Questions I'd Love to See a Creationist Answer

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, and I'll say 4004 BC just for the heck of it. Ussher did a lot of research and backtracking in both secular and scriptural history, and his work is not infallible, as since "in the abundance of words there is error", but I respect his effort and will go by the approximation that he calculated.



Yes. This is different, however, from claiming that budgies, cockatiels, galahs and cockatoos have a common ancestor.



I believe that all parrots have a common ancestor, all dogs have a common ancestor. Rats and mice probably have a common ancestor. The viable hybridization criterion is the current determination of whether two varieties of creatures are members of the same baramin. I do not like this criterion, as it violates a commandment, but it is currently the only workable one.



A De'Lorean would falsify creationism for certain, young earth creationism anyway. I am not a scientist or a philosopher to answer properly what the exact criteria would be, as my major is Accounting, but fine, I'll say nothing as long as it is admitted that ideologies in general are nonfalsifiabe and that materialism is an ideology.

I would say that no matter how certain the evidence of God, or any other entity that transcends normal space-time (such as angelic/demonic beings, or if you wish any of the various idols of ancient civilizations), actively displaying such power in our universe, that it would be explained away. Most likely on the basis that "God cannot interfere with science otherwise nothing can be known scientifically". Basically, even if the action were actually by God and that it could be proven easily, that no matter how certain such an event were, and no matter how valid the proof, that it would be explained away.



Yes, I consider the "natural" or "material" universe to be a subset of the larger scheme of reality.



To be specific, the particular group of young earth creationists whom I respect mainly work for Creation Ministries International, such as Dr Jonathan Sarfati, Dr Carl Wieland, Dr Tas Walker, Dr Russell Humphrey's, et al. Yes, variety among worldviews does mean that not all worldviews are common. However, to attack the weakest members and the weakest views, and then pretend that all are equally weak and that they are all conquered because the weaker ones are easy to make fun of is, idk, it just seems jerkish. This is what happens though, and it's annoying, like people who PWN their own teammates on Halo multiplayer and then teabag and make stupid statements in L33T.



Do you consider the ideology of evolutionism/materialism to be more or less popular on this forum than the ideology of creationism?



To presume that because current development of antibiotics utilizes evolutionary theory, particularly natural selection really, and that because antibiotics are effective in countering the same strains of diseases which they have been developed for, and then concluding that since the antibiotics work that evolution must be true is committing the genetic fallacy.

If an idea produces useful results, then the idea is true.
Natural selection is used to help develop antibiotics to certain strains of diseases.
Natural selection is an idea that produces useful results, therefore Evolutionism is true.



If an idea produces useful results, then the idea is true.
Alchemists (or whatever their actual title, they had a five elements theory rather than four) in China developed gunpowder.
Gunpowder is useful for kicking butt, therefore Alchemy is true.



If an idea produces useful results, then the idea is true.
Conventional current is a convention used in electronics diagrams where the convention current flows from positive to negative (as opposed to electron current).
Conventional current is useful and is used by all electronics engineers and technicians today, therefore conventional current is true.

BTW Gromit, you do realize that your question is theological/philosophical in nature and not having much to do with science? Any answer to these will be theological also.

Some things are much harder to explain away. I mean, I am sympathetic that most miracles actually would be explained away, but I would think that after a certain point of exposure to actions that seem non-natural due to a purposiveness that exists that could not have been generated by known individuals or the natural workings of known forces, like a disembodied voice, or ghostly writings on walls, etc, that people would eventually change their minds simply due to the significance of the burden of explaining all of these ongoing actions away. Now, a thousand years after these actions occur, then the population might revert or have already reverted back to naturalism, and possibly even be rational to do so, but to hold that all possible supernatural events can be explained away despite number or depth seems difficult. I am sympathetic to that idea, as I think that if I saw just one miracle I might think it was just me getting a bit ill or something, but if everyone sees a bunch of miracles then it can't just be that I am a bit ill.


Not what I was saying. I was just saying that a division between "natural" or "material" ends up being hard to clearly demarcate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hempel%27s_Dilemma
http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2009/ ... alist.html


Well, honestly, a lot of public showings of creationist ideas usually end up not seeming very impressive (Ray Comfort's banana?), and as Orwell notes, end up trying to make claims that are scientifically problematic. So, even if Orwell was interested in creationism, he is likely to only know of a poor showing, and is unlikely to find better literature. After all, only people who know a lot about a set of literature knows what the good books are.


I would generally think that creationism is less popular. Of course, this does not mean anything about whether evolutionists and materialists on this forum are intellectually lazier, as the issue is just a tendency among populations. Not only that, but I doubt that this forum counts as anybody's social crowd and I would imagine that PPR has a greater tendency away from intellectual laziness. Finally, not being as intellectually lazy does not mean being smarter, or more likely correct. I mean, the position I am putting forward also promotes the idea that racists who interact with non-racists also are not as intellectually lazy in some ways as the people who casually promote equality.


Well, honestly, the utility of an idea is one of the ways we can tell if something is true. I mean, this is likely because usefulness relates back to predictiveness, and one of the ideals of science is to be able to use theories to predict future results.

Does evolution produce useful results? Yes. Do useful results require predictiveness? Yes. Is predictiveness a measure of truth? Yes.

Does the predictiveness/usefulness of something prove it true beyond a doubt? No. However, is it irrelevant? No.


Did they accidentally find it, or did they use an alchemical theory? If the former then no, nothing is proven except that alchemical research is a means of finding some truths. If they used some alchemical theory to find gunpowder, then we have a better case that alchemy is itself true.

In this case, we don't have a matter of research efforts so much as a guiding theory I would imagine. If a guiding theory is useful, then it must be predictive, and if a theory is predictive then it is likely true.


Here we have an issue about what "true" means.

Newtonian physics isn't exactly how things work, neither is the modern physics. However, if I were asked if the theories were basically true, then I would say "Yes, yes they are". They don't match every detail, they miss a few things, but they are relatively correct.

At the same time, I would probably end up saying the same thing about conventional current, that it is in some sense true, and that this truth of it is partially shown by it's usefulness. I don't think I engage in any absurdity or contradiction by saying so either.

If one considers this position absurd, then I am not sure how one can ascribe truth to any scientific idea.

I'll disagree to some extent with the thrust. Ideologies are to a certain extent predictive accounts of reality. Perhaps not outright falsifiable, but still not unintellectual.

Economist Mario Rizzo of NYU on the matter.

http://thinkmarkets.wordpress.com/2009/ ... -ideology/

Ideology as presumption
"But a presumption is not an arbitrary belief; it is not “metaphysical” in the sense that it is completely impervious to new evidence. A presumption is a belief we accept until sufficient evidence to the contrary is forthcoming. "

Ideology as research program
"Suppose someone says: “By and large the free market is best, among all of the feasible alternatives, at promoting human welfare.” Is this ideology? I think most people would say it is. What is it based on? Well, for some people it may be a religion or faith or sorts. But then its negation can be as well. However, it need not be a faith.

I think that for almost all economists who subscribe to the statement, it is a generalization based on evidence.
...
Looked at in this way, “ideology” is useful in scientific discourse. In fact, I suggest it is indispensible. How else can we approach new problems when the likely outcome of our search for specific evidence is inconclusive?"

Ideology as intellectual shortcut
"Most people are not scientists, economists or intellectuals. They are not testing hypotheses. They have other things to do. They are often rationally ignorant. How can they make up their minds about public policy? Many, though not all, are ideological. They choose a set or complex of beliefs that comports best with their observations and experience. For them too it is not rational to give up the world view because some (few) observations seem to conflict. Forgive some of them who are not willing to throw away long-held beliefs on the say-so of a president who is someone most never heard of eighteen months ago."


Now, I will admit that Rizzo's statement of ideology is more along the lines of political ideology, but I still do not think that it is irrelevant to the matter of philosophical ideology. Perhaps some of the language could be altered, but it seems absurd to say that ideology is utterly unresponsive. And perhaps you aren't committed to the position of unresponsiveness(you only said unfalsifiable), I do tend to think that you are likely trying to promote an idea of unresponsiveness.

I suppose we could divide unresponsiveness up into 3 categories though.(just to go off on a tangent that you might not have even been concerned about)

1) Individually unresponsive, as in an individual who accepts a particular ideology generally cannot be shaken from that position.
2) Generationally unresponsive, as in the overall generation of people, even if exposed to evidence is unlikely to be shaken from that position.
3) Cross-generationally unresponsive, as in a generation and the descendants of these people are unlikely to be shaken from a position despite whatever exposure to counter-evidence they have.

I suppose an issue here would then be sufficient evidence, as in at what point something would disagree with materialism, but I would imagine that materialism is going to be responsive at at least one of these levels.

I am sorry, but you are completely making a fool of yourself with these statements. Specially saying 'Holy Deified Theory of evolution' is probably make you look cool among some creationist guys, but it really makes it too easy to dismiss you as a nutcase.

In your past post, you implied that to falsify evolution you would have to falsify materialism. Which is clearly wrong.

Evolution, unlike intelligent design. Is a scientific theory. It is based on actual observation rather than "I don't like evolution, must make alternative up". It is a useful answer to the origin of species. It has practical consequences. It has made predictions which are yet to be challenged. Many of the predictions based on the theory of evolution have come true (meaning evidence actually points to this direction).

It is night vs day with creationism. Which really offers no answer at all but just a different question. Instead of answering the question, it creates new ones. It has no practical applications and it makes no predictions - meaning it is not falsiable. It is definitely not science in any possible way.

People like me prefer it way lot more than creationism because, unlike creationism, it can be proven wrong. You know, it is a 'strong' theory meaning that its validity requires actual evidence. We like it because it is not dogma, and we don't have to deliver ourselves completely to it and become blind believers. We have reached it based on Darwin's -and others' - rational observations. It is actualized constantly thanks to new evidence, and the evidence actually points to it.

Last edited by Vexcalibur on 27 Nov 2009, 11:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

Just to clear up confusion here, the reason why conventional current and electron current work equally well is because in electronic circuits the effects are the same. The electrons are the actual items moving, at least in direct current electronics, but the equal and opposite reaction allows for them to have the appearance of either being true in regard to circuitry. In electrochemistry though, it is most apparent that electron current is correct, but for the circuits it doesn't matter. Conventional current was decided by Benjamin Franklyn, and it was a 50/50 guess which we are stuck with. Much like the clock changing of Daylight Savings Time....

But electron current is what is actually true, but conventional current has usefulness only because in the setting of electronic circuits either electron or conventional current work. (It's best to keep straight which one you are using though, otherwise you have a similar problem to recording only numerical values for measurements when you use both Imperial and Metric systems, that is, ambiguity.)

Parakeet, old boy, if you want to claim to have "put up with" my crap, you'll take a stab at answering the question I asked upthread - since the evidence all points to a fourteen-billion-year-old Universe, with a five-billion-year-old Earth, and the evolution of life upon it - why are so many creationists so eager to call God a liar? If He created the Universe exactly as it is (which is the basic tenet of big-C Creationism, dodge it how you will), then He created all the evidence saying otherwise. Why do you think He would lie to His creation?

Interesting how you insist on redefining terms throughout this entire argument, though - redefining "evolution" to mean "materialism", as though God could not possibly have set up the mechanism of evolution in His creation, and redefining "creationism" to exclude its most vocal proponents, the Young-Earth Creationists. That way, you get to set up your very own straw men to tilt at, while deflecting any criticism of your own position by claiming it isn't really yours. Neat rhetorical trick, that...

No, it would actually work better to falsify materialism by falsifying evolution.

You don't actually read, do you?

Yes, for all ideologies, though I do not know all by only a few so this is a generalization, there are predictive elements. Some have a basis in reality as well, such as something that is observed, recorded, or otherwise be related to the realm of facts somehow. However, ideologies are not scientific theories. They may use scientific theories or data to support them, but if the theories are rejected later or the facts are better explained by different models, then the ideology will still remain even if its original foundation has been destroyed or antiquated. But going on, to see this particular categorization of ideologies:



If it alters or is rejected with contrary data, then it more closely follows with the scientific method and is less of an ideology.



For economics, they can measure the GDP and unemployment levels, and within certain assumptions and with qualified definitions of terminology determine whether the free market system is working best for those goals at the current time. This type of ideology has testable elements, however, if another system worked better than the free market system in these areas, then the proponents of it would redefine terms and goals to highlight areas where it is still better than the other. A marketing ploy.




In terms of economics, most people have a narrow view which is based on their own experiences. Such as, Wal-Mart is an example of capitalism in action, Wal-Mart sucks to work for (confer http://www.walmart-blows.com/forum ), therefore capitalism sucks.



I'm not certain what you mean here. If you mean whether I'm arguing on the basis Popper's falsification criterion, yes I am, but mostly due to it being the modern standard. I think the verification model may be better though, in terms of it being the standard in use while most new scientific frontiers were being discovered and when many new technologies were invented. However, that may be just a version of post hoc ergo propter hoc, but anyhow.



For 1), that may be due to either the person's grounding in their knowledge or their acceptance of the ideology under the assumption that people smarter than them have such knowledge. I find that people generally accept things for two main reasons, either they have learned something on their own or they put trust in others. Or, of course, there's always verbally accepting things under threats, but that's another matter.

2) This would be related to argument by popularity.

3) This would be related to argument by tradition.



It would probably depend on the person for 1), and for the statistical grouping of populations for 2) and 3). I haven't heard of "responsiveness" and "unresponsiveness" before, but it was probably an item invented with during the mid 20th century when "Progress" was the battlecry, figuratively.

I actually meant the plural "your" and not just your crap in particular. But let's see.

Your particular argument is more suited against creationist proponents of "apparent age". I am not one of these though, and my answer to it would basically be related to "evidence for a young earth" articles on either Creation Ministries International, the Creation Super Library, or the Institute for Creation Research. Starting now, I am not going to answer arguments with the general formula of "All the evidence points to this, so how could you be so stupid not to believe what I believe?" Although yours was a variation which starts with the rhetorical positioning of your stance having been defined as correct and then ending with a theological argument.

To answer your question, this once:

A conclusion which is based on presuppositions I reject, but lets pretend that this is true.

They don't actually think they do. The "apparent age" position does, however, do this, at least taking a straightforward or (buzzword: "literal") interpretation this is the case. However, there is the standard practice of interpreting passages which one does not agree with to the point of absurdity and making them void. We will ignore this and go with the "literal" interpretation.



Well, in terms of the law of non contradiction and taking literal interpretation, then there are a few possibilities. First, the one I'm sure your itching ears long to hear, that God may not exist. Second, that one or the other passage is not valid in terms of canon, that either God created over massive periods of time and Genesis 1 through 11 if false, or that God has the ability to lie. Or Thirdly, the apparent age doctrine is false and also the secular interpretation of data.

the question "why?" always results with a "creationist" conclusion , and the question "how?" always results in an answer pertinent to evolution.
i can see with clarity the validity of the "survival of the fittest" idea. it is obviously the fittest systems (the most apt) that reproduce, and their genetic lineage is endowed largely with same genetic advantages of the parents who in turn benefited from their inherited genes, and it goes all the way back to the mutation in that lineage that was a beneficial mutation that enabled the thriving of that ancestor who spawned many offspring who were similarly adapted for successful reproduction.

i can see how events unfold, and i can try to imagine the genesis of all the previous occurrences in the almost eternal past that lead to the actuality of an event, and i can see that from the instant of material (or manifested) creation, all existential things are bound to inevitable laws of existence (physics and probability).

i believe in both my idea of creationism (ie how did it all start in the beginning, when just a second before that...nothing existed. how does a universe of "matter" and "laws" spring from non existence?), and evolution.

and if matter and energy and forces and laws do spring from non existence, then it has to be miraculous in a way.

but once something is in reality, it is bound to the structure and governance of reality, and so the most apt organisms, (and inanimate events as well) prevail to recur.

i do not have a clue really about things on this level of philosophical speculation.
the sun is coming up and i did not want to post anyway, and i am going to bed.

Yes, I know. I just don't like contradictions, and at first sight this looks to me like it might be one. Being ignorant of the relevant theology, I ask a question.

I don't think you can disprove materialism by disproving evolution or vice versa. Materialism could be wrong but evolution true, if supernatural entities choose not to interfere and natural processes are sufficient. That is the position of deists, who think that a divine creator started up the universe but hasn't interfered since.

Evolution could be wrong but materialism true if we just haven't yet found the right materialist theory for the origin of species. This could be true on a small scale if Earth were an experiment run by advanced aliens who interfere whenever they feel like it.

Of course, a philosophical materialist is forced to look for a materialist account for the origin of species, and there is no other serious contender, but neither position absolutely depends on the other.

I see the problem with connecting evolution with materialism, which isn't *necessarily* the case, this is usually a problem from a creationist perspective to make that connection and even with atheism, Creationism seems more of an ideology than evolution it seems, at least what is shown, because I believe it has the strong connection of the belief about God, the nature of God and the purpose of creation, and the meaning of our lives. And I posted earlier about some implications from Evolution for few Christians regarding death (such as the belief that death didn't exist until the original sin, in which evolution seems to pose a problem for that), so yes, Creationism looks more like an ideological reason to propose that reality *must be* like that and that evolution "must be" false.

Wether evolution is connected with idealism as you seem to imply, it is the scientific theory that fits more with reality for now, according to the methodology.

Evolution is currently the accepted theory and I doubt that has that much to do with an ideology as you seem to imply, and it seems Creationism would be more likely to be "accused" of being an ideology more for its implications (such as based on the belief in God and the purpose of man on earth, which denying it becomes an ideological problem and in some cases an existential problem)

Now, is ignoring and denying Evolution as the best theory in favor of Creationism an ideological problem? I would say yes, for many it would mean that science would be limited to what religion dictates and pointing out few problems in the past, dark ages, the problem with Galileo. etc, reasons regarding scientific progress and other few ideological reasons.

Either way, I believe evolution (and not just biological but the evolution of the earth and universe) has its justified reasons to be the scientifically accepted and, as simple as some can put it, Creationism just doesn't comply with the requirements to become a valid theory.

What would falsify Creationism? Nothing
What would falsify Evolution? A better *valid* theory that predicts better than evolution, would eventually correct it or replace it, if it differs a lot.

Why Creationism isn't science?
1. Cannot be falsified
2. It's not a theory based on *natural* phenomena, rather supernatural
3. It invoces the existence and nature of a Supreme Intelligent Being, which cannot be observed and experienced within the scientific method framework, which I would say to be a metaphysical issue rather than physical (which would seem to make Creationism a metaphyisical ideology).
And there might be other reasons wich I can't think for right now.

Not sure about others but I would say Creationism to belong to Philosophy at least, not Science, which that is the main issue.

You're correct, disproving evolution wouldn't necessarily disprove materialism, but it is better than vice versa from a point of view of dependency. There would just be another hypothesis made to replace evolution. And, no, mice do not run the world. Nor dolphins, even if they are thankful for the fish. BTW, the answer is 42.




I'll try to answer the question on my own, but if you want a more official position on the corruption of creation after the Fall and Attack/Defense structures, then I'd suggest going to creation.com or one of the other websites which I've listed in previous posts. Search engines work fairly well there.



If there was no death or disease in paradise, then either these things existed outside of paradise (outside the location of the garden in the land of Eden), or God had genes in certain creatures which could be activated to cause mutation in response to, say, human feces, after humans had eaten from the tree they were commanded not to, or, as you suggested, a second creation happened after the fall. It could be that in God's providence He either knew we would disobey Him, assuming omniscience, or (just not to get into the whole predestination argument) if God were not omniscience (which I believe He is, but with this assumption) then He would at least be able to work with the probabilities.



Possibly, though not for certain. If so, then the passage which would refer to it is,

Genesis 3:17-19 ESV And to Adam he said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; (18) thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. (19) By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return."

Though this only deals with the aspect of plants, other creatures could either have been altered or created new. The Bible doesn't specify that God's work in creation is over. In Isaiah 65:17 and in Revelation 21:1 it talks of God creating a new heavens and a new earth, basically a new universe, and that this one with be nullified. So, Biblically, God is not through with physical creation.



Technically, it would be the 3rd day for the plants, 5th for birds and life in the sea, and 6th day for land based wildlife and humankind.



The official position is that no disease or death existed prior to the Fall, that such are the punishment for disobeying the one commandment given. Perhaps your idea of creative acts not being limited to the first 6 days is more tenable theologically. Otherwise, other functions and diets for such creatures would need to be determined, such as if they possibly can. Something like the difference between crane flies, which drink nectar, and the state bird of Alaska, which drinks blood.



To some extent immune systems would be necessary even if there were no parasitic organisms. And also, perhaps it would also be an issue of God's foreknowledge or foresight as to its later necessity in the world after the Fall, even if it were not necessary prior.



Some disease defenses have evolved since the initial creation, such as Sickle Cell Anemia, which (when it is not in full dominancy) allows for protection against malaria by making the blood cells useless to the pathogen. It is technically due to a defective gene, but in consideration of malaria it is a beneficial mutation. This is actual evolution, the destruction or damaging of functional components so as to increase the possibility of survival.

Without arguing the points for right now, because I need a nap and I have over 200 pages of the most annoying textbook written (Principles of Marketing) in addition to my accounting and microeconomics textbooks, I'll say this:

Whether or not the central doctrines and assumptions of the ideology of creationism are directly falsifiable or not, the models based off of them are.