ARCHIVE: Best evidence for young earth supernatural creation.

[bob b]

Interesting questions. But are you sure that these traits gave a survival advantage at the time they were selected away?
For example, humans don't have the ability to generate Vitamin C, even though some of our ancestors were able to do so. But if their diet was rich in foods containing Vitamin C, then a mutation that stopped production (or changed it) would not be detrimental.

Would a dominant carnivore who ate little or no cellulose become less likely to reproduce with a malfunctioning cellulose metabolism? probably not.

Also keep in mind that traits evolve in parallel. A neutral change like a slightly less protruding brow could have evolved along with a beneficial change like a bigger brain. Females may connect the smaller brow with the bigger brains and prefer such partners, which would give the smaller brow a selection advantage.

I will admit that evolutionists are better at making up stories than most people. This is probably because this is mostly what they do for a living and "practice makes perfect" as the saying goes.

 

[Real Sorceror]

The question was asked for the best evidence for "super"natural creation. I provided evidence (historical) and it was rejected BECAUSE it was historical and not from a science book. Later it was then rejected not BECASUE it was historical but because it was from a historical source that people don't accept. I found this all silly and began asking a series of questions regarding how one determines what evidence they are willing to accept.

Actually, the Bible was rejected because it is not historical or scientific.

Best Evidence (The Bible) - See my first post in this thread

Second Best Evidence (Polonium Halos) - Robert Gentry

Ok, so you have a possible one thing (I have a headache right now, but I will read the article more in depth when I get the chance)

And so far, the Bible still doesn't count for jack. The only thing it proves is that someone wrote it. It proves nothing else on its own.

Now, with the polonium halos, do you believe this is sufficient to counter the evidence that we have in evolution/old-Earth's favor?

 

[mighty_duck]

I will admit that evolutionists are better at making up stories than most people. This is probably because this is mostly what they do for a living and "practice makes perfect" as the saying goes.

I certainly don't make a living out of being an "evolutionist".
When you are told that something is not possible with evolution (such as IC, or in this case, loss of traits), then all that is required to refute that claim is a path that lines up with evolution and solves the problem - a speculation. It is no longer impossible, and the claim is refuted.

When a scientist researches how these traits evolved or were removed, they have to present much more evidence to back up any particular path they hypothesize about.

 

[bob b]

We are discussing two feilds here: science and history.

Actually according to the subject of this thread we are supposed to be discussing evidence for supernatural creation.

In this regard there could be no possible scientific evidence for the creation act itself if it was supernatural, because science would be unable to deal with supernatural events. However, it might be possible to infer that a supernatural event like creation had occurred by using a logical argument.

Sherlock Holmes used to argue (quite logically I think) that if one ruled out all possibilities except one that the remaining one must be true.

So if natural and supernatural creation are assumed to be the only possibilities then ruling out a "natural" creation would seem to leave the supernatural option as the winner.

This is why I concentrate my efforts on ruling out the possibility that all life has descended from a single primitive ancestor (or at least showing how implausible this is).

I take the same approach in cosmology by concentrating my efforts on ruling out the possibility that the universe created itself.

 

[P8ntrDan]

On a serious note:

Best "evidence" for young earth supernatural creation might be:

Gen 1:31 God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. There was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
==Each of these ages of creation could be a period of 7000 years, the whole period up to the time of man was six periods, or 42,000 years==

The "days" being determined as follows:
2Pe 3:8 But don't forget this one thing, beloved, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.[ This would make 6 days, 6,000 years from the creation of man ]

Taking into account that God rested on the 7th "day" which is a sabbath and is 7,000 years long, during which time man has had 6,000 years to show the consequences of sin and then enters the millennial reign of 1,000 years.

From this reckoning the earth would be just under 7x7000 = 49,000 years old.

Just a possibility...:juggle:

Nope, the Hebrew word for day used there meant a literal 24 hour day.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Nope, the Hebrew word for day used there meant a literal 24 hour day.

I would guess that the word Jesus used for "mustard seed" was also the literal Hebrew for word the seed of the mustard plant- but this doesn't mean that faith is literally a mustard seed.

 

[P8ntrDan]

What i think you're missing is that the word "theory" has a very specific meaning in science. It just happens to be the same word that we use in another non-scientific sense.

This definition applies to scientific theories such as evolution and relativity:


Young Earth Creationism definitely does not fall into that camp. So, no YEC is not a theory in that sense of the word. It is not a scientific theory.

If you want to call YEC a theory, you can still do it though! Just realize that you will have to settle for the following definition:

Sorry, but you don't really have any more scientific proof than we do (probably less actually). The Theory is based off assumptions and incorrect science such as radiocarbon dating. We have the fact that at the current rate of human reproduction, even a portion of the time humans have been around leaves us with way too many now as well as other points that have already been brought up.

 

[chatmaggot]

Now, with the polonium halos, do you believe this is sufficient to counter the evidence that we have in evolution/old-Earth's favor?

This thread is not about ALL the evidence for a young earth...only what one believes is the best evidence (or at least the evidence that the evil-lutionist are willing to accept).

 

[Real Sorceror]

Actually according to the subject of this thread we are supposed to be discussing evidence for supernatural creation.

Ya, that would be a historical event, and it should leave evidence of some variety.

In this regard there could be no possible scientific evidence for the creation act itself if it was supernatural, because science would be unable to deal with supernatural events. However, it might be possible to infer that a supernatural event like creation had occurred by using a logical argument.

Balony. If the world was created 6,000 years ago, the world should reflect that (unless we are being decieved).

Sherlock Holmes used to argue (quite logically I think) that if one ruled out all possibilities except one that the remaining one must be true.

Logical, yes, but that doesn't make it true. It could just mean you missed something.

So if natural and supernatural creation are assumed to be the only possibilities then ruling out a "natural" creation would seem to leave the supernatural option as the winner.

Yes, it would seem that way. Unless of course there are other possibilities, such as multiple possible natural/supernatural origins, or some combination of the two.

This is why I concentrate my efforts on ruling out the possibility that all life has descended from a single primitive ancestor (or at least showing how implausible this is).

Why would disproving abiogenesis also prove supernatural creation? How is abiogenesis the only natural possibility?

I take the same approach in cosmology by concentrating my efforts on ruling out the possibility that the universe created itself.

How does that prove it was created by a supernatural being? All you are doing is narrowing the possibilities without proving the one you favor.

 

[P8ntrDan]

It really is stuff like this that makes Creationists look a bit dumb. Not very well thought through and only apeals to people that want to beleive it and "Dig" no further.. I'm sorry but that's the way it is. There are archaological digs in Egypt showing all kinds of fossils dated at millions of years old.. guess what under the geolocical layers and the type of Rock the Sphinx is based on !! SOme in close proximity to Giza.

So Egyptians built the Sphinx dated before the flood... it got moved during the flood on top of rock layers and formations and fossils and it only moved up.. the force that created the "appearance" of millions of years of layers and deposited fossil records of animals long since dead... didn't wash the sphinx away... it just "Floated" to the top of these layers to settle where it was built whilst all around it millions of years of evidence was left under pyramids and buildings... City walls were plonked back where they were built but ontop of evidence of oan old earth caused by the flood ?

The evidenced for an old earth is all around this area and guess what it's under stuff that survived a "Global Flood" !!! and you need any more ? I got loads.

Mixed up dates, my bad :crackup:

 

[P8ntrDan]

I would guess that the word Jesus used for "mustard seed" was also the literal Hebrew for word the seed of the mustard plant- but this doesn't mean that faith is literally a mustard seed.

:doh: I just never seem to put it right to get it across to you... and I wasn't even making a joke this time. Day can be interpreted in several ways for several periods of time, but the original hebrew used in that text meant 24 hour day...what's so hard about that? Jesus used a metaphor/simile (I can never remember the difference) for faith and mustard seeds.

 

[bob b]

I certainly don't make a living out of being an "evolutionist".
When you are told that something is not possible with evolution (such as IC, or in this case, loss of traits), then all that is required to refute that claim is a path that lines up with evolution and solves the problem - a speculation. It is no longer impossible, and the claim is refuted.

When a scientist researches how these traits evolved or were removed, they have to present much more evidence to back up any particular path they hypothesize about.

The controversy seems to revolve around whether these things are what actually happen or whether they are merely "ideals", and not what actually happens in practice.

For example, I have examined the attempts to refute the bacterial flagellum as IC and do not agree that these attempts have done this.

On the other hand the "protein folding" approach to refuting evolution has the potential of being able to do so by determining in advance what configurations of proteins will fold up and hence be functional.

Unlike "gene analysis", which compares genes from different creatures to see how much they differ, and from this estimating the probability of various evolutionary trees, the protein folding approach (once folding can be predicted reliably) can examine all possible pathways from one configuration of a particular creature to another that is believed to be evolutionarily related.

If no workable pathway exists, then it is extremely likely that the two creatures are not evolutionarily related.

This is the promise which lies like a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for the current massive efforts going on in the research community to use supercompters to crack the protein folding prediction problem.

I have previously used an analogy with the English language, specifically the "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL" example first proposed by Richard Dawkins, to show why random mutations can not convert one English sentence into another by changing a single letter at a time, without generating intermediate sentences which don't make sense (don't "fold up" properly). This is merely an analogy to illustrate the issue. The final answer will come in the future from the reserch efforts currently underway to determine the extent to which protein folding is an equivalent situation.

 

[Real Sorceror]

This thread is not about ALL the evidence for a young earth...only what one believes is the best evidence (or at least the evidence that the evil-lutionist are willing to accept).

If I gave you a copy of Origin of Species, would you accept it as evidence for Evolution? lain:

 

[macguy]

What makes you think they ever had it on their own?

For what other reason? The evolutionists say that it is a vestigial cellulose metabolism system.

Not sure what you are getting at here. Can you explain it another way?

No reason, it is just a question and I don't think you'd have to take it seriously.

 

[SUTG]

For what other reason? The evolutionists say that it is a vestigial cellulose metabolism system.

Which evolutionists?

 

[Stripe]

The answer to your question: creation.

 

[mighty_duck]

The controversy seems to revolve around whether these things are what actually happen or whether they are merely "ideals", and not what actually happens in practice.

Notice how you have moved the goalposts?

Creationst: This couldn't have happened with evolution.
Evolutionist replies: It could. Here's one scenario. Your assertion is refuted.
Creationist: But you don't know how it happened specifically!

While the latter may be true, it doesn't disprove evolution in any way. The creationists erringly concludes that his initial assertion was left unchallenged. He also forgets that the burden is on him to prove that initial assertion.

On the other hand the "protein folding" approach to refuting evolution has the potential of being able to do so by determining in advance what configurations of proteins will fold up and hence be functional.

I am glad you agree that evolution is a falsifiable theory. However if all you have is your own speculation based on what future cutting edge research might find, it shouldn't be brought up in this context, for either side of the debate.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

:doh: I just never seem to put it right to get it across to you... and I wasn't even making a joke this time. Day can be interpreted in several ways for several periods of time, but the original hebrew used in that text meant 24 hour day...what's so hard about that? Jesus used a metaphor/simile (I can never remember the difference) for faith and mustard seeds.

The point being the word meaning 24-hour day could also have been used metaphorically to indicate an unknown period of "time" before time.

 

[macguy]

Which evolutionists?

Could you not just search for it? -_- Fine, here it is:

The appendix is a rudimentary tip of the caecum and is useless as a normal, cellulose-digesting caecum.

Happy now? Even if there wasn't any quotes, anything that lost a function is considered vestigial. Not that hard from a evolutionist perspective.

 

[kmoney]

noguru asked for people's best evidence. I supplied some. INSTEAD of showing that my evidence was not true...it was rejected BECAUSE it would not be used in a science classroom.

I then spent several pages asking what type of evidence would be accepted and why is a historical account rejected. INSTEAD of showing that my evidence was not true...I was repeatedly told that it isn't accepted because only that which is in a science text would be accepted.

Again, I asked why? For some reason certain lines of evidence are accepted (science text books that can only be used in a science classroom) and some are rejected (history books).

If I would have provided scientific evidence (which I have some) then this thread would just have degenerated into the countless other threads on creation and evolution.

Instead...I am trying to understand what evidence is acceptable (and why)? Which evidence is not acceptable (and why)?

So far it seems that science books are not allowed in the history class and history books aren't allowed in the science class.

That just seems odd that one would narrow the "rules" of acceptance. To prove my point I asked for scientific proof that George Washington was married. But, only a science textbook could be used. More specifically a physics textbook.

My arguement was tossed out for being silly! MY POINT EXACTLY.

So why is a history book (the Bible) not acceptable evidence for past events (recent creation)?

Your evidence is being rejected because that type of evidence isn't what noguru wanted to talk about. It's not that your evidence isn't valid but that it isn't the type of evidence that this thread is about. Just give it up already. :doh: