Creation-ID design stifled by Majority

There can be a few different creation theories about what has transpired in the last 6000 years. If a creationist has a theory it needs to be in accordance with the Bible of course, and there needs to be an open forum for scientific discussion and peer review. Creation scientists lack these last 2 luxuries, as the Expelled movie points out. They will even lack their tenure & even their career, if the peer majority has their way.

In most talking points creationists give, are attempts to show evolutionary scientists that evolution isn't a viable theory. That evolutionists need a better working theory, just let the evidence point to where it will in an unbiased way. Is that too much to ask? Wait, isn't that a principle of science as well? Oh yes, it is. Then why isn't it followed 100% of the time? I will attempt to answer my own question here, because evolutionists have to have faith in their belief of evolution, and don't mind shuffling evidence(bias) around to support their theory/faith. Pursuing grant money furthers this bias. How much evidence must be destroyed, overlooked, ignored, swept under the rug, and manipulated? All to promote a theory credited to be a foundation of science. What a shame. If science disproves one of its own roots, what of it? It will not cease to exist. Fitting a square peg into a round hole is crazy, why keep trying when creation scientists just want to be able to offer a new shaped peg to try?

This country was founded by men who were christians and proclaimed their faith in the presidency as well as in congress. Yet they did not stifle the faith of muslims or indians or others. Yet now liberty is in jeporady, scientists with other views than evolution are shut out. Will you stand for freedom, will you take a stand for their voices to be heard?

If evolution is as a solid as a theory as it claims to be it surely can stand up to scrutiny. Christianity has stood the test of time & scrutiny for 2000 years and is still here. What are the evolutionists afraid of?

There can be a few different creation theories about what has transpired in the last 6000 years.

Just there to think that mankind has only be around 6000 years, is ridiculous.

Creationist is not scientific, period.

It like people who think that dinosaurs and mens walk on earth side by side, is ridiculous, those people think that The Flintstones are a documentary.

Slowly but surely all the pieces (missing link) of the puzzle will be found and that Creationist will be put in the dustbin of history.

Just there to think that mankind has only be around 6000 years, is ridiculous.

Creationist is not scientific, period.

What is more rediculous is to limit all the other possibilities to the rediculous without even considering them. Why are you being so closed minded? You aren't even willing to accept the premise of a 6000 year creation or other intellignet design theories & the implications of them.

Well if the dustbin of history has it way we will die long before we find out what happens.

Originally posted by TC Mike

Just there to think that mankind has only be around 6000 years, is ridiculous.

Creationist is not scientific, period.

What is more rediculous is to limit all the other possibilities to the rediculous without even considering them. Why are you being so closed minded? You aren't even willing to accept the premise of a 6000 year creation or other intellignet design theories & the implications of them.

Well if the dustbin of history has it way we will die long before we find out what happens.

reply to post by TC Mike


All hypotheses are accepted at some level, but if they don't stand up to scrutiny, they are are dismissed.

For example, if I handed you an orange and told you that it's blue, you'd scrutinize my evidence and dismiss my hypothesis because of obvious factual flaws.

That's what is going on with creation theory. Someone is calling an orange blue when it is certainly orange. It may be different shades of orange (amber, gamboge, tangerine) but it's definitely not blue.

Originally posted by TC Mike
There can be a few different creation theories about what has transpired in the last 6000 years. If a creationist has a theory it needs to be in accordance with the Bible of course, and there needs to be an open forum for scientific discussion and peer review. Creation scientists lack these last 2 luxuries, as the Expelled movie points out. They will even lack their tenure & even their career, if the peer majority has their way.

According to science the Earth is 4-4.5 billion years old and humans have been here for well over 100,000 years. So are you going to believe in science or a group of religious leaders in how old things are?

Young Earth creationism is a myth created to support the bible, to make the bible seem more accurate.

In most talking points creationists give, are attempts to show evolutionary scientists that evolution isn't a viable theory. That evolutionists need a better working theory, just let the evidence point to where it will in an unbiased way. Is that too much to ask? Wait, isn't that a principle of science as well? Oh yes, it is.

Then why isn't it followed 100% of the time? I will attempt to answer my own question here, because evolutionists have to have faith in their belief of evolution, and don't mind shuffling evidence(bias) around to support their theory/faith. Pursuing grant money furthers this bias. How much evidence must be destroyed, overlooked, ignored, swept under the rug, and manipulated? All to promote a theory credited to be a foundation of science. What a shame. If science disproves one of its own roots, what of it? It will not cease to exist. Fitting a square peg into a round hole is crazy, why keep trying when creation scientists just want to be able to offer a new shaped peg to try?

Creationist scientist are biased, because the faith comes first, they believe this is what happened now lets try to make it fit. Scientist on the other hand are all not united when it comes to faith or beliefs yet they seem to come to the same conclusions.

This country was founded by men who were christians and proclaimed their faith in the presidency as well as in congress. Yet they did not stifle the faith of muslims or indians or others. Yet now liberty is in jeporady, scientists with other views than evolution are shut out. Will you stand for freedom, will you take a stand for their voices to be heard?

Incorrect see this thread: The USA was founded by Secret Societies and Not Christianity. This is just one example of why preachers should not teach history based on their ideological beliefs, The USA was Not founded on Christianity.

If evolution is as a solid as a theory as it claims to be it surely can stand up to scrutiny. Christianity has stood the test of time & scrutiny for 2000 years and is still here. What are the evolutionists afraid of?

Hmmm here is a theory, it's been proven that all the creatures of the world could not all fit on the Ark, now explain why and how we have such a diverse population of animals today?

reply to post by LDragonFire

...it's been proven that all the creatures of the world could not all fit on the Ark, now explain why and how we have such a diverse population of animals today?

Hi. I'm afraid you are mistaken. If you take the time to read this article you'll receive satisfying answers to these questions. The 3D illustration lower down the page based on the Biblical description, which includes exact proportions, is a real eye-opener.

www.answersingenesis.org...

One thing to bear in mind that according to the Bible creatures were created according to their 'kinds'. We know, for example, that lions and tigers can interbreed, suggesting they may have descended from a single created 'kind'. I.e. the first creatures contained sufficient genetic material for subsequent generations to become diversified and to be able to survive in different habitats.

The creationist viewpoint has no problem with natural selection, as observed by Darwin, in terms of species diversifying into populations with different colouration, body size/shape, etc. It simply denies that chance mutation can create new genetic code that designs new features. Mutation invariably leads to disease, and very often to death.

The simplest illustration is wolves to dogs. The wolves contained enough information in the genes for all manner of different appearances, and as the individuals were selected (in this case unnaturally) and separated (to create 'pure breeds') groups with vastly different features appeared over the course of a few thousand years.

Similarly the first people had all the genetic information for skin colour, body size/shape, etc., which over the course of a few thousand years has enabled distinct groups to emerge.

Many people prefer to ridicule such explanations without taking the time to think them through (as I once did), and the scientific community often tries to prevent the publication of research that supports the creationist perspective. I think this is what the OP is getting at.

Is rejecting data on the basis of prejudice really science? The reality is that many secular scientists act as if evolution were a fact. It is a theory, albeit one accepted by many people.

I, and many others with a rigorous scientific training believe that the root of the prejudice actually lies in the fear that admitting evolutionary theory is deeply flawed (e.g. regarding the possibility that mutations can account for new design features) and accepting that there really is evidence that supports the creationist perspective - leads to a possibility that secularised, non-religious people don't want to hear: God may be very real.

(Please note I'm working on two final year dissertations at present, and can't get involved in a big discussion at present. I just hope I've provided some food for thought for fair-minded people.)

reply to post by pause4thought


counterargument for the ark:

fish

i think that entirely refutes the concept of the ark...

just that one word could entirely refute the argument, but i'll address stuff from your source

This verse tells us that Noah didn’t have to search or travel to far away places to bring the animals on board. The world map was completely different before the Flood, and on the basis of Genesis 1, there may have been only one continent. The animals simply arrived at the Ark as if called by a “homing instinct” (a behavior implanted in the animals by their Creator) and marched up the ramp, all by themselves.

...bull
we'd have evidence of the world being connected that recently...and even if it were, the climates would be entirely different if there was only one continent and modern animals (modern being animals that have existed in the last 10,000 or so years) wouldn't have a habitat.

Though this was probably a supernatural event (one that cannot be explained by our understanding of nature)

and boom, they admit that there's nothing scientific.

on dinosaurs:

Juveniles of even the largest land animals do not present a size problem, and, being young, they have their full breeding life ahead of them. Yet most dinosaurs were not very large at all—some were the size of a chicken

but that doesn't matter if there were one or two the size of a bus, eh?

(although absolutely no relation to birds, as many evolutionists are now saying).

i just find this amusing...especially since it has no reference and is just a pure faith statement.

Most scientists agree that the average size of a dinosaur is actually the size of a sheep.

yes, if you average the size of all 330 or so known species...

still presents a space issue

and now the cop outs start

In the book Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study4, creationist researcher John Woodmorappe suggests that, at most, 16,000 animals were all that were needed to preserve the created kinds that God brought into the Ark.

...it doesn't even define "kind"
what is a kind?

currently there are about 10,000 species of birds.
what is kind in the context of birds?

hell, in the world there are about 1.8 million named species...that's just what we know about. there are probably millions more.

Aquatic life (fish, whales, etc.) and many amphibious creatures could have survived in sufficient numbers outside the Ark. This cuts down significantly the total number of animals that needed to be on board.

...except that whole "they'd die" problem. you see, fish are evolved for their habitats...part of that includes the salinity of the water. if you throw a saltwater fish into a freshwater lake, it's going to die 99% of the time
the same thing will happen to most freshwater fish with saltwater

and most amphibious creatures cannot survive 40 days and 40 nights without land...

Another factor which greatly reduces the space requirements is the fact that the tremendous variety in species we see today did not exist in the days of Noah.

...um...that would admit that evolution is true.


and now the article demonstrates clear scientific illiteracy

Only the parent “kinds” of these species were required to be on board in order to repopulate the earth. For example, only two dogs were needed to give rise to all the dog species that exist today.

clear
a pug and a mastiff aren't two separate species, they're separate breeds. they are the exact same species.
same goes for a chow and a chihuahua or a poodle and a bulldog.

dogs are a subspecies of wolves.

dog:
Canis lupus familiaris
Canis: genus
lupus: species
familiaris: subspecies

Creationist estimates for the maximum number of animals that would have been necessary to come on board the Ark have ranged from a few thousand to 35,000, but they may be as few as two thousand if the biblical kind is approximately the same as the modern family classification.

it would be nigh impossible to derive 1.8 million species like that...especially so quickly
in fact, for flood theory to hold true you'd need hyper evolution....which is insanely ironic.

so, did noah bring a capybara or a guinea pig?
same family, wildly different appearances...

Simply put, the water from the Flood is in the oceans and seas we see today. Three-quarters of the earth’s surface is covered with water.

which means that 1/4 of the world isn't covered by water
which means that there wasn't a global flood...

As even secular geologists observe, it does appear that the continents were at one time “together” and not separated by the vast oceans of today.

yes, a few hundred million years ago

The forces involved in the Flood were certainly sufficient to change all of this.

...floodwaters were enough to trump the slow movement of plate tectonics?

i think i've done more than enough to show that this article is scientifically bunk.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Excellent reply! I do find it distressing that logical debate gets ignored by people who are arguing the literal accuracy of the bible, yet they demand it from those with opposing views.

Fundamentalism sucks.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Fish were killed off as God wanted them to.
Some survived.
As well as other aquatic life.
Saline water floats on top of fresh water, which would allow space for certain numbers of life.

What animals WOULDN'T have a habitat if the continents were together???
Examples, please.

You know about the feathered dinosaur fraud from China and MOST feathered reptile 'fossils' come from China.
Once bitten, twice shy.


Hyperevolution? You mean like creating different breeds quickly? Like AKC
dog breeders do?

A cappybara is a BIG guinea pig and BOTH are eaten throughout the world.


Amphibious creatures could have been on the ark.

Even land has water BENEATH it in the water table, underground lakes and seas, etc...

God changed the geography of the world through the flood.

This is getting pathetic. You're trying to pass off ridiculous interpretations of an already-ridiculous book to prove that its circular, childish logic isn't as intrinsically flawed as it so obviously is? There is no hope for you, if you blatantly refuse to use the logic "God" gave you.

Seriously. Take a look at yourself. You're on a forum full of adults, and you're arguing a bronze-age story that some guy made a boat big enough to fit tens of thousands of animals (both carnivorous and otherwise), which all spent months on board, then got off an within a few thousand years provided us with all the life forms we see around us. With NO evidence to support your claims, and with masses upon masses of evidence to point out your theory is rubbish. Yet you keep on posting.

Wow. Surely you must be just a slight bit embarassed that you're doing this, no?

Mod Note:

Please discuss the issues and not other members. Thank you.