Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

Thanks, but I'll pass. That Creationist nonsense is pretty fucking tedious for me, insofar as I'm an Athiest, and not on a mission to prove or disprove anything of a spirit nature. I just like reading about stuff, especially the newer and more theoretical; thus I have no problem when mistakes are made since they'll be corrected when we know more. It's only a matter of time, proven time and time again throughout human history. The longer we're at it, the more we'll understand.

And that hasn't the least bearing whatsoever on creation beliefs, which are based purely on myriad assumptions, going back many millenia.

Oh but the scientific mutation rate numbers are far to high for man to evolve from anything let alone exist on this planet for 2.2 million years and scientist know this and had to try and create other theories to explain this problem away but in doing so created bigger problems from the mutation rate.

This is good stuff and it might change your mind about this rediculous theory.

[ame=http://youtu.be/tgC3hkCGJMU]Refuting Creationist Arguments - Mutations - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://youtu.be/EyjufVuQZ48]Evolution for ID-iots - YouTube[/ame]


yes this is

Why thank you for the videos you will help make my argument in the morning for me. Actually creationist or I have never made the claim that mutations are to rare just beneficial mutations are to rare. I will give you the real numbers of the mutation rates. I will show deleterious (harmful) mutations are too high. So your video was right in one area they are high but they are actually higher then your video claims. They are so high they outnumber beneficial mutations which is what you really need for evolution. Your video got something else right neutral mutations happen more frequently then the other two but it is not neutral mutations that evolutionist need.

I will even throw in some boring math you probably won't understand. These numbers have already been calculated and it came from evolutionist. Goodnight have your thinking cap on you're gonna need it.

 

[Hollie]

Oh but the scientific mutation rate numbers are far to high for man to evolve from anything let alone exist on this planet for 2.2 million years and scientist know this and had to try and create other theories to explain this problem away but in doing so created bigger problems from the mutation rate.

This is good stuff and it might change your mind about this rediculous theory.

You're really using the last, dying gasp of the creationist ministries with the "it's too complex to have occurred naturally" argument.

Meyer stole that from Behe who has been thoroughly refuted for that nonsense argument.

what we were discussing went right over your head, I will explain in the morning.

Actually, you don't understand the arguments furthered by Meyer and Behe constitute those you have presented.

The creationist "it's too complex to have happened except by actions of supermagical gawds", is a dead argument. Harun Yahya can't save you on this one either.

But I'm sure we can expect you will copy and paste half the contents of the ICR charlatans.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You're really using the last, dying gasp of the creationist ministries with the "it's too complex to have occurred naturally" argument.

Meyer stole that from Behe who has been thoroughly refuted for that nonsense argument.

what we were discussing went right over your head, I will explain in the morning.

Actually, you don't understand the arguments furthered by Meyer and Behe constitute those you have presented.

The creationist "it's too complex to have happened except by actions of supermagical gawds", is a dead argument. Harun Yahya can't save you on this one either.

But I'm sure we can expect you will copy and paste half the contents of the ICR charlatans.

We were not discussing complexity.

 

[ima]

I saw no scientific theory that proves the bible right. It didn't scientifically prove that the world was made in 6 days. or anything else for that matter.

What is a Scientific Theory?
Evolutionists’ pretensions notwithstanding, it is reasonable to ask whether there is a scientific theory of creation, and—if there is—to ask what it is. As a foundation for answering this question, the meanings of several relevant terms must first be accurately defined. This is necessary because many evolutionists tend to invoke arbitrarily contrived and/or equivocal definitions in support of their claims (such as the non-existence of a scientific theory of creation). Seeing this tactic for what it is enables serious students of the evolution/creation debate to transcend the evolutionists’ semantic smokescreen, and a balanced and informed assessment of either side of the debate—vis-à-vis the empirical evidence—may proceed unhindered.

The word “theory” in most common English dictionaries is defined (for the present context) something like this:


theo·ry n. a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which have been verified to some degree.

Likewise, “science” in most common English dictionaries is defined (for the context of this topic) like this:


sci·ence n. 1 the state or fact of knowledge 2 systematized knowledge derived from observation, study and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied

It should be noted up front that neither of these definitions either requires or excludes any particular frame of reference to which either “science” or a “theory” must (or must not) be attached. This is important, because evolutionists usually redefine both of these terms to suit their purposes by insisting that a“ scientific theory” must conform to their particular religious/philosophical frame of reference (philosophical naturalism) in order to be valid:


nat·u·ral·ism n. philos. the belief that the natural world, as explained by scientific laws, is all that exists and that there is no supernatural or spiritual creation, control, or significance

Again, it is important to note that this is not the definition of “science”—even though many evolutionist arguments seem to be based on the arbitrary assumption that it is. The naturalism embraced by most evolutionists is strictly an anti-supernatural belief system, a form of practical atheism. It is not, by definition, any more or less “scientific” than any other belief system, including one that allows for a Creator-God. While perhaps only a minority of evolutionists would count themselves as atheists, most tend to argue to exclude or severely limit the idea of a Creator-God. “Since God cannot be subjected to the process of scientific discovery,” they reason, “the possibility of any direct action on His part must be excluded from the realm of science.” Whether or not they are averse to the notion of moral accountability to a Creator, their sense of intellectual autonomy is apparently threatened by the idea that science could be limited in scope and (therefore) less than the ultimate, all-encompassing arena of human activity.

It should be noted here that dictionary definitions do state (correctly) that natural science deals with the natural world. This must not be misunderstood to imply a mandatory subjection to a naturalistic philosophy, which is how evolutionists often misrepresent it. There is a distinct difference between natural science and naturalistic philosophy: The former is the study of the natural world, while the latter is a belief that the natural world is all that exists. [It is furthermore worth noting at this point that the very basis of operational science and “natural law” emerged from a creationist framework, in which the immutable nature of the Creator was the basis for assuming the existence of immutable laws in His creation.]

Evolutionists will often argue that allowing for the supernatural in general—or God in particular—opens “science” up to all kinds of potential crackpot notions. But it is not actually genuine science that is threatened by the prospect of God—the only threat is to a “science” strictly dominated by philosophical naturalism. The evolutionist is invoking an arbitrarily modified definition of “science” to imply that naturalistic philosophy is entitled to exclusive domination of the“ scientific community.” [It’s no surprise that these same evolutionists keep their reasoning in a tight circle by defining the “scientific community” exclusively as those persons involved in science who also subscribe to philosophical naturalism—the only religious framework they’re willing to tolerate!]

The most vocal proponents of evolutionism say things like “There is no such thing as creation science!” or “If creationists would just come up with a theory, we would have something to talk about!” What they mean is that (in their opinions) any legitimate alternative to evolution must be based on the same philosophical naturalism as evolution. In their view, a viable alternative to evolution must satisfy the evolutionists’ criterion (i.e., philosophical naturalism) in order to avoid rejection—by philosophical naturalists! A better example of religious intolerance would be hard to find.

So the demand, made by many evolutionists, that a “scientific theory” must conform to one religious/philosophical belief system (e.g., humanistic naturalism) to the exclusion of another (e.g., biblical Christianity), is an arbitrarily contrived requirement—and a double standard:


The Evolutionary Double Standard
Characteristic Creation
Hypothesis
Evolution
Hypothesis

Primary approach to scientific methodology
Accumulation and analysis of empirical data through observation, repetition & measurement.
Accumulation and analysis of empirical data through observation, repetition & measurement.

Predominant religious/philosophical
belief system
Biblical Christianity
Humanistic Naturalism

Primary means of demonstrating system’s
positive empirical support
Citation of empirical data
Citation of empirical data

Primary means of criticizing
counterpart system
Citation of empirical data
A priori rejection on basis of religious/ philosophical differences

Table 1. Close examination reveals that evolutionists’ out-of-hand dismissal of the creation paradigm is due more to their own tightly held religious predispositions—which range from humanistic naturalism to outright atheism—than to matters of empirical science.


The Talk.Origins Archive “Welcome FAQ” also ascribes the following set of (reasonable) requirements to a genuinely scientific theory:

“A scientific theory must have predictive value, must be internally consistent, must be falsifiable, and must explain at least those phenomena explained by the currently dominant theory.”

These traits do loosely constitute a popular norm in defining scientific theories. As shall be seen below, an analysis of both the creation and evolution models reveals that the two theories conform with comparable integrity to such demands, when adequate information and analysis are allowed into the picture. But in typically dismissive style, the FAQ declares that:

“such statements as ‘God created the heavens and the earth...’ are not theories, as they are neither predictive nor falsifiable.”
What the Talk.Origins authors have failed to tell their readers is that there is much more to the creation science model than simply declaring “God created the heavens and the earth,” including much that is both as falsifiable and predictive (if not more so) as the evolutionary model.
What then is the Theory of Creation?
Table 2 (below) highlights a series of fundamental components of biblical young-earth creationism, providing a basic rendering of the creationary paradigm. To help illustrate its key points vis-à-vis the evolutionary model, they are presented side by side for comparison. This list is by no means exhaustive, and is likely to grow over time.
Comparison of the Evolutionary & Creationary Origins Theories
Phenomenon/Condition Creation
Hypothesis
Evolution
Hypothesis

Predominant a priori Assumptions (i.e., Philosophical Basis) concerning the Nature, Source, and Limits of Knowledge[4]
As with all man’s endeavors, true science will inevitably honor the Creator and affirm the Bible as His true and accurate record, wherever it addresses the historical past
Man’s scientific endeavors will inevitably affirm man’s autonomy and independence in determining what is true and what is false

Empirically Falsifiable?
No
No

Empirically Falsified?
No
No

Predominant approach
to the Bible[5]
The biblical record is accepted as a reliable historical basis of interpreting empirical data
The biblical record is rejected as a reliable historical basis, and replaced with strict philosophical naturalism as a basis of interpreting empirical data

Empirically Falsifiable?
No
No

Empirically Falsified?
No
No

Ultimate Primal Cause of Time, Space, and Matter/Energy[6]
God Created...
Time, space, and matter are either eternal or self-created.

Empirically Falsifiable?
No
Yes

Empirically Falsified?
No
Yes

Complexity, Variety and Adaptability in Living Organisms and Ecological Systems[7]
Inherent and complete in original populations as created; manifested (and subject to degradation) over time through genetic variation and natural selection
Increased over time from zero via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years

Empirically Falsifiable?
Yes
Yes

Empirically Falsified?
No
Yes

Massive amounts of Coded Genetic Information[8]
Inherent and complete in original populations as created; sum total has steadily declined over time via mutational degradation
Increased over time from zero via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years

Empirically Falsifiable?
Yes
Yes

Empirically Falsified?
No
Yes

Similarities, ranging from Genetic to Morphological, between various Organisms[9]
Indicative of Creator’s prerogative to employ similar or identical structures or information sequences for similar structures or similar functions in different organisms
Residual evidence that multiple different organisms descended from common ancestors

Empirically Falsifiable?
No
No

Empirically Falsified?
No
No

Billions of Organisms quickly Buried in sedimentary Rock Layers laid down by Water all over the Earth[10]
Global Flood & aftermath
Millions of years of gradual or intermittent burial

Empirically Falsifiable?
No
No

Empirically Falsified?
No
No

The Ice Age[11]
Post-Flood climate compensation
Unknown

Empirically Falsifiable?
No
No

Empirically Falsified?
No
No

Entropy Law as formalized in the Second Law of Thermodynamics[12]
Concurs, indicating a beginning (concurrent with or close to beginning of time) followed by constant degradation
Contradicts, postulating mechanism-free constant increase in order, complexity, and genetic information

Empirically Falsifiable?
Yes
Yes

Empirically Falsified?
No
Yes

Apparent Order or Sequence in Fossil Record[13]
General pattern of ecological zones quickly buried from lower to higher elevations; variations expected
Strict pattern of million-year depositions from “simple” to “complex” variations (i.e., anomalies) problematic

Empirically Falsifiable?
Yes
Yes

Empirically Falsified?
No
Yes

Erratic “Ages” given by Radiometric and various other Uniformitarian Processes[14]
Residual effect of catastrophic processes and conditions during the flood
Selective and dogmatic use of supportive “ages” & dismissal or disparagement of any conflicting indicators

Empirically Falsifiable?
Yes
Yes

Empirically Falsified?
No
Yes

Table 2. The so-called “non-existent” creation theory, when examined with a measure of objectivity, manages to explain most empirical data with at least as much credibility as the evolutionary counterpart.



Where is the Theory of Creation documented?
Some of the most vocal opponents of creationary thought, ostensibly repulsed by the work involved in objectively studying the technical details of an unfamiliar matter, persist in demanding something like a one- or two-sentence “theory of creation” [preferrably subservient to their naturalistic presuppositions]. Their insistence on such a simplistic approach to both evolution and creation has its reasons: Evolution appears more credible when essential technical details remain beyond scrutiny, whereas creation finds its most compelling substantiation in technical, detailed analyses of actual empirical data and scientifically sound principles vis-a-vis both perspectives.

While a simplistic “sound bite” approach to the origins issue may be fashionable by contemporary popular media standards, genuine science remains a matter of technical details, empirical data, and thorough analysis of the same. So what awaits those who sincerely seek an authentic theory of creation is not another sugar-coated pill, but a body of literature comprising a technical “second opinion” bringing into question the superficial diagnosis popularly embraced by a world reluctant to face the implications of a sovereign Creator who has spoken.

Whereas the landscape of popular media and selected “science” texts are peppered with simplistic allusions to evolutionary theory as fact, literature describing and explaining the creationary alternative, while not as plentiful as its dominant counterpart, is readily available to those who seriously want to study it. This is where the details of empirical science are brought to bear against both competing paradigms. [Sadly, the same cannot be said for the vast majority of evolutionary literature, which largely persists in treating the assumption of evolution as an immutable fact (and, on that basis, an inevitable conclusion), while heaping derision on heavily caricatured renderings of the creationary perspective.]

Books
Each of the following books offers a fairly balanced presentation of at least some aspect of the creationary paradigm, or model, of origins. All are written, at least in part, by Ph.D. scientists. The list begins with general and/or early overviews and moves toward somewhat more specialized and/or recent offerings.

Morris, Henry M., ed., Scientific Creationism [0-89052-003-2]
(Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1985)

Morris, Henry M. and Gary E. Parker, What is Creation Science? [0-89051-081-4]
(El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1987)

Wilder-Smith, A. E., Man’s Origin, Man’s Destiny [0-87123-356-8]
(Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw Co., 1968)

Wilder-Smith, A. E., Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory [9992139676]
(Costa Mesa, CA: TWFT Publishers, 1987)

Whitcomb, John C. and Henry Morris, The Genesis Flood [0-87552-338-2]
(Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1964)

Roth, Ariel A., Origins—Linking Science and Scripture [0-8280-1328-4]
(Hagarstown , MD: Review and Herals Publishing Association, 1998)

Woodmorappe, John, Studies in Flood Geology [0-932766-54-4]
(El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1993)

Woodmorappe, John, Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study [0-932766-41-2]
(El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1996)

Woodmorappe, John, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods [0-932766-57-9]
(El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1999)

Batten, Don, Editor The Answers Book [0-949906-23-9]
(Brisbane, Australia: Answers in Genesis, 1999)

Sarfati, Jonathan, Refuting Evolution [089051258-2]
(Brisbane, Australia: Answers in Genesis, 1999)

A slightly more descriptive list appears at - Selected Creation Books -- TrueOrigin Archive, while two much more extensive bibliographies are - Master Creation/Anti-Evolution Bibliography - and - A Young-Earth Creationist Bibliography -.
Many of these books can be purchased in the U.S. through the Creation Research Society, the Institute for Creation Research, and Creation Ministries International—the last of which also trades on a nearly worldwide basis.

Journals
The following are the two primary peer-reviewed journals of the creation science community. Each is published on a quarterly basis and managed by an editorial staff comprised almost entirely of experienced Ph.D. scientists. Very few of evolution’s most vocal proponents seem to have personally laid eyes on a copy of either of these publications. The ignorance inherent in their criticism of a caricatured “creationism” therefore comes as no surprise.

The Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ)
CRS Quarterly

Journal of Creation
http://creation.com/periodicals#journal_of_creation

A Theory of Biblical Creation

Nice cut & paste, can you think for yourself though? Because I still see no scientific proof of creation, it's just a mumbo jumbo comparison with no empirical facts to back it up, as usual.

If creator there is, evolution is part of his plan, get over it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Thanks, but I'll pass. That Creationist nonsense is pretty fucking tedious for me, insofar as I'm an Athiest, and not on a mission to prove or disprove anything of a spirit nature. I just like reading about stuff, especially the newer and more theoretical; thus I have no problem when mistakes are made since they'll be corrected when we know more. It's only a matter of time, proven time and time again throughout human history. The longer we're at it, the more we'll understand.

And that hasn't the least bearing whatsoever on creation beliefs, which are based purely on myriad assumptions, going back many millenia.

Oh but the scientific mutation rate numbers are far to high for man to evolve from anything let alone exist on this planet for 2.2 million years and scientist know this and had to try and create other theories to explain this problem away but in doing so created bigger problems from the mutation rate.

This is good stuff and it might change your mind about this rediculous theory.

The planet is billons of years old and humans evolved from a common ancestor of apes or chimps some 4 to 6 million years ago. Or so we think based on what we know, now. Maybe it's wrong on some of the minor details, i.e. time estimates. If so, that does not -- by default -- mean God did it. It only means we do not know, and we thus can, at best, today, guess a range of time.

You have made my argument for me as well we will go with your numbers as well. I said 2.2 because that was once the figure given for the divergence from ape and man. So you're saying 4 to 6 million years how bout those dating methods for accuracy. I couldn't resist.

The rate of beneficial mutations are so low 4 to 6 million years is not enough time for evolution.It's not enough time to account for the diversity seen in nature. The beneficial mutation rate is so rare they can't seem to tell us how often they happen. Are you getting the picture ?

Now I will respond to daws the person infatuated with slapping dick I guess, because he is always bringing it up.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I saw no scientific theory that proves the bible right. It didn't scientifically prove that the world was made in 6 days. or anything else for that matter.

What is a Scientific Theory?
Evolutionists’ pretensions notwithstanding, it is reasonable to ask whether there is a scientific theory of creation, and—if there is—to ask what it is. As a foundation for answering this question, the meanings of several relevant terms must first be accurately defined. This is necessary because many evolutionists tend to invoke arbitrarily contrived and/or equivocal definitions in support of their claims (such as the non-existence of a scientific theory of creation). Seeing this tactic for what it is enables serious students of the evolution/creation debate to transcend the evolutionists’ semantic smokescreen, and a balanced and informed assessment of either side of the debate—vis-à-vis the empirical evidence—may proceed unhindered.

The word “theory” in most common English dictionaries is defined (for the present context) something like this:


theo·ry n. a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which have been verified to some degree.

Likewise, “science” in most common English dictionaries is defined (for the context of this topic) like this:


sci·ence n. 1 the state or fact of knowledge 2 systematized knowledge derived from observation, study and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied

It should be noted up front that neither of these definitions either requires or excludes any particular frame of reference to which either “science” or a “theory” must (or must not) be attached. This is important, because evolutionists usually redefine both of these terms to suit their purposes by insisting that a“ scientific theory” must conform to their particular religious/philosophical frame of reference (philosophical naturalism) in order to be valid:


nat·u·ral·ism n. philos. the belief that the natural world, as explained by scientific laws, is all that exists and that there is no supernatural or spiritual creation, control, or significance

Again, it is important to note that this is not the definition of “science”—even though many evolutionist arguments seem to be based on the arbitrary assumption that it is. The naturalism embraced by most evolutionists is strictly an anti-supernatural belief system, a form of practical atheism. It is not, by definition, any more or less “scientific” than any other belief system, including one that allows for a Creator-God. While perhaps only a minority of evolutionists would count themselves as atheists, most tend to argue to exclude or severely limit the idea of a Creator-God. “Since God cannot be subjected to the process of scientific discovery,” they reason, “the possibility of any direct action on His part must be excluded from the realm of science.” Whether or not they are averse to the notion of moral accountability to a Creator, their sense of intellectual autonomy is apparently threatened by the idea that science could be limited in scope and (therefore) less than the ultimate, all-encompassing arena of human activity.

It should be noted here that dictionary definitions do state (correctly) that natural science deals with the natural world. This must not be misunderstood to imply a mandatory subjection to a naturalistic philosophy, which is how evolutionists often misrepresent it. There is a distinct difference between natural science and naturalistic philosophy: The former is the study of the natural world, while the latter is a belief that the natural world is all that exists. [It is furthermore worth noting at this point that the very basis of operational science and “natural law” emerged from a creationist framework, in which the immutable nature of the Creator was the basis for assuming the existence of immutable laws in His creation.]

Evolutionists will often argue that allowing for the supernatural in general—or God in particular—opens “science” up to all kinds of potential crackpot notions. But it is not actually genuine science that is threatened by the prospect of God—the only threat is to a “science” strictly dominated by philosophical naturalism. The evolutionist is invoking an arbitrarily modified definition of “science” to imply that naturalistic philosophy is entitled to exclusive domination of the“ scientific community.” [It’s no surprise that these same evolutionists keep their reasoning in a tight circle by defining the “scientific community” exclusively as those persons involved in science who also subscribe to philosophical naturalism—the only religious framework they’re willing to tolerate!]

The most vocal proponents of evolutionism say things like “There is no such thing as creation science!” or “If creationists would just come up with a theory, we would have something to talk about!” What they mean is that (in their opinions) any legitimate alternative to evolution must be based on the same philosophical naturalism as evolution. In their view, a viable alternative to evolution must satisfy the evolutionists’ criterion (i.e., philosophical naturalism) in order to avoid rejection—by philosophical naturalists! A better example of religious intolerance would be hard to find.

So the demand, made by many evolutionists, that a “scientific theory” must conform to one religious/philosophical belief system (e.g., humanistic naturalism) to the exclusion of another (e.g., biblical Christianity), is an arbitrarily contrived requirement—and a double standard:


The Evolutionary Double Standard
Characteristic Creation
Hypothesis
Evolution
Hypothesis

Primary approach to scientific methodology
Accumulation and analysis of empirical data through observation, repetition & measurement.
Accumulation and analysis of empirical data through observation, repetition & measurement.

Predominant religious/philosophical
belief system
Biblical Christianity
Humanistic Naturalism

Primary means of demonstrating system’s
positive empirical support
Citation of empirical data
Citation of empirical data

Primary means of criticizing
counterpart system
Citation of empirical data
A priori rejection on basis of religious/ philosophical differences

Table 1. Close examination reveals that evolutionists’ out-of-hand dismissal of the creation paradigm is due more to their own tightly held religious predispositions—which range from humanistic naturalism to outright atheism—than to matters of empirical science.


The Talk.Origins Archive “Welcome FAQ” also ascribes the following set of (reasonable) requirements to a genuinely scientific theory:

“A scientific theory must have predictive value, must be internally consistent, must be falsifiable, and must explain at least those phenomena explained by the currently dominant theory.”

These traits do loosely constitute a popular norm in defining scientific theories. As shall be seen below, an analysis of both the creation and evolution models reveals that the two theories conform with comparable integrity to such demands, when adequate information and analysis are allowed into the picture. But in typically dismissive style, the FAQ declares that:

“such statements as ‘God created the heavens and the earth...’ are not theories, as they are neither predictive nor falsifiable.”
What the Talk.Origins authors have failed to tell their readers is that there is much more to the creation science model than simply declaring “God created the heavens and the earth,” including much that is both as falsifiable and predictive (if not more so) as the evolutionary model.
What then is the Theory of Creation?
Table 2 (below) highlights a series of fundamental components of biblical young-earth creationism, providing a basic rendering of the creationary paradigm. To help illustrate its key points vis-à-vis the evolutionary model, they are presented side by side for comparison. This list is by no means exhaustive, and is likely to grow over time.
Comparison of the Evolutionary & Creationary Origins Theories
Phenomenon/Condition Creation
Hypothesis
Evolution
Hypothesis

Predominant a priori Assumptions (i.e., Philosophical Basis) concerning the Nature, Source, and Limits of Knowledge[4]
As with all man’s endeavors, true science will inevitably honor the Creator and affirm the Bible as His true and accurate record, wherever it addresses the historical past
Man’s scientific endeavors will inevitably affirm man’s autonomy and independence in determining what is true and what is false

Empirically Falsifiable?
No
No

Empirically Falsified?
No
No

Predominant approach
to the Bible[5]
The biblical record is accepted as a reliable historical basis of interpreting empirical data
The biblical record is rejected as a reliable historical basis, and replaced with strict philosophical naturalism as a basis of interpreting empirical data

Empirically Falsifiable?
No
No

Empirically Falsified?
No
No

Ultimate Primal Cause of Time, Space, and Matter/Energy[6]
God Created...
Time, space, and matter are either eternal or self-created.

Empirically Falsifiable?
No
Yes

Empirically Falsified?
No
Yes

Complexity, Variety and Adaptability in Living Organisms and Ecological Systems[7]
Inherent and complete in original populations as created; manifested (and subject to degradation) over time through genetic variation and natural selection
Increased over time from zero via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years

Empirically Falsifiable?
Yes
Yes

Empirically Falsified?
No
Yes

Massive amounts of Coded Genetic Information[8]
Inherent and complete in original populations as created; sum total has steadily declined over time via mutational degradation
Increased over time from zero via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years

Empirically Falsifiable?
Yes
Yes

Empirically Falsified?
No
Yes

Similarities, ranging from Genetic to Morphological, between various Organisms[9]
Indicative of Creator’s prerogative to employ similar or identical structures or information sequences for similar structures or similar functions in different organisms
Residual evidence that multiple different organisms descended from common ancestors

Empirically Falsifiable?
No
No

Empirically Falsified?
No
No

Billions of Organisms quickly Buried in sedimentary Rock Layers laid down by Water all over the Earth[10]
Global Flood & aftermath
Millions of years of gradual or intermittent burial

Empirically Falsifiable?
No
No

Empirically Falsified?
No
No

The Ice Age[11]
Post-Flood climate compensation
Unknown

Empirically Falsifiable?
No
No

Empirically Falsified?
No
No

Entropy Law as formalized in the Second Law of Thermodynamics[12]
Concurs, indicating a beginning (concurrent with or close to beginning of time) followed by constant degradation
Contradicts, postulating mechanism-free constant increase in order, complexity, and genetic information

Empirically Falsifiable?
Yes
Yes

Empirically Falsified?
No
Yes

Apparent Order or Sequence in Fossil Record[13]
General pattern of ecological zones quickly buried from lower to higher elevations; variations expected
Strict pattern of million-year depositions from “simple” to “complex” variations (i.e., anomalies) problematic

Empirically Falsifiable?
Yes
Yes

Empirically Falsified?
No
Yes

Erratic “Ages” given by Radiometric and various other Uniformitarian Processes[14]
Residual effect of catastrophic processes and conditions during the flood
Selective and dogmatic use of supportive “ages” & dismissal or disparagement of any conflicting indicators

Empirically Falsifiable?
Yes
Yes

Empirically Falsified?
No
Yes

Table 2. The so-called “non-existent” creation theory, when examined with a measure of objectivity, manages to explain most empirical data with at least as much credibility as the evolutionary counterpart.



Where is the Theory of Creation documented?
Some of the most vocal opponents of creationary thought, ostensibly repulsed by the work involved in objectively studying the technical details of an unfamiliar matter, persist in demanding something like a one- or two-sentence “theory of creation” [preferrably subservient to their naturalistic presuppositions]. Their insistence on such a simplistic approach to both evolution and creation has its reasons: Evolution appears more credible when essential technical details remain beyond scrutiny, whereas creation finds its most compelling substantiation in technical, detailed analyses of actual empirical data and scientifically sound principles vis-a-vis both perspectives.

While a simplistic “sound bite” approach to the origins issue may be fashionable by contemporary popular media standards, genuine science remains a matter of technical details, empirical data, and thorough analysis of the same. So what awaits those who sincerely seek an authentic theory of creation is not another sugar-coated pill, but a body of literature comprising a technical “second opinion” bringing into question the superficial diagnosis popularly embraced by a world reluctant to face the implications of a sovereign Creator who has spoken.

Whereas the landscape of popular media and selected “science” texts are peppered with simplistic allusions to evolutionary theory as fact, literature describing and explaining the creationary alternative, while not as plentiful as its dominant counterpart, is readily available to those who seriously want to study it. This is where the details of empirical science are brought to bear against both competing paradigms. [Sadly, the same cannot be said for the vast majority of evolutionary literature, which largely persists in treating the assumption of evolution as an immutable fact (and, on that basis, an inevitable conclusion), while heaping derision on heavily caricatured renderings of the creationary perspective.]

Books
Each of the following books offers a fairly balanced presentation of at least some aspect of the creationary paradigm, or model, of origins. All are written, at least in part, by Ph.D. scientists. The list begins with general and/or early overviews and moves toward somewhat more specialized and/or recent offerings.

Morris, Henry M., ed., Scientific Creationism [0-89052-003-2]
(Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1985)

Morris, Henry M. and Gary E. Parker, What is Creation Science? [0-89051-081-4]
(El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1987)

Wilder-Smith, A. E., Man’s Origin, Man’s Destiny [0-87123-356-8]
(Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw Co., 1968)

Wilder-Smith, A. E., Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory [9992139676]
(Costa Mesa, CA: TWFT Publishers, 1987)

Whitcomb, John C. and Henry Morris, The Genesis Flood [0-87552-338-2]
(Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1964)

Roth, Ariel A., Origins—Linking Science and Scripture [0-8280-1328-4]
(Hagarstown , MD: Review and Herals Publishing Association, 1998)

Woodmorappe, John, Studies in Flood Geology [0-932766-54-4]
(El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1993)

Woodmorappe, John, Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study [0-932766-41-2]
(El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1996)

Woodmorappe, John, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods [0-932766-57-9]
(El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1999)

Batten, Don, Editor The Answers Book [0-949906-23-9]
(Brisbane, Australia: Answers in Genesis, 1999)

Sarfati, Jonathan, Refuting Evolution [089051258-2]
(Brisbane, Australia: Answers in Genesis, 1999)

A slightly more descriptive list appears at - Selected Creation Books -- TrueOrigin Archive, while two much more extensive bibliographies are - Master Creation/Anti-Evolution Bibliography - and - A Young-Earth Creationist Bibliography -.
Many of these books can be purchased in the U.S. through the Creation Research Society, the Institute for Creation Research, and Creation Ministries International—the last of which also trades on a nearly worldwide basis.

Journals
The following are the two primary peer-reviewed journals of the creation science community. Each is published on a quarterly basis and managed by an editorial staff comprised almost entirely of experienced Ph.D. scientists. Very few of evolution’s most vocal proponents seem to have personally laid eyes on a copy of either of these publications. The ignorance inherent in their criticism of a caricatured “creationism” therefore comes as no surprise.

The Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ)
CRS Quarterly

Journal of Creation
http://creation.com/periodicals#journal_of_creation

A Theory of Biblical Creation

Nice cut & paste, can you think for yourself though? Because I still see no scientific proof of creation, it's just a mumbo jumbo comparison with no empirical facts to back it up, as usual.

If creator there is, evolution is part of his plan, get over it.

Watch and see who resorts to copy and paste, follow along you will learn something.

 

[Hollie]

What is a Scientific Theory?
Evolutionists’ pretensions notwithstanding, it is reasonable to ask whether there is a scientific theory of creation, and—if there is—to ask what it is. As a foundation for answering this question, the meanings of several relevant terms must first be accurately defined. This is necessary because many evolutionists tend to invoke arbitrarily contrived and/or equivocal definitions in support of their claims (such as the non-existence of a scientific theory of creation). Seeing this tactic for what it is enables serious students of the evolution/creation debate to transcend the evolutionists’ semantic smokescreen, and a balanced and informed assessment of either side of the debate—vis-à-vis the empirical evidence—may proceed unhindered.

The word “theory” in most common English dictionaries is defined (for the present context) something like this:


theo·ry n. a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which have been verified to some degree.

Likewise, “science” in most common English dictionaries is defined (for the context of this topic) like this:


sci·ence n. 1 the state or fact of knowledge 2 systematized knowledge derived from observation, study and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied

It should be noted up front that neither of these definitions either requires or excludes any particular frame of reference to which either “science” or a “theory” must (or must not) be attached. This is important, because evolutionists usually redefine both of these terms to suit their purposes by insisting that a“ scientific theory” must conform to their particular religious/philosophical frame of reference (philosophical naturalism) in order to be valid:


nat·u·ral·ism n. philos. the belief that the natural world, as explained by scientific laws, is all that exists and that there is no supernatural or spiritual creation, control, or significance

Again, it is important to note that this is not the definition of “science”—even though many evolutionist arguments seem to be based on the arbitrary assumption that it is. The naturalism embraced by most evolutionists is strictly an anti-supernatural belief system, a form of practical atheism. It is not, by definition, any more or less “scientific” than any other belief system, including one that allows for a Creator-God. While perhaps only a minority of evolutionists would count themselves as atheists, most tend to argue to exclude or severely limit the idea of a Creator-God. “Since God cannot be subjected to the process of scientific discovery,” they reason, “the possibility of any direct action on His part must be excluded from the realm of science.” Whether or not they are averse to the notion of moral accountability to a Creator, their sense of intellectual autonomy is apparently threatened by the idea that science could be limited in scope and (therefore) less than the ultimate, all-encompassing arena of human activity.

It should be noted here that dictionary definitions do state (correctly) that natural science deals with the natural world. This must not be misunderstood to imply a mandatory subjection to a naturalistic philosophy, which is how evolutionists often misrepresent it. There is a distinct difference between natural science and naturalistic philosophy: The former is the study of the natural world, while the latter is a belief that the natural world is all that exists. [It is furthermore worth noting at this point that the very basis of operational science and “natural law” emerged from a creationist framework, in which the immutable nature of the Creator was the basis for assuming the existence of immutable laws in His creation.]

Evolutionists will often argue that allowing for the supernatural in general—or God in particular—opens “science” up to all kinds of potential crackpot notions. But it is not actually genuine science that is threatened by the prospect of God—the only threat is to a “science” strictly dominated by philosophical naturalism. The evolutionist is invoking an arbitrarily modified definition of “science” to imply that naturalistic philosophy is entitled to exclusive domination of the“ scientific community.” [It’s no surprise that these same evolutionists keep their reasoning in a tight circle by defining the “scientific community” exclusively as those persons involved in science who also subscribe to philosophical naturalism—the only religious framework they’re willing to tolerate!]

The most vocal proponents of evolutionism say things like “There is no such thing as creation science!” or “If creationists would just come up with a theory, we would have something to talk about!” What they mean is that (in their opinions) any legitimate alternative to evolution must be based on the same philosophical naturalism as evolution. In their view, a viable alternative to evolution must satisfy the evolutionists’ criterion (i.e., philosophical naturalism) in order to avoid rejection—by philosophical naturalists! A better example of religious intolerance would be hard to find.

So the demand, made by many evolutionists, that a “scientific theory” must conform to one religious/philosophical belief system (e.g., humanistic naturalism) to the exclusion of another (e.g., biblical Christianity), is an arbitrarily contrived requirement—and a double standard:


The Evolutionary Double Standard
Characteristic Creation
Hypothesis
Evolution
Hypothesis

Primary approach to scientific methodology
Accumulation and analysis of empirical data through observation, repetition & measurement.
Accumulation and analysis of empirical data through observation, repetition & measurement.

Predominant religious/philosophical
belief system
Biblical Christianity
Humanistic Naturalism

Primary means of demonstrating system’s
positive empirical support
Citation of empirical data
Citation of empirical data

Primary means of criticizing
counterpart system
Citation of empirical data
A priori rejection on basis of religious/ philosophical differences

Table 1. Close examination reveals that evolutionists’ out-of-hand dismissal of the creation paradigm is due more to their own tightly held religious predispositions—which range from humanistic naturalism to outright atheism—than to matters of empirical science.


The Talk.Origins Archive “Welcome FAQ” also ascribes the following set of (reasonable) requirements to a genuinely scientific theory:

“A scientific theory must have predictive value, must be internally consistent, must be falsifiable, and must explain at least those phenomena explained by the currently dominant theory.”

These traits do loosely constitute a popular norm in defining scientific theories. As shall be seen below, an analysis of both the creation and evolution models reveals that the two theories conform with comparable integrity to such demands, when adequate information and analysis are allowed into the picture. But in typically dismissive style, the FAQ declares that:

“such statements as ‘God created the heavens and the earth...’ are not theories, as they are neither predictive nor falsifiable.”
What the Talk.Origins authors have failed to tell their readers is that there is much more to the creation science model than simply declaring “God created the heavens and the earth,” including much that is both as falsifiable and predictive (if not more so) as the evolutionary model.
What then is the Theory of Creation?
Table 2 (below) highlights a series of fundamental components of biblical young-earth creationism, providing a basic rendering of the creationary paradigm. To help illustrate its key points vis-à-vis the evolutionary model, they are presented side by side for comparison. This list is by no means exhaustive, and is likely to grow over time.
Comparison of the Evolutionary & Creationary Origins Theories
Phenomenon/Condition Creation
Hypothesis
Evolution
Hypothesis

Predominant a priori Assumptions (i.e., Philosophical Basis) concerning the Nature, Source, and Limits of Knowledge[4]
As with all man’s endeavors, true science will inevitably honor the Creator and affirm the Bible as His true and accurate record, wherever it addresses the historical past
Man’s scientific endeavors will inevitably affirm man’s autonomy and independence in determining what is true and what is false

Empirically Falsifiable?
No
No

Empirically Falsified?
No
No

Predominant approach
to the Bible[5]
The biblical record is accepted as a reliable historical basis of interpreting empirical data
The biblical record is rejected as a reliable historical basis, and replaced with strict philosophical naturalism as a basis of interpreting empirical data

Empirically Falsifiable?
No
No

Empirically Falsified?
No
No

Ultimate Primal Cause of Time, Space, and Matter/Energy[6]
God Created...
Time, space, and matter are either eternal or self-created.

Empirically Falsifiable?
No
Yes

Empirically Falsified?
No
Yes

Complexity, Variety and Adaptability in Living Organisms and Ecological Systems[7]
Inherent and complete in original populations as created; manifested (and subject to degradation) over time through genetic variation and natural selection
Increased over time from zero via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years

Empirically Falsifiable?
Yes
Yes

Empirically Falsified?
No
Yes

Massive amounts of Coded Genetic Information[8]
Inherent and complete in original populations as created; sum total has steadily declined over time via mutational degradation
Increased over time from zero via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years

Empirically Falsifiable?
Yes
Yes

Empirically Falsified?
No
Yes

Similarities, ranging from Genetic to Morphological, between various Organisms[9]
Indicative of Creator’s prerogative to employ similar or identical structures or information sequences for similar structures or similar functions in different organisms
Residual evidence that multiple different organisms descended from common ancestors

Empirically Falsifiable?
No
No

Empirically Falsified?
No
No

Billions of Organisms quickly Buried in sedimentary Rock Layers laid down by Water all over the Earth[10]
Global Flood & aftermath
Millions of years of gradual or intermittent burial

Empirically Falsifiable?
No
No

Empirically Falsified?
No
No

The Ice Age[11]
Post-Flood climate compensation
Unknown

Empirically Falsifiable?
No
No

Empirically Falsified?
No
No

Entropy Law as formalized in the Second Law of Thermodynamics[12]
Concurs, indicating a beginning (concurrent with or close to beginning of time) followed by constant degradation
Contradicts, postulating mechanism-free constant increase in order, complexity, and genetic information

Empirically Falsifiable?
Yes
Yes

Empirically Falsified?
No
Yes

Apparent Order or Sequence in Fossil Record[13]
General pattern of ecological zones quickly buried from lower to higher elevations; variations expected
Strict pattern of million-year depositions from “simple” to “complex” variations (i.e., anomalies) problematic

Empirically Falsifiable?
Yes
Yes

Empirically Falsified?
No
Yes

Erratic “Ages” given by Radiometric and various other Uniformitarian Processes[14]
Residual effect of catastrophic processes and conditions during the flood
Selective and dogmatic use of supportive “ages” & dismissal or disparagement of any conflicting indicators

Empirically Falsifiable?
Yes
Yes

Empirically Falsified?
No
Yes

Table 2. The so-called “non-existent” creation theory, when examined with a measure of objectivity, manages to explain most empirical data with at least as much credibility as the evolutionary counterpart.



Where is the Theory of Creation documented?
Some of the most vocal opponents of creationary thought, ostensibly repulsed by the work involved in objectively studying the technical details of an unfamiliar matter, persist in demanding something like a one- or two-sentence “theory of creation” [preferrably subservient to their naturalistic presuppositions]. Their insistence on such a simplistic approach to both evolution and creation has its reasons: Evolution appears more credible when essential technical details remain beyond scrutiny, whereas creation finds its most compelling substantiation in technical, detailed analyses of actual empirical data and scientifically sound principles vis-a-vis both perspectives.

While a simplistic “sound bite” approach to the origins issue may be fashionable by contemporary popular media standards, genuine science remains a matter of technical details, empirical data, and thorough analysis of the same. So what awaits those who sincerely seek an authentic theory of creation is not another sugar-coated pill, but a body of literature comprising a technical “second opinion” bringing into question the superficial diagnosis popularly embraced by a world reluctant to face the implications of a sovereign Creator who has spoken.

Whereas the landscape of popular media and selected “science” texts are peppered with simplistic allusions to evolutionary theory as fact, literature describing and explaining the creationary alternative, while not as plentiful as its dominant counterpart, is readily available to those who seriously want to study it. This is where the details of empirical science are brought to bear against both competing paradigms. [Sadly, the same cannot be said for the vast majority of evolutionary literature, which largely persists in treating the assumption of evolution as an immutable fact (and, on that basis, an inevitable conclusion), while heaping derision on heavily caricatured renderings of the creationary perspective.]

Books
Each of the following books offers a fairly balanced presentation of at least some aspect of the creationary paradigm, or model, of origins. All are written, at least in part, by Ph.D. scientists. The list begins with general and/or early overviews and moves toward somewhat more specialized and/or recent offerings.

Morris, Henry M., ed., Scientific Creationism [0-89052-003-2]
(Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1985)

Morris, Henry M. and Gary E. Parker, What is Creation Science? [0-89051-081-4]
(El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1987)

Wilder-Smith, A. E., Man’s Origin, Man’s Destiny [0-87123-356-8]
(Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw Co., 1968)

Wilder-Smith, A. E., Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory [9992139676]
(Costa Mesa, CA: TWFT Publishers, 1987)

Whitcomb, John C. and Henry Morris, The Genesis Flood [0-87552-338-2]
(Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1964)

Roth, Ariel A., Origins—Linking Science and Scripture [0-8280-1328-4]
(Hagarstown , MD: Review and Herals Publishing Association, 1998)

Woodmorappe, John, Studies in Flood Geology [0-932766-54-4]
(El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1993)

Woodmorappe, John, Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study [0-932766-41-2]
(El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1996)

Woodmorappe, John, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods [0-932766-57-9]
(El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1999)

Batten, Don, Editor The Answers Book [0-949906-23-9]
(Brisbane, Australia: Answers in Genesis, 1999)

Sarfati, Jonathan, Refuting Evolution [089051258-2]
(Brisbane, Australia: Answers in Genesis, 1999)

A slightly more descriptive list appears at - Selected Creation Books -- TrueOrigin Archive, while two much more extensive bibliographies are - Master Creation/Anti-Evolution Bibliography - and - A Young-Earth Creationist Bibliography -.
Many of these books can be purchased in the U.S. through the Creation Research Society, the Institute for Creation Research, and Creation Ministries International—the last of which also trades on a nearly worldwide basis.

Journals
The following are the two primary peer-reviewed journals of the creation science community. Each is published on a quarterly basis and managed by an editorial staff comprised almost entirely of experienced Ph.D. scientists. Very few of evolution’s most vocal proponents seem to have personally laid eyes on a copy of either of these publications. The ignorance inherent in their criticism of a caricatured “creationism” therefore comes as no surprise.

The Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ)
CRS Quarterly

Journal of Creation
http://creation.com/periodicals#journal_of_creation

A Theory of Biblical Creation

Nice cut & paste, can you think for yourself though? Because I still see no scientific proof of creation, it's just a mumbo jumbo comparison with no empirical facts to back it up, as usual.

If creator there is, evolution is part of his plan, get over it.

Watch and see who resorts to copy and paste, follow along you will learn something.

I hope you will do us a favor and avoid your relentless copy and paste from creationist charlatans such as Henry Morris.

The Creation Research Society (CRS). The following is quoted from original CRS material:

The Creation Research Society is one of the leading organisations researching special creation and claim to have founded their membership from members who are committed to full belief in the Biblical record of creation and early history. All of it's members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:

1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.

2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have been accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.

3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.

4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Saviour for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Saviour.

Can you spell c h a r l a t a n?

 

[ima]

What is a Scientific Theory?
Evolutionists’ pretensions notwithstanding, it is reasonable to ask whether there is a scientific theory of creation, and—if there is—to ask what it is. As a foundation for answering this question, the meanings of several relevant terms must first be accurately defined. This is necessary because many evolutionists tend to invoke arbitrarily contrived and/or equivocal definitions in support of their claims (such as the non-existence of a scientific theory of creation). Seeing this tactic for what it is enables serious students of the evolution/creation debate to transcend the evolutionists’ semantic smokescreen, and a balanced and informed assessment of either side of the debate—vis-à-vis the empirical evidence—may proceed unhindered.

The word “theory” in most common English dictionaries is defined (for the present context) something like this:


theo·ry n. a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which have been verified to some degree.

Likewise, “science” in most common English dictionaries is defined (for the context of this topic) like this:


sci·ence n. 1 the state or fact of knowledge 2 systematized knowledge derived from observation, study and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied

It should be noted up front that neither of these definitions either requires or excludes any particular frame of reference to which either “science” or a “theory” must (or must not) be attached. This is important, because evolutionists usually redefine both of these terms to suit their purposes by insisting that a“ scientific theory” must conform to their particular religious/philosophical frame of reference (philosophical naturalism) in order to be valid:


nat·u·ral·ism n. philos. the belief that the natural world, as explained by scientific laws, is all that exists and that there is no supernatural or spiritual creation, control, or significance

Again, it is important to note that this is not the definition of “science”—even though many evolutionist arguments seem to be based on the arbitrary assumption that it is. The naturalism embraced by most evolutionists is strictly an anti-supernatural belief system, a form of practical atheism. It is not, by definition, any more or less “scientific” than any other belief system, including one that allows for a Creator-God. While perhaps only a minority of evolutionists would count themselves as atheists, most tend to argue to exclude or severely limit the idea of a Creator-God. “Since God cannot be subjected to the process of scientific discovery,” they reason, “the possibility of any direct action on His part must be excluded from the realm of science.” Whether or not they are averse to the notion of moral accountability to a Creator, their sense of intellectual autonomy is apparently threatened by the idea that science could be limited in scope and (therefore) less than the ultimate, all-encompassing arena of human activity.

It should be noted here that dictionary definitions do state (correctly) that natural science deals with the natural world. This must not be misunderstood to imply a mandatory subjection to a naturalistic philosophy, which is how evolutionists often misrepresent it. There is a distinct difference between natural science and naturalistic philosophy: The former is the study of the natural world, while the latter is a belief that the natural world is all that exists. [It is furthermore worth noting at this point that the very basis of operational science and “natural law” emerged from a creationist framework, in which the immutable nature of the Creator was the basis for assuming the existence of immutable laws in His creation.]

Evolutionists will often argue that allowing for the supernatural in general—or God in particular—opens “science” up to all kinds of potential crackpot notions. But it is not actually genuine science that is threatened by the prospect of God—the only threat is to a “science” strictly dominated by philosophical naturalism. The evolutionist is invoking an arbitrarily modified definition of “science” to imply that naturalistic philosophy is entitled to exclusive domination of the“ scientific community.” [It’s no surprise that these same evolutionists keep their reasoning in a tight circle by defining the “scientific community” exclusively as those persons involved in science who also subscribe to philosophical naturalism—the only religious framework they’re willing to tolerate!]

The most vocal proponents of evolutionism say things like “There is no such thing as creation science!” or “If creationists would just come up with a theory, we would have something to talk about!” What they mean is that (in their opinions) any legitimate alternative to evolution must be based on the same philosophical naturalism as evolution. In their view, a viable alternative to evolution must satisfy the evolutionists’ criterion (i.e., philosophical naturalism) in order to avoid rejection—by philosophical naturalists! A better example of religious intolerance would be hard to find.

So the demand, made by many evolutionists, that a “scientific theory” must conform to one religious/philosophical belief system (e.g., humanistic naturalism) to the exclusion of another (e.g., biblical Christianity), is an arbitrarily contrived requirement—and a double standard:


The Evolutionary Double Standard
Characteristic Creation
Hypothesis
Evolution
Hypothesis

Primary approach to scientific methodology
Accumulation and analysis of empirical data through observation, repetition & measurement.
Accumulation and analysis of empirical data through observation, repetition & measurement.

Predominant religious/philosophical
belief system
Biblical Christianity
Humanistic Naturalism

Primary means of demonstrating system’s
positive empirical support
Citation of empirical data
Citation of empirical data

Primary means of criticizing
counterpart system
Citation of empirical data
A priori rejection on basis of religious/ philosophical differences

Table 1. Close examination reveals that evolutionists’ out-of-hand dismissal of the creation paradigm is due more to their own tightly held religious predispositions—which range from humanistic naturalism to outright atheism—than to matters of empirical science.


The Talk.Origins Archive “Welcome FAQ” also ascribes the following set of (reasonable) requirements to a genuinely scientific theory:

“A scientific theory must have predictive value, must be internally consistent, must be falsifiable, and must explain at least those phenomena explained by the currently dominant theory.”

These traits do loosely constitute a popular norm in defining scientific theories. As shall be seen below, an analysis of both the creation and evolution models reveals that the two theories conform with comparable integrity to such demands, when adequate information and analysis are allowed into the picture. But in typically dismissive style, the FAQ declares that:

“such statements as ‘God created the heavens and the earth...’ are not theories, as they are neither predictive nor falsifiable.”
What the Talk.Origins authors have failed to tell their readers is that there is much more to the creation science model than simply declaring “God created the heavens and the earth,” including much that is both as falsifiable and predictive (if not more so) as the evolutionary model.
What then is the Theory of Creation?
Table 2 (below) highlights a series of fundamental components of biblical young-earth creationism, providing a basic rendering of the creationary paradigm. To help illustrate its key points vis-à-vis the evolutionary model, they are presented side by side for comparison. This list is by no means exhaustive, and is likely to grow over time.
Comparison of the Evolutionary & Creationary Origins Theories
Phenomenon/Condition Creation
Hypothesis
Evolution
Hypothesis

Predominant a priori Assumptions (i.e., Philosophical Basis) concerning the Nature, Source, and Limits of Knowledge[4]
As with all man’s endeavors, true science will inevitably honor the Creator and affirm the Bible as His true and accurate record, wherever it addresses the historical past
Man’s scientific endeavors will inevitably affirm man’s autonomy and independence in determining what is true and what is false

Empirically Falsifiable?
No
No

Empirically Falsified?
No
No

Predominant approach
to the Bible[5]
The biblical record is accepted as a reliable historical basis of interpreting empirical data
The biblical record is rejected as a reliable historical basis, and replaced with strict philosophical naturalism as a basis of interpreting empirical data

Empirically Falsifiable?
No
No

Empirically Falsified?
No
No

Ultimate Primal Cause of Time, Space, and Matter/Energy[6]
God Created...
Time, space, and matter are either eternal or self-created.

Empirically Falsifiable?
No
Yes

Empirically Falsified?
No
Yes

Complexity, Variety and Adaptability in Living Organisms and Ecological Systems[7]
Inherent and complete in original populations as created; manifested (and subject to degradation) over time through genetic variation and natural selection
Increased over time from zero via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years

Empirically Falsifiable?
Yes
Yes

Empirically Falsified?
No
Yes

Massive amounts of Coded Genetic Information[8]
Inherent and complete in original populations as created; sum total has steadily declined over time via mutational degradation
Increased over time from zero via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years

Empirically Falsifiable?
Yes
Yes

Empirically Falsified?
No
Yes

Similarities, ranging from Genetic to Morphological, between various Organisms[9]
Indicative of Creator’s prerogative to employ similar or identical structures or information sequences for similar structures or similar functions in different organisms
Residual evidence that multiple different organisms descended from common ancestors

Empirically Falsifiable?
No
No

Empirically Falsified?
No
No

Billions of Organisms quickly Buried in sedimentary Rock Layers laid down by Water all over the Earth[10]
Global Flood & aftermath
Millions of years of gradual or intermittent burial

Empirically Falsifiable?
No
No

Empirically Falsified?
No
No

The Ice Age[11]
Post-Flood climate compensation
Unknown

Empirically Falsifiable?
No
No

Empirically Falsified?
No
No

Entropy Law as formalized in the Second Law of Thermodynamics[12]
Concurs, indicating a beginning (concurrent with or close to beginning of time) followed by constant degradation
Contradicts, postulating mechanism-free constant increase in order, complexity, and genetic information

Empirically Falsifiable?
Yes
Yes

Empirically Falsified?
No
Yes

Apparent Order or Sequence in Fossil Record[13]
General pattern of ecological zones quickly buried from lower to higher elevations; variations expected
Strict pattern of million-year depositions from “simple” to “complex” variations (i.e., anomalies) problematic

Empirically Falsifiable?
Yes
Yes

Empirically Falsified?
No
Yes

Erratic “Ages” given by Radiometric and various other Uniformitarian Processes[14]
Residual effect of catastrophic processes and conditions during the flood
Selective and dogmatic use of supportive “ages” & dismissal or disparagement of any conflicting indicators

Empirically Falsifiable?
Yes
Yes

Empirically Falsified?
No
Yes

Table 2. The so-called “non-existent” creation theory, when examined with a measure of objectivity, manages to explain most empirical data with at least as much credibility as the evolutionary counterpart.



Where is the Theory of Creation documented?
Some of the most vocal opponents of creationary thought, ostensibly repulsed by the work involved in objectively studying the technical details of an unfamiliar matter, persist in demanding something like a one- or two-sentence “theory of creation” [preferrably subservient to their naturalistic presuppositions]. Their insistence on such a simplistic approach to both evolution and creation has its reasons: Evolution appears more credible when essential technical details remain beyond scrutiny, whereas creation finds its most compelling substantiation in technical, detailed analyses of actual empirical data and scientifically sound principles vis-a-vis both perspectives.

While a simplistic “sound bite” approach to the origins issue may be fashionable by contemporary popular media standards, genuine science remains a matter of technical details, empirical data, and thorough analysis of the same. So what awaits those who sincerely seek an authentic theory of creation is not another sugar-coated pill, but a body of literature comprising a technical “second opinion” bringing into question the superficial diagnosis popularly embraced by a world reluctant to face the implications of a sovereign Creator who has spoken.

Whereas the landscape of popular media and selected “science” texts are peppered with simplistic allusions to evolutionary theory as fact, literature describing and explaining the creationary alternative, while not as plentiful as its dominant counterpart, is readily available to those who seriously want to study it. This is where the details of empirical science are brought to bear against both competing paradigms. [Sadly, the same cannot be said for the vast majority of evolutionary literature, which largely persists in treating the assumption of evolution as an immutable fact (and, on that basis, an inevitable conclusion), while heaping derision on heavily caricatured renderings of the creationary perspective.]

Books
Each of the following books offers a fairly balanced presentation of at least some aspect of the creationary paradigm, or model, of origins. All are written, at least in part, by Ph.D. scientists. The list begins with general and/or early overviews and moves toward somewhat more specialized and/or recent offerings.

Morris, Henry M., ed., Scientific Creationism [0-89052-003-2]
(Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1985)

Morris, Henry M. and Gary E. Parker, What is Creation Science? [0-89051-081-4]
(El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1987)

Wilder-Smith, A. E., Man’s Origin, Man’s Destiny [0-87123-356-8]
(Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw Co., 1968)

Wilder-Smith, A. E., Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory [9992139676]
(Costa Mesa, CA: TWFT Publishers, 1987)

Whitcomb, John C. and Henry Morris, The Genesis Flood [0-87552-338-2]
(Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1964)

Roth, Ariel A., Origins—Linking Science and Scripture [0-8280-1328-4]
(Hagarstown , MD: Review and Herals Publishing Association, 1998)

Woodmorappe, John, Studies in Flood Geology [0-932766-54-4]
(El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1993)

Woodmorappe, John, Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study [0-932766-41-2]
(El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1996)

Woodmorappe, John, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods [0-932766-57-9]
(El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1999)

Batten, Don, Editor The Answers Book [0-949906-23-9]
(Brisbane, Australia: Answers in Genesis, 1999)

Sarfati, Jonathan, Refuting Evolution [089051258-2]
(Brisbane, Australia: Answers in Genesis, 1999)

A slightly more descriptive list appears at - Selected Creation Books -- TrueOrigin Archive, while two much more extensive bibliographies are - Master Creation/Anti-Evolution Bibliography - and - A Young-Earth Creationist Bibliography -.
Many of these books can be purchased in the U.S. through the Creation Research Society, the Institute for Creation Research, and Creation Ministries International—the last of which also trades on a nearly worldwide basis.

Journals
The following are the two primary peer-reviewed journals of the creation science community. Each is published on a quarterly basis and managed by an editorial staff comprised almost entirely of experienced Ph.D. scientists. Very few of evolution’s most vocal proponents seem to have personally laid eyes on a copy of either of these publications. The ignorance inherent in their criticism of a caricatured “creationism” therefore comes as no surprise.

The Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ)
CRS Quarterly

Journal of Creation
http://creation.com/periodicals#journal_of_creation

A Theory of Biblical Creation

Nice cut & paste, can you think for yourself though? Because I still see no scientific proof of creation, it's just a mumbo jumbo comparison with no empirical facts to back it up, as usual.

If creator there is, evolution is part of his plan, get over it.

Watch and see who resorts to copy and paste, follow along you will learn something.

So where was the scientific proof of creation? I didn't see ANY, just a lot of mumbo jumbo.

 

[Hollie]

Journals:

The following are the two primary peer-reviewed journals of the creation science community. Each is published on a quarterlybasisand managed by aneditorial staff comprised almost entirely of experienced Ph.D. scientists. Very few of evolution’s most vocal proponents seem to have personally laid eyes on a copy of either of these publications. The ignorance inherent in their criticism of a caricatured “creationism” therefore comes as no surprise.

Creationist peer review?

That's so silly. What the above suggests is that creationist holding a similar bias are simply reading the opinions of other creationist.

It's nonsense to claim that creationist do any actual research.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Thanks, but I'll pass. That Creationist nonsense is pretty fucking tedious for me, insofar as I'm an Athiest, and not on a mission to prove or disprove anything of a spirit nature. I just like reading about stuff, especially the newer and more theoretical; thus I have no problem when mistakes are made since they'll be corrected when we know more. It's only a matter of time, proven time and time again throughout human history. The longer we're at it, the more we'll understand.

And that hasn't the least bearing whatsoever on creation beliefs, which are based purely on myriad assumptions, going back many millenia.

Oh but the scientific mutation rate numbers are far to high for man to evolve from anything let alone exist on this planet for 2.2 million years and scientist know this and had to try and create other theories to explain this problem away but in doing so created bigger problems from the mutation rate.

This is good stuff and it might change your mind about this rediculous theory.

[ame=http://youtu.be/tgC3hkCGJMU]Refuting Creationist Arguments - Mutations - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://youtu.be/EyjufVuQZ48]Evolution for ID-iots - YouTube[/ame]


yes this is

Your video claimed U=1.6 this is correct at one time. Scientists claimed and they were right this number was to high so they had to try and explain this evidence away because they knew this rate was to high for humans to survive without going extinct for as long as evolutionist claim man has been here on this planet. So to explain this problem away they turn to synergistic epistasis to try and explain this evidence away but since mapping of the human Genome this became an even larger problem and made their explanation rediculous.

Eyre, Walker and Keightley By comparing human and chimp differences in protein coding DNA, they arrived at a deleterious harmful mutation rate for humans of U=1.6 per individual per generation this is in agreement with your video. Since the mapping of the Genome the deleterious mutation rate is much higher.

over time harmful mutations outpace beneficial ones to fixation, evolution from molecules to man surely cannot occur.

So let's figure the reproductive impact.

P=probability a genome does not receive a new defect this generation

The female must reproduce 2 offspring one to replace her and her mate just to maintain the current poplation.

B will represent the birth threshold B = 2/p

p of an offspring escaping error free is given by e^-U

B = 2e^U. For U=1.6, B = 9.9 births per female so what do these figures mean ?

females need to produce over 10 offspring just to keep genetic deterioration near equilibrium anything under the average of 10 would lead to certain genetic deterioration. No way could a woman average 10 offspring for 4 to 6 million years so man should be extinct not a population of growth over 4 to 6 million years. Don't forget Eyre, Walker and Keightley already figured in natural selection in their figure of U=1.6 that your video confirmed.

But it gets worse since the mapping of the the Genome the actual figure of deletrious mutations (harmful) is U=3.1 and this has natural selection figured in to it. By doing the same math for man to exist for 4 to 6 million years it means a female would have had to had 40 offspring just to keep genetic deterioration near equilibrium. That is maintaing a population not growing a population.

This is strong evidence that man has only been on this planet for a short period of time let's say 6,000 years. We now have over 6,000 genetic disorders so what is happening man is deteriorating not improving fitness. If God does not come soon it will lead to the extinction of man but we have the promise from God this will not happen. This is why you will see genetic disorders continue to grow in number.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Nice cut & paste, can you think for yourself though? Because I still see no scientific proof of creation, it's just a mumbo jumbo comparison with no empirical facts to back it up, as usual.

If creator there is, evolution is part of his plan, get over it.

Watch and see who resorts to copy and paste, follow along you will learn something.

I hope you will do us a favor and avoid your relentless copy and paste from creationist charlatans such as Henry Morris.

The Creation Research Society (CRS). The following is quoted from original CRS material:

The Creation Research Society is one of the leading organisations researching special creation and claim to have founded their membership from members who are committed to full belief in the Biblical record of creation and early history. All of it's members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:

1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.

2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have been accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.

3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.

4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Saviour for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Saviour.

Can you spell c h a r l a t a n?

Only rhetoric hollie, can you not follow along with the conversation ?

 

[Hollie]

Watch and see who resorts to copy and paste, follow along you will learn something.

I hope you will do us a favor and avoid your relentless copy and paste from creationist charlatans such as Henry Morris.

The Creation Research Society (CRS). The following is quoted from original CRS material:

The Creation Research Society is one of the leading organisations researching special creation and claim to have founded their membership from members who are committed to full belief in the Biblical record of creation and early history. All of it's members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:

1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.

2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have been accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.

3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.

4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Saviour for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Saviour.

Can you spell c h a r l a t a n?

Only rhetoric hollie, can you not follow along with the conversation ?

Only excuses for an obvious bias, ywc?

What you're hoping to avoid is addressing that on the part of creationist, there is an obvious need to promote the creationist view, not seek facts.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I hope you will do us a favor and avoid your relentless copy and paste from creationist charlatans such as Henry Morris.

The Creation Research Society (CRS). The following is quoted from original CRS material:

The Creation Research Society is one of the leading organisations researching special creation and claim to have founded their membership from members who are committed to full belief in the Biblical record of creation and early history. All of it's members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:

1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.

2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have been accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.

3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.

4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Saviour for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Saviour.

Can you spell c h a r l a t a n?

Only rhetoric hollie, can you not follow along with the conversation ?

Only excuses for an obvious bias, ywc?

What you're hoping to avoid is addressing that on the part of creationist, there is an obvious need to promote the creationist view, not seek facts.

Really Hollie ? I just presented you with the facts evolution over millions of years through mutations is the fairytale.

 

[Koios]

Only rhetoric hollie, can you not follow along with the conversation ?

Only excuses for an obvious bias, ywc?

What you're hoping to avoid is addressing that on the part of creationist, there is an obvious need to promote the creationist view, not seek facts.

Really Hollie ? I just presented you with the facts evolution over millions of years through mutations is the fairytale.

No; you didn't. Bear in mind, it's merely bullshit pseudoscience designed so the Christians whose faiths may be fragile in the light of current human understanding, can quench doubts that science is building within them.

It's not designed to in fact discredit what actual scientists, adhering to scientific method, know to be utterly beyond reproach: life evolved on Earth and was not placed here by any intelligent being that has left the slightest trace of his/her/its existence, much less proof of the creation point, method and source.

Simple truth, pursuant to the 9th Commandment.

 

[daws101]

Oh but the scientific mutation rate numbers are far to high for man to evolve from anything let alone exist on this planet for 2.2 million years and scientist know this and had to try and create other theories to explain this problem away but in doing so created bigger problems from the mutation rate.

This is good stuff and it might change your mind about this rediculous theory.

[ame=http://youtu.be/tgC3hkCGJMU]Refuting Creationist Arguments - Mutations - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://youtu.be/EyjufVuQZ48]Evolution for ID-iots - YouTube[/ame]


yes this is

Your video claimed U=1.6 this is correct!


the rest was edited for lack of actual scientific content ...

 

[daws101]

Only excuses for an obvious bias, ywc?

What you're hoping to avoid is addressing that on the part of creationist, there is an obvious need to promote the creationist view, not seek facts.

Really Hollie ? I just presented you with the facts evolution over millions of years through mutations is the fairytale.

No; you didn't. Bear in mind, it's merely bullshit pseudoscience designed so the Christians whose faiths may be fragile in the light of current human understanding, can quench doubts that science is building within them.

It's not designed to in fact discredit what actual scientists, adhering to scientific method, know to be utterly beyond reproach: life evolved on Earth and was not placed here by any intelligent being that has left the slightest trace of his/her/its existence, much less proof of the creation point, method and source.

Simple truth, pursuant to the 9th Commandment.

major bump.

 

[Hollie]

Only rhetoric hollie, can you not follow along with the conversation ?

Only excuses for an obvious bias, ywc?

What you're hoping to avoid is addressing that on the part of creationist, there is an obvious need to promote the creationist view, not seek facts.

Really Hollie ? I just presented you with the facts evolution over millions of years through mutations is the fairytale.

Really, dear, it's difficult to know what you presented as you provided no source. Which is just as well because having to slog through creationist websites to find that source is tedious and frustrating.

Why are you arbitrarily going to account for all of existence being at the sweeping hand of gawds which you claim are eternal, uncreated, etc., etc.? Why are you arbitrarily excusing your gawds from being created? Why not “super gawds” who are the creators of your sectarian gawds?

Of course it helps if we first decide what it is we mean (or meant) by "gawd" as it applies to ones beliefs in a supernatural being, the "creator of all", the "Big Cheese", and being consigned to heaven or hell. I must confess to an assumption here; that is, when I enter into theistic debates I assume for the sake of efficiency that your "gawds" are defined in the Judeo-Christian vein, i.e., an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent supernatural being who exists both eternally in the past and into the future, etc., etc., etc. I should stop assuming that of course, but the vast majority of debates stem from that definition, so allow me the mea culpa

Your primary contention with the science of evolution appears to be for you, an irresolvable dilemma with timelines: the indisputable fact of an ancient earth vs. the biblical take of a young earth. A simple solution to this entire “gawds” issue would be for the gawds to make their presence known in a clearly defined way. Maybe a first start would be for the creation tale to not delineate things in terms of "days" at all then. Why would the divine being purposely use a term that humans would use within their own context, thus purposely obscuring the true nature of reality?

I don't buy typical apologists' claims that only through their particular interpretation can "the will of the gawds" be understood. We're talking about a book that was written not too distantly from the building of the pyramids-- clearly in certain areas humans were quite advanced. And even within the book itself concepts of "eternity" are brought to light, so why don't the gods just state the "facts" as they are? "In the first 1 billion years...."

For eternal gawds who are, on the one hand excused for being obscure regarding "time" related issues to suddenly have some problem with the idea that within about 4000 years of the writing of your "holy text", (given the biblical timeline) humans would advance enough to be able to make credible interpretations of the clues of creation is self-defeating the original proposition that gawds would "speak" in obscure ways about time.

 

[newpolitics]

Oh but the scientific mutation rate numbers are far to high for man to evolve from anything let alone exist on this planet for 2.2 million years and scientist know this and had to try and create other theories to explain this problem away but in doing so created bigger problems from the mutation rate.

This is good stuff and it might change your mind about this rediculous theory.

[ame=http://youtu.be/tgC3hkCGJMU]Refuting Creationist Arguments - Mutations - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://youtu.be/EyjufVuQZ48]Evolution for ID-iots - YouTube[/ame]


yes this is

Your video claimed U=1.6 this is correct at one time. Scientists claimed and they were right this number was to high so they had to try and explain this evidence away because they knew this rate was to high for humans to survive without going extinct for as long as evolutionist claim man has been here on this planet. So to explain this problem away they turn to synergistic epistasis to try and explain this evidence away but since mapping of the human Genome this became an even larger problem and made their explanation rediculous.

Eyre, Walker and Keightley By comparing human and chimp differences in protein coding DNA, they arrived at a deleterious harmful mutation rate for humans of U=1.6 per individual per generation this is in agreement with your video. Since the mapping of the Genome the deleterious mutation rate is much higher.

over time harmful mutations outpace beneficial ones to fixation, evolution from molecules to man surely cannot occur.

So let's figure the reproductive impact.

P=probability a genome does not receive a new defect this generation

The female must reproduce 2 offspring one to replace her and her mate just to maintain the current poplation.

B will represent the birth threshold B = 2/p

p of an offspring escaping error free is given by e^-U

B = 2e^U. For U=1.6, B = 9.9 births per female so what do these figures mean ?

females need to produce over 10 offspring just to keep genetic deterioration near equilibrium anything under the average of 10 would lead to certain genetic deterioration. No way could a woman average 10 offspring for 4 to 6 million years so man should be extinct not a population of growth over 4 to 6 million years. Don't forget Eyre, Walker and Keightley already figured in natural selection in their figure of U=1.6 that your video confirmed.

But it gets worse since the mapping of the the Genome the actual figure of deletrious mutations (harmful) is U=3.1 and this has natural selection figured in to it. By doing the same math for man to exist for 4 to 6 million years it means a female would have had to had 40 offspring just to keep genetic deterioration near equilibrium. That is maintaing a population not growing a population.

This is strong evidence that man has only been on this planet for a short period of time let's say 6,000 years. We now have over 6,000 genetic disorders so what is happening man is deteriorating not improving fitness. If God does not come soon it will lead to the extinction of man but we have the promise from God this will not happen. This is why you will see genetic disorders continue to grow in number.

It really is scary to think you were a biologist with this kind of insanely fallacious reasoning you just demonstrated. I fear the outcome of whatever you were working on, and can honestly only hope no one was harmed. It really is quite sad to see.

The fact that you think the genome is deteriorating with each meiosis event and fertilization, is astounding. What's really telling is that you have no evidence or explanation of how this would happen, yet you are a biologist. If you had a hypothesis that was worth considering to explain your "fact," maybe people would listen. Until then, relying on non-descriptive math is meaningless without evidence. You attempt the same fallacy as Meyer who tries to disprove abiogenesis using probability when he is ignorant to the conditions that would have created the event, making his numbers non-descriptive of any reality, and thus holding no explanatory power.

 

[LittleNipper]

Refuting Creationist Arguments - Mutations - YouTube

Evolution for ID-iots - YouTube


yes this is

Your video claimed U=1.6 this is correct at one time. Scientists claimed and they were right this number was to high so they had to try and explain this evidence away because they knew this rate was to high for humans to survive without going extinct for as long as evolutionist claim man has been here on this planet. So to explain this problem away they turn to synergistic epistasis to try and explain this evidence away but since mapping of the human Genome this became an even larger problem and made their explanation rediculous.

Eyre, Walker and Keightley By comparing human and chimp differences in protein coding DNA, they arrived at a deleterious harmful mutation rate for humans of U=1.6 per individual per generation this is in agreement with your video. Since the mapping of the Genome the deleterious mutation rate is much higher.

over time harmful mutations outpace beneficial ones to fixation, evolution from molecules to man surely cannot occur.

So let's figure the reproductive impact.

P=probability a genome does not receive a new defect this generation

The female must reproduce 2 offspring one to replace her and her mate just to maintain the current poplation.

B will represent the birth threshold B = 2/p

p of an offspring escaping error free is given by e^-U

B = 2e^U. For U=1.6, B = 9.9 births per female so what do these figures mean ?

females need to produce over 10 offspring just to keep genetic deterioration near equilibrium anything under the average of 10 would lead to certain genetic deterioration. No way could a woman average 10 offspring for 4 to 6 million years so man should be extinct not a population of growth over 4 to 6 million years. Don't forget Eyre, Walker and Keightley already figured in natural selection in their figure of U=1.6 that your video confirmed.

But it gets worse since the mapping of the the Genome the actual figure of deletrious mutations (harmful) is U=3.1 and this has natural selection figured in to it. By doing the same math for man to exist for 4 to 6 million years it means a female would have had to had 40 offspring just to keep genetic deterioration near equilibrium. That is maintaing a population not growing a population.

This is strong evidence that man has only been on this planet for a short period of time let's say 6,000 years. We now have over 6,000 genetic disorders so what is happening man is deteriorating not improving fitness. If God does not come soon it will lead to the extinction of man but we have the promise from God this will not happen. This is why you will see genetic disorders continue to grow in number.

It really is scary to think you were a biologist with this kind of insanely fallacious reasoning you just demonstrated. I fear the outcome of whatever you were working on, and can honestly only hope no one was harmed. It really is quite sad to see.

The fact that you think the genome is deteriorating with each meiosis event and fertilization, is astounding. What's really telling is that you have no evidence or explanation of how this would happen, yet you are a biologist. If you had a hypothesis that was worth considering to explain your "fact," maybe people would listen. Until then, relying on non-descriptive math is meaningless without evidence. You attempt the same fallacy as Meyer who tries to disprove abiogenesis using probability when he is ignorant to the conditions that would have created the event, making his numbers non-descriptive of any reality, and thus holding no explanatory power.

The fact is your bias against any religious reasoning is what makes me fully understand why secular education is a detriment to learning. If evolutionists were treated the way you treat creationists, the world might be a better place; however, no one would be able to pose a question.

 

[Koios]

Your video claimed U=1.6 this is correct at one time. Scientists claimed and they were right this number was to high so they had to try and explain this evidence away because they knew this rate was to high for humans to survive without going extinct for as long as evolutionist claim man has been here on this planet. So to explain this problem away they turn to synergistic epistasis to try and explain this evidence away but since mapping of the human Genome this became an even larger problem and made their explanation rediculous.

Eyre, Walker and Keightley By comparing human and chimp differences in protein coding DNA, they arrived at a deleterious harmful mutation rate for humans of U=1.6 per individual per generation this is in agreement with your video. Since the mapping of the Genome the deleterious mutation rate is much higher.

over time harmful mutations outpace beneficial ones to fixation, evolution from molecules to man surely cannot occur.

So let's figure the reproductive impact.

P=probability a genome does not receive a new defect this generation

The female must reproduce 2 offspring one to replace her and her mate just to maintain the current poplation.

B will represent the birth threshold B = 2/p

p of an offspring escaping error free is given by e^-U

B = 2e^U. For U=1.6, B = 9.9 births per female so what do these figures mean ?

females need to produce over 10 offspring just to keep genetic deterioration near equilibrium anything under the average of 10 would lead to certain genetic deterioration. No way could a woman average 10 offspring for 4 to 6 million years so man should be extinct not a population of growth over 4 to 6 million years. Don't forget Eyre, Walker and Keightley already figured in natural selection in their figure of U=1.6 that your video confirmed.

But it gets worse since the mapping of the the Genome the actual figure of deletrious mutations (harmful) is U=3.1 and this has natural selection figured in to it. By doing the same math for man to exist for 4 to 6 million years it means a female would have had to had 40 offspring just to keep genetic deterioration near equilibrium. That is maintaing a population not growing a population.

This is strong evidence that man has only been on this planet for a short period of time let's say 6,000 years. We now have over 6,000 genetic disorders so what is happening man is deteriorating not improving fitness. If God does not come soon it will lead to the extinction of man but we have the promise from God this will not happen. This is why you will see genetic disorders continue to grow in number.

It really is scary to think you were a biologist with this kind of insanely fallacious reasoning you just demonstrated. I fear the outcome of whatever you were working on, and can honestly only hope no one was harmed. It really is quite sad to see.

The fact that you think the genome is deteriorating with each meiosis event and fertilization, is astounding. What's really telling is that you have no evidence or explanation of how this would happen, yet you are a biologist. If you had a hypothesis that was worth considering to explain your "fact," maybe people would listen. Until then, relying on non-descriptive math is meaningless without evidence. You attempt the same fallacy as Meyer who tries to disprove abiogenesis using probability when he is ignorant to the conditions that would have created the event, making his numbers non-descriptive of any reality, and thus holding no explanatory power.

The fact is your bias against any religious reasoning is what makes me fully understand why secular education is a detriment to learning. If evolutionists were treated the way you treat creationists, the world might be a better place; however, no one would be able to pose a question.

Ask away. Any question you wish. Better?

So hell; let me start: did God evolve or was He created by a higher god(s)?