An Argument for Creationism

So I'm reading this book "In Six Days" - which is a collection of essays by "scientists" about why the believe in creationism.  It is certainly intriguing, and hilarious.  I put scientists in inverted commas, because, although they may have scientific qualifications, their arguments are ridiculously unscientific.

For example the first essay, by Dr Jeremy L Walter - who is a mechanical engineer is essentially about the fact that life on Earth cannot evolve to become more complex because of the laws of thermodynamics.  While his statement could be true in some sense, he overlooks the fact that both the laws of thermodynamics he talks about only apply to closed systems.  Fortunately for life, we have an almost never ending supply of energy coming from the sun.

Anyway, this argument was so good, I wanted to post it up.

It is written by Dr Jerry R Bergman - who is a biologist and actually has a BS, an MS, an MA and two Ph.Ds.  First he puts forward the argument about irreducible complexity.  Many real bioligists have totally destroyed this argument.  He also continually talks about how there are more than one opinion on the creation of the Earth, and acts like they should be viewed as equals - ignoring the fact that over 90% of the worlds top scientists are atheists, and I'm sure a large percentage of the remaining 10% also do not believe in creationism.  He then puts forward this argument:

-------

Creation Of Humans

The problem of an instantaneous creation are best illustrated by the first man, Adam.  If created a mature adult, Adam would appear to be about, say, thirty years of age when he was only one day old.  If Adam were examined medically, much scientific evidence in support of a thirty-year age estimate would be found.  Most medical tests completed on such a man would conclude he was and would have to be treated medically as if he, in fact, were at the prime of his life, even though only a day old.

This does not imply that God is deceptive, but only that to exist as a living organism, the human body had to be created fully formed.  If his blood was not already circulating when Adam was created, the few minutes that it would take to prime the system and for blood to circulate to the brain could cause major cell death or damage.  All of Adam's organs, including his heart, lungs, kidneys and brain, must have been functioning simultaneously as a unit the second he was created.  In other words, God created Adam as a mature man.

Although the physician who completed a physical on Adam a day after he was created would have had to conclude from development measures, such as bone-to-cartilage ratios, that Adam was thirty years old, some evidence for youth might be found - in a one-day-old Adam, we might not have found certain effects of aging, such as brain cell changes, which exist in the average thirty-year-old today.  This, though, might have been because he was perfect, but this does not rule out the fact that some evidence, such as tissue culture examination of his cells, might have existed to prove he was in fact one week old.  

Likewise, because the universe is enormously interrelated, the Creator could not have created the earth along, but must have created the entire heavens an dearth as a functioning unit.  And as God likewise created the universe for a reason (such as a support system for the earth), and must have created Adam with blood moving in his veins, it is likewise a logical inference that the stars were created moving in their orbits and with light in transit.

Although this belief may not currently be provable, it may nonetheless be the most reasonable of the few possibilities that now exist.

-----

I also found this paragraph hilarious:

----

The comparing of the creation of a human body with the creation of the universe has been supported by recent findings.  Research has revealed that the universe is extraordinarily organised: our earth is organised into a solar system, which is part of a highly organise group of stars called a galaxy, that is part of a highly organised family of galaxies called clusters which, in turn, are organised into an enormous group of clusters called superclusters.
-------

The real question is; Why are those terms in bold?  I don't know.  I guess God did it.  

He also continually talks about how there are more than one opinion on the creation of the Earth, and acts like they should be viewed as equals...

I love that argument. :roll:

If that is true, then his argument is worth as much as my claim that the Universe and everything in it was created by an omnipotent bowl of Chocolate Pudding. Actually, his argument is worth as much as mine either way, but in the first case he has to actually acknowledge that. :lol:

I'm sure we can all easily refute those arguments ourselves, so I'm not even going to bother writing a refutation here myself.

Yeah I wasn't asking people to refute those arguments.  I just found them hilarious, and thought I'd post them up so people could get a laugh.

How the hell did this guy get so many degrees? And what are they in? Hypothetical bullshtting?
Those "arguments" are less useful than making an argument that bulbasaur is the best Pokemon (i.e. he's arguing about what would happen if something that never happened did happen; kind of ludicrous).


~D-Draw

I refuse to get in another arguement on the same friggin boards, but....

Why is it so easy to consider these arguements crap, when, evolution is entirely random, and yet when you look at the inside of your body (this doesn't mean cut yourself) it's complex, how did all that just "happen", I never understood that.

Another is about the evolution theory, it's just that, a THEORY, not proved by anyone, anywhere, and can't be, don't tell me that God can't be proven or disproven, that's called stating the obvious.

Also, it was all started by a big bang, which eventually created earth and blah, blah, blah, and yet none of it was living, until all of a sudden, there's life on earth..................where did it come from? How did it survive its previous enviorment, if all living things need water?

My last "point" (for lack of better words) is, if evolution is just organisms having retarded babies that mate with other retarded babies, why do we think it's so bad whenever a child has 6 toes, or fingers, isn't that evolution, couldn't we use more fingers and toes, shouldn't we be happy that we're once again going through the incredibly long process of evolving into what will soon be the ultimate beast?

That's all, just none of that ever made sense to me, and I was wondering how all of you felt about all those comments.

Those "arguments" are less useful than making an argument that Bulbasaur is the best Pokemon

1)  He's not the best Pokémon.
2)  I'm not really into Pokémon.

Quote from: "DiegoDraw"

Those "arguments" are less useful than making an argument that Bulbasaur is the best Pokemon

1)  He's not the best Pokémon.
2)  I'm not really into Pokémon.

Duh.

~D-Draw

I refuse to get in another arguement on the same friggin boards, but....

Why is it so easy to consider these arguements crap, when, evolution is entirely random, and yet when you look at the inside of your body (this doesn't mean cut yourself) it's complex, how did all that just "happen", I never understood that.

Another is about the evolution theory, it's just that, a THEORY, not proved by anyone, anywhere, and can't be, don't tell me that God can't be proven or disproven, that's called stating the obvious.

Evolution has tons of scientific evidence facing towards it and plenty against "God." Also, God CAN be proven, it just ISN'T. Big difference there. But of course he can't be disproven. That doesn't make any sense.

Also, it was all started by a big bang, which eventually created earth and blah, blah, blah, and yet none of it was living, until all of a sudden, there's life on earth..................where did it come from? How did it survive its previous enviorment, if all living things need water?

Who knows. We haven't delved deep enough, really. But honestly, the only thing that makes "life" what it is is actually entirely mundane. I mean, yes, it's something spectacular, but it's also mundane. It's just electrical impulses and moving parts. As for what started it all, how are we supposed to know? But I could ask you the same thing about God. If life had to be created by something and that something is "God," what was God created by? Wouldn't it stand to reason that he has to be made by something as well?

[quote\My last "point" (for lack of better words) is, if evolution is just organisms having retarded babies that mate with other retarded babies, why do we think it's so bad whenever a child has 6 toes, or fingers, isn't that evolution, couldn't we use more fingers and toes, shouldn't we be happy that we're once again going through the incredibly long process of evolving into what will soon be the ultimate beast?[/quote]
That's stupid. You posed the question rather loaded, referring to evolution as having "retarded" babies is ridiculous.

As to answer your question, once organized civilization comes along, it runs by and fucks up evolution. In other words, evolution does not work (besides on the micro-evolution level) on a societal platform. It just doesn't happen any more, seeing as evolution, by nature, is a process that happens when every organism is left to fend solely by itself. Darwin himself even said that evolution doesn't happen any more due to society's inherent sense to care for the weaker ones in the group.

~D-Draw

Also, God CAN be proven, it just ISN'T. Big difference there. But of course he can't be disproven. That doesn't make any sense.

Come now, you know better than that.  Its hardly different from the conspiracy.  You may prove God right, but you cannot prove him false.  The only way to prove him false is if he were to exist in the first place, which would prove him true.

That makes plenty of sense.

I refuse to get in another arguement on the same friggin boards, but....

Why is it so easy to consider these arguements crap, when, evolution is entirely random, and yet when you look at the inside of your body (this doesn't mean cut yourself) it's complex, how did all that just "happen", I never understood that.

Evolution is not random at all.  The fact that you claim it is, only proves that you do not understand what you're talking about at all.  I suggest that you read a book explaining evolution.  The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins is considered the best book on the subject since Origin, and is probably a lot better to read these days than Origin.  Evolution explains exactly why we're so complex, and why life is clearly not random at all.  When I encounter a subject I know little about, instead of dismissing it based on my ignorance, I either admit that I don't know anything about it, or I make an effort to learn about it.

Another is about the evolution theory, it's just that, a THEORY, not proved by anyone, anywhere, and can't be, don't tell me that God can't be proven or disproven, that's called stating the obvious.

You're confusing the meanings of "theory" - evolution is a theory in the sense that it refers to a large amount of different scientific facts, that are lumped together and called a "theory".  The fact that evolution occurs is considered a fact by over 99% of people who have studied evolution.  In science that is called a fact.  There is more evidence in support of the existence of evolution, than there is in support of the existence of gravity.  The DNA evidence in particular is irrefutable, and the DNA evidence exists in every single life form.

Also, it was all started by a big bang, which eventually created earth and blah, blah, blah, and yet none of it was living, until all of a sudden, there's life on earth..................where did it come from? How did it survive its previous enviorment, if all living things need water?

That's a load of rubbish.  No scientists has put forward the theory that suddenly there was life everywhere - in fact the theory is that it was a very slow process of more and more complicated chemical reactions and molecules.  Not some instantaneous no life to life change over.  Your statement about water just demonstrates your ignorance on the subject.  The current theory is that there was no life on Earth until after there was water.  You've put forward an entirely meaningless point.

My last "point" (for lack of better words) is, if evolution is just organisms having retarded babies that mate with other retarded babies, why do we think it's so bad whenever a child has 6 toes, or fingers, isn't that evolution, couldn't we use more fingers and toes, shouldn't we be happy that we're once again going through the incredibly long process of evolving into what will soon be the ultimate beast?

You misunderstand how natural selection works.  The question you have to ask yourself is "does having 6 fingers or toes give somebody a higher chance of passing on their genes?"  Would you be more likely or less likely to sleep with a girl with 6 fingers?  Do you think the majority of people would be more likely or less likely?  Evolution has nothing to do with "organisms having retarded babies."  You and I are not identical.  We have different DNA.  It could be that I'm more intelligent than you, or faster than you, or have any number of very minor advantageous over you.  I'm not saying that that is the case, although I don't ever write posts attacking things I don't understand.  That slight advantage, over a period of many generations, could become a significant advantage - and your DNA could come to an end, while mine could continue.  That's how evolution works.  No retarded babies, no 6 fingered people.  Read a book about evolution and maybe you'll understand.  Arguing from your ignorance only makes you look stupid.

I completely agree with beast, it's incredibly annoying when people think they are qualified to speak on a subject they obviously don't know the first thing about.

Quote from: "DiegoDraw"

Also, God CAN be proven, it just ISN'T. Big difference there. But of course he can't be disproven. That doesn't make any sense.

Come now, you know better than that.  Its hardly different from the conspiracy.  You may prove God right, but you cannot prove him false.  The only way to prove him false is if he were to exist in the first place, which would prove him true.

That makes plenty of sense.

Right. That's what I was saying. He said that God cannot be proven or disproven. I countered with the fact that he CAN be proven, and that nothing can be disproven, so it's dumb to state that he can't be disproven.  I guess I said that in a roundabout way, but meh.


~D-Draw

Oh, I forgot to put this on that last post, so I'll add it right here:

Why even believe in evolution? If I'm right, and there is a God, then I go to heaven, you burn in hell; if you're right, we both die, and nothing happens. So, isn't it safer to just go with the safe choice? I'm sure I'm being ignorant again, but that's just the way it seems to me.

Oh, I forgot to put this on that last post, so I'll add it right here:

Why even believe in evolution? If I'm right, and there is a God, then I go to heaven, you burn in hell; if you're right, we both die, and nothing happens. So, isn't it safer to just go with the safe choice? I'm sure I'm being ignorant again, but that's just the way it seems to me.

No, If you're right you go to heaven, we live a happy, carefree, sinful life then repent at the pearly gates.

If there is a "God" and an afterlife, don't you think this "God" would be forgiving of honest skeptics?  It's not like we're running around burning down churches, killing Christians, and defiling "his good name".  We just want a little proof before we start believing the unbelievable.

If god wants to punish me for being an honest skeptic, then fuck that asshole.

Why even believe in evolution? If I'm right, and there is a God, then I go to heaven, you burn in hell;

Wow, are you serious?  Does your god actually do stuff like this?

Have you ever seen one of those movies with a really nasty bad guy who beats up or kills his own henchmen because of their mistakes?  Often they kidnap innocent women and torture the hero as well.  Sure, they have built this really beautiful palace in Colombia or the desert or whatever, but you still leave the theater hating their guts.

Your god sounds a lot like one of these guys.

So, isn't it safer to just go with the safe choice?

It's usually safe to bend under the iron will of an evil overlord... at least until the hero comes along and blows up his palace and everybody lives happily ever after.  Sure, everybody might just cease to exist when they die, but at least their lives are better.

Oh, I forgot to put this on that last post, so I'll add it right here:

Why even believe in evolution? If I'm right, and there is a God, then I go to heaven, you burn in hell; if you're right, we both die, and nothing happens. So, isn't it safer to just go with the safe choice? I'm sure I'm being ignorant again, but that's just the way it seems to me.

It's not the safe choice though. Yeah, you believe in *a* god, but how do you know it's the *right* god? How many different gods are there? What if you chose the wrong one?
I'm with Richard Dawkins on this one; I think God would be a lot more lenient to someone who didn't worship any god than to someone who worshipped a false god.

If there is a "God" and an afterlife, don't you think this "God" would be forgiving of honest skeptics?  It's not like we're running around burning down churches, killing Christians, and defiling "his good name".

Wait...



We aren't?...





Shit.

~D-Draw

I belive GOD created the universe, through means of  the big bang, and watched it grow.

Sure, everybody might just cease to exist when they die, but at least their lives are better.

Wait, wha ... ?

No, If you're right you go to heaven, we live a happy, carefree, sinful life then repent at the pearly gates.

Actually, you repent in the Purgatorio.


~D-Draw

Why even believe in evolution? If I'm right, and there is a God, then I go to heaven, you burn in hell; if you're right, we both die, and nothing happens. So, isn't it safer to just go with the safe choice? I'm sure I'm being ignorant again, but that's just the way it seems to me.

Ah, Pascal's Wager.  Perhaps the worst argument for believing in god ever.

Ahhh... Often refuted with Pascals Flaw... I love it. Christians usually get so smug when they throw Pacals Wager out there... cuz they assume that theirs is the oly God that could be correct... Smug bastards.

Yeah, but Pascal has flaws up the wazoo. Pascal's Gambit has to be the most flawed argument for Christianity ever.


~D-Draw

Oh, I forgot to put this on that last post, so I'll add it right here:

Why even believe in evolution? If I'm right, and there is a God, then I go to heaven, you burn in hell; if you're right, we both die, and nothing happens. So, isn't it safer to just go with the safe choice? I'm sure I'm being ignorant again, but that's just the way it seems to me.

Your assessment is correct.  If you're right, I will burn in hell.  If I'm right, you've spent your entire life living a lie.  However, considering the insurmountable evidence in support of evolution and the complete lack of evidence supporting the existence of God, I think all rational people are prepared to take that risk.

One could equally say that every time you walk under a tree there is chance it will fall on you, so it is much better not to walk under trees "to just go with the safe choice."  Every time you go outside you could be raped and murdered.  In fact there is more evidence to suggest you'll be raped and murdered than there is to say that God exists.  With that in mind, wouldn't it be better not to go outside?  Would you rather play it safe, or be raped and murdered.

There are obviously times when it is good to play it safe.  I always look before crossing the road, even at times of night when it's very unlikely that there will be any cars on the road.  However there are also clearly times when we can be too careful, and that extra caution is actually damaging, not only to our lives, but to the lives of those around us.

In America, for example, a country where 30% of schools do not teach any level of "safe sex" beyond not having sex, at a cost of over $200,000,000 USD - this also results in the American teenagers being 5 times more likely to become pregnant out of wedlock than the rest of the Western world and have a rate of gonorrhea 70 times higher than the rest of the Western world, despite having the same rate of having sex (despite the 30% of schools teaching people not to have sex until after marriage).  What we can see is not only do the teachings not work, but that they have a significantly negative effect on a significant number of people.  While Christians may wish to take a self-righteous position on this, the fact is that the policy makers in those 30% of schools are making their decisions based on what they believe, despite a complete lack of evidence, rather than what is good for the people they are making the decisions for.  While they may be attempting to save the souls of these children from burning forever in hell, the actual effect is to make their lives much harder in this world, the only one we know exists.  Playing it safe not only damages these people, but if it turns out that God actually doesn't exist, their decisions are clearly immoral and possibly even criminal.

Look at this too.  Unlike your claims, which have no evidence behind them, I'm giving you a source for where my claims of fact come from:

Letter To A Christian Nation - Sam Harris - pg 28

Sam Harris' source:

The rate of gonorrhea: N. D. Kristof, "Bush's Sex Scandal," The New York Times, February 16, 2005.

Oh, I forgot to put this on that last post, so I'll add it right here:

Why even believe in evolution? If I'm right, and there is a God, then I go to heaven, you burn in hell; if you're right, we both die, and nothing happens. So, isn't it safer to just go with the safe choice? I'm sure I'm being ignorant again, but that's just the way it seems to me.

First off, Belief that evolution is the best theory to describe how we got here =/= belief that a higher power or sky-god put us here out of thin air. Evolution is a scientific theory backed by mountains of evidence and observations. Many findings have lead to major medical and scientific breakthroughs in all areas of biology, as well as bleeding over into philosophy as we look at ourselves in a different, more humble perspective.
Creationism or ID or whatever you want to call it, is based on first the assumption that there is a god, then everything else is based around it. There is a fatal flaw in looking at the world this way as you have no tangible evidence for the existence of a god. Feelings of warmth and happiness in prayer or deep thought about your religious figures/conviction are the same sort that Buddhist monks feel when they meditate (non-theisticly), or when someone takes an anti-depressant(zoloft) or a dextro-methamphetamine(my favorite, adderall). So these feeling cannot even be used as a basis for some kind of research into the existence of a god because they can be repeated in other ways and attributed to chemicals in the brain.

And frankly, the "if I'm wrong, I lose nothing, but if you are wrong, you lose everything" argument (pascal's wager) is null and void really. How do you know you have the right religion? There are lots of religions in the world, most of which claim that their's is correct, and everyone else is wrong. How do you know you even have the right sect of your own religion? There are thousands of different types of Christianity.  The odds are against you. The truth is, you are the one losing. Wasting your life worshiping some invisable god with no real evidence and that you would not otherwise worship had you not been indoctrinated into doing so since birth. Who is loosing? What is the real "safe choice" as you put it.

Oh, I forgot to put this on that last post, so I'll add it right here:

Why even believe in evolution? If I'm right, and there is a God, then I go to heaven, you burn in hell; if you're right, we both die, and nothing happens. So, isn't it safer to just go with the safe choice? I'm sure I'm being ignorant again, but that's just the way it seems to me.

How is that a "safe choice"? Isn't it equally likely that Islam is the true religion and you will thus burn in hell for being Christian? Or perhaps Judaism, or Shinto, or Jainism, or Zoroastrianism, or any one of man's uncountable thousands of religions will turn out to be true, and you will burn in hell for not believing it. There is no "safe choice;" Christianity is certainly no safer than atheism, and perhaps less so.

I find it funny that most of you are ignorant enough to think that you can just say you're sorry, and lie about it, and get away with it. I'm not going to argue with you all, because I have better things to do, like talk about sports.....

I find it funny that most of you are ignorant enough to think that you can just say you're sorry, and lie about it, and get away with it. I'm not going to argue with you all, because I have better things to do, like talk about sports.....

Where did anyone lie about anything, much less apologize for it? If you didn't want to argue, why did you start? You demonstrated a total lack of understanding of even the basic concepts of the theory you baselessly dismissed, then used an old and entirely refuted apologetic argument. You have demonstrated quite satisfactorily that you are the ignorant one here, and NOW you claim you don't want to argue because you realize you don't even know the first thing on what you're arguing about.

I find it funny that most of you are ignorant enough to think that you can just say you're sorry, and lie about it, and get away with it. I'm not going to argue with you all, because I have better things to do, like talk about sports.....

How about you understand your own religion before you try explaining it to other people who obviously understand it more than you do.

In the purgatory, skeptics, sinners, and unbelievers (excluding heretics who believe in other gods) have the chance to repent. Obviously, we wouldn't lie. If I was in the purgatory, that would mean that I was wrong, apparently, and so I would whole-heartedly admit my treachery in not realizing the truth, and truthfully repent for my sins. Once you repent and you truly mean it, then you get to go to paradisio for eternity instead of the inferno.
I think the only exception would be if the rapture came before I died, in which case I don't think (in the book of Revelation) it ever explicitly mentions a chance for those who were sinners to repent, because it goes straight into the Earth turning into Hell. Though, even then, I would doubt God's unforgivingness, because generally in all the other stories (i.e. the ones which were not written by a neurotic, sadistic madman...), God has chosen to redeem those who actually mean it.

Have you even read Dante's Inferno, Purgatorio, and Paradisio? Or even the Bible for that matter?

~D-Draw