ARCHIVE: Best evidence for young earth supernatural creation.

[JustinFoldsFive]

Evoken, how can creationism be falsified? Give me specifics.

 

[Evoken]

Evoken, how can creationism be falsified? Give me specifics.

I just did, didn't you see the small list I posted?


Evo

P.S. I am assuming that YEC is what is being meant by creationism, since this is what Andre1983 is talking about.

 

[JustinFoldsFive]

Creationism has been falsified. There is irrefutable evidence that the Earth is more than 10,000 years old, that there was not a global flood, and that species did not appear fully formed in the fossil record. What makes creationism unscientific is that its adherents do not accept these falsifications.

Creationism is immune to falsification due to its reliance on the supernatural. Any potential problem can be (and often is) explained away by an unverifiable entity that can do anything.

A little clarification from Karl Popper (in the form of his analysis of Marxism) may help;

The Marxist theory of history, in spite of the serious efforts of some of its founders and followers, ultimately adopted this soothsaying practice. In some of its earlier formulations (for example in Marx's analysis of the character of the "coming social revolution") their predictions were testable, and in fact falsified. Yet instead of accepting the refutations the followers of Marx re-interpreted both the theory and the evidence in order to make them agree. In this way they rescued the theory from refutation; but they did so at the price of adopting a device which made it irrefutable. They thus gave a "conventionalist twist" to the theory; and by this stratagem they destroyed its much advertised claim to scientific status.

Do I have to point out Creationism's "conventionalist twist"?

...

GOD!

No matter what the objection, God is the answer. Oh, how unscientific it is to have a mysteriously unverifiable entity on your side that confirms all your hypotheses!

 

[Turbo]

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.

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?

You think Genesis and the rest of the Old Testament were written only 2000 years ago? :hammer: Yikes!

 

[Evoken]

Creationism has been falsified.

...

Creationism is immune to falsification

Which one is it?


Evo

 

[Turbo]

In the interest of intellectual integrity I would like to ask others "What they believe to be the best evidence for young earth supernatural creation?" Since Bob B has started another thread asking for the best evidence for evolution, I thought we should also consider the other alternatve.

Just focusing on the "supernatural creation" part:

Because of the First Law of Thermodynamics (conservation of matter/energy), we can rule out the possibility that the matter/energy that makes up the natural universe came into existence through natural means.

Because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (net entropy increases during any process), we can rule out the possibility that the universe has always existed. (The universe is continuously undergoing irreversible processes, increasing entropy. For it to have always existed, it would have to be a perpetual motion machine, which would violate the Second Law.)

Since the universe cannot have always existed, and it cannot have come into existence naturally, then it must have come into existence through supernatural means. That is the only conceivable option left.

(This is the part where Evolutionists, who love to accuse Creationists of rejecting science, try to cast doubt on the validity of these very well-established and fundamental LAWS of science/nature.)

 

[JustinFoldsFive]

Which one is it?

Both. It's really very simple;

1) Creationist hypotheses (which originally were scientific in nature) have been falsified [young earth, global flood, opposition to macroevolution)].

2) Creationists do not accept these falsifications.

3) Any theory which is not open to falsification (immune to falsification), is not scientific. [Karl Popper]

In other words, the idea that Earth is only 6,000 years old is a legitimate scientific hypothesis. Unfortunately for creationists, that hypothesis has been thoroughly refuted by numerous lines of evidence. Thus, the hypothesis has been falsified (its predictions were disproven by evidence), even though adherents to the belief reject the evidence/falsification (their belief is not contingent upon scientific confirmation).

 

[Turbo]

Spitty slurpy and the moon walk defy gravity!
:chuckle:

I know this is just more fuel to the fire that is the "kmoney, what gives" thread but I had to post it.

Nah, you're out of the closet as an evolutionist now.

 

[Turbo]

Both. It's really very simple;

1) Creationist hypotheses (which originally were scientific in nature) have been falsified [young earth, global flood, opposition to macroevolution)].

2) Creationists do not accept these falsifications.

3) Any theory which is not open to falsification (immune to falsification), is not scientific. [Karl Popper]

In other words, the idea that Earth is only 6,000 years old is a legitimate scientific hypothesis. Unfortunately for creationists, that hypothesis has been thoroughly refuted by numerous lines of evidence. Thus, the hypothesis has been falsified (its predictions were disproven by evidence), even though adherents to the belief reject the evidence/falsification (their belief is not contigent upon scientific confirmation).

Ooh! Ooh! Let me try!

1) Evolutionist hypotheses (which originally were scientific in nature) have been falsified [old earth, no global flood, macroevolution)].

2) Evolutionists do not accept these falsifications.

3) Any theory which is not open to falsification (immune to falsification), is not scientific. [Karl Popper]

In other words, the idea that Earth is several billion years old is a legitimate scientific hypothesis. Unfortunately for evolutionists, that hypothesis has been thoroughly refuted by numerous lines of evidence. Thus, the hypothesis has been falsified (its predictions were disproven by evidence), even though adherents to the belief reject the evidence/falsification (their belief is not contigent upon scientific confirmation).​

In other words, forgive me for not taking your word for it.

Maybe you should start a thread to enlighten us as to how exactly it has been proven that there was not a global flood (despite the fact that the Earth is still 3/4 covered with water, the existence of shellfish fossils atop the highest mountain peaks, polystrate fossils, petrified forests (with missing roots), and observations of strata forming quickly). And throw in your proof that the universe cannot be young, along with your evidence that all life evolved from a single organism. (And would it be too much to ask for you to include the part where sexual reproduction came into the picture?) While your at it, maybe you can enlighten us as to how that first living organism came to exist from non-living material.

It'd be a kick, but it wouldn't quite fit into the scope of this thread.

 

[SUTG]

Maybe you should start a thread to enlighten us as to how exactly it has been proven that there was not a global flood (despite the fact that the Earth is still 3/4 covered with water, the existence of shellfish fossils atop the highest mountain peaks, polystrate fossils, petrified forests (with missing roots), and observations of strata forming quickly). And throw in your proof that the universe cannot be young, along with your evidence that all life evolved from a single organism. (And would it be too much to ask for you to include the part where sexual reproduction came into the picture?) While your at it, maybe you can enlighten us as to how that first living organism came to exist from non-living material.

It'd be a kick, but it wouldn't quite fit into the scope of this thread.

So, basically, you want one of us to start a thread giving you a sceine education? No, thanks. Go visit a library. The evidence we'll provide will be the same evidence that has been provided by professional scientists.

I think all YECs should be forced to live without the benefit of the resulting technology based on all of the science they deny.

 

[JustinFoldsFive]

Turbo, you're a creationist. The evidence will either go over your head, or in one ear and out the other. I hate to come across as ignorant or rude, but do your own homework. There are countless threads on TOL detailing each of the falsifications/refutations I cited. The intent of my response to Evoken's post was to discuss the scientific nature (or lack thereof) of Creationism. If you would like to chime in on that discussion, feel free to, but I would rather not waste more of my time explaining what has been explained to death elsewhere in this forum.

 

[Turbo]

So, basically, you want one of us to start a thread giving you a science education? No, thanks. Go visit a library.

I've already attended twelve years public school (by the end of which I was a full-fledged evolutionist) and I went on to study mechanical engineering for four years (during which time I came to reject evolution).

The evidence we'll provide will be the same evidence that has been provided by professional scientists.

Same to you, buddy.

I think all YECs should be forced to live without the benefit of the resulting technology based on all of the science they deny.

Like what?

 

[Turbo]

Turbo, you're a creationist. The evidence will either go over your head, or in one ear and out the other. I hate to come across as ignorant or rude, but do your own homework. There are countless threads on TOL detailing each of the falsifications/refutations I cited.

JustinFoldsFive, you're an evolutionist. The evidence will either go over your head, or in one ear and out the other. I hate to come across as ignorant or rude, but do your own homework. There are countless threads on TOL detailing each of the falsifications/refutations I cited.​

If you would like to chime in on that discussion, feel free to,

I already have. See post #266, for example. Feel free to respond here. Hopefully you can contribute more than an assertion that my argument has been refuted to death elsewhere.

 

[JustinFoldsFive]

I'd rather not. I have no interest in discussing science with someone who dismisses any and all scientific findings contradictory to their theological belief system, a priori.

 

[Aphobos]

JustinFoldsFive, you're an evolutionist. The evidence will either go over your head, or in one ear and out the other. I hate to come across as ignorant or rude, but do your own homework. There are countless threads on TOL detailing each of the falsifications/refutations I cited.

Excellent point, Turbo. We all have the same "facts". In and of themselves, they do not give us a clear picture of origins. The facts will take shape according to the presuppostions we bring to them.

If we already believe that the universe is billions of years old, and that life is the result of random processes over time, then we will connect the dots accordingly. Conversely, if we are convinced that the earth is no more than 6,000 years old and that the opening chapters of Genesis are the literal account of God's activity in time, then we will connect the same dots but in a different pattern.

It is impossible to divorce ourselves from all presuppositions and arrive at a perfectly objective vantage point (viz. the view from nowhere). But if we are aware of our presuppositions and make a conscious effort to put them on hold, I think the picture we make with the dots (facts) will be more accurate. Of course, this is more easily said than done.

~Aphobos

 

[Turbo]

I'd rather not. I have no interest in discussing science with someone who dismisses any and all scientific findings contradictory to their theological belief system, a priori.

The truth is you cannot respond without either conceding the necessity of the natural universe having a supernatural origin, or dismissing the validity of at least on very well-known and fundamental law of nature. If you could, you surely would for the sake of others reading (just as I have presented this argument knowing full well that you and others would dismiss or ignore it).

It seems that you are the one who dismisses any and all scientific deductions that contradict your belief system.

Hypocrite.

 

[Paine]

...conceding the necessity of the natural universe having a supernatural origin...

If, by this, you mean to invoke the "First Cause" argument, then one might well ask what was the first cause of your first cause, and thus find oneself endlessly entangled in an eternal search for god before god before god before god ad infinitum, if one continues to make use of such "logic."

 

[Turbo]

If, by this, you mean to invoke the "First Cause" argument, then one might well ask what was the first cause of your first cause, and thus find oneself endlessly entangled in an eternal search for god before god before god before god ad infinitum, if one continues to make use of such "logic."

I'm referring to the argument put forth in post 266. When you consider it, please keep in mind: That which is supernatural is, by definition, not bound by the laws of nature.

Just focusing on the "supernatural creation" part:

Because of the First Law of Thermodynamics (conservation of matter/energy), we can rule out the possibility that the matter/energy that makes up the natural universe came into existence through natural means.

Because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (net entropy increases during any process), we can rule out the possibility that the universe has always existed. (The universe is continuously undergoing irreversible processes, increasing entropy. For it to have always existed, it would have to be a perpetual motion machine, which would violate the Second Law.)

Since the universe cannot have always existed, and it cannot have come into existence naturally, then it must have come into existence through supernatural means. That is the only conceivable option left.

(This is the part where Evolutionists, who love to accuse Creationists of rejecting science, try to cast doubt on the validity of these very well-established and fundamental LAWS of science/nature.)

 

[Paine]

I'm referring to the argument put forth in post 266. When you consider it, please keep in mind: That which is supernatural is not bound by the laws of nature, by definition.

If it is not bound by the laws of nature, then it cannot be tested by means of the scientific method or through logic, by definition, and therefore cannot be reasonable. Do you wish to retract your statement or effectively eliminate your entire pretension of "rational faith" in one fell sentence?

 

[Turbo]

If it is not bound by the laws of nature, then it cannot be tested by means of the scientific method or through logic...

BZZT!

God does not violate laws of logic. He is not superlogical. He cannot create a four-sided triangle. He cannot both exist and not exist. He cannot go back in time.

You are equating the term supernatural with irrational, but they are not the same, despite your bias against the the possibility of the existence of anything supernatural. Laws of logic are not the same as laws of nature. Were you aware of this? :think:


Now, how do you you account for the existence of the natural universe?