ARCHIVE: Best evidence for young earth supernatural creation.

[bob b]

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

Day by itself can mean an indefinite period of time, but it can also mean one revolution of the Earth. It all depends on the context.

In the case of Creation Week the word day is further qualified by a particular sentence structure that can mean nothing else but one revolution of the Earth.

Now a person can argue that the account is wrong and be justified, but even many critics who believe that the account is wrong admit that the Hebrew text is talking about a day in the sense of one revolution of the Earth.

It seems to me that it is "grasping at straws" to argue that the intent was to be metaphorical when each time the word is used it is qualified by a sentence structure as if to emphasize the literal meaning of a single Earth day. Why would anyone do that for each of the days if the intent was to be metaphorical?

 

[bob b]

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.

I would have thought that the burden is on the evolutionist to provide evidence for his scenario. Nevertheless I do realize that people disagree on this issue and that it is difficult to provide reasons for evolutionists to change their minds considering that practically our entire society has become convinced that it is true.

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.

I think it is important to bring up because many people have not thought through this particular line of argument before. For example, Dawkins used his WEASEL analogy to suggest why evolution must be true, but it backfired on him because more careful thought using the same analogy suggests a reason why it couldn't be true.


If I am right about it the argument has the potential to be pretty conclusive and may convince many people who might never be convinced in any other way. So be warned. A potentially conclusive argument against "descent of all life from a single primitive ancestor" may be lurking in the wings.

 

[mighty_duck]

I would have thought that the burden is on the evolutionist to provide evidence for his scenario. Nevertheless I do realize that people disagree on this issue and that it is difficult to provide reasons for evolutionists to change their minds considering that practically our entire society has become convinced that it is true.

This has nothing to do with what the default position is.

Suppose I came to you with a theory that UFO's have visited earth. If you had simply sat back and asked me to provide evidence, then the burden of proof is on me.

But instead, you assert "aliens could not have visited earth because we would have seen one by now"
At this point I have two options:
1. Give a scenario in which aliens visited earth but would not have been seen (your assertion is refuted).
2. Ask you to prove your assertion is true. (burden of proof on you).

If you want to assert something is irreducibly complex, you need to prove it to be so.

I think it is important to bring up because many people have not thought through this particular line of argument before. For example, Dawkins used his WEASEL analogy to suggest why evolution must be true, but it backfired on him because more careful thought using the same analogy suggests a reason why it couldn't be true.

While I agree with this weakness in the WEASEL analogy, I disagree on Dawkin's intent here. What Dawkins was demonstrating (IIRC) was the error in calculating probabilities and treating the process as completely random. random changes + selective choice = non-random result. The viability of intermediate results are irrelevant to this conclusion.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Day by itself can mean an indefinite period of time, but it can also mean one revolution of the Earth. It all depends on the context.

In the case of Creation Week the word day is further qualified by a particular sentence structure that can mean nothing else but one revolution of the Earth.

Now a person can argue that the account is wrong and be justified, but even many critics who believe that the account is wrong admit that the Hebrew text is talking about a day in the sense of one revolution of the Earth.

It seems to me that it is "grasping at straws" to argue that the intent was to be metaphorical when each time the word is used it is qualified by a sentence structure as if to emphasize the literal meaning of a single Earth day. Why would anyone do that for each of the days if the intent was to be metaphorical?

I, who believe that the bible is only the words of men thinking on God, do not care one way or another. They could have intended long ages of time or 7 literal days. Being two thousand years removed I think it is rather cheeky to assume you know their full intent and meaning.

 

[bob b]

If you want to assert something is irreducibly complex, you need to prove it to be so.

Behe has done this. (I have ignored your stupid alien analogy)

While I agree with this weakness in the WEASEL analogy, I disagree on Dawkin's intent here. What Dawkins was demonstrating (IIRC) was the error in calculating probabilities and treating the process as completely random. random changes + selective choice = non-random result. The viability of intermediate results are irrelevant to this conclusion.

We already know that many optimization algorithms work by introducing random variations followed by intelligent selection (Monte Carlo methods), because these have been used for close to a century. The question is whether this is what happens in Nature where variations are due to actions within the DNA/protein complex. Ignoring the viability of intermediate steps is ignoring the probable reason that evolution doesn't work.

In the real world, the viability of intermediate steps is what challenges the credibility of the "random mutations plus natural selection" mechanism.

BTW, once one has a fully functioning organism it is credible that one could make some minor changes and get another, slightly different functional organism. The WEASEL analogy would show this for an English sentence, so I consider it a distinct possibility that some slight degree of microevolution might be possible. But as the WEASEL analogy also suggests, such a capability would be extremely limited and relatively trivial compared to being able to continue the process and generating a different sentence or organism (macroevolution).

Evolutionists often challenge creationists to state why microevolution would not be able to lead to macroevolution. "Protein folding" seems to me to provide the answer: only a small subset of possible protein amino acid sequences will actually fold up so as to provide a viable, functional product. Those that do not fold are eliminated by the scavenging machines present in every cell to remove "garbage" (see the Cell Trends Too thread at the top of the Religion forum).

 

[bob b]

I, who believe that the bible is only the words of men thinking on God, do not care one way or another. They could have intended long ages of time or 7 literal days. Being two thousand years removed I think it is rather cheeky to assume you know their full intent and meaning.

The sentence structure "and the evening and the morning were the nth day" would appear to make the meaning quite clear. It seems to me this is no accident.

BTW, please accept a minor correction: we are more like 6 or 7 thousands of years removed from the events in question.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

The sentence structure "and the evening and the morning were the nth day" would appear to make the meaning quite clear. It seems to me this is no accident.

Not an accident, certainly- but still possibly metaphorical. Evening and Morning imply the cyclical day of sunrise and sunset. When the sun was only created midway through if I remember correctly, wouldn't this imply that it was at least somewhat metaphorical?

BTW, please accept a minor correction: we are more like 6 or 7 thousands of years removed from the events in question.

From "creation" or the original writing of the OT?

 

[called_out]

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Gen 1:2 - And the earth was -- It already existed before the six days began.

We are not told when God began to make the earth.

The account of the days of creation given in Genesis relates not to the construction of our globe, but to the ordering of it for human habitation.

The Vailian theory harmonizes with the Bible. It assumes that Saturn's rings and Jupiter's belts illustrate earth's development as a planet.

:idunno:

 

[The Barbarian]

Evolutionists often challenge creationists to state why microevolution would not be able to lead to macroevolution. "Protein folding" seems to me to provide the answer: only a small subset of possible protein amino acid sequences will actually fold up so as to provide a viable, functional product. Those that do not fold are eliminated by the scavenging machines present in every cell to remove "garbage" (see the Cell Trends Too thread at the top of the Religion forum).

Surprise.

Positive natural selection has driven the evolution of the Hsp70s in Diguetia spiders.Starrett J, Waters ER.
Department of Biology, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182, USA.

Hsp70s are a ubiquitous family of highly conserved proteins. Hsp70s are chaperones and have important roles in both protein folding and thermotolerance. It has been widely assumed that Hsp70 sequence evolution is governed by the strong functional constraints imposed by its crucial cellular functions. In this study of cytosolic heat-inducible Hsp70s from three spider families, we have found clear evidence of positive natural selection altering Hsp70s in desert-dwelling and heat-loving Diguetidae spiders. These spiders are a small family restricted to deserts. They display heat-tolerant behaviours not seen in their closest relatives, the Pholcidae and Plectreuridae.
Biol Lett. 2007 May 15

There are many, many such papers, showing that proteins can easily be modified to new functions (which require a modification in folding).

What you don't know, can hurt you.

 

[mighty_duck]

Behe has done this.

Behe has done no such thing.
What he has done is observe a mechanism, then applied personal incredulity that it couldn't have evolved. He also applied a straw man evolutionary process (removing a part and seeing the mechanism stop working). Is this your idea of proving IC?

We already know that many optimization algorithms work by introducing random variations followed by intelligent selection (Monte Carlo methods), because these have been used for close to a century.

:BRAVO:
If you accept this, then you don't need the analogy.

BTW, once one has a fully functioning organism it is credible that one could make some minor changes and get another, slightly different functional organism. The WEASEL analogy would show this for an English sentence, so I consider it a distinct possibility that some slight degree of microevolution might be possible. But as the WEASEL analogy also suggests, such a capability would be extremely limited and relatively trivial compared to being able to continue the process and generating a different sentence or organism (macroevolution).

Newsflash - WEASEL does not demonstrate all functions of evolution. An analogy is an explanaory device, not a proof of any kind. If you understand what is being explained (random changes + selecion = non random results) then you can ignore it.

Evolutionists often challenge creationists to state why microevolution would not be able to lead to macroevolution. "Protein folding" seems to me to provide the answer: only a small subset of possible protein amino acid sequences will actually fold up so as to provide a viable, functional product. Those that do not fold are eliminated by the scavenging machines present in every cell to remove "garbage" (see the Cell Trends Too thread at the top of the Religion forum).

If the protein is not necessary, then it sounds like a neutral mutation. Have enough of those, and you get a new protein with potentially beneficial mutation.

I have never seen a study that claims that "protein folding" would prevent beneficial mutations. Is it just a personal hunch, or can you cite a non-creationist source?

 

[Jukia]

Apart from the Bible (which is THE BEST evidence) I would say the second best evidence is the research done by Robert Gentry and Polonium Halo's in Granite. Why didn't I just come out and say that from the beginning? Becuase they have already been discussed over and over again.

I read his book (Creation's Tiny Mystery) some time ago and found it interesting. I purchased his videos (Fingerprints of Creation and The Young Age of The Earth) and thought the material was well presented.

His work has been attacked from ALL sides including other young earth creationist (see http://www.halos.com/faq-replies/index.htm for his disagreements with) and has yet to be refuted and proven wrong.

The articles on his website are very informative, the information is compelling, and the evidence is in his favor.

So there ya go.

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

Second Best Evidence (Polonium Halos) - Robert Gentry

I am aware of Gentry's claim, despite your statement that he has yet to be refuted, I think he has been. I haven't looked at it in a while and some of the analysis done by others seems to have much more depth than Gentry's original. My best recollection is that the objections to his findings were that his science was sloppy, he was claiming the halos were formed by polonium but it seems more likely that they were formed by other radioactive bits.
If I dont get a chance to review, thanks anyway. I have seen your evidence and dont think it amounts to much.
But are you seriously willing to take this one bit and say it overrides the overwhelming other evidence against a young earth, supernaturally created or naturally created?
On further thought. Based on what we know now, a young earth must have a supernatural creation. Science has no mechanism to naturally create the earth only a few 1000 years ago.

 

[chatmaggot]

But are you seriously willing to take this one bit and say it overrides the overwhelming other evidence against a young earth, supernaturally created or naturally created?
On further thought.

Oh for crying our loud. This thread does NOT ask for all of the evidence...just what one believes is the BEST evidence. I have already responded to this.

Based on what we know now, a young earth must have a supernatural creation. Science has no mechanism to naturally create the earth only a few 1000 years ago.

Again...this is exactly what I predicted would happen. You ask for "natural" evidence for a "super"natural creation. By definition YOU CAN'T becuase you set the rules (remember my George Washington and the Physics book example...that was foreshadowing this very conversation).

When I provide "super"natural evidence (The Book of THE eyewithess) it is tossed out. When I provide my second best evidence I get "do you really think that one piece of evidence is enough...yada yada yada..."

On a side note I encourage you to re-look at his material and his site. He makes some very bold claims about no one refuting his research in the scientific literature. Claims that can be easily proved wrong. But they haven't.

His work is extremely interesting especially since he is being attacked from ICR as well as the evolutionist!

 

[Jukia]

Oh for crying our loud. This thread does NOT ask for all of the evidence...just what one believes is the BEST evidence. I have already responded to this.




Again...this is exactly what I predicted would happen. You ask for "natural" evidence for a "super"natural creation. By definition YOU CAN'T becuase you set the rules (remember my George Washington and the Physics book example...that was foreshadowing this very conversation).

When I provide "super"natural evidence (The Book of THE eyewithess) it is tossed out. When I provide my second best evidence I get "do you really think that one piece of evidence is enough...yada yada yada..."

On a side note I encourage you to re-look at his material and his site. He makes some very bold claims about no one refuting his research in the scientific literature. Claims that can be easily proved wrong. But they haven't.

His work is extremely interesting especially since he is being attacked from ICR as well as the evolutionist!

Gentry can make what ever claims he wants about not being refuted in the literature, but he is simply wrong. There have been such refutations when I get a minute I'll try to find them.
My comment about a supernatural creation a few thousand years ago was simply a statement that IF the earth was created recently it had to be supernatural since there is no natural mechanism for such a happenstance that we are currently aware of.
And the Bible is NOT an eyewitness account.

 

[chatmaggot]

Gentry can make what ever claims he wants about not being refuted in the literature, but he is simply wrong.

First you said...

...despite your statement that he has yet to be refuted, I think he has been...

Then you said he is wrong.

Take some time...review the entire site...and even watch the videos. They are free to view online. It is just interesting stuff.

 

[bob b]

First you said...
Then you said he is wrong.
Take some time...review the entire site...and even watch the videos. They are free to view online. It is just interesting stuff.

I haven't looked at the Gentry stuff for a long time. although I do have his book in my library.

A thought came to me when I read your post:

If the universe was expanded to its present size very rapidly during Creation Week, would this possibly have any bearing on the Gentry finding?

 

[P8ntrDan]

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

Just like when it says God 'created' things it was actually a metaphor for evolution....

 

[chatmaggot]

I haven't looked at the Gentry stuff for a long time. although I do have his book in my library.

A thought came to me when I read your post:

If the universe was expanded to its present size very rapidly during Creation Week, would this possibly have any bearing on the Gentry finding?

It seems like it would. He has developed a cosmology. He has a video that describes it. It can be viewed for free right here: http://www.halos.com/videos/index.htm

I am going to view it this weekend.

This website has info on his cosmology as well: http://www.orionfdn.org/

 

[Real Sorceror]

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

So, anybody wanna answer this question, and then tell me why or why not? :think:

(and no, the answer can't be that you didn't take it because RS was handing it out)

 

[P8ntrDan]

So, anybody wanna answer this question, and then tell me why or why not? :Shimei:

Sure, because the author was a racist for starters. That's not even getting into the flaws of the actual theory itself...

 

[Stripe]

I wouldn't.

Its author wasn't privvy to an accurate account of the events he spoke of.