Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Evolution / Creationism / Intelligent Design

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

*** Mod's note: Merged with a similar topic. - sN ***

During a conversation with a Christian I was linked to this http://www.prorege-f..._source=message and some two hour long video on creationism by Kevin Hovind I believe is his name.. Sadly I still have a headache just thinking about the last video "proving creation" I watched which put forth no scientific arguments and just used the same escape mechanisms he complained about evolutionist using.

 

I was just wondering how much evidence is there in favor of creationism, and are there any good resources on proving/disproving it.

Edited by softwareNerd
Merged topics
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Fixed it for you.

No, it means that biologists now take evolution to be the underlying explanation of everything they have ever discovered, including things discovered before Darwin formulated the theory. A simila

Is there any evidence in favor of creationsim? Can the assertions used to argue in favor of creationism withstand being critically examined for stolen concepts, floating abstractions, invalid concepts or other contradictions in accordance with an objective theory of concept-formation?

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to post
Share on other sites

During a conversation with a Christian I was linked to this http://www.prorege-f..._source=message and some two hour long video on creationism by Kevin Hovind I believe is his name.. Sadly I still have a headache just thinking about the last video "proving creation" I watched which put forth no scientific arguments and just used the same escape mechanisms he complained about evolutionist using.

I was just wondering how much evidence is there in favor of creationism, and are there any good resources on proving/disproving it.

Why would you think “scientific arguments” for “proving creation” would be put forth by Christians? Christians believe creation was a supernatural act performed by a supernatural being. What tools does science have to prove or disprove supernatural events or beings? Also, what degree of proof is necessary to satisfy you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would you think “scientific arguments” for “proving creation” would be put forth by Christians? Christians believe creation was a supernatural act performed by a supernatural being. What tools does science have to prove or disprove supernatural events or beings? Also, what degree of proof is necessary to satisfy you?

Because, there is a disgustingly large and growing base of Christians who believe that the bible isn't just supernatural, but something that can scientifically be proven?

In the case of the link I included above.. there is what is actually suppose to be a human/dinosaur footprint overlapping. I am guessing that they assume humans and dinosaurs living within the same time automatically proves a god exist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...which put forth no scientific arguments and just used the same escape mechanisms he complained about evolutionist using.

I was just wondering how much evidence is there in favor of creationism, and are there any good resources on proving/disproving it.

There's billions of fossils and DNA records that support the theory of evolution, which explains how life came to be so diverse and complex. But this doesn't explain the creation of the universe (or as some people claim, multiple universes). The big bang theory is typically taught in school, and there's a lot of evidence to support it. It describes an early, expanding universe that developed into the one we see today. Abiogenesis is also mentioned a lot, but it doesn't explain the existence of the universe (and doesn't have a lot of proof to back up any of its multiple theories): it describes the way life might have developed on earth from non-life materials. All of these fields (BBT, evolution, and abiogenesis) are completely independent of one another, but creationists usually lump them all together and call them evolution.

Like Mike said, there is no scientific "proof" for creationism (except the bible, which some consider to be enough "evidence").. but there is an overwhelming amount of proof against it. It's really hard to talk science with creationists. When evolution became widely accepted, they just said, "Well God created evolution." When the big bang theory gained more and more evidence, they said the same thing, "God created the big bang theory." It's impossible to argue against that. They'll just say, "Where's your proof that God didn't create XYZ?" and your only response will be, "Where's your proof that he did?"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because, there is a disgustingly large and growing base of Christians who believe that the bible isn't just supernatural, but something that can scientifically be proven?

In the case of the link I included above.. there is what is actually suppose to be a human/dinosaur footprint overlapping. I am guessing that they assume humans and dinosaurs living within the same time automatically proves a god exist.

For sure there are a lot of kooky Christians who would try to do that. I agree that that footprint above does nothing to prove the existence of God. It may be evidence that dinosaurs and man existed together however. Much of the work being put forth by creationists goes to challenge the age of the earth theories, but that also doesn’t do anything to prove the existence of God.

I think “proving” the existence or non-existence of God is a futile endeavor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's billions of fossils and DNA records that support the theory of evolution, which explains how life came to be so diverse and complex. But this doesn't explain the creation of the universe (or as some people claim, multiple universes). The big bang theory is typically taught in school, and there's a lot of evidence to support it. It describes an early, expanding universe that developed into the one we see today. Abiogenesis is also mentioned a lot, but it doesn't explain the existence of the universe (and doesn't have a lot of proof to back up any of its multiple theories): it describes the way life might have developed on earth from non-life materials. All of these fields (BBT, evolution, and abiogenesis) are completely independent of one another, but creationists usually lump them all together and call them evolution.

Like Mike said, there is no scientific "proof" for creationism (except the bible, which some consider to be enough "evidence").. but there is an overwhelming amount of proof against it. It's really hard to talk science with creationists. When evolution became widely accepted, they just said, "Well God created evolution." When the big bang theory gained more and more evidence, they said the same thing, "God created the big bang theory." It's impossible to argue against that. They'll just say, "Where's your proof that God didn't create XYZ?" and your only response will be, "Where's your proof that he did?"

"but there is an overwhelming amount of proof against it."

I think we have to be careful in using the word “proof” when we should really be saying “evidence” or at least parsing “proof” much more precisely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, you're right. Evidence is the word I should have used.

I agree that that footprint above does nothing to prove the existence of God. It may be evidence that dinosaurs and man existed together however. Much of the work being put forth by creationists goes to challenge the age of the earth theories...

Once again, there is a ton of evidence against the claim of dinosaurs and humans coexisting. Here's a short article that comes to mind, and a more thorough one explaining the footprint. Taken form the latter article:

"Nevertheless, AIG, ICR, CRS, BCS, and other strict creationist organizations continue to promote a young earth and the belief that humans and dinosaurs were contemporaries. In fact, right after cautioning creationists about the Paluxy evidence, the AIG web site asserts "However there is much evidence that dinosaurs and humans co-existed." If one follows the associated web link, however, one finds only a list of articles on largely speculative matters such as living sauropod dinosaurs in Africa, and supposed "Human and Dinosaur Tracks" in Turkmenistan, Russia (Golovin, 1996). Ironically, the latter article presents no compelling case for "human" tracks. All that was actually reported (and not well documented) was a single "humanlike" marking, which as the Paluxy tracks demonstrate, is hardly convincing evidence."

I really wouldn't even call this "religious science" because there is no science involved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a two pronged attack.

Some of what they do is to claim there is actual evidence _against_ the current view (i.e., evolution). Certainly if someone were to actually find human and dinosaur footprints in the same strata, or rabbits in the Precambrian, that would do it. To the extent that this evidence is not _completely_ fabricated, it should be looked at more closely by someone if only so that they can say, "no you are misinterpreting this, it's not a human footprint" or "that's not a dinosaur footprint" or "that's not a rabbit fossil" or "those aren't Precambrian rocks" (which as I understand it, is invariably the case). This is a normal function of science, to at least glance at apparently contradictory evidence just in case it really is. Of course the IDiots don't quite do this. They like to bring these things up, and pretend that they are engaging in science by doing so--in many cases a qualified scientist, as opposed to the IDiot, would be able to see by themselves that it's not good evidence without even showing it to someone else. They aren't too happy with what happens when a scientist actually gets around to looking at their proffered evidence though, so they ignore/evade/lie when that happens.

As someone pointed out earlier, if some piece of evidence like this were to prove out, it would not prove Intelligent Design to be true. But the attacks, dishonestly presented to the public, are enough to put question marks in many minds, and evolution looks like it is discredited.

The other prong of the attack is to claim positive evidence for their view. Here is where it gets much more laughable to those with any scientific literacy at all, but again, their real audience is the now thoroughly befuddled and generally scientifically illiterate man-in-the-pew.

The man in the pew sees evolution (apparently) discredited with reasonable sounding arguments, and creation (apparently) supported by all this evidence. It does not occur to him that he is being lied to, or that the presenter himself doesn't know what he is talking about. (More commonly it's some pastor repeating the line of bullshit he has been fed.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, you're right. Evidence is the word I should have used.

Once again, there is a ton of evidence against the claim of dinosaurs and humans coexisting. Here's a short article that comes to mind, and a more thorough one explaining the footprint.

I think the best evidence that dinosaurs and man existed at the same is the large number of carvings, cave drawings, and legends what accurately depict/describe dinosaurs.

"Religious science" is kinda oxymoronic.

:thumbsup:

Edited by Mike82ARP
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the best evidence that dinosaurs and man existed at the same is the large number of carvings, cave drawings, and legends what accurately depict/describe dinosaurs.

That's something I haven't studied, but to my knowledge has also been disproved by paleontologists. You can see the hypotheses, observations, and conclusions they made based on the data. As for the reason why creationists jumped the gun?

"Pareidolia is the psychological phenomenon of perceiving significance in vague or random stimuli, e.g., seeing animals in clouds or the face of a religious figure in a food item. The results of this investigation indicate that the dinosaurs of Kachina Bridge are examples of this phenomenon and exist only as pareidolic illusions. They can therefore be added to the list of discredited evidence for the coexistence of dinosaurs and humans." [1]

I assume creationists also had access to this data and didn't make conclusions based on pictures alone. I poked around a little but haven't found any sources describing the method that the creationists used to reach their conclusion (or point out inconsistencies in the one that has been made above).

It's a two pronged attack.

Some of what they do is to claim there is actual evidence _against_ the current view (i.e., evolution). Certainly if someone were to actually find human and dinosaur footprints in the same strata, or rabbits in the Precambrian, that would do it. To the extent that this evidence is not _completely_ fabricated, it should be looked at more closely by someone if only so that they can say, "no you are misinterpreting this, it's not a human footprint" or "that's not a dinosaur footprint" or "that's not a rabbit fossil" or "those aren't Precambrian rocks" (which as I understand it, is invariably the case). This is a normal function of science, to at least glance at apparently contradictory evidence just in case it really is.

The whole field of biology is built on the foundation of evolution. So far, there haven't been any critiques of that have held up under inspection. But I hope that if there are any real inconsistencies found, they aren't just brushed under the rug for fear of "rocking the cradle."

Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole field of biology is built on the foundation of evolution. So far, there haven't been any critiques of that have held up under inspection. But I hope that if there are any real inconsistencies found, they aren't just brushed under the rug for fear of "rocking the cradle."

Indeed. I would hope it would play out similarly to what is going on in physics right now. A team recently ran an experiment that appeared to indicate that neutrinos traveled ever so slightly faster than light, which would overturn a theory that is just as foundational to physics as evolution is to biology. They then went through everything relating to the experiment, looking for their mistake. After doing this as thoroughly as they could, they called other physicists' attention to it, essentially saying "Look, we know this is going to sound crazy but we can't figure out what we did wrong here."

This is quite different from the guy who starts out convinced that an established theory must be wrong, because it doesn't match his preconceived notions, and just jumps on the first thing that looks like it might help his case. He's probably not going to go over it very very carefully to make sure it is what it looks like and that there isn't some explanation of it that actually fits the theory he doesn't agree with, because he doesn't need to--he already thinks that theory is wrong; why should he try to shoehorn something into it? It would be like expecting us to read some economic bad news and try to use it to justify communism. If he has a very rare quality best described as "OK, but I want you to prove to me I am right" he does go over it, he is thinking much more like a scientist than is normal for these sorts of people.

What I just described is not the same as a scientist having a hunch that some hypothesis might be true and then looking for experimental data. He must still guard against leaping to a conclusion, and that is sometimes easier said than done. I am instead talking about someone who is preconvinced on the basis of nothing, really, that his pet theory is true... rather like today's creationists.

What I find worrisome is that many creationists undertake to obtain scientific degrees solely for the purpose of fighting either evolution or the currently accepted belief that the solar system is 4.567 billion years old (a conveniently easy number to remember) and the earth is slightly younger than that. It's an attempt to fight the criticism that no real scientist in a relevant field accepts young earth creationism[see footnote]. This is true, so they have to try to manufacture some such scientists. Somehow or another the poor creationist has to evade for however long it takes to get their doctorate, almost everything that they are being taught, and not just the hour or so a day of science "education" people get in elementary and high school. (I note in passing here that scientists (and engineers) are required to continue to be exposed to non-science/non-technical subjects in college but the reverse is not true. How different would things be if it were, and people could not claim to be college-educated without some college level science?) Anyhow, I wonder how many of these creationists, starting out intending to be moles burrowing into the scientific establishment, actually A) don't flunk out or drop out before getting their doctorates and B ) still believe their bullshit once they do?

--------------

[Footnote: When discussing creationism it's necessary to keep in mind that there are two broad varieties--Young Earth Creationism and Old Earth Creationism. The YECs are the ones we are usually talking about in these contexts--the ones who think the earth was created 6-10 thousand years ago, dinosaurs were around before the flood, the flood is responsible for most of the geology we see today, et cetera, ad freaking naseum. The Old Earth creationists accept all the evidence of the much greater age of the universe and the progressively increasing complexity of life and development over time--but they think god is behind the process, pushing it along and only making it look like there are random elements. Perhaps god is causing the occasional benign mutation that evolution "runs" off of, steering things in a direction that would lead eventually to some hairless ape developing a "soul". There isn't direct physical evidence against this claim--we only see the results of the mutations in the fossil record, not their actual immediate cause. Asserting knowledge of the cause is alas for them an arbitrary assertion. Anyhow the YECs have to ignore everything one would objectively derive from what our senses--aided by artificial senses known as scientific instruments--tells them and replace with a lot of arbitrary assertions; the OECs accept all of the objectively derived stuff and _add_ to it a much smaller number of arbitrary assertions since they don't have to explain away a lot of evidence--a much more tenable position; at least it cannot be proved wrong empirically. One has to argue on the basis of it being arbitrary assertions instead, a concept not well understood by most people, or convince them through logical arguments, rather than experimental evidence, that there is no dog.]

edit: Damn the ass who invented the sunglass emoticon for making the use of B-parenthesis and 8-perenthesis a landmine.

Edited by Steve D'Ippolito
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's something I haven't studied, but to my knowledge has also been disproved by paleontologists. You can see the hypotheses, observations, and conclusions they made based on the data. As for the reason why creationists jumped the gun?

"Pareidolia is the psychological phenomenon of perceiving significance in vague or random stimuli, e.g., seeing animals in clouds or the face of a religious figure in a food item. The results of this investigation indicate that the dinosaurs of Kachina Bridge are examples of this phenomenon and exist only as pareidolic illusions. They can therefore be added to the list of discredited evidence for the coexistence of dinosaurs and humans." [1]

I assume creationists also had access to this data and didn't make conclusions based on pictures alone. I poked around a little but haven't found any sources describing the method that the creationists used to reach their conclusion (or point out inconsistencies in the one that has been made above).

The whole field of biology is built on the foundation of evolution. So far, there haven't been any critiques of that have held up under inspection. But I hope that if there are any real inconsistencies found, they aren't just brushed under the rug for fear of "rocking the cradle."

There are too many examples from vastly different geographical areas to attribute to pareidolia.

"The whole field of biology is built on the foundation of evolution.” Sorry, but I’m not buying that either. A reasonable inference to that statement would be that the field of biology didn’t start until the theory of evolution came along 150 years ago. Additionally, my undergrad and grad degrees are in the biological field and I cannot recall that evolutionary theory was any type of driving force in the “whole field".

For me, what killed my confidence in evolutionary theory was the increasing knowledge of the complexity of not only the cell, but other physiological systems as well. Applying statistical probabilities to those phenomena showed odds so unlikely that I’d be more comfortable believing in Dawkins’ “flying spaghetti monster”.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are too many examples from vastly different geographical areas to attribute to pareidolia.

Do you have any concrete examples? Making a blanket statement like that without any evidence doesn't support what you're saying.

Sorry, but I’m not buying that either. A reasonable inference to that statement would be that the field of biology didn’t start until the theory of evolution came along 150 years ago. Additionally, my undergrad and grad degrees are in the biological field and I cannot recall that evolutionary theory was any type of driving force in the “whole field".

For me, what killed my confidence in evolutionary theory was the increasing knowledge of the complexity of not only the cell, but other physiological systems as well. Applying statistical probabilities to those phenomena showed odds so unlikely that I’d be more comfortable believing in Dawkins’ “flying spaghetti monster”.

Right. And I'm an astronaut, but I don't believe that gravity is a driving force in the field.

What killed my confidence in it was the "apple" thing. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The whole field of biology is built on the foundation of evolution.” Sorry, but I’m not buying that either. A reasonable inference to that statement would be that the field of biology didn’t start until the theory of evolution came along 150 years ago.

No, it means that biologists now take evolution to be the underlying explanation of everything they have ever discovered, including things discovered before Darwin formulated the theory.

A similar statement is now made regarding geology and plate tectonics. That particular paradigm shift occurred in the 1960s and there are plenty of geologists alive today who remember those days; it's quite exciting to hear them talk about how suddenly a lot of things they simply had no clue how to explain (such as why volcanoes were located where they were and not just anywhere) were now readily explainable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...