

But reality bares out creationism perfectly. Humans rule over the animals

> Humans are animals. We don't 'rule' we share. Look where that superior attitude has gotten us.

and each animal breeds its own kind.

>Yes, because that is what a species does.

In addition, the bible explains the different races and languages which the fallible human mind hasn't even gotten around to explaining yet. Sorry.

>Race is not a biological distinction. Science has explanations as to why humans vary. Language evolves, also. Have you ever looked at a language relationship tree?

 

[reznwerks]

[
Blind faith? :o What's blind faith is finding a rock and simply deciding what it is. You have no clue how much scientists don't even consider other variables when determining the meaning of a fossil, other than what they've already decided the fossil is.
You know that is not what happens and to suggest as much either implies ignorance or deception. Do you really believe a trained scientist will pick up a stone and just "decide" what it is? You really believe he only comes to one conclusion without testing that determination? You really believe this?

A classic example of this is now scientists are saying that DNA shows we all came from one person. But they refuse to look in Iraq where the bible says we first appeared on earth, because that would prove the bible true.
Not only does DNA say we came from one person but they say all living things originated from the same source. What does looking in Iraq for DNA or whatever prove to anyone about anything. There is no way at the present time to determine if life originated in Iraq , Africa or China.

Instead, they look elswhere and declare that was the first man. So the bias of scientists is where you're getting your information.
Again you are incorrect as no one or rather no speciman has been determined to be the "first man". Your "bias" is non existant.

But reality bares out creationism perfectly. Humans rule over the animals and each animal breeds its own kind. In addition, the bible explains the different races and languages which the fallible human mind hasn't even gotten around to explaining yet. Sorry.
Humans don't rule over anything. They co exist with them. In a nuclear holacaust it will be insects who will probably rule over everything. Man has not always ruled over the planet and has only been on the planet for about a million or two million years and most of that was in the forrest with the other animals on their turf. Remember the planet is about 5 billion years old. Animals breeding after their own kind should not be a big surprise to you. It happens. If animals bred different animals that too would be normal wouldn't it? Chevrolet parts don't fit Ford. Using the tower of Babel to explain the different languages of the world is just a cute story to explain what is not known. At one time it was said that God was bowling when it thundered.

 

[Vanaka]

Here is the evidence against the creation myth. We have fossils, sedimentary rock formations and a few bodily organs that we apparantly can do quite well without such as tonsils, flat feet, appendix etc. The DNA from other primates match us almost identically. ALL mammals operate and function the same way in how they exist. Mammals have all evolved in a certain way, reptiles , insects etc.
If you use the arguement "common sense" as most creationists try to claim to use it is quite evident that the human race was not created out of dust with a little hocus pocus. We evolved. If you are not blinded by faith without evidence you can see that. The existence of fossils points out that the earth is much older than 6000 years. How does the creationist respond to this arguement?
They will claim fossils are planted by "evilutionist" scientists who are in league with the devil. This claim is usually the only arguement they use to discount the evidence or that "evilutionists" are "atheists" and against God and really have no idea what an atheist is. When asked where is the evidence that fossils and strata evidence are phoney they repeatedly point to some guy who was caught back in such and such a year . Again if true they somehow forget to point out it was scientists that discovered the fraud not creationists. Sadly in response the creationist still fails to accept the and will probably respond by claiming he was found out because other scientists didn't want him invading their turf. Blinded by faith or born again in the truth, you decide.

errr....please make yourself clear,you have'nt even said what the fossils are of,animal or man? :o

The DNA from other primates match us almost identically.

errr....prove it?
I'm not evn sure you understand DNA,that stuff is sooooo complex that it makes the greatest of our technology seem like sticks and stones.

it was scientists that discovered the fraud not creationists.

uh-huh like Creationism and science have no connection whatsoever :roll:

This claim is usually the only arguement they use to discount the evidence or that "evilutionists" are "atheists"and against God and really have no idea what an atheist is

and you speak for Creationists becuase.......? :o

When asked where is the evidence that fossils and strata evidence are phoney they repeatedly point to some guy who was caught back in such and such a year .

we do?how come I never knew that :o

Sadly in response the creationist still fails to accept the and will probably respond by claiming he was found out because other scientists didn't want him invading their turf.

nah,you guys just dont seem to be able to supply good evidence

Blinded by faith or born again in the truth, you decide.

you seem to think your so good at speaking for us,why don you decide. :roll:

 

[reznwerks]

Here is the evidence against the creation myth. We have fossils, sedimentary rock formations and a few bodily organs that we apparantly can do quite well without such as tonsils, flat feet, appendix etc. The DNA from other primates match us almost identically. ALL mammals operate and function the same way in how they exist. Mammals have all evolved in a certain way, reptiles , insects etc.
If you use the arguement "common sense" as most creationists try to claim to use it is quite evident that the human race was not created out of dust with a little hocus pocus. We evolved. If you are not blinded by faith without evidence you can see that. The existence of fossils points out that the earth is much older than 6000 years. How does the creationist respond to this arguement?
They will claim fossils are planted by "evilutionist" scientists who are in league with the devil. This claim is usually the only arguement they use to discount the evidence or that "evilutionists" are "atheists" and against God and really have no idea what an atheist is. When asked where is the evidence that fossils and strata evidence are phoney they repeatedly point to some guy who was caught back in such and such a year . Again if true they somehow forget to point out it was scientists that discovered the fraud not creationists. Sadly in response the creationist still fails to accept the and will probably respond by claiming he was found out because other scientists didn't want him invading their turf. Blinded by faith or born again in the truth, you decide.

errr....please make yourself clear,you have'nt even said what the fossils are of,animal or man? :o
We have been discussing the broad range on the subject of evolution which encompasses both man and fossils. To my knowledge we don't have fossils of man but we have fossils of other animals which show both developement and suggested time line of their existance.

The DNA from other primates match us almost identically.

errr....prove it?
I'm not evn sure you understand DNA,that stuff is sooooo complex that it makes the greatest of our technology seem like sticks and stones.
I will admit that I am not an expert in DNA and I can tell that neither are you. However I am not throwing my hands in the air and admitting the complexities of the sciene and saying it's too complex to study which you have obviously done. As to "prove it" it has already been done. Read it and weep. This is from 8/31/05
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/ge ... enes_x.htm

[quote:56b93]
it was scientists that discovered the fraud not creationists.

uh-huh like Creationism and science have no connection whatsoever :roll:
So far that is correct. All creationism does is make claims but when asked to show the evidence are suddenly silent. They continually claim they know that God did it even though he can't be found and then claim they know the thoughts and intentions of the indiscovered being. When further pressed how they know this they point to a book with a thousand errors and contradictions written by people with first names only and no history outside of the book that is written.

This claim is usually the only arguement they use to discount the evidence or that "evilutionists" are "atheists"and against God and really have no idea what an atheist is

and you speak for Creationists becuase.......? :o
I don't speak for creationists. I only reference what they do or fail to do and that is that they fail to bring to the table any evidence real or at least believable to discuss.

When asked where is the evidence that fossils and strata evidence are phoney they repeatedly point to some guy who was caught back in such and such a year .

we do?how come I never knew that :o
Well then tell us your opinion of how evolution and the fossil evidence is true.

Sadly in response the creationist still fails to accept the and will probably respond by claiming he was found out because other scientists didn't want him invading their turf.

nah,you guys just dont seem to be able to supply good evidence
If you want to believe in that which you can't see, and test and discard all the evidence that says what you believe is wrong then that is up to you.

Blinded by faith or born again in the truth, you decide.

you seem to think your so good at speaking for us,why don you decide. :roll:
I don' t speak for you . I only show the folly of believing in that which has no evidence and not only that it is not believable.

[/quote:56b93]

 

[dad]

The existence of fossils points out that the earth is much older than 6000 years. How does the creationist respond to this arguement?

I would respond by pointing out that they actually better support the bible's account.
Rather than creatures evolving from smaller creatures, it was just the smaller ones (generally) in the early record that died first when death was introduced with the fall of man!
The reason that we don't see many creatures out in the planet at large at that time, I believe, is because all creatures almost were created, like man, right in the garden (man was created and brought there to live, of course). Therefore, it took some time after the fall, to spread out from eden! That is why some types were 'first' to appear in the record.
Why did God make trilobites and etc (cambrian) to live all around the earth? Perhaps the original intent may have been something like preparing the rest of the earth for our eventual spread. (If it was all so great why did He need to plant a garden for us?)
This explains the fossil record. No evolution in the least needed, as a creator!