Creationist Inquiry

[Tsentralka]

Hello All,

As the subject indicates, I am a Biblical Creationist. This means that I believe the Bible is literally true and accept its explanation for the origin of the universe and life (from here on out when I refer to the Biblical worldview, I am referring to the literal interpretation). However, contrary to most Creationists, I accept this by faith not because of so-called empirical evidence. Probably the biggest question I have is, if God could have created living organisms in any number of ways, why did he do it such a way that scientists could come to the conclusion that it all Evolved? I can think of three possibilities (none of which actually attempt to answer that question per se)...

1) Scientists are fabricating evidence to support the concept that life has Evolved;
2) The Biblical account is just plain wrong;
3) The evidence can be reasonably explained from a Biblical perspective and our correct understanding of it will shed more light on God/the Bible.

Most Creationists default to Possibility #1, but I think this is rarely the case. Possibility #2 is here because it is a possibility (I suppose the one that many/most/all of you would take). Possibility #3 is the one which I believe will hold true in the end, but I cannot say because I've never really looked in detail at the evidence. I will say that if Possibility #3 does not hold true after years of investigation, I will be the first to abandon it. In other words, I'm willing to go where the evidence leads**.

I say all of that to say this...I am very interested in taking an in-depth look into the evidence behind common ancestry. I'm not talking here about the evidence for evolution* (macroevolution or microevolution - both of which all Creationists accept when strictly defined), but actually the idea of universal common ancestry/decent. Certainly there are mountains of so-called evidences out there, but due to my ignorance I'ld prefer to look at one stone at a time. Perhaps we could take some points from Douglas Theobald's "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" (using his broad definition of macroevolution) or if you have some other favorite evidence we could talk about those. I will warn you...although, I'm quite interested in science (especially biology), I might not understand the evidence right away, but I am very willing to learn.

Although, I am probably not as open-minded as I think I am, I am sincere in my desire to see for myself what the facts are underlying your beliefs in Evolution*.


Tsentralka


P.S. I'm sure you've been over this ground about a million times on this forum...I apologize for kicking a dead horse.

P.P.S. I also have to say that I cannot make this discussion very fast-paced. It usually takes me a little while to respond. Thanks for your understanding.



**I say this with the realization that I won't understand and properly interpret all of the evidence. IOW, I won't abandon my believes when I can't find where one or a few pieces fit at the moment. Just like I'm sure you would not.

 

[australopithecus]

Hello All

Hello there! Welcome to the forum.

As the subject indicates, I am a Biblical Creationist. This means that I believe the Bible is literally true and accept its explanation for the origin of the universe and life (from here on out when I refer to the Biblical worldview, I am referring to the literal interpretation).

We wont hold that against you

However, contrary to most Creationists, I accept this by faith not because of so-called empirical evidence.

Fair enough.

Probably the biggest question I have is, if God could have created living organisms in any number of ways, why did he do it such a way that scientists could come to the conclusion that it all Evolved? I can think of three possibilities (none of which actually attempt to answer that question per se)...

1) Scientists are fabricating evidence to support the concept that life has Evolved;

The peer review process would undermine this possibility. There are a host of Christian, Jewish and Islamic biologists who do accept evolution to be the best explanation for the diversity of life, who I have no doubt would be quick to point out any foul play. The scientific community is too large to facilitate a hoax of this magnitude. Also, there's no reason for anyone to fabricate anything. What would the motivation be?

2) The Biblical account is just plain wrong;

Personally, my money is on this.

3) The evidence can be reasonably explained from a Biblical perspective and our correct understanding of it will shed more light on God/the Bible.

In 150 years this has appeared to not be the case.

Most Creationists default to Possibility #1, but I think this is rarely the case. Possibility #2 is here because it is a possibility (I suppose the one that many/most/all of you would take). Possibility #3 is the one which I believe will hold true in the end, but I cannot say because I've never really looked in detail at the evidence. I will say that if Possibility #3 does not hold true after years of investigation, I will be the first to abandon it. In other words, I'm willing to go where the evidence leads**.

I'd like to take the time out to congratulate you on being one of a handful of creationists I've encountered who I can say I find intellectually honest. However, I would put out that 150 years worth of investigation has rendered evolutionary theory beyond reasonable doubt. It is as much a fact as gravity or atoms.

If you want to assert theistic evolution, with evolution as a mechanism being the tool of God's creative juices, then that's fine. It doesn't contradict the evidence and it doesn't discount a creator God. But biblical literalism isn't an option, it's been roundly shown to be false over many differing branches of science.

I say all of that to say this...I am very interested in taking an in-depth look into the evidence behind common ancestry. I'm not talking here about the evidence for evolution* (macroevolution or microevolution - both of which all Creationists accept when strictly defined), but actually the idea of universal common ancestry/decent. Certainly there are mountains of so-called evidences out there, but due to my ignorance I'ld prefer to look at one stone at a time. Perhaps we could take some points from Douglas Theobald's "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" (using his broad definition of macroevolution) or if you have some other favorite evidence we could talk about those. I will warn you...although, I'm quite interested in science (especially biology), I might not understand the evidence right away, but I am very willing to learn.

DonExodus2 on youtube does (or rather did) very good videos at a basic level around genetics in relation to evolutions, and AronRa does the same with regards to taxonomy. I'd recommend those highly if you want to start looking at things in more depth.

Although, I am probably not as open-minded as I think I am, I am sincere in my desire to see for myself what the facts are underlying your beliefs in Evolution*.

The first step to learning is to ask questions. We'll give you honest answers with evidence, nothing more or less.

P.S. I'm sure you've been over this ground about a million times on this forum...I apologize for kicking a dead horse.

P.P.S. I also have to say that I cannot make this discussion very fast-paced. It usually takes me a little while to respond. Thanks for your understanding.

Don't be surprised if many people jump in, but my advice is only reply when you can and to prioritise what you want to discuss in turn.

**I say this with the realization that I won't understand and properly interpret all of the evidence. IOW, I won't abandon my believes when I can't find where one or a few pieces fit at the moment. Just like I'm sure you would not.

Understandable.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Welcome to the League of Reason.
It is this one:

2) The Biblical account is just plain wrong;

However, as for 3), many Christians, for example Catholics, live very happily accepting both the theory of Evolution and the belief in Biblical accounts. All they have to do is to make a cop out and say that “many of the stories in the bible that contradict what we know today” to be “poetic imagery and metaphorical narrative, much like John and the Wolf in order to make a point”. The only problem with this approach is that those stories don’t read like fictional narrative, they read like the authors meant to describe actual accounts, historically it was never read as metaphorical narratives. To make this worst, the parts that they want to read metaphorically are crossed referenced (and constitute a fulcrum point) in other parts that they want to read literally.
Those 3 alternatives are not all the alternatives, other creationists believe that the bible is literal, that scientist are honest and are making a genuine effort to correctly understand the world as it is, however for <insert reason here> the evidence deceives them in order that they can only arrive at an incorrect conclusion.

However, contrary to most Creationists, I accept this by faith not because of so-called empirical evidence.
(…)
I will warn you...although, I'm quite interested in science (especially biology), I might not understand the evidence right away, but I am very willing to learn.
Although, I am probably not as open-minded as I think I am, I am sincere in my desire to see for myself what the facts are underlying your beliefs in Evolution*.
(…)
I say this with the realization that I won't understand and properly interpret all of the evidence. IOW, I won't abandon my believes when I can't find where one or a few pieces fit at the moment. Just like I'm sure you would not.

This is a far more honest position that most are willing to admit.
If all other creationists had this sort of attitude, it would be rather more productive. If you indeed care more about what it is really true then what you wished it was true, than this more than anything is what’s going to change your mind.

 

[Prolescum]

This might be of interest, and a good starting point for this discussion. Many canards are addressed there.


Also, welcome to LoR, Tsentralka.

 

[Frenger]

Hello All,

Hiya!

As the subject indicates, I am a Biblical Creationist. This means that I believe the Bible is literally true and accept its explanation for the origin of the universe and life (from here on out when I refer to the Biblical worldview, I am referring to the literal interpretation).

Hokey dokey.

However, contrary to most Creationists, I accept this by faith not because of so-called empirical evidence.

And contrary to most Creationists, you are honest about it. That's a good thing.

Probably the biggest question I have is, if God could have created living organisms in any number of ways, why did he do it such a way that scientists could come to the conclusion that it all Evolved?

Well I have just been reading the last testament by god himself, in which he says he did do, he planted all the evidence for evolution. He doesn't say why though. Basically, there is no reason I can think of for this kind of action.

I can think of three possibilities (none of which actually attempt to answer that question per se)...

Cool.

1) Scientists are fabricating evidence to support the concept that life has Evolved;

Nope, scientists as a rule are very competitive, if someone could prove evolution false tomorrow, they would in a heartbeat. Also, you'd have to find a reason as to why scientists were insistent on lying about it.

2) The Biblical account is just plain wrong;

This is likely. It doesn't mean a god doesn't exist, we just know the claims of that book are bogus.

3) The evidence can be reasonably explained from a Biblical perspective and our correct understanding of it will shed more light on God/the Bible.

Many have tried, none have succeeded. My favorite theologian is Alistair Mcgrath who is pretty straight on his ideas of theology. The bible is a way of knowing god, not a way of understanding the natural world. Keep your science and your theology separate is the main point.

Most Creationists default to Possibility #1, but I think this is rarely the case.

I think that is because it needs no explanation. When people cry conspiracy they can then just leave it there. "The two towers was an inside job"

"was it?"

"yep".

You don't actually have to support it because all attempts to support it would be covered up anyway.

Possibility #2 is here because it is a possibility (I suppose the one that many/most/all of you would take).

I want to say something here, and this might sound preachy so apologies, but the reason we take possibility 2 is because all the evidence is against the biblical account. There is nothing in geology, cosmology, molecular biology, physics, paleontology, archaeology or any discipline of science that agrees with this biblical account. Again, that doesn't mean a god doesn't exist, it just means the bible is false.

Possibility #3 is the one which I believe will hold true in the end, but I cannot say because I've never really looked in detail at the evidence. I will say that if Possibility #3 does not hold true after years of investigation, I will be the first to abandon it. In other words, I'm willing to go where the evidence leads**.

Then you're in a good place to do it, there are many members of this forum that are well placed to answer any questions you have.

I say all of that to say this...I am very interested in taking an in-depth look into the evidence behind common ancestry. I'm not talking here about the evidence for evolution* (macroevolution or microevolution - both of which all Creationists accept when strictly defined), but actually the idea of universal common ancestry/decent. Certainly there are mountains of so-called evidences out there, but due to my ignorance I'ld prefer to look at one stone at a time. Perhaps we could take some points from Douglas Theobald's "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" (using his broad definition of macroevolution) or if you have some other favorite evidence we could talk about those. I will warn you...although, I'm quite interested in science (especially biology), I might not understand the evidence right away, but I am very willing to learn.

A willingness to learn is all that is important. My suggestion is to open up a thread and start asking questions.

Although, I am probably not as open-minded as I think I am, I am sincere in my desire to see for myself what the facts are underlying your beliefs in Evolution*.


Tsentralka

I can understand it must be difficult to reassess those ideas you hold dear, but as said earlier, keep your theology and science separate and you should be fine.

P.S. I'm sure you've been over this ground about a million times on this forum...I apologize for kicking a dead horse.

It's a pleasure to talk about such things with people, so don't worry.

P.P.S. I also have to say that I cannot make this discussion very fast-paced. It usually takes me a little while to respond. Thanks for your understanding.

There are no time limits.

**I say this with the realization that I won't understand and properly interpret all of the evidence. IOW, I won't abandon my believes when I can't find where one or a few pieces fit at the moment. Just like I'm sure you would not.

I would start with reading this it will teach you how to think about things. Good luck.

 

[Inferno]

Welcome, Tsentralka.

I won't repeat what has been said above, as I agree with almost all of it.*

The first, and most important part, is understanding what you know/understand about the topic at hand. Once I/we know that, I/we can delve in further. As I understand it, you don't necessarily agree with number 12. Is that a fair assessment of your view?

What evolution is. Please view.

If that is the case, then I have to ask exactly what you're looking for. You already said above (see "macroevolution or microevolution - both of which all Creationists accept when strictly defined") that you accept that evolution happens, so I don't understand the problem.
(If macroevolution would have been the problem, I'd have asked you this:

So all this leads me back to the question I posed earlier: Can any creationist or anyone who has talked to a creationist and gotten an answer tell me what would constitute "a different and improved set of vital organs."? What would you accept? Or tell us what an intermediary species would look like, because even though scientists will say that we've already found them, you obviously disagree. Give us some idea of the relationship we're looking for.

A few excellent videos on the subject are obviously AronRa's "Falsifying Phylogeny" series, in this case especially the video Foundations of Feliforme Families. A precursor of my question appeared in Ida done better.

Since that's not the case, I have to ask you a (series of) different question(s), all going back to this video:

Are mallards related to pochards, wood ducks and muscovys? Are all ducks also related to geese and other Anseriformes? Are Anseriformes related to Galliformes and other Neognathae? Are Neognathae related to Palaeognathae? Are any extant (still alive) birds related to Hesperornis, Ichthyornis, Enantiornis or other Euronithes? Are Euronithes related to Confuciusornis or Archaeopteryx? Are all early Aves (birds) related to Microraptor, Velociraptor or other non-avian Dinosaurs? Are dinosaurs related to Pterosaurs, Phytosaurs and other Archosaurs?

Additions of mine are in brackets.

And so on and so forth. At which point does common ancestry break down? And if it does, give criteria as to how we can identify it. If common ancestry is false, then animals which appear to be related must not be related to anything else on the "tree" of life. This, of course, completely leaves open the question how these unrelated "kinds" (for want of a better word) came to be. Were they magically created? Or were there multiple beginnings of life?

I hope I could be of some help. Do ask if anything is unclear.

*Frenger, I have to take issue with this sentence:
"There is nothing in geology, cosmology, molecular biology, physics, paleontology (sic), archaeology or any discipline of science that agrees with this biblical account."

I know what you mean, but it's not perfectly phrased. What I think you mean is: There are so many errors in the biblical account that it can be dismissed as a whole. There are, of course, small portions that are at least partially correct. However, that's to the extent that LotR is correct in its account of trees and forests, so it doesn't do anything to make the whole account correct.

Edited to correct for my mishearing what Aron said.

 

[The Felonius Pope]

Wow... I'm impressed! Glad to have you on the forum, Tsentralka.

 

[Frenger]

*Frenger, I have to take issue with this sentence:
"There is nothing in geology, cosmology, molecular biology, physics, paleontology (sic), archaeology or any discipline of science that agrees with this biblical account."

I know what you mean, but it's not perfectly phrased. What I think you mean is: There are so many errors in the biblical account that it can be dismissed as a whole. There are, of course, small portions that are at least partially correct. However, that's to the extent that LotR is correct in its account of trees and forests, so it doesn't do anything to make the whole account correct.

I stand corrected, said the man in the orthopaedic shoes.

But yes, sorry, that's what I meant and would probably have written it like that had I not rushed it a bit.........probably.

 

[tuxbox]

Wow... I'm impressed! Glad to have you on the forum, Tsentralka.

Indeed...


Welcome Tsentralka

 

[Inferno]

*Frenger, I have to take issue with this sentence:
"There is nothing in geology, cosmology, molecular biology, physics, paleontology (sic), archaeology or any discipline of science that agrees with this biblical account."

I know what you mean, but it's not perfectly phrased. What I think you mean is: There are so many errors in the biblical account that it can be dismissed as a whole. There are, of course, small portions that are at least partially correct. However, that's to the extent that LotR is correct in its account of trees and forests, so it doesn't do anything to make the whole account correct.

I stand corrected, said the man in the orthopaedic shoes.

But yes, sorry, that's what I meant and would probably have written it like that had I not rushed it a bit.........probably.

Just nit-picking to keep you on your toes.

 

[Isotelus]

Are mallards related to pochards, wood ducks and muscovys? Are all ducks also related to geese and other Anseriformes? Are Anseriformes related to Galliformes and other Neognathae? Are Neognathae related to Palaeognathae? Are any extant (still alive) birds related to Hesperornis, Ichthyornis, Anchiornis** or other Euronithes? Are Euronithes related to Confuciusornis or Archaeopteryx? Are all early Aves (birds) related to Microraptor, Velociraptor or other non-avian Dinosaurs? Are dinosaurs related to Pterosaurs, Phytosaurs and other Archosaurs?

**Did I mishear or did Aron make a mistake? Anchiornis isn't a subset of Aves, as far as I can see.

Misheard. He's saying Enantiornis. However, he seems to be stating that it's a Euornthine along with Hesperornis and Ichthyornis, when it's actually an Enantiornithine (hence its name). So yes, he may have made a mistake in that respect. He may have just forgotten to say Enantiornithine, because it's sister clade to Ornithurae (similar to Euornithes). Anchiornis belongs in Deinonychosauria, so no, its definitely not part of Aves. Aves + Deinonychosauria but not including oviraptorosaurids = Eumaniraptora.

 

[Inferno]

Misheard. He's saying Enantiornis. However, he seems to be stating that it's a Euornthine along with Hesperornis and Ichthyornis, when it's actually an Enantiornithine (hence its name). So yes, he may have made a mistake in that respect. He may have just forgotten to say Enantiornithine, because it's sister clade to Ornithurae (similar to Euornithes). Anchiornis belongs in Deinonychosauria, so no, its definitely not part of Aves. Aves + Deinonychosauria but not including oviraptorosaurids = Eumaniraptora.

Thanks for the clarification, I knew it would (and could only) come from you.
If that's the case(for Enantiornis, Hesperornis and Ichthyornis), then shouldn't the encompassing clade be Ornithothoraces? As far as I can make out, Aron always used the encompassing clade, right?

 

[Isotelus]

Thanks for the clarification, I knew it would (and could only) come from you.
If that's the case(for Enantiornis, Hesperornis and Ichthyornis), then shouldn't the encompassing clade be Ornithothoraces? As far as I can make out, Aron always used the encompassing clade, right?

I do my best!

Depends on how in-depth he wants to be. Perhaps the quickest fix would be just to voice over with Ornithothoraces, and that would probably serve his purpose better than mentioning both Enantiornithines and Euornithines (although Ornithurae/Ornithuromorpha would probably be better in this case; it's the more modern usage). Aron seems to use the encompassing clade for the most part, although right after Euornithes he mentions Archaeopteryx and Confuciusornis, which belong to Aves and Pygostylia, respectively. That being said, I think he just used the two to represent the more primitive members of Aves as a whole.

And just as a very minor side note (and to prevent any possibilities of confusion if this conversation continues), some of the birdy pictures in the video are a tad out of date, as a few of them have had their plumage colouration figured out, or the anatomy is off. That being said, there isn't much point in updating it now, considering that it's only a small part of the video.

 

[Inferno]

Aron seems to use the encompassing clade for the most part, although right after Euornithes he mentions Archaeopteryx and Confuciusornis, which belong to Aves and Pygostylia, respectively. That being said, I think he just used the two to represent the more primitive members of Aves as a whole.

I think he means primitive Aves, as both Euornithes and A./C. are nested in Aves, the encompassing clade, which he then compares to non-avian dinosaurs.

 

[Isotelus]

I think he means primitive Aves, as both Euornithes and A./C. are nested in Aves, the encompassing clade, which he then compares to non-avian dinosaurs.

In that case Ornithothoraces would be the best option, since it's all pretty general stuff.

 

[Aught3]

Yes welcome to the forum Tsentralka.

I would consider the best evidences for common ancestry to be:
1) Comparative genetics
2) Common biochemistry
3) The fossil record

Probably in that order.

 

[Frenger]

Just nit-picking to keep you on your toes.

Like a midget at a urinal, I was going to have to stay on my toes.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I have to say when I saw there was a new creationist on this forum; I did not expect a thread like this.

Seeing as how you appear genuinely interested in this subject, I can only do one thing, give you suggested readings from this forum. I would suggest starting with “Creationist Canards: The comprehensive guide”, than I would suggest the BobEnyart/AronRa Debate and peanut gallery. I am also going to throw in my discussion with a creationist seeing as how I wrote it up and I am quite proud of it.

I am glad to see a creationist such as you come here. I hope you enjoy your stay. Furthermore, I am always here to answer questions and make any further clarifications.

 

[Tsentralka]

Thank you all for the replies…I was rather surprised to see so many. Obviously, I will never be able to address each question that is raised, nor is that my intent. At this point I primarily wanted to say that I have read and do appreciate the responses.

Secondly, Inferno asked some good questions for the purpose of clarification (this post is not addressed towards the Inferno, but towards the discussion at large):

The first, and most important part, is understanding what you know/understand about the topic at hand. Once I/we know that, I/we can delve in further. As I understand it, you don't necessarily agree with number 12. Is that a fair assessment of your view?
What evolution is. Please view.

Yes, that is a very fair assessment of my view. The second question:

If that is the case, then I have to ask exactly what you're looking for.

I agree with all of you here that evolution is a scientific fact. Similar to gravity, “evolution” is a term used to describe what we actually observe in nature. So to me it’s not a question of whether one believes in evolution, because evolution is happening whether one believes in it or not.

[This is a good time to insert a little parenthesis. Throughout this post and others, when I use capital “E”-Evolution (Evolution, Evolved, Evolutionist), I am referring to the colloquial (and very inaccurate) use of the term which encompasses the origin of the universe, the origin of life from non-living matter, and the development of that life over time into all life forms we see today; basically the naturalistic view of life and the universe (which I personally reject). When I use little “e”-evolution, I am referring to the more scientific definition, a change in genomes over time, or, more technically, a change in the distribution of alleles over generations. Without making this distinction things could get confusing. For instance, it has already been said in this discussion, “…scientists as a rule are very competitive, if someone could prove evolution false tomorrow, they would in a heartbeat.” It’s not clear here what is meant by evolution. I assume it to be talking about biological evolution, but there is not contention there.]

Continued from above (before parenthesis)…
In other words, we don’t disagree about the present…we disagree about the past. I say that organisms have evolved to produce the immense diversity we see at the present from an original set of kinds in the past (the identity of which is unknown to me and may take a lifetime to begin to understand…though, just spit-balling, I would put it around the Family level of classification). Others say that organisms have evolved to produce the immense diversity we see at the present from an original, single life form/population in the past. IOW,

It is a truly wonderful fact--the wonder of which we are apt to overlook from familiarity--that all animals and all plants throughout all time and space should be related to each other…
~Origin of Species

Therefore, to answer Inferno’s question directly, I am not challenging evolution, but I do doubt the extrapolation from evolution to common ancestry. I am looking for evidence that all life as we know it evolved from a common ancestor (this is not evolution, though evolution would have occurred during this process). This is admittedly broad so it may be worthwhile to look at a single step i.e. what is the evidence that chimps and humans have a common ancestor (I would say they are different kinds and do not)? Or perhaps we could ask, What was the evidence that convinced you personally that all life is related? I am interested in Aught3’s proposal:

I would consider the best evidences for common ancestry to be:
1) Comparative genetics
2) Common biochemistry
3) The fossil record
Probably in that order.

Should we look at one of these? What do you guys think?

Tsentralka

 

[australopithecus]

Seeing as it appears to be common ancestry you're unconvinced by, I'd agree with Aught and suggest looking further into the areas he posted, as common ancestry is supported by these. If you'd like to look at them one and a time I personally suggest you do so in the order they are listed; starting first with comparative genetics.

Is there anything specific you'd like to know regarding that area and how it relates to evidencing common ancestry?