Creationists' theory in detail

[Hollie]

Incorrect. The fossils found in rock layers are an accurate reflection of what was living at the time the layers were deposited. If those fossils and their timing don't fit into the theory of evolution, the theory would be falsified, not the data. So far, of the trillions of fossils we have found, everyone fits neatly into the ToE. No circular reasoning.

(Sorry for the delay in replying but, for reasons unknown, I had you on ignore.)

that might be true if the geo column existed anywhere other than on the pages of a book

You're obviously not a geologist or someone who lives in an area of road cuts. Drive through western Virginia and every road cut will let you see a series of rock layers. No book required, you can see them for yourself.

Your millions of years theory is worthless. It's convenient of you to start with what we have in place and no discussion of how it got there.

Anyway, how did these mountains occur? How do you explain those bent rocks?

Moreover, you ignore the seafloor and sedimentary particles. How are these related? Your geology is worthless.

You need to read more carefully, I gave an admittedly brief description of what geologists have learned about the history of these layers:

They were laid down as sediments in shallow seas and buried deeply enough to be fused into rock. Then they crashed into Africa and the seas dried up as the land rose. It continued to rise as the layers got folded into anticlines and, like the layers in the photo, synclines. Eventually mountains arose and were eroded once they stopped rising. Then North America and Africa split apart and the Atlantic grew, about as fast as your fingernails grow. That process alone took 60 or so million years. Add in the time for deposition and mountain building and the accepted date for these rocks, 300 million years, starts to make sense.​

More babbling. Are those your words? No.

All that copy and paste does is raise questions as what happened to Pangaea? How does one explain the deepest oceans and highest mountains? My complaint is your lack of detail and too much reliance on long time. It's evolution of the gaps. Am I just wasting my breath explaining long time is BS?

Moreover, it just assertions as we cannot observe 60 million years. Look what happens when a volcano happens which is much of our Earth. Now what happens when volcanoes happen underneath the sea?

Natural forces such as plate tectonics, continental drift, uplift, etc., can explain deep oceans and mountains. There is no need to appeal to supernaturalism when naturalism provides answers.

 

[harmonica]

....that's exactly the point of the thread--they don't provide a theory of the creation of man/etc at all...they just try to disprove the theory of evolution

Here's mine about you, you, you.

here's your what????!!!

 

[ding]

Are you this delusional at work?
I would fire you on the spot.

Not to worry, I wouldn't work for someone so clueless. Obviously the birth process works, just because you can't understand how it could develop naturally doesn't mean nobody can.

The birth process, as any obstetrician will tell you, makes no sense.

Neither does the human eye, yet both seem to work somehow. No intelligent designer would create either one.

Wrong bucko. It is a tremendously efficient design as evidenced by its success. YOU wouldnt create it that way...but you cant create an eye at all can you? So quiet down there in the peanut gallery.

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

“...Physical reality is what physicists recognize to be real. One cannot separate the recognition of existence from existence. As Erwin Schrödinger put it: “The world is a construct of our sensations, perceptions, memories. It is convenient to regard it as existing objectively on its own. But it certainly does not become manifest by its mere existence.”

Let me give a simple example of the intervention of mind in physical observation: Most readers are probably aware that radiation -- light, indeed all elementary particles -- exhibits simultaneously the properties of waves and of particles, though those properties are altogether different -- indeed, mutually exclusive. This is the prime example of a widespread class of relationships that Neils Bohr brought together in his principle of complementarity, which notes that numbers of phenomena, in and out of physics, exhibit such mutually exclusive sets of properties; one just has to live with them.

Enter consciousness: the physicist, setting up an experiment on radiation, decides beforehand which of those sets of properties he will encounter. If he does a wave experiment, he gets a wave answer; from a particle experiment he gets a particle answer. To this degree, all physical observation is subjective.

It is primarily physicists who in recent times have expressed most clearly and forthrightly this pervasive relationship between mind and matter, and indeed at times the primacy of mind. Arthur Eddington in 1928 wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff ... The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time.... Recognizing that the physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness, we restore consciousness to the fundamental position . . .”

Von Weizsacker in 1971 states as “a new and, I feel, intelligible interpretation of quantum theory” what he calls his “Identity Hypothesis: Consciousness and matter are different aspects of the same reality.”

I like most of all Wolfgang Pauli’s formulation, from 1952: “To us . . . the only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality -- the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical -- as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously . . . It would be most satisfactory of all if physis and psyche (i.e., matter and mind) could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality.”

What this kind of thought means essentially is that one has no more basis for considering the existence of matter without its complementary aspect of mind, than for asking that elementary particles not also be waves.

As for this seeming a strange viewpoint for a scientist -- at least until one gets used to it -- as in so many other instances, what is wanted is not so much an acceptable concept as an acceptable rhetoric. If I say, with Eddington, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff,” that has a metaphysical ring. But if I say that ultimate reality is expressed in the solutions of the equations of quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, and quantum field theory -- that sounds like good, modern physics. Yet what are those equations, indeed what is mathematics, but mind‑stuff? -- virtually the ultimate in mind‑stuff and for that reason deeply mysterious...”

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

 

[james bond]

Natural forces such as plate tectonics, continental drift, uplift, etc., can explain deep oceans and mountains. There is no need to appeal to supernaturalism when naturalism provides answers.

That's creation science and it happens rapidly as we observe catastrophes today. There is nothing natural or supernatural that takes a million years to happen. Ofc, creation science would explain it and not the nonsensical long time, no origin, lack of detail, and ridiculous explanations of Satan's evolution.

 

[ding]

Natural forces such as plate tectonics, continental drift, uplift, etc., can explain deep oceans and mountains. There is no need to appeal to supernaturalism when naturalism provides answers.

That's creation science and it happens rapidly as we observe catastrophes today. There is nothing natural or supernatural that takes a million years to happen. Ofc, creation science would explain it and not the nonsensical long time, no origin, lack of detail, and ridiculous explanations of Satan's evolution.

Sure there is. It took 14 billion years for the universe to expand to it’s current size.

 

[james bond]

....that's exactly the point of the thread--they don't provide a theory of the creation of man/etc at all...they just try to disprove the theory of evolution

Here's mine about you, you, you.

here's your what????!!!

My theory about you and RWS's life.

 

[Hollie]

Natural forces such as plate tectonics, continental drift, uplift, etc., can explain deep oceans and mountains. There is no need to appeal to supernaturalism when naturalism provides answers.

That's creation science and it happens rapidly as we observe catastrophes today. There is nothing natural or supernatural that takes a million years to happen. Ofc, creation science would explain it and not the nonsensical long time, no origin, lack of detail, and ridiculous explanations of Satan's evolution.

What you call creation science is nothing more than appeals to Bible tales and fables. Please provide the comprehensive description for plate tectonics in the Bibles. We both know It doesn’t exist. I can, however, direct you to the USGS and they can assist you. I agree that nothing supernatural takes a million years to happen. That’s because we have no evidence of any supernatural event.

As it is your claim to supernaturalism, please provide a demonstrable, verifiable account of a supernatural event.

 

[alang1216]

I was just pointing out that your original assertion was flawed because we can know God from what he created through reason and experience. No book needed. And we can use science to study what was created to inform our reason.

You know bias goes both ways, right?

No we can't know God though the natural world. We can then, through faith, say God created the natural world so what we see is what He wants. If that is true He wants us to suffer to various random degrees and is more concerned with our DNA than with us.

Facts go only one way.

 

[ding]

I was just pointing out that your original assertion was flawed because we can know God from what he created through reason and experience. No book needed. And we can use science to study what was created to inform our reason.

You know bias goes both ways, right?

No we can't know God though the natural world. We can then, through faith, say God created the natural world so what we see is what He wants. If that is true He wants us to suffer to various random degrees and is more concerned with our DNA than with us.

Facts go only one way.

So you reversed your position that we can know God exist using reason?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So you reversed your position that we can know God exist using reason?

I certainly hope so, since that would be false.

 

[ding]

So you reversed your position that we can know God exist using reason?

I certainly hope so, since that would be false.

Says you. Logic, reason and experience say otherwise.

 

[james bond]

No we can't know God though the natural world. We can then, through faith, say God created the natural world so what we see is what He wants. If that is true He wants us to suffer to various random degrees and is more concerned with our DNA than with us.

Facts go only one way.

Facts go through the Bible as science backs it up. It does not back up evolution. Your mountain of facts is a lie as you could not explain that photo you posted. If it was explainable, then you would have done so. It should not be that difficult to convince someone with an open mind.

What is troublesome is you explain God only one way. What makes you think what you claimed? I've been telling you that God created our world as perfect, but Adam's sin made it imperfect, fallen, and we ended up as regular flesh and blood. It was Satan who took dominion of the world away from Adam. We had free will, so we have to accept the consequences and that is our death. However, there is a way to be saved through Jesus. Thus, Satan has tricked many into not believing in Jesus nor in God. Otherwise, how can evolutionary science of ToE and the rest come to contradict everything that is in the Bible?

 

[james bond]

Natural forces such as plate tectonics, continental drift, uplift, etc., can explain deep oceans and mountains. There is no need to appeal to supernaturalism when naturalism provides answers.

That's creation science and it happens rapidly as we observe catastrophes today. There is nothing natural or supernatural that takes a million years to happen. Ofc, creation science would explain it and not the nonsensical long time, no origin, lack of detail, and ridiculous explanations of Satan's evolution.

Sure there is. It took 14 billion years for the universe to expand to it’s current size.

No it didn't. The rate of moon's recession tells us it's thousands of years.

Moreover, you can't adequately explain 95% of the universe so my theory is better.

 

[BreezeWood]

Natural forces such as plate tectonics, continental drift, uplift, etc., can explain deep oceans and mountains. There is no need to appeal to supernaturalism when naturalism provides answers.

That's creation science and it happens rapidly as we observe catastrophes today. There is nothing natural or supernatural that takes a million years to happen. Ofc, creation science would explain it and not the nonsensical long time, no origin, lack of detail, and ridiculous explanations of Satan's evolution.

What you call creation science is nothing more than appeals to Bible tales and fables. Please provide the comprehensive description for plate tectonics in the Bibles. We both know It doesn’t exist. I can, however, direct you to the USGS and they can assist you. I agree that nothing supernatural takes a million years to happen. That’s because we have no evidence of any supernatural event.

As it is your claim to supernaturalism, please provide a demonstrable, verifiable account of a supernatural event.

.

As it is your claim to supernaturalism, please provide a demonstrable, verifiable account of a supernatural event.

metaphysical is supernatural - the creation of a physiological being ...

 

[ding]

Natural forces such as plate tectonics, continental drift, uplift, etc., can explain deep oceans and mountains. There is no need to appeal to supernaturalism when naturalism provides answers.

That's creation science and it happens rapidly as we observe catastrophes today. There is nothing natural or supernatural that takes a million years to happen. Ofc, creation science would explain it and not the nonsensical long time, no origin, lack of detail, and ridiculous explanations of Satan's evolution.

Sure there is. It took 14 billion years for the universe to expand to it’s current size.

No it didn't. The rate of moon's recession tells us it's thousands of years.

Moreover, you can't adequately explain 95% of the universe so my theory is better.

The rate of the moons recession tells us the universe is only thousands of years?

no. Just no.

 

[zaangalewa]

You mean like Thomas Aquinas?

Not impressed. A fine philosopher but a poor scientist.

Not what I asked. I asked did you mean like Aquinas did?

I'm no Aquinas authority but it seems he makes the same error as all non-scientists. He has faith in the truth of the Bible and uses his reason to validate it. Ideally he should start with the world around him and work backwards from that. I'd wager every non-scientist who has ever tried has come up with a unique answer. In other words, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy, unless you know the Bible you could never discern God.

He didn’t use the Bible. Which is why I asked you the question.

I'm guessing these are what you refer to:

1. Motion: Some things undoubtedly move, though cannot cause their own motion. Since, as Thomas believed, there can be no infinite chain of causes of motion, there must be a First Mover not moved by anything else, and this is what everyone understands by God.
2. Causation: As in the case of motion, nothing can cause itself, and an infinite chain of causation is impossible, so there must be a First Cause, called God.
3. Existence of necessary and the unnecessary: Our experience includes things certainly existing but apparently unnecessary. Not everything can be unnecessary, for then once there was nothing and there would still be nothing. Therefore, we are compelled to suppose something that exists necessarily, having this necessity only from itself; in fact itself the cause for other things to exist.
4. Gradation: If we can notice a gradation in things in the sense that some things are more hot, good, etc., there must be a superlative that is the truest and noblest thing, and so most fully existing. This then, we call God
5. Ordered tendencies of nature: A direction of actions to an end is noticed in all bodies following natural laws. Anything without awareness tends to a goal under the guidance of one who is aware. This we call God

These are arguments from ignorance. We don't know so it must be God.

A nice definition "god is the unknown". So what do you not know, all-wise critics? How to stop Corona? I guess you know how to stop Corona. And everyone else knows this too, latest after you tell him this. And all together are able to do it. Alone you are not able to do it. By the way: There are reasons to be thankful every time you drive over a bridge, every time you eat bread, every time you drink beer and so on and so on to people of the past like Thomas.

 

[ding]

Natural forces such as plate tectonics, continental drift, uplift, etc., can explain deep oceans and mountains. There is no need to appeal to supernaturalism when naturalism provides answers.

That's creation science and it happens rapidly as we observe catastrophes today. There is nothing natural or supernatural that takes a million years to happen. Ofc, creation science would explain it and not the nonsensical long time, no origin, lack of detail, and ridiculous explanations of Satan's evolution.

Sure there is. It took 14 billion years for the universe to expand to it’s current size.

No it didn't. The rate of moon's recession tells us it's thousands of years.

Moreover, you can't adequately explain 95% of the universe so my theory is better.

Yes. I can actually.

 

[zaangalewa]

It's extremly stupid what you said here. You deleted the answer to this anti-question before you wrote it ...

That has absolutely no bearing. These are still assertions that you could not possibly know the truth of, yet you assert them as fact. And this bad behavior like you stems from faith, which is making you turn into a liar. Inspect your own bad behavior.

Do you líke to say you hate it, when I nail the head of the people, who call me a liar, over the front door of my house? Hmmm ... guess it makes not a big sense to ask Jesus for an exception. Sometimes he's a little inflexible. So: Do you deny the expansion of the universe? If not it was stupid what you said to me and if ... then you are out of any real discussion around physics - except you know something, what no one else is knowing. What is it?

 

[DOTR]

Are you this delusional at work?
I would fire you on the spot.

Not to worry, I wouldn't work for someone so clueless. Obviously the birth process works, just because you can't understand how it could develop naturally doesn't mean nobody can.

The birth process, as any obstetrician will tell you, makes no sense.

Neither does the human eye, yet both seem to work somehow. No intelligent designer would create either one.

Wrong bucko. It is a tremendously efficient design as evidenced by its success. YOU wouldnt create it that way...but you cant create an eye at all can you? So quiet down there in the peanut gallery.

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

“...Physical reality is what physicists recognize to be real. One cannot separate the recognition of existence from existence. As Erwin Schrödinger put it: “The world is a construct of our sensations, perceptions, memories. It is convenient to regard it as existing objectively on its own. But it certainly does not become manifest by its mere existence.”

Let me give a simple example of the intervention of mind in physical observation: Most readers are probably aware that radiation -- light, indeed all elementary particles -- exhibits simultaneously the properties of waves and of particles, though those properties are altogether different -- indeed, mutually exclusive. This is the prime example of a widespread class of relationships that Neils Bohr brought together in his principle of complementarity, which notes that numbers of phenomena, in and out of physics, exhibit such mutually exclusive sets of properties; one just has to live with them.

Enter consciousness: the physicist, setting up an experiment on radiation, decides beforehand which of those sets of properties he will encounter. If he does a wave experiment, he gets a wave answer; from a particle experiment he gets a particle answer. To this degree, all physical observation is subjective.

It is primarily physicists who in recent times have expressed most clearly and forthrightly this pervasive relationship between mind and matter, and indeed at times the primacy of mind. Arthur Eddington in 1928 wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff ... The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time.... Recognizing that the physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness, we restore consciousness to the fundamental position . . .”

Von Weizsacker in 1971 states as “a new and, I feel, intelligible interpretation of quantum theory” what he calls his “Identity Hypothesis: Consciousness and matter are different aspects of the same reality.”

I like most of all Wolfgang Pauli’s formulation, from 1952: “To us . . . the only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality -- the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical -- as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously . . . It would be most satisfactory of all if physis and psyche (i.e., matter and mind) could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality.”

What this kind of thought means essentially is that one has no more basis for considering the existence of matter without its complementary aspect of mind, than for asking that elementary particles not also be waves.

As for this seeming a strange viewpoint for a scientist -- at least until one gets used to it -- as in so many other instances, what is wanted is not so much an acceptable concept as an acceptable rhetoric. If I say, with Eddington, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff,” that has a metaphysical ring. But if I say that ultimate reality is expressed in the solutions of the equations of quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, and quantum field theory -- that sounds like good, modern physics. Yet what are those equations, indeed what is mathematics, but mind‑stuff? -- virtually the ultimate in mind‑stuff and for that reason deeply mysterious...”

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

I think you are dealing with materialists rather than scientists here. And that’s always the problem. The culture milieu confuses materialism with science.

Consciousness can’t be explained by science.

 

[zaangalewa]

No. Except something is wrong with our ideas about entropy and the universe is not flat. And a cyclical universe would not explain why there's not only nothing. Why exists something? What's the "idea" (=reality) behind the existence of the universe and our own existence?

Are you looking at it correctly?

Hope so.

When they say flat universe, they are taking a vertical slice.

No idea what's your problem. A triangle which uses the first output of the universe (the background radiation) shows significance in the idea the sum of its angles are exactly 180° (Why exactly 180°? A mystery to me) => the universe is flat and the space follows the Euclidian geometry in big and biggest dimensions.

That does follow what the Bible says

What who says?

except that it curves near its edges. We agree on the flatness, but not on the borders.

Which borders? A flat universe is infinite. Nowhere exists an "outside". The universe has no borders, but the observable universe has a size.

Creation scientists

It exists in science nothing with the name "creation science". Christians, who are phycisists, make physics. That's it.

think the universe is bordered.

Looks to me you use an inner universitarian view to the unvierse. We are not able to step outside of the universe - also not with our thoughts. The reason: there is no outside. I guess "outside" of the universe is just simple nothing. If I'm wrong then this is absolutelly not any problem for me or for any other Christian - but until today our about 1700 years old ideas or philosophies in this context did not lose actuality. We are still on the same way. Will be interesting to find a new way or new ways - but the old way is nice too.

I'm not sure what the curve means or how it is explained.

Who is sure in times of modern quantum physics about anything? The calculations give results and we all use the results very successful. Before you is existing for example a rectangle full of light with scribble on it. Thanks physics - and not only physics - you are able to communicate with it, what's for lots of people a blessing in times of Corona.