8 votes

Evidence for a Creation Model of Origins

I asked the users here at the dailypaul to point out their best evidence for a Creator. You answered, and I'm extremely grateful. If you do not see your answer here, take heart. It's probably because you are real smart, and I'm real dumb, and your answer just flew right over my head. http://www.dailypaul.com/314031/i-would-like-to-hear-your-be...

---

I exist, therefore energy and life exist.

1. Energy exists, therefore energy existed. (1st law of thermodynamics)
2. Life exists, therefore life existed. (Biogenesis)
3. Energy is available, therefore energy was added to our system.(2nd law of thermodynamics)
4. The universe is hospitable to life. (many examples) http://www.reasons.org/articles/anthropic-principle-a-precis...
5. The universe is neat beyond necessity. (many examples) http://www.dailypaul.com/312493/earths-moon-and-sun
http://www.dailypaul.com/316023/how-unfathomable-were-your-o...
---

The following are for my notes and future consideration:

Primacy of existence
Eye witness testimony
Miraculous events
Near death experiences
Complexity
Irreducible complexity
Consciousness
Reason
Meaning
Math

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I seen the first thread,

I didn't feel like posting in it yet I am surprised that short list doesn't mention anything specific about statistics. For instance, the probability or improbability of random spontaneous existence as in what are the odds laws of gravity spontaneously, randomly assembled or the odds on laws of gravity remaining static for __ (thousands, millions, billions, or etc.) ___ of years after spontaneously, randomly assembling.

Just to be clear

I quite like these points but this is not about evolution/creation. Those are different subjects. His primary points were about a creator and not about time frames or how we were created.

What is God?

The Bible lives on because it is the history of the discovery of the One True God whose attributes are Reason, Love and Freedom. God is Reason, Jesus is Love and the Holy Spirit is the Freedom of the Individual. This is the Trinity that planted new ideas - The Good News - in Europe and whose "fruits" of that "seeding" are Science and the resulting Modern Life we were promised by God in the beginning.

God is Reason and Evil is the Irrational, and so, God prevents Evil and demands justice constantly, everywhere and everyday, therefore, Reason (God) is Omnipotent. Because emerging man can't Reason correctly about every question is only evidence that he "Falls short of the glory of God," who is Reason, Love and Freedom..

God is Reason, Love and Freedom and so God is willing and able, as witness the work of free people laboring in Love for Truth, Freedom, and they are winning - the world is becoming more and more Rational, Loving and Free. The Hand of God is extended to those who would love reason and fight for freedom.

The source of Evil is an irony: Good intentions combined with Government Force creates Evil. God's mistaken people innocently initiate force, TAXES, REGULATION AND PROHIBITIONS in their spiritually driven quest "To Do Good," but, they are Mistaken to use Force because it is in violation of Love and Freedom.

By initiating Force to do Good they are living an irony - In trying to create the "good" they have created the opposite, evil.

God/Reason, Love and Freedom, the Trinity, is ever willing and able and you may call on this eternal power any time, any where. To Reason with Love and Freedom is to know the Face and Hand of God.

God is Great and God is Good. Witness the modern life you enjoy as a result of following the Law of God: Truth, as judged by Love and Freedom.

Asclepius's picture

The Emerald Tablet encapsulates both creation and evolution...

The Emerald Tablet is one of the most revered writings in all of Western mysticism and the germ seed of modern science itself. The Ancient inscription etched into green glass was once prominently displayed as a center piece at the Library of Alexandria and was said to be 1000's of years ago. A revised version of Sir Isaac Newton's English translation is as follows:

The Emerald Tablet

In truth, without deceit, certain, and most veritable.

That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above, and that which is Above corresponds to that which is Below, to accomplish the miracles of the One Thing.

And just as all things have come from this One thing, through the meditation of One Mind, so do all created things originate from this One Thing, through Transformation.

Its father is the Sun; its mother the moon.

The Wind carries it in its belly; its nurse is the Earth.

It is the origin of All, the consecration of the Universe.

Its inherent Strength is perfected, if it is turned into Earth.

Separate the Earth from Fire, the Subtle from the Gross, gently and with great Ingenuity.

It rises from Earth to heaven and descends again to Earth, thereby combining within Itself the powers of both the Above and the Below.

Thus will you obtain the Glory of the Whole Universe. All Obscurity will be clear to you. This is the greatest Force of all powers, because it overcomes every Subtle thing and penetrates every Solid thing.

In this way was the Universe created. From this come many wondrous Applications, because this is the Pattern.

Therefore am I called Thrice Greatest Hermes, having all three parts of the wisdom of the Whole Universe. Herein have I completely explained the Operation of the Sun.

‘Imagination is not a talent of some men, but the health of every man.’ Ralph Waldo Emerson

as above, so below

You don't even need to go past that before you hit massive cognitive dissonance.

Why are the people in government considered above the law?

Why does the economy run best without a central regulator, yet most people see the need for some kind of governmental manager?

Why is the most important force here on earth electromagnetism, but electromagnetism is considered irrelevant on the cosmic scale?

Why are the rules of heaven thought to be different than the rules here on earth?

And so on....

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

Asclepius's picture

you missed the point...

I am always intrigued why people feel that they must polarize every issue to one extreme or the other. I first noticed this in graduate school when people would get quite hot under the collar about how an organism's phenotype is determined. That is, most people will argue from only one of two perspectives, Nature (genes) or Nurture (environment), when in fact we know it depends on both!

So here again, we have people debating the merits of creation versus evolution without acknowledging the very real possibility that the answer may be both as explicitly suggested in the hermetic teachings of the Emerald tablet.

And just as all things have come from this One thing, through the meditation of One Mind, so do all created things originate from this One Thing, through Transformation.

What is so ironic is that Hermeticism played important roles in the origins of Christianity and Modern Science, yet it is currently denounced by both!

The specific meaning of the various hermetic verses are not expected to be taken as dogma and thus the meaning(s) derived are dynamic and dependent on the interpretation of the reader.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeticism

‘Imagination is not a talent of some men, but the health of every man.’ Ralph Waldo Emerson

3 part documentary

Make great arguments for creation. Well worth watching.

http://www.amazon.com/Incredible-Creatures-That-Defy-Evoluti...

Which came first, the mouth or the rectum?

Robin Collins on Fine Tuning

I was studying planitary magnetic fields

for a sci fi book I am writing and I came across this http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html thought it was interesting.

If we evolved from primordial soup,

then why do we have to discover things? Wouldn't we already know everything? If the earth is 4.5 billion years old, why is it 2014? If man evolved into such an intelligent creature from nothing, than surely he learned to count more than 2000 years ago. Of course all ancient people counted the years on their calendars, so what incredible historic event would reset everyone's calendars at the same time? Only the appearance of God Himself in man form could pull that one off. Science has proven that a single cell is so mind boggling complex, that only a fool would believe it happened by chance.

Your making philosophical implications

Your confusing multiple issues.

There is the theory of evolution, and there are theories about whether everything is chance/existence of god. This kind of talk continues to wedge the argument into evultion/athiesm against creationism/spiritual belief. Its a false dichotomy. I can understand why people think like this with Dawkins et al making evolution and atheism synomosus but reality is much different. I am engaged in scientific circle (reaserch scientist) and amongst the people i rub shoulders with, the argument is different. There iss evolution, which most of us believe, and theories of God, which some of us believe. But trust me, there are a LOT of people that believe in evolution, old earth etc... and by no means believe everything is just chance.

Science, to date, say very little about the origins of life/chance. That is philosophy.

I'm sorry, but creationism

I'm sorry, but creationism and science are not equal in any shape or form and should never be mixed together.

One of the greatest scientists of all time, was Isaac Newton and he was a very religious man who believed in God.

He did however try to understand everything around him, and without constraint. Which the bible is to a mind that seeks for answers about real things around you. He kept his faith and science separate.

Creationism as a sub form of Christianity, accepts that science exist, but then tries to link every scientific discovery(made by those without constraints) to an ancient writing long before our great scientific breakthroughs, in some defensive maneuver. Just to keep faith in god? What is your faith really worth if you have to go all defensive about it in the presence of a scientist?

This is nothing but silly.

So either keep faith in a greater being, and at the same time embrace that the human mind is cool and if you let it run free we come up with all kinds of amazing discoveries about the world around us.

Or keep trying to distort real science, indoctrinate some more kids into not questioning the world and seeking out discoveries of their own, and we'll all end up mumbling in some cave.

Dude r u serious

Science is observable, testable and repeatable there is no debating real science. So show me where the bible constrains the mind? .. Seems like the evolutionists/atheists are also constrained in there thinking going way beyond science to outright story telling to keep the old earth model alive .. you can't prove history

everyone has the same facts, and everyone uses their presuppositions to interpret the facts

What do you keep faith in? i guess you have faith there is no GOd

Indoctrinate more kids?

You mean like when Ernst Haeckel's fraudulent drawings continued to be reproduced in biology textbooks for over 100 years?

An argument from Science

I didn't get a chance to reply the first time so i'll take a stab at it now.
First off i'm not trying to defend a "creationist model" because im not sure whats implied by that. I am, admittedly, a full blown believing in evolution, big bang, tectonics, 14.6 B.Y. universe.

I do believe in a creator though and can almost prove it. First consider the big bang (I think its practically a proven fact, i know some will disagree, but humor me). According to physics/math, all nature exploded into being from nothing. There was not even physical laws (aka, entropy, conservation of mass, gravity etc...). What this means is that by definition the big bang was a supernatural event. Why? Because it was outside "nature" by nature we mean our natural universe, and a supernatural event is something that happens outside or in violation of the natural world. The big bang is hard scientific evidence of a supernatural event.
This is interesting because atheist often say "proove a miracle/supernatural event." We have at least one that is (almost) scientific fact, although we cant measure what caused the big bang (because its outside nature) we can observe and use scientific principles to notice that it happened. If it happened at least once is it so hard to believe that there are other things going on outside our natural universe? does the idea of a god existing outside the universe sound so crazy now?
Sorry to ramble but i think its quite exciting!

ChristianAnarchist's picture

This is excellent! One of

This is excellent! One of the "tools" that evolutionists try to use is the supposed age of the universe. I dispute those figures by pointing out that all radiometric dating does is to measure the existing ratios of two isotopes and calculate the amount of time for said ratio to reach current proportions using known decay rates and supposing a certain ratio when "new". This is flawed for at least two reasons. The first being that the ratio of the isotopes when the item was "new" has to be guessed at. We really can't say for sure what the item (say a rock) had for ratios when "new". Of course if we follow the creation model that ratio could be anything. Even if you follow an evolutionary path who is to say what ratios existed at the beginning?

The second assumption is that the decay rates are constant. We can show that certain environmental conditions can change the decay rate and therefore we really don't know that decay rate was constant for x number of "billions" of years...

Beware the cult of "government"...

Funny how

Lots of different isotope dating methods give the same dates. If the ratios and decay rates were all changing over time like you suggest, then that wouldn't happen. You would expect Carbon isotopes to give a different date than uranium, or Argon.

If you mean C14 dating when you say "Carbon isotopes"

then C14 dating has a maximum of 75,000 years.

That's true

What's your point ?

That C14 dates items at less than 75,000 years and

Argon (or more likely Potassium/Argon) dates rocks over 1 million years so you would never expect these two methods to agree.

okay, but the real point

was that there are many different isotopes that are used to determine the age of various items. There is an extensive list of the methods on wikipedia. Many methods overlap with regard to dates, and in those regions different methods give similar dates.

If we had lots of variance in the isotope ratios over time, that wouldn't happen.

Assuming your assertion is true, you could still have a

measurement bias present since all those methods are based on radiation. As a simplified example, when measuring the temperature of an acidic solution with digital thermometers, you decide to place one thermometer in a glass container, another thermometer in a plastic container, and a third in a metal container so that the thermometers are not ruined by the acid. You then submerge all containers in the solution. After 10 minutes, you pull up each container, rinse with water quickly, and retrieve the thermometers. In the order mentioned previously, you get 61, 62 and 60 deg F. Because of the strong agreement between the 3 measurements and your use of different materials for the containers and your calibrating all three thermometers, you are confident reporting that the solution temperature must be within a degree or two of 61 degrees.

Meanwhile the professor informs you that the actual temperature is closer to 40 degrees! So even though you had different container materials and strong measurement consensus, you still had a common measurement bias - digital thermometers placed in containers and surrounded by initially room temperature air.

I would think in that case the professor (i.e. god)

would be the one off by 20 degree.

The chances of 3 different thermometers being off by the same amount is remote, and you could do statistics, F-tests and t-tests depending on the exact experiment to give a probability that the three measurements were randomly the same.

The error you describe occurs when the same measuring device, or the same measurement error occurs on all measurements. for instance, if you measure with a thermometer that has not been calibrated, and is consistently off by 20 degrees. By using multiple thermometers and multiple labs, you eliminate this particular error.

Radiometric dating is reasonably accurate and credible.

No actually what the professor did was use a cheap

standard analog bulb thermometer (no container needed) to determine the more accurate temperature. This worked better because there was no air buffer around it and thus it came to a steady state temperature quicker. So you can run all of your statistical equations that you want but it will never detect the bias within a category of measuring devices. And that's why the good scientists will always try to corroborate data across completely different types of measuring devices/methods.

In your example

The three thermometers would have never have given the same results, since with the different materials, which have much different thermal conductivities and heat capacities, would reach steady state temperatures at different times, some would cool down faster than others. So your example is not realistic.

It also does not have much to do with the question of radiometric dating. Multiple labs, getting similar dates, from multiple methods is pretty solid evidence that the dates are accurate. Add the matches to the know historical records, and there is no reason to disbelieve radiometric data results.

ChristianAnarchist's picture

Excellent point! Far more

Excellent point! Far more elegant than I could ever make...

Beware the cult of "government"...

ChristianAnarchist's picture

You didn't dispute the point

You didn't dispute the point about the isotope ratios during the formation of the rocks (or other dated material)...

Beware the cult of "government"...

You misunderstand the process

You can date things based on ratios of different elements. It turns out that different element isotope ratios give pretty much the same dates.

If the isotope ratios were different during the formation of the rock, then two different element isotope ratios would give two different dates.

I think you misunderstand the process

Please show me the raw data with all assumptions and there are many unprovable assumptions, listed to get the results desired.

Why have they tested rocks created during recent volcanoes that show millions of years? Why have they found C14 in diamonds? Diamonds are supposed to be very very old. .. oh yeah they correspond well, depends who you are talking to

Thank you for compiling the data into that list

It makes for interesting reading and talks in hypotheticals rather than just idle speculation.

I find the old Sumerian theory of creation to be quite interesting, and I lean in that direction personally.

The interesting thing about the Sumerian theory is that it does not cancel out the prevailing Judeo-Christian belief in creationism. It actually reinforces it.