Posted on 02/08/2005 10:26:54 AM PST by DannyTN
Home | Feedback | Links | Books
A Theory of Creation
|
By having the terms defined with more clarity (and less bias), and with a measure of information provided, one should have little difficulty seeing that the theory of creation not only exists, but also stands up rather well to a rigorous side-by-side comparison with its evolutionary counterpart. It has predictive value, is internally consistent, is no less falsifiable than evolution, and consistently explains at least as many phenomena allegedly explained by evolution.
The vocal proponents of evolution have demonstrated time and again that they are not interested in this kind of straightforward clarity or information. They object to its presentation, excuse themselves from paying much attention to it, then return to hacking up their favorite straw-man caricatures and congratulating each other on a job well done. (Dont let this happen to you!)
Vocal proponents of evolutionism such as are found at Talk.Origins have employed willful ignorance and arbitrary double-standards to question the scientific legitimacy of the creation science model. They then go to great lengths to avoid responsibility for using such unscientificif not outright deceptivetactics to disparage their worst nightmare: the truth.
Timothy Wallace
[1] The Talk.Origins Archive Welcome FAQ (as of 25 April 2000), apparently authored by Andy Peters, Onar Aam, Jim Acker, Wesley Elsberry, Mark Isaak, Bill Jefferys, Jim Loats, Thomas Marlowe, Paul Neubacher, Tero Sand, Thomas Scharle, Paul Schinder, Chris Stassen, Brett Vickers, and Kurt vonRoeschlaub. [RETURN TO TEXT]
[2] ibid. [RETURN TO TEXT]
[3] Two extensive online book lists are A Young-Earth Creationist Bibliography by Henry M. Morris and Master Creation/Anti-Evolution Bibliography by Eric Blievernicht. Periodicals include the peer-reviewed Creation Research Society Quarterly and Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, and the popular-level Creation Ex Nihilo Magazine. [RETURN TO TEXT]
[4] Such fundamental assumptions are strictly religious/philosophical in both models, and therefore incapable of empirical falsification. [RETURN TO TEXT]
[5] Although much external evidence (e.g., ancient records and archaeological research) points to the accuracy of the Bible (as properly understood), this evidence does not necessarily render the reliability of the Bible an empirically falsifiable postulateparticularly to the mind and will predisposed to resist the moral implications inherent in the Bibles message. Some links for serious inquirers might be The Textual Reliability of the New Testament. [RETURN TO TEXT]
[6] The creationary postulate that the ultimate Primal Cause of time, space, and matter/energy was the Creator-God of the Bible is not empirically falsifiable, although evidence does point to a beginning of time, space, and matter/energy. The evolutionary postulate that time, space, and matter/energy are either self-created or eternal in nature is empirically falsified, in that empirical evidence (i.e., the principle of entropy) points to a beginning of time, space, and matter/energy, and no unequivocal empirical evidence exists that time, space, and/or matter/energy can spontaneously exist via natural processes where none existed previously. Serious inquirers might be interested in reading Sarfatis If God Created the Universe, then Who Created God?, How to Think About God, by Mortimer J. Adler (New York, 1980: Macmillan). (Adler was a professor at UNC Chapel Hill, Chairman of the Board of Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, Dir of the Institute of Philosophical Research, and Honorary Trustee of the Aspen Institute for Hamanistic Studies. A self-described pagan, he nevertheless formulated a rationalistic argument for the existence of God either beyond a reasonable doubt or by a preponderance of reasons for that conclusion over reasons against it. His argument hinges on causation. [RETURN TO TEXT]
[7] The creationary postulate that complexity, variety and adaptability in living organisms and ecological systems are potentially inherent and complete in original populations as created and manifested over time through genetic variation and natural selection would be falsified by the demonstration that natural processes alone are unequivocally capable of producing these phenomena, were such a demonstration possible. The evolutionary postulate that complexity, variety and adaptability in living organisms and ecological systems have increased over time, starting from zero, via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years, on the other hand, is becoming falsified by a growing body of empirical data indicating that natural processes alone are unequivocally incapable of producing these phenomena. [RETURN TO TEXT]
[8] The creationary postulate that massive amounts of coded genetic information were inherent and complete in the original populations as created, and that the sum total has steadily declined over time via mutational degradation would be falsified by the demonstration of an unequivocal, empirically verifiable increase in new genetic information over time. The evolutionary postulate that massive amounts of coded genetic information have increased over time starting from zero, via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years, is becoming falsified by a growing body of empirical data pointing only to a net decrease in available genetic code, and the emergence of no unequivocally new genetic information. [RETURN TO TEXT]
[9] It has not been demonstrated empirically and unequivocally that similarities, ranging from genetic to morphological, between various organisms are either indicative of Creators prerogative to employ similar/identical structures and information sequences for similar functions in different organisms, or that they are residual evidence that multiple different organisms descended from common ancestors. Falsification for either interpretation therefore remains impossible. [RETURN TO TEXT]
[10] The creationary postulate that the fossil record, comprised of billions of organisms quickly buried in sedimentary rock layers laid down by water all over the earth, is a product of the biblical global Flood and its immediate aftermath has not been falsified. The evolutionary postulate that the same fossil record is a product of millions of years of gradual or intermittent burial likewise has not been falsified per se, though no empirically observed similar uniformitarian process can be demonstrated to support the claim. [RETURN TO TEXT]
[11] If the Ice Age could be shown unequivocally to conflict with the creationary paradigm, it would serve as a form of falsification. But the Ice Age is essentially predictable in the aftermath of a high-energy catastrophic Flood as postulated in the creation model, whereas the evolutionary model offers no firm and unambiguous explanation for the Ice Age. [RETURN TO TEXT]
[12] The Entropy Law, as formalized in the Second Law of Thermodynamics, finds no disagreement with the creation model, which points to a space/time/matter beginning, followed closely by constant degradationotherwise creation could be easily falsified via a demonstration that it violates the Entropy Law. The evolution model, on the other hand, requires a mechanism-free and consistent increase in order, complexity, and new genetic information, which amounts to an outright contradiction to the Entropy Law. [RETURN TO TEXT]
[13] The loose and distinctly variable stratigraphic sequence in the fossil record, with its many exceptions, presents a pattern of ecological zones quickly buried from lower to higher elevations, which fits the creation/flood model well, whereas a highly consistent and strictly uniform record would only serve to falsify it. The evolution model calls for a fairly strict and uniform stratigraphic sequence, but ends up with many problematic and unpredicted (i.e., out-of-order) anomalies which essentially falsify it. [RETURN TO TEXT]
[14] This aspect of the creation model would easily be falsified if uniformitarian dating methods unanimously and consistently agreed on any one age of the earth contradicting the biblical creation estimate. Instead, they vary wildly, spanning a range from little or no apparent age to billions of years, strongly suggesting that they are unreliable as a rule, and that the various processes measured to produce them are likely residual effects of the high-energy, catastrophic processes and conditions of the flood. The evolutionary model seeks confirmation in carefully selected samples of carefully selected methods of uniformitarian dating but is falsified by the remainingand equally legitimatedates obtained from the many other processes available for determining unformitarian dates. [RETURN TO TEXT]
Austin, Steven A., Grand Canyon -- Monument to Catastrophe (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1994).
Behe, Michael J., Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: Free Press, 1996).
Bergman, Jerry, The Criterion (Richfield, MN: Onesimus Publishing, 1984).
Bergman, Jerry and George Howe, Vestigial Organs Are Fully Functional (St. Joseph, MO: Creation Research Society Books, 1990).
Cooper, Bill, After the Flood (Chichester, England: New Wine Press, 1995).
Denton, Michael J., Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, MD: Adler & Adler, 1986; originally published in England in 1985).
Gange, Robert, Origins and Destiny (Dallas: Word, 1986).
Gentry, R. V., Creation's Tiny Mystery (Knoxville, TN: Earth Science Associates, 1986).
Gish, Duane T., Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1993).
Gish, Duane T., Dinosaurs by Design (El Cajon: Institute for Creation Research, 1992).
Gish, Duane T., Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No! (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1995; an enlargement of Dr. Gish's The Challenge of the Fossil Record, and before it, Evolution: The Fossils Say NO!).
Ham, Ken, Andrew Snelling, and Carl Wieland, The Answers Book (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1991).
Ham, Ken, The Lie: Evolution (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1987).
Humphreys, D. Russell, Starlight and Time (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1994).
Johnson, Phillip E., Darwin on Trial (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1991).
Johnson, Phillip E., Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997).
Johnson, Phillip E., Reason in the Balance (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995).
Lammerts, Walter E., ed., Why Not Creation? (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1970).
Lubenow, Marvin, Bones of Contention (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992).
Morris, Henry M., The Biblical Basis for Modern Science (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984).
Morris, Henry M., ed., Scientific Creationism 2d ed. (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1985).
Morris, Henry M. and Gary E. Parker, What is Creation Science? Rev. ed. (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1987).
Morris, John D., The Young Earth (Colorado Springs, CO: Master Books, 1994).
Oard, Michael, An Ice Age Caused by the Genesis Flood (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1990).
Schaeffer, Francis, No Final Conflict (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1975).
Slusher, Harold, S. and Stephen J. Robertson, The Age of the Solar System (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1982).
Slusher, Harold S., Origin of the Universe (San Diego, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1980).
Spetner, Lee, Not By Chance! (New York: Judaica Press, 1996).
Thaxton, Charles B., Walter L. Bradley, and Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (Dallas: Lewis & Stanley, 1992; originally published by Philosophical Library, 1984).
Thompson, Bert, Creation Compromises (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press, 1995).
Vardiman, Larry, Ice Cores and the Age of the Earth (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1993).
Vardiman, Larry, Sea-Floor Sediment and the Age of the Earth (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1996).
Whitcomb, John C. and Henry Morris, The Genesis Flood (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1964).
Wilder-Smith, A. E., Man's Origin, Man's Destiny (Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw Co., 1968).
Williams, Emmett L., ed., Thermodynamics and the Development of Order (Norcross, GA: Creation Research Society Books, 1981).
Wieland, Carl, Stones and Bones: Powerful Evidence Against Evolution (Acacia Ridge, Australia: Creation Science Foundation, 1994).
Woodmorappe, John, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1996).
Woodmorappe, John, Studies in Flood Geology (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1993).
This site has received over |
visits since November 1997 |
© TrueOrigin Archive. All Rights Reserved.
powered by Lone Star Web Works
How did he change the rules?
I think the vast majority of the tenets he lays out are very researchible and falsifiable.
Many of the great scientists of our history were motivated to understand the design of the Creator.
You claimed that "The church has always held that the earth was a sphere."
Noting that Aquinas and others believed in a speherical world does not support your claim that the church always held that the world was round.
The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary states:
The Hebrew universe. The ancient Hebrews imagined the world as flat and round, covered by the great dome of the firmament which was held up by mountain pillars (Job 26.11; 37.18). Above the firmament and under the earth was water, divided by God at creation (Gen 1.6, 7; cf Pss 24.2; 148.4). The upper waters were joined with the waters of the primordial deep during the Flood; the rains were believed to fall through windows in the firmament (Gen 7.11; 8.2). The sun, moon, and stars moved across or were fixed in the firmament (Gen 1.14-19; Ps 19.4, 6). Within the earth lay Sheol, the realm of the dead (Num 16.30-33; Isa 14.9, 15). (p339)
You see, that's what I'm talking about.
A thread like this makes the angels vomit.
I have not had time to read all of the article or the posts yet.
Still, read Genesis 5:1. According to Genesis humans are living still in the 6th Creational day. You can logically and scientifically dispute the account's validity, but it what it actually says is that man is living now in the 6th day.
Oh and bump to myself for later.
Sorry .. I don't know anything about that.
Since your discussion has dissolved into calling me names .. our conversation is over.
I don't read Gen 5:1 that way. I read it to say that in the day God made man, He made man in His image and He made man male and female.
However it's said that the ancient Hebrews taught that the Earth would exist in a fallen state for 6,000 years (1000 years corresponding to a day) and then have a rest for 1000 years.
It's thought that there were about 2000 years to the flood, 2000 years to Jesus and 2000 years till now. It's also thought that with the rebirth of Israel and other signs such as the rise of lesbianism and the rise in evolution whereby men forget the flood and creation, that we are in the last times prior to Great Tribulation. After which there will be the 1000 year reign of Christ mentioned in Revelations which would correspond to God's day of rest.
Ok, this article says that Talmudic scholars held one of four views:
1) The earth is flat and is resting on some sort of foundation.
2) The earth is flat but is floating in the air or nothingness.
3) The earth is round but its "bottom" half is immersed in water.
4) The earth is round and both sides are inhabitable.
The scholar quoted as supporting the fourth view is R' Yonah. Your article states: "R' Yonah quotes a Greek legend and accepted the fact that the earth is round. The seas, however, are flat according to R' Yonah, similar to the water in a bowl that flattens out on top despite the roundness of the bowl. This would be the fourth view we mentioned above."
A bowl-like earth with flat seas seems far from the globaularist views of Aquinas and later scholars. This article does not show that ancient Hebrews realized the world was round, it only shows that there was disagreement amongst Talmudic scholars over which (incorrect as it truns out) view of the world was best.
In the statements in the Tables there are at least four or five that are clearly evolution centered. I'd expect you to take issue with the first three statements in the table as not having to do with science, and have issues with the entropy statement and the radiometric dating. But the rest seem pretty straight forward.
No, I would not say you are uncivil. But I do think you might consider being a little nicer. I know your mother taught you to be nice. Otherwise you would not be a freeper. I sometimes go on a thread and actually look for your name and sort of make a little bet with myself as to how long it will take you to pick a fight. Its your style, and it is entertaining, but I think sometimes you hurt peoples feelings with your tersness. I am beyond having my feelings hurt, so relax, float downstream and enjoy the ride.
But two of the three views does have a round earth, even if their understanding wasn't perfect.
The reason for promoting both the specific lie about the sphericity of the earth and the general lie that religion and science are in natural and eternal conflict in Western society, is to defend Darwinism. The answer is really only slightly more complicated than that bald statement. The flat-earth lie was ammunition against the creationists. The argument was simple and powerful, if not elegant: "Look how stupid these Christians are. They are always getting in the way of science and progress. These people who deny evolution today are exactly the same sort of people as those idiots who for at least a thousand years denied that the earth was round. How stupid can you get?" |
I have read it and found it interesting. By the way, I do not agree that "religion and science are in natural and eternal conflict in Western society" or at least I believe that they do not *necessarily* need be.
Suggest you read it again. These are the generations...in the day....
IMO it could not be more simple. We are living in the 6th day according to the Bible.
I won't be debating these matters at length here with anyone. I consider myself well schooled on the matter of eschatology, but I very much dislike the spirit of debate.
The text says what it says.
To: tfecw Just because they get all their information from a book that was written 2000 years ago, doesn't make them liars.
No, the fact that they lie about what evolution states makes them liars. 73 posted on 02/08/2005 4:17:04 PM CST by Dimensio You called him and all creationists liars. Then you called yourself a liar:
so you lie about me calling you names
And then you call him another name:
and run away like a coward.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.