"Credible" creation presentation pierces armor of evolution "superiority" 
By Bob Ellis
Dakota Voice
From the Dickson Herald comes another article on the new Creation Museum opening up in Kentucky by Answers in Genesis, titled "Creation Museum worries scientists."
I think what they mean here is that it worries scientists who believe in the scientifically untenable theory of evolution. I don't think it worries the scientists who believe what the Bible says about creation and believe that science agrees with that account. (Full Story)
Featured Article
Monday, May 21, 2007
Evolutionists Afraid Creation Museum Exposes Their Soft Underbelly
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
36 comments:
I was gonna Drive to California but was afraid I'd fall off the other side of the Earth.
Let's assume the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Where did the oil come from? Was it created in the ground with the rest of the Earth? If so, is there a way to predict where it might be found? Or perhaps it really did form from plants and dinosaurs, but about 10,000 times faster than any chemist believes it could? Any way you look at it, a young Earth and a Flood would imply some very interesting scientific questions to ask, some interesting (and potentially extremely valuable) research programs to start. How come nobody's actually pursuing such research programs?
Why don't fundamentalists put together an investment fund, where people pay in and the stake is used as venture capital for things like oil and mineral rights? If "Flood geology" is really a better
theory, then it should make better predictions about where raw materials are than standard geology does. The profits from such a venture could pay for a lot of evangelism. Why isn't anyone doing this?
That's a good question, Sorcerer and here's a good answer: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n1/origin-of-oil
Oil doesn't take that long to form, and many creation scientist believe it started to form from all the compressed organic material buried by the Flood. Here's an AIG article on coal, also: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i2/coal.asp
I'm not sure you could predict geological deposits because the best creation theories suspect geological upheaval on an almost unimaginable scale at, during and after the Flood. While it seems I recall a creation-minded geologist doing some exploration in and around the middle east, I can't recall specifics about that.
But if no one is exploring geological exploitation based on creation theories, perhaps its difficult to gain momentum because of the tremendous peer pressure exerted by the evolution movement. Even most people who believe in the Genesis creation account are afraid of publicly voicing their beliefs for fear of being ridiculed...as I was after posting my op/ed piece about the AIG Creation Museum. Peer pressure and appearing to be apart from the herd are powerful dampeners on honest expression.
I think people who dont believe in geology should stop using things that are made with science. like.... computers. Or they should do faith healing instead of going to real hostipitals. why not just have cops not use dating anymore in investagations. Hell why even teach science in school, its all liberal properganda. gravity is just god holding you down, and animals can talk they just dont want to.
Apparently somebody (Anonymous 2:32) doesn't understand the difference between science and naturalism/materialism.
I don't know of a single creationist who doesn't believe in science or geology; not to believe in geology would be to ignore the mountain or gully or field right in front of your eyes.
Naturalism, however, is a philosophy which believes all organism came about through natural (i.e. no supernatural influence), and materialism essentially believes all matter came about with no supernatural causation.
Creationists and evolutionists both accept the same evidence, and both investigate it with science. The difference is one of philosophy or "worldview" which is a set of presuppositions.
The creationist presupposes the existence of God and that He was Creator. Evolutionists presuppose there was no God, no creator, and that everything just somehow happened with no causation.
Believing in God takes faith; believing everything sprang from nothing with no cause, and that all that random somethingness somehow became ordered on its own with no causation takes a LOT more faith.
Oil doesn't take long to form? Then why is it found only in pools millions of years old? Is there any paper anywhere to support AiG's bizarre claim that oil doesn't take long to form?
Scientists don't fear creationism -- they fear for the fate of our society when people act gullible and swallow large amounts of hogwash, such as a claim that oil can form quickly.
Apparently somebody (Anonymous 2:32) doesn't understand the difference between science and naturalism/materialism.
I don't know of a single creationist who doesn't believe in science or geology; not to believe in geology would be to ignore the mountain or gully or field right in front of your eyes.
Naturalism, however, is a philosophy which believes all organism came about through natural (i.e. no supernatural influence), and materialism essentially believes all matter came about with no supernatural causation.
No, naturalism is a philosophy which says that what we see is what we see. Methodological naturalism says we assume God doesn't interfere with most processes, so we can test them without fear that God will skew the results, and so what we find is what will usually happen in the real world.
Philosophical naturalism says that there is so little evidence for supernatural power, we can effectively dismiss it as a hypothesis.
Now, methodological naturalism is the root of the research that makes computers. So if you're going to eschew serious scientific work, dump your computer now. And your refrigerator. And your electricity. And anything that is gasoline powered.
Evolutionists are afraid that creationism will rot the thinking abilities of citizens, and they will start confusing bad ideas with good ones. One bad idea is the idea that methodological naturalism has a philosophy contrary to Christianity and should be avoided. Christians created methodological naturalism because it gets at the truth, and Christians value truth.
So, who was the creationist wacko who convinced you to avoid finding the truth? Do you start to see the problem?
Ed: how do you know the pool of oil is millions of years old? Does it have a packaging label, or a timestamp? Or is it that same flawed dating methodology that says the 26 year old lava dome at Mount St. Helens is 2.8 million years old?
If you go back and read that AIG article, you'll find that oil can be created in 1-5 days. Coal has also been created in the lab in about three weeks. It isn't hogwash; it's been scientifically proven and OBSERVED, which is something the oil coming from the ground hasn't been.
Which is why I say evolutionists are scared silly that people might realize creation scientists have real, scientifically viable theories. It's also why they try so hard to ridicule creation scientists, and why they try to hard to misdirect by calling their philosophy of naturalism "science."
Because they know creation science can go toe to toe with their theories...and their theories have far more holes in them.
Ed: regards naturalism, you can assume God doesn't interfere with most processes...but what if he does sometimes?
I have several years experience with various programming languages. For the average computer user, they are going to get the same results out of the same set of applications time after time. But if I understand the programming language and have access to the source code to change it, I can make it do things you've never seen before.
God, as the Master Programmer, has access to the programming code of the universe. Usually, he lets the program run its course. Sometimes he suspends or changes that programming. That's what we refer to as a miracle, or a supernatural event. This might violate the laws of nature...but only for those of us who are under the authority of those laws, and are bound by them.
If you are a casual user of my web page, you simply get what it offers. But if I can access the source code, I can make it produce results that you can't. It's no more impossible for God to create the world in six days, and no more impossible for him to flood the entire earth, than it's impossible for me to change the background color of a web page for which I control the source code.
Creationists want the truth just as bad as anyone, and I dare say even more than evolutionists. I have no vested interest in believing in God. If he isn't real, then I'd rather go eat, drink and be merry. But the evidence points toward his reality. And the evidence points toward the truth that he created the universe, and that he didn't lie or use poetry or allegory or any other slick literary device in the Bible--he just told us what he did.
Why is it so hard to believe God just did what he said?
One additional thought on my last set of comments using computer programming as a creation analogy.
You probably use Microsoft Windows (or possibly Mac, but the same principle applies). Have you ever met a Microsoft programmer? Have you ever seen one? Has a Microsoft programmer ever appeared before you and done programming "miracles"?
If not, does that mean no Microsoft programmer exists? Does that mean that MS Windows "evolved" from DOS? Did the programming language manage through billions of years of evolution to write itself into a coherent program?
Or did an intelligent designer create the program...even though you've never seen him?
Why are you depending on websites (AIG) that don't have to be responsible for what they say? Why don't you instead look at the top university websites that pump out doctors, chemists, and biologists?
You might as well believe the sites that say the earth is flat and 9/11 was a government job. Those people do not have to take responsibility for what they say. Real scientists have to actually post their research in peer reviewed journals. If they lie then they lose all their prestige, honor, funding, etc.
Ask yourself this, "What other countries have a majority of people that don't accept evolution?"
Cris: AIG does have to be responsible for what they say. They are responsible before God to be certain, but they also are responsible before everyone else to put forth scientifically viable theories. Just because you assume they aren't scientifically viable doesn't mean they in fact aren't; you either haven't examined them, or you approach them with the presupposition that they are impossible (like atheistic scientists who approach science with the presupposition that evolution is reality).
It may be that no other country in the world has a majority of people who don't believe in the theory of evolution. But ask yourself this: what other country in the world has more freedom, more affluence, a greater standard of living, more technological innovation, and is just the best darn place in the world to be? If you've done any traveling at all, the answer will be obvious (and it might just have something to do with the fact that until only recently, the vast majority of Americans held a Christian worldview).
I am a biochemistry major and I have received a full ride to my state university. I also enjoy reading the Holy Bible, Glorious Quran, and other religious writings so I know the origin of the creationist ideas. I know how to distinguish lies from truth. Scientific reports are first submitted to peer reviewed journals so that other scientists all over the world can review them and do their own tests. This is not the case for AIG. They know that their audience are the ordinary people that don't know much about science due to the fact that education is failing in the US. Even though the majority of scientists criticize their ideas that still doesn't to them because they have no responsibility to the academia.
So please, go to university websites such as Berkeley, Harvard, UCLA, and other top universities and read about evolution. These are the universities that produce our brightest and smartest citizens and not to mention foreigners.
The only countries that have a majority that don't accept evolution are the Muslim countries. They are also extremely poor and weak.
Also, the USA is losing its innovation. I'm sure you have even heard Bush talk about how we are losing our power because we cannot compete. Our schools are pumping out uneducated students when compared to western to europe, japan, and israel.
Islam was also once powerful but as things got tough people turned to religion and now you see the aftermath. They became weak and the west conquered them. At the same time the West (Europe) broke free from the dominance of the Catholic Church which placed religion above reason. They tried to silence Galileo who was himself a Christian because he contradicted the Bible. So as you can see throughout history extreme dependence on religion stifles nations, empires, etc.
Your hostility toward the Bible is misplaced. Galileo didn't contradict the Bible; he contradicted some men who were wrong, including many outside the church.
While peer review has some sound principles, there is one fundamental problem with it: the herd instinct. It's very difficult for a creation scientist to have his theories taken seriously by his "peers" when his peers have a blind, dare I say "religious" devotion to an unproven theory that happens to please their worldview needs. These days, most of the innovators of the past couldn't have passed peer review...because the intellectual snobs at the top of academia are too afraid they might look provincial by embracing a controversial idea...much less one (ick) Biblical.
In other words, how are you supposed to get your ideas past peer review when your peers are ideologically opposed to you? You might as well expect a capitalist to get his economic ideas peer reviewed by Karl Marx and his buddies; it isn't going to happen. It could if evolutionists had an open mind, but they don't.
Many of the scientists and innovators of the past believed in God and sought to understand the majesty of His creation. Perhaps that's why the U.S. is losing its edge: it's now giving the middle finger to the one who created everything, and has the power to bestow insight as he sees fit.
The Bible describes a flat earth however if you want to take these passages at metaphors then you have to ask yourself why you would take the Genesis account literal:
Isaiah 11:12
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)
Revelation 7:1
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)
Job 38:13
13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)
Jeremiah 16:19
19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)
Daniel 4:11
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)
Also, I know that there were scientists that also thought the earth was flat and some also tried to convince Galileo to present his discovery a hypothesis instead. They still placed religion first in understanding the world around us and they were wrong.
Herd instinct idea doesn't seem to hold up considering the fact that there was another theory of evolution which was given up by scientists. As new ideas are developed and scientists all over the world test them and accept then they will change their theories. This is not the case with AIG because their arguments are not aimed at them (top scientists) but at the ordinary people in America who don't know much about science due to our poor state of education. And the top academics are not afraid of embracing a Biblical idea. Religion tried to describe the world around us and it has failed. During the plague religious people banned gambling, prostitution, and other "sins" because they thought that was the cause for the plague. Their failure to understand the problem has shown that religion should not be used to explain the world around us.
We are losing our edge because our education system has failed our population. "Education and research. It is no longer accurate to say America is falling behind on education. We have fallen behind. We are slipping on nearly every international metric on math and science. Congress must ensure that funding for K-12 math and science education is a national priority. And if we prioritize federally sponsored research at universities while making it easier for foreign graduate students to stay in the United States, we will keep the best and brightest here." http://news.com.com/Answering+Bushs+competition+challenge/2010-1014_3-6033639.html
Also, the more secular nations such as Europe, Japan, China, and others are increasing influence. So your idea that America's abandonment of religion is the cause of loss power is contradicted by the progress of these secular countries.
Cris: you make some valid points, but the Bible, like any written communication, must be read contextually. In the passages you cite, the writer is speaking in common vernacular, not aiming for scientific accuracy (just as today we might say something is "cool," we're not describing its thermal properties--so are we unreliable when we describe something as "cool"?). Or if you tell your sweetheart that you "can't live without her," does that mean you're going to die if separated from her?
The context of Genesis with regard to events and days, however, reads contextually to mean what it says. If you don't believe the Bible at all, then context doesn't matter anyway. But if you do profess to believe the Bible (as most Americans do), then you also have irreconcilable problems with the most basic elements of Christian theology (the nature of man, sin, why Christ came to earth, etc.) and trying to harmonize that to a "symbolic" evolutionary interpretation of the Bible.
One final note: what I find the most laughable in the whole creation/evolution debate is that evolutionists, while looking down their noses at creationists as intellectually inferior, are some of the most closed minded people on the planet. They're like the emperor and his new clothes: they have one of the most dogmatic belief systems imaginable...yet refused to acknowledge even one iota of presupposition.
The Catholics were aiming for scientific accuracy and that is where their ideas about the earth being flat originated.
As for believing the Bible... if you believe everything it says then you should believe everything every other religious writing says. They were all written by people who wanted to understand the world around them. You will also notice that there have been tons of flood stories in the Middle East, ones that were cited by other people and in other texts before the Bible. Even the ideas of Heaven and one God originated from other religions.
How is evolution dogmatic?
I'm on my way out the door to an appointment, so no time to get into the flat earth/Catholic thing; it's complicated.
But as for the Bible and other religions. Did it ever occur to you that the Flood actually happened...and that as the story was passed down over the years, it changed in the different cultures? So your example actually lends credibility to the reality of the flood. If you believe the Bible, Moses got the creation and flood accounts directly from God himself.
And no, believing the Bible doesn't mean I have to believe every religion...any more than believing in one theory means I have to believe them all. The Biblical account happens to make sense historically and scientifically, whereas others, such as an animal vomiting out the universe, just doesn't. Wanting to understand the universe and actually getting it right are two different things. I believe the Bible was inspired by God, and thus was essentially him telling humanity about the truth through a human writer.
Your latest statement reveals a lot about your own biases and presuppositions. It would benefit you to stop and examine them closely.
Gotta go. Have a great day!
There were multiple floods and the reason for that is because of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers which flooded from time to time and deposited silt which created extremely fertile farm lands. Natural disasters have long been associated with religions throughout the world. Floods, earth quakes, storms, thunder, etc. have all had their share of explanation by placing Gods and Goddesses as their causes (Poseidon, Zeus, etc).
If the Bible made sense scientifically then ideas derived from it would not have been proven wrong by Galileo, Germ Theory of Disease, Evolution, Big Bang, etc.
As for history: The Quran can also be backed up by history because even history books talk about how Muhammad talked about Gabriel visiting him and Muhammad's conquest of Mecca which threw out all the pagan Gods and began converting the world which is also talked about in the Quran itself.
If you want to understand the world then go into science. Religion has shown to be ineffective as explaining the world and solving our problems. Countries with extremely religious populations tend to have higher crime rates and be less powerful. This is exemplified by the Muslim countries and by America's extremely high murder rates and losing prestige.
Another thing, my high school biology teacher was a conservative Jew but he also accepted evolution as do many other religious scientists. They have been able to keep to their faith and still be reasonable about their methods of understand the world. If America is to regain its dominance then the creationists should do the same or otherwise Western Europe, China, and other secular countries will take its place.
And as for my bias: I used to be somewhat religious but as I learned about other religions, about human history, and science, I stopped depending on religion to answer questions. I will admit that I might eventually convert to a religion as I age but that does not mean I will let religion override reason and neither will I go on blind faith when trying to understand the world around me.
The Bible wasn't proven wrong by Galileo or anything or anyone else. Only bad theories have been proven wrong, and the Bible doesn't contain any. Like anything, the Bible is interpreted according to our understanding...and often our biases.
The Bible doesn't purport to be a science book or a history book, but it does touch on areas of science and history, and where it does, it's 100% accurate. Some elements of its claims haven't been proven yet...but they haven't been disproved either.
I don't believe in the Bible by blind faith either, Cris. In fact, I frequently re-examine my belief in it, based on science and my observations. If it's a fraud, then I'd toss it aside in a New York minute; I'd much rather be right than be religious. Yet every time I examine its claims, I find that it merits my faith far more than the unscientific and unviable claims of materialism and naturalism.
The bad theories were derived from the Bible.
Which scientific claims in the Bible are accurate?
How are the claims of materialism and naturalism unscientific? The evidence is reviewed by top scientists and new evidence is always being discovered. These are the same people that teach our doctors, biologists, and chemists. Are you saying they don't know what they are talking about?
Are you only depending on AIG and other such websites that don't have to be responsible for their ideas? We have already been over the fact that they post their "research" in the same manner that the 9/11 conspiracy theorists do. They don't have anything in reputable peer reviewed journals so don't even work in the context of mainstream science which discovers new treatments for disease, causes of disease, etc. which are all posted in respectable peer reviewed journals.
If you go back over this comment thread, you'll see that I've already addressed the issues you brought up. The only thing I'll add is that those "top scientists" you mentioned are precisely the ones with such a religious devotion to evolution and the idea that God cannot exist that they can't even consider other theories, much less the possibility that God exists. All the major pillars of evolution depend on supernatural events (because the Big Bang, the formation of stars and planets, life forming from lifelessness, the generation of new DNA, the problem of irreducible complexity, et al all violate natural laws and the laws of physics), yet naturalists dogmatically assert that there can be no supernatural causation. It's a pretty arrogant statement to make that someone or something (like God) doesn't exist, especially in light of all the evidence for intelligent design.
Evolutionists accuse Christians of being closed minded, when they are far more closed-minded. They also ridicule Christians for believing in supernatural influences, when their own theories depend on occurrences that violate multiple natural laws. It'd be absolutely laughable...if it weren't misleading people both intellectually and spiritually.
There are plenty of scientists that are religious: http://www.answersincreation.org/
My biology teacher was also a Jew and accepted evolution.
Evolutionists can accept other theories if those theories are actually SCIENTIFIC. You do know that creation scientists depend more on faith than on science?
Super natural events?
Big Bang proof: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0317_060317_big_bang.html
Life forming from lifelessness? Where did you get that from? That is just a hypothesis by the way but do you even know the difference?
New DNA? You mean figuring out when new DNA is added in organisms? As far as I know we can only indirectly trace the addition of new genetic material in organisms.
Violate natural law of physics? Well technically there are no natural laws because science is made up of theories. So what exactly are you talking about? Which law?
Irreducible complexity is also false because it forgets to mention simple eyes in flat worms that only detect light. Through evolution these simple sensors can develop into more complex structures.
Can you actually cite all of your information? Did you get them all from AIG? Can you find anything from University websites?
Actually here's evidence of genome increase: http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/abstract/16/10/1262
It sounds to me like a genetic reordering with in the plant species, rather than new genetic information. Has this been observed, and if so, when?
I showed you proof that organisms can increase their genetic make up after you said there is no proof.
Here they actually showed how it is done (Just read the abstract but you can go ahead and read the whole paper):
"Using a single gene dosage compensation system, we have been able to identify several large segmental duplication events all encompassing the reporter gene, but extending much beyond it."
http://www.nature.com/emboj/journal/v23/n1/full/7600024a.html
Here's the full paper on the genome increase from my previous post:
"It is now commonly accepted that retrotranspositions have played a crucial role in genomic expansion and architecture and could also have an impact on the transcriptional regulation of genes of these major crop species (Kashkush et al. 2003Go).
http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/16/10/1262?ijkey=8306364717d0a2a11920840746cebc3efbb98dd5
Numerous other studies have confirmed this phenomena. Here's one on corn: http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/82/suppl_1/37.pdf
Cris, I'd still like to know when this happened and if it was observed.
Yes it has been observed, I gave the journal that had the report. This happened in 2003.
http://www.nature.com/emboj/journal/v23/n1/full/7600024a.html
I'm not a biologist, but this doesn't sound like an observed, confirmed event to me. There was a lot of talk about "growing evidence" and "suggested" and "little experimental data have been produced" and "sequence-based evidence." As a former law enforcement specialist, I can tell you that "evidence" and even "growing evidence" doesn't constitute an absolute finding. Evidence can lead you down the right path to a conclusion...or it can be a dead end.
It also sounds like a duplication of existing genetic information, rather than the generation of new genetic information.
Where did you get that? Which articles?
"Class I corresponds to 42 revertants showing a size INCREASE of chromosome XV that carries RPL20B"
http://www.nature.com/emboj/journal/v23/n1/full/7600024a.html
That is the generation of new genetic material. The genome is now bigger. Your are now ignoring the evidence.
I'm open to the evidence, and though I'll look at it further when I get time, it still looks like a duplication of genetic information rather than new information.
That is how new genetic information is added. The gene duplicates BUT all of the nucleotides are NEW. The cell uses NEW nucleotides, phosphates, etc. to make another DNA sequence. After there are is there DNA sequences then this allows for more mutations.
So basically when it duplicates a gene however many times it can still keep the old gene but other copies of the gene will be available for mutation.
But as I said, that article is full of talk about "suggestions" and "evidence," but not proof. And knowing the "evidence" that sometimes gets passed off as hard science these days, forgive me if I'm a little skeptical.
Which parts? The introduction? Give me the full quotes and from which sections.
Unless you give me the actual quotes then the fact remains that the report provides empirical evidence for the increase of genetic material.
I already gave you the quotes, but here, I'll emphasize them with all CAPS and bolding from the text:
There is GROWING EVIDENCE that duplications have played a major role
in eucaryotic genome evolution. Sequencing data revealed the presence of large
duplicated regions in the genomes of many eucaryotic organisms, and comparative
studies have SUGGESTED that duplication of large DNA segments has been a
continuing process during evolution. However, LITTLE EXPERIMENTAL DATA
have been produced regarding this issue. Using a gene dosage assay for growth
recovery in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, we demonstrate that a majority of
the revertant strains (58%) resulted from the spontaneous duplication of large
DNA segments, either intra- or interchromosomally, ranging from 41 to 655 kb in
size. These events result in the concomitant duplication of dozens of genes and
in some cases in the formation of chimeric open reading frames at the junction
of the duplicated blocks. The types of sequences at the breakpoints as well as
their superposition with the replication map SUGGEST that spontaneous
large segmental duplications result from replication accidents.
I'm fully aware that a lot of "suggests" and "growing evidence" and "little experimental data" constitutes "proof" for evolutionists, but it doesn't provide proof in the real world; it only suggests possibilities.
The first ones were talking about older studies.
Now, prove this statement wrong: "Class I corresponds to 42 revertants showing a size INCREASE of chromosome XV that carries RPL20B".
http://www.nature.com/emboj/journal/v23/n1/full/7600024a.html
Oh and it does provide proof in science. The whole point is that there is an increase of DNA size. You said that was a superstition and there was no proof.
There are tons of studies that add more evidence for more DNA addition but you will only find them in scientific journals and not in creationist websites.
Post a Comment