Is Creationism Dead?

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: StalkerSolent

The fossil and microbiological records comfortably eliminate five of the six points I mentioned. The remaining point is eliminatd by Occam's Razor: living matter shows no difference from inanimate matter, either to observation or to analysis, so it is safe to say that it is not different.

Incidentally, there is no way to prove any proposition absolutely true or false: even the evidence of one's own senses is not trustworthy. It is a mistake, however, to believe that a proposition can be true just because it cannot be falsified absolutely. Reason has its uses; one of them is to judge what is true, and what is false, based on available, incomplete evidence.

Again, though (and this is the problem with Creationism) the fossil record is moot if the issue involves a deity creating stuff. To be honest, (as I understand it; it's not my field of expertise) the fossil record has by turns undermined and strengthened evolutionary theory (or theories); I don't think it's been picking sides. For instance, recently scientists have been unearthing dinosaur fossils that appear to contain soft tissue, which should not exist according to the evolutionary timeline. (Scientists have also been working to discover ways the tissue might be preserved for longer than a few centuries.) Ultimately, the fossil record is open to interpretation, and until some of the key tenets of evolution are reproducible, it will remain an unproven theory with only secondary evidence (however good.) It's like the difference between measuring gravity and theorizing about a black hole; we can pin gravity down pretty nicely, but the black hole will be speculation until we can make one of our own or observe it directly. (Bad analogy, of course, because we do observe black holes directly, but I think you get my drift.)


I agree that reason is there for distinguishing between truth and falsity when it's entirely unclear. But part of that means that it's not always irrational to have differing beliefs. I don't think someone is crazy if they believe life could not arise spontaneously, but I'm not trying to get people admitted to the insane asylum for thinking men evolved from ape-like ancestors.

Did you find any of my on-topic discussion worthy of follow up? If not, hopefully I've been helpful my throwing my 2 cent answer at your question

a reply to: StalkerSolent

No, that's fine. About soft tissues, though: even faeces can fossilize. This has long been known. Fossilized fewmets are known as coprolites.

a reply to: Astyanax

Oh, sure. I was talking about soft tissue that was not fossilized. Check these links out:

www.huffingtonpost.com...

and:
losangeles.cbslocal.com...

For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

a reply to: EnigmaticDill

Ooh, scary.

Any comments on the viability of creationism?

Wait.. there's actually other people besides Ken Ham that believe in Creation?

Fossils were put here to make us question our faith!

Seriously, I don't understand how anyone with a modicum of common sense could believe in creation. Evolution isn't a theory, it's a fact.

Creationism is dead in the sense that the anti-evolution fundamentalist crowd is running out of arguments. Generally speaking it's only the extremely ignorant and stubborn creationists that still regurgitate those ridiculous arguments. The real problem is fundamentalism, not strictly religion or creationism. It's the folks that take the holy books as absolute literal unwavering truth that really make the entire religion look bad. These people are slowly fading away. The ID movement has not made any progress at all since its inception and it's only a matter of time before their breed becomes a thing of the past, but if the rational religious folks don't condemn these extremists they will all go the way of the dodo.

a reply to: StalkerSolent

Howdy,

From your sources...

"...Photograph A shows the demineralized fragment" (the T-rex iron one...)

The second one, from the abstract of the actual article the news site cited...
"...Soft material was present in pre and post-decalcified bone. Horn material yielded numerous small sheets of lamellar bone matrix." Link below.
www.sciencedirect.com...

So, what can we gather? Demineralized (calcite is a mineral) implies some kind of mineralization of some portion of the fossil. Mineralization that preserves the best detail is often permineralization, where the pores of an organism's tissues are filled with minerals. The iron thing is neat, and it certainly is the case that iron mineral species preserve exquisite detail in fossils, even of soft tissues. (Here's a link to one of my favorite soft tissue preservation [via replacement] sites.)
en.wikipedia.org...

The second article's abstract seems to imply that those soft tissues were found in bone material, not what we might traditionally think of when we think of soft tissue, but that's true enough. Of course, I don't have a subscription to read the actual article, so that's as close as I can get...

What's my point? What we see fits well will soft tissue preservation being a rarity which occurs under special conditions (indicating an older Earth). If these remains were young, it would be quite a bit more likely that we would commonly find this kind of material in even less ideal conditions.

Creationism perhaps isn't dead, but I think there is only one option for those denying an old Earth... (to assume the Earth was "created with age" by a "deceptive deity.")

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

originally posted by: hydeman11
a reply to: StalkerSolent

What's my point? What we see fits well will soft tissue preservation being a rarity which occurs under special conditions (indicating an older Earth). If these remains were young, it would be quite a bit more likely that we would commonly find this kind of material in even less ideal conditions.

Creationism perhaps isn't dead, but I think there is only one option for those denying an old Earth... (to assume the Earth was "created with age" by a "deceptive deity.")

Wouldn't one expect soft tissue to be rare in all remains older than a few hundred years unless it was preserved? (Mummification, mudslide, amber etc.) It seems like it would be a rarity even if the critters died a few thousand years ago; normally impossible missions of years ago (barring the unique preservation methods mentioned above.) My point, of course, wasn't that "Dino DNA" proved evolution false, but simply that the fossil records can be surprising, and not always in accordance with current evolutionary theory.

I'm sure there's a lot of options, depending on the type of faith. I'm not familiar with most views of Creation outside North American Protestantism, so I have no idea how, say, Islam deals with it, but there are a number of different Christian theories on time, creation, and the fossil record.

originally posted by: bm2112
Wait.. there's actually other people besides Ken Ham that believe in Creation?

Fossils were put here to make us question our faith!

Seriously, I don't understand how anyone with a modicum of common sense could believe in creation. Evolution isn't a theory, it's a fact.

Simulation hypothesis much?


More than you would

Think

Im sure

a reply to: StalkerSolent

Yes, except for bone material and mineralized skeletons/hard parts in general. Those things can last for quite some time. (Consider sea shells) But catastrophic burial is often the geological "condition" that allows for more detailed preservation, and although it is an uncommon thing, it is found throughout geologic time. (Think stormbeds and turbidite flows) Places of great fossil detail, preservation, and concentration are often called Lagerstatten, and there are several. Yet, there are not soft tissue samples (not true "meaty tissue", not to my knowledge) found in any of these lagerstatten which preserve beautifully the detail of the organisms. To argue any further than this would involve physics and chemistry, which I sadly am lacking in.

I well never cease to be amazed at what spectacular finds are discovered in lagerstatten and beautifully preserved fossil specimens. But it's hard to explain those phenomena without mainstream geology and chemistry and physics, which all support an old Earth.

That said, yes. Varieties of creationism may have explanations for these events, but are they consistent with reality, and are they consistent with observations so that valid predictions can be based off of them? I don't know if any creation story explains the phenomena as beautifully as science does, nor would I foolishly say that all of them tried to. To me, science and faith do not overlap, and there is always the out of a deceptive deity to save a believer who doesn't take things too literally. This is why I believe creationism will never truly die...

Regards,
Hydeman

Creationism is alive and well, and I personally think the word "creationism" puts the creation of GOD in a more political/religious spectrum, of which it is not. What GOD has created is way above all of this nonsense, and doesn't have to upgrade itself like science does every year, because of lies, mixed with theory and the absurd belief that an explosion came from nothing at all and created all we have today. I was in the military, and anyone who has dealt with explosives can tell you that an explosion of any kind, creates nothing but a mess. Even if there was a Big Bang and an explosion that created everything....GOD made it happen....it didn't just happen from an infinity of nothingness. Just look into an empty jar for an eternity in space, an eternity later, it will still be empty. This is how space was until GOD spoke.

originally posted by: EnigmaticDill
For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Everything you learn from religion is taken in faith. If you have faith, you believe everything, because the information is so fragmented and distorted that you have to fill in the blanks. From ancient tattered scraps that have no signature or originals, from preachers who were born thousands of years after.

Psychiatry poses that any belief in a power greater than yourself that can control your will, is a sign of mental illness. Just to consider the probability that one half to two thirds of the population is delusional and ignorant enough to follow a stone-age cult, is an affront to human progress and dignity.

originally posted by: Illuminawty
...What GOD has created is way above all of this nonsense, and doesn't have to upgrade itself like science does every year, because of lies...

I was in agreement with about that much of your post. But you are rather nicely demonstrating one of the thoughts put forth in an earlier post by Astyanax (which I can't find, and may have been the deleted one...). Yours is an argument from ignorance, and if you are an American, I'm truly sorry that a veteran like you has been let down so conclusively by the American education system. Of course, if you are not an American, I'm still truly sorry for whatever education system has let you down by filling your head with such misrepresentations.

Creationism is still alive because of these continued misrepresentations, and they certainly should be addressed, or Creationism will not die.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

There are religious people that accept science. There are scientific people that embrace religion. There are scientific people that accept science, but don't embrace religion, and there are religious people that refuse to accept science. Only one way of thinking ignores the truth, and chooses to hang on to old belief's, the other three move with the times (and knowledge).

Science is based on [the interpretation of] real observable facts. Religious dogma is based on denying those facts. In between we have normal people!

Every fundamentalist needs to get some chill pills and deal with reality - science searches with truth in mind, which surely, is religion's goal also!

a reply to: Astyanax

The difficulty I'm having with this thread is far more basic than the ongoing discussion would indicate.

For me the problem is that you aren't talking about any thing. By that, if you noticed the space, I mean you are talking about multiple things and that makes discussion difficult.

Incidentally, there is no way to prove any proposition absolutely true or false: even the evidence of one's own senses is not trustworthy. It is a mistake, however, to believe that a proposition can be true just because it cannot be falsified absolutely.

This, of course, works both ways. Creationism can not be proved absolutely false, and creationism can not be proved absolutely true.

Reason has its uses; one of them is to judge what is true, and what is false, based on available, incomplete evidence.

Ah, here Reason lifts her beautiful countenance to gaze upon us. It is reason that tells us that Science cannot, by definition, provide us with proof that the Universe was not created by a supernatural force, eternally existing. Call that force "God" if you want, just about every person in history has. The idea that He didn't is a recent invention.

Science has not and cannot resolve the "Prime Mover" question, no matter how many times they've tried different theories. And scientists admit they've had no luck with it, indeed it is not in the area of science.

So, science can't explain the existence of the Universe or anything else, it looks like you have moved the discussion to creation of life.

The remaining point is eliminatd by Occam's Razor: living matter shows no difference from inanimate matter, either to observation or to analysis, so it is safe to say that it is not different.

I suppose that's true if you're talking about an atom of carbon in a heart as opposed to a diamond. But that's obvious and not worth mentioning. But put a living cell under a microscope and compare it to a rock chip, and you'll conclude they're different.

Then, in the strangest twist of all, you switched to:

I define creationism as 'a sociopolitical movement to deny the veracity of scientific theories of biogenesis and evolution and to promote in their place a spurious narrative in which the origins and variety of life on Earth are attributed to a supernatural creator, usually the Judaeo/Christian/Islamic God.'

That would be more intelligible had you switched the labels. The responsibility of God for the existence of life has been believed since the beginning of every civilization, and is widely believed today. It has only been in the last two centuries. "Science" or the "Enlightened Man" has, puffed up with damnable pride, attempted to convince the world that there is no God and that everything can be explained by the High Priests of Science.

Science has done many good things. The Church celebrates it's accomplishments and encourages it's priests to understand science and use their talents in the scientific fields if their skills lead in that direction.

And you believe that wanting people to accept their beliefs qualifies as a political movement? Sorry. In some areas there might be a calling for it, but nation-wide, no way.

OK, let's shift again to Creationism meaning people who believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old and was created with all the plant, animals, etc. The Catholic Church doesn't teach that and they're the biggest group of Christians around in the US or world.

So, how many are we dealing with.

This question puts a cap of about 10% on the number of committed young-earth creationists, lower even than what Bishop found.

ncse.com...

10% is a political movement? We can find 10% of the population believing anything. Remember the fraudulent Alar scandal? How about Al Gore predicting in 2007 that all arctic ice would be gone by 2014? And, more than 95% of the climate models predicting higher temperatures than occurred.

“Rail travel at high speed is not possible because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia.” — Dr Dionysys Larder (1793-1859), professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy, University College London.

listverse.com...

Notice that all of these were made based on scientific knowledge and reason.

I'm simply suggesting that Science not be placed on such a high pedestal that it's faithful can sneer at believers in other faiths.

originally posted by: Astyanax
But from the creationist side, there's been nothing but the same old same old ever since Michael Behe's spurious claims of irreducible complexity were blown out of the water nine years ago.

You should get a nobel prize for the amount of deception and manipulation in a single sentence.

1) Irreducible complexity is not creationism nor related to creationism. That's like calling sun bathing Christianity. But knowing your post history I wouldn't expect anything else from you. Guess I'll start calling anything and everything even remotely related to evolution 'Darwinism'. Fossils are darwinism ^_^.

2) Michael Behe's claims were not 'spurious'. See point 3.

3) Irreducible complexity has not been 'blown out of the water', but rather manipulated to appear false by spurious claims masquerading as science. In fact, it still is a point that strongly holds its ground. They've been trying to paint all his stuff as 'bad science', so he doesn't gain ground with his actually sensible theories. It's too dangerous to the establishment. Here's an example.

4) There has been a lot coming from the so-called 'creationist' side. You're simply good at ignoring it. In fact, most of your favorable so-called 'long list of evolution papers that make great progress' are more and more becoming pro so-called 'creationism'. Have a look. Even a specific Intelligent Design (which AGAIN, is NOT creationism -_- but to you it is) Journal, called Bio-Complexity has appeared. Look here.


Your deceit is abysmal, disgusting, disgraceful, cringe worthy, embarrassing, insulting, degenerative, pathetic, atrocious, arrogant and any other similar word that exists.

And now I'll wait for the sh1tstorm.

originally posted by: Eunuchorn
a reply to: Another_Nut

So then you know of the Archons?

YOU ARE NOT OF THE BODY!!

Just to be clear while we are taking sides,
I'm on the side of the Magic apes rather than the unprovable magic invisible man above the sky story.

Why do fish have fins rather than arms? Why do camels have humps?
They weren't just created, they EVOLVED form other species to survive.

Science is that good now that I bet a 12yr old who has studied Evolution could debate a creationist
as long as there was a mediator to cease and desist any unprovable sunjecture coming from the creationist side.