...Continued

<<If our model is good, then it will produce useful scientific results.>>

Exactly!

And that's why it hasn't produced anything useful.

<<Distinct categories or kinds of living things were created to reproduce after their kind.>>

I like this Creationist tactic... Use vague words like “kinds”, “new” and “information”. That way, when more evidence for evolution comes to light, you can simply shift the goalposts by changing the definition of those words.

<<Animal husbandry and genetic engineering make use of the genetic variability within the created kind, producing similar if not more rapid results to that which may occur under natural selection.>>

Nice try, Dan. The concept of selective breeding did not come from the Creationists' concept of “kind”. It's been around for a lot longer than the Bible. So no, this isn't an example of the usefulness of Creationism.

<<But the changes are still restricted to the change within that particular kind of living thing.>>

And your evidence for this is?

<<The problems of disease realised by antibiotic resistant bacteria do not arise from an appearance of new biological information, but often even degeneration of the genetic material within the bacteria.>>

A link I provided on the previous thread disproved this falsehood that Creationists pedal. This simply is not true. But if you're too afraid to click on my links, then I'll be glad to explain it in a post. Just ask.

<<By the way, another accurate prediction of creationism is that all humans are shown to be closely related genetically.>>

Well that's convenient considering that that's what evolution would've shown anyway.

<<As for discerning between facts and opinions, how come you skip over this..?>>

The red-herring was the 'www.onlinefacts.com' bit.

In regards to facts versus opinions... You don't seem to realise realise that some opinions can be facts. It wouldn't take a genius to figure out that the opinions that rely on selective and false data (confirmed by their statements of faith), inciting fear and loathing, and quite-mining are obviously the false opinions.

Unfortunately, you're yet to make that connection.

Dan

It appears we are making some headway.
We seem to have come to an agreement that 'creation' is an alternative to scientific theories of abiogenesis (and cosmogenesis... but thats another story).

Microevolution is accepted.

Now lets take the 'primordial soup' theory. What experiments are suggested by this theory. Well we can easily construct experiments which replicate aspects of such a process. If they succeed they do not prove that this is how it really happened but it would, at least, prove the plausibility of the hypothesis. Of course an hypothesis has to be quite specific in order to be testable so a primordial soup hypothesis must needs be specific about details of the chemical constitution of the soup, atmospheric conditions, physical conditions such as temperature, pressure and so on and so on.

Once the conditions of the hypothesis are made specific and the necessary outcome established then we can imagine an experiment that we could theoretically conduct to test the hypothesis and so it generates work for scientists to do to construct and run the actual experiments. So far the plausibility of the primordial soup hypothesis is suggested rather than proved and more work is required. Thats productive science at work.

What actual scientific work is being inspired by the creation hypothesis other than occasional attempts to challenge various dating methods used by evolutionary scientists?

Waterboy,
I don’t accept that evolution is occurring. Microevolution is your word, not mine.

I struggle to see where you’re going with the primordial soup experiments. If we succeeded in demonstrating a particular experiment today, that may help plausibility but not establish the truth of what happened at a certain time in the distant past. I thought we had established that it was impossible to directly observe a past, historic event. How could we ever know what the chemical constitution of that soup was, its physical conditions, temperature, pressure and so on? It could only be guess upon supposition.

If we employed thousands of scientists running many hours of intricate experiments that succeeded in synthesising a replicating life form in a laboratory, how would that establish the hypothesis that the first life was capable of appearing naturally without intelligent input? Wouldn’t it suggest the opposite?

It also seems from your comment about being productive that the aim is to provide employment for scientists and make them busy. I thought the aim was to discover truth.

In regard to being busy, creationists would enter into more experiments than they do if they had access to some of the government funding that is devoted to attempting to solve evolutionary related problems. Yet despite lack of resources much creationist theory has been established and many problems resolved upon the science already conducted. I would say that the experiments investigating the emergence of the first living cell from purely natural processes have done much to confirm the impossible nature of such occurrence.

Getting back to useful discoveries in medicine, the classic drop the ball, fumble on the evolutionists’ part was when they were suggesting people had many vestigial organs. In the decades when evolution was gaining popularity, the list of vestigial organs grew long. If we don’t know the function of an organ why not presume that it might be a useless evolutionary leftover? However, if we were designed, it would make sense to seek each organ’s true function. Here creationist thinking inspires investigation. Similarly true today for investigations of ‘junk’ DNA.

Waterboy,
Getting back to what you said about Hebrew narrative, I can appreciate literature that includes metaphors, parables and poetry as well as historical references. Where we might differ is where to draw the line between such things. However, there are clues available that may help show where to draw that line correctly, some of which have not yet been raised in this discussion.

I may not be an expert on Jewish history, but I doubt that their concept of history is all that far removed from ours. I understand that the current date on the top of any Jewish newspaper gives a year in the sixth Millennium, as dated from the beginning of all history in the Garden of Eden. The Jews took utmost care in recording genealogical records that can be found in the New Testament as well as the Old. It is very hard to make any clear distinction, at least on any objective literary grounds, as to where in these lists the real people start and the mythical people finish. They were all real people. And though not being an expert in interpreting Jewish Scripture, I think I am allowed to take a lead from those who are, such as the rabbi Jesus who had a pretty clear interpretation of the reality of characters and events from Genesis. Also, Paul and the other New Testament writers were pretty consistent on this level.

It’s alleged that those cultures surrounding the Jews had similar myths and legends. If the stories were real history, wouldn’t we expect some record of them in other cultures? And who’s to say who borrowed from whom?

Lastly, if your ability to interpret Jewish allegory is supposedly superior to mine, how do think you can get away with calling God female?

While God created us in his image, both male and female, he has revealed himself to us relationally as male. This is consistent from Genesis, to the prophesies of Messaiah, through Jesus’ male incarnation, Jesus praying to his Father, to Revelation where his glorious Bride, the church, is united with her Beloved.

Dan

You just dont seem to get it. My point is that it is impossible to construct any experiment which could disprove creation. The creation hypothesis cannot generate scientific work of any sort.

As for the mythical nature of the Genesis story you need only look at the use of the Hebrew words tehom (related to the Babylonian Tiamat) translated 'the deep' and raqia translated 'firmament' which means a solid ceiling. The 'creation'described in Genesis is of a flat earth covered by a solid ceiling with water above and below. The source of the 'Great Flood' is the waters of the tehom (the waters below the earth and the waters above the solid ceiling of the 'firmament'). The tanninim (monsters of the deep) is not a reference to sea creatures at all but to the mythical residents of the 'deep'. These 'monsters' are the enemies of Yahweh. Given that this is what Genesis means 'literally' then although we cannot disprove creation as such we can, and certainly have, proved that the sky is not a solid dome and therefore that the Genesis cosmology is 'wrong'.

The language of Genesis is thoroughly mythical and if you are determined to take it literally then you must accept its 'direct' meaning in its original language and therefore accept that the earth is flat and the sky is a solid dome outside which there is endless water populated by leviathan and other creatures opposed to Yahweh. It is simply unacceptable to read modern sense into the text just because you choose to interpret the english translations in any way that suits you. The original Hebrew language is mythical and the only way to show the text the respect it deserves is to accept it for what it is ie thoroughly mythical and unhistorical.

Then you complain that I use feminine language for God. Given that all language for God is necessarily metaphorical there is no reason why we shouldnt use female language for God from time to time. There actually is a Biblical precedent for this. It occurs in much of the wisdom literature

As a scientist I look at the two theories. One is evolution, the other is creation.

Evolution predicts and accomodates the fossil records whilst creationism doesn't.

There is no proof of creation and the only "proof" offered is the throwing of stones at the gaps in the fossil records.

Creationism predicts that humans would have closely related chromosomes or they could not breed. That chimpanzees have a 98% correlation with our chromosomes is completely unnecessary if we are completely unrelated.

Whilst evolution is not yet perfect, creationism is deeply flawed.