My second post on the topic:
I guess what I'm trying to say is that evolution is considered a science to most people, because of certain evidences pointing out that the theory may be correct, but most people do not consider creationism a science. Why is that? Because the main evidence thought of by people used in justifying creationism is the Bible. Which is not to say that creationism does not have other evidence, as you seem to be pointing out. Back to the Bible, I believe it's the most significant reason why creationist theory is in the minority. Simply because the Bible has religious roots, thus a theory based on religious roots automatically invalidates it as science in the eyes of many people.
There's also the fact that most people who support evolution do not believe in the Bible. That's another reason why creationism may never become mainstream. But that's not my point.
Religion - An organized system of belief that generally seeks to understand purpose, meaning, goals, and methods of spiritual things. Spiritual things.
Think of the Bible as having other uses other than spiritual things. After all, it contains numerous histories of different people and places. Now search for archaeological discoveries that have given credence to the Bible's histories. There are many of these, and no archaeological discovery has yet to discredit the Bible.
Thus, seeing as parts of the Bible are true, why shouldn't it be correct to assume that the whole of it is true? Therefore, creationist theory arose from this thinking.
My point here? Creationist theory is based on the Bible.
If you do not at least keep an open mind as to the Bible's authencity, creationist theory will never make sense to you.
That alone disqualifies most people.
But as I've said, the Bible is thought to be the main evidence of creationism. But here I digress. The Bible may be a basis for creationist theory, but that doesn't mean that that is all the evidence the theory gives.
The problem is that, due to evolution's widespread acceptance, new evidence pointing out to creationism as a valid theory is often IGNORED. Thus, the only way to seek attention is to contradict evidence that supports evolution by way of finding inconsistencies in the evidence given by evolution.
And, as everyone in this thread can tell you, did not work, because instead of disproving evidence for evolution, what creationists got was scorn. For, as you say, having no independent evidence, and instead relying on disproving evolutionist theories.
--------------------------------
Some evidence pointing to the validity of a creationist theory:
I. Evidence for A yound Earth - Polonium Halos in Granite and CoalEtched within Earth's foundation rocks — the granites — are beautiful microspheres of coloration, halos, produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium, which is known to have only a fleeting existence.
The following simple analogy will show how these polonium microspheres — or halos — contradict the evolutionary belief that granites formed as hot magma slowly cooled over millions of years. To the contrary, this analogy demonstrates how these halos provide unambiguous evidence of both an almost instantaneous creation of granites and the young age of the earth.
A speck of polonium in molten rock can be compared to an Alka-Seltzer dropped into a glass of water. The beginning of effervescence is equated to the moment that polonium atoms began to emit radiactive particles. In molten rock the traces of those radioactive particles would disappear as quickly as the Alka-Seltzer bubbles in water. But if the water were instantly frozen, the bubbles would be preserved. Likewise, polonium halos could have formed only if the rapidly "effervescing" specks of polonium had been instantly encased in solid rock.
An exceedingly large number of polonium halos are embedded in granites around the world. Just as frozen Alka-Seltzer bubbles would be clear evidence of the quick-freezing of the water, so are these many polonium halos undeniable evidence that a sea of primordial matter quickly "froze" into solid granite.
The occurrence of these polonium halos, then, distinctly implies that our earth was formed in a very short time.
II. The Human AppendixThe human vermiform appendix
A general surgeon’s reflections
by J. Warwick Glover
The appendix is commonly referred to as a classic example of a vestigial organ. Such a statement implies that the appendix represents a vestige of an organ with a former greater existence in the evolutionary sense, rather than in an earlier stage of its development.
It was because of Charles Darwin’s ‘Descent of Man’ (1871)11 in fact, that the vermiform caecal appendage became widely regarded as a rudimentary organ representing the much more developed distal caecum present (if evolution is assumed) in man’s more herbivorous ancestors.
(cut portions of text.)
Only A Few Diverse Mammals Possess An Appendix
In a study of the alimentary tracts of animals we find the appendix is not present in any invertebrate. Among the vertebrates, it is absent in fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and most mammals. In fact, the vermiform appendix, recognised as a worm-like, narrow extension beginning abruptly at the caecal apex (see Fig. 1 again) is only present in a few marsupials such as the wombat and South American opossum, a few rodents (rabbits and rats) and few primates (only the anthropoid apes and man). Note that monkeys do not have such an organ.2,7,10,17
Taking any evolutionary tree an evolutionist cares to suggest, and trying to correlate the appearance and disappearance of the appendix with such a tree, is impossible. A typical defence is either to argue that soft parts don’t fossilise and things must have been different in the past (evolutionists then ignoring their cherished axiom ‘The present is the key to the past’), or calling upon ‘convergent evolution’, which is a type of explain-anything phrase without mechanism that is frequently used to defy the above obvious type of mosaicism.
The Evolutionist Has A Mammoth Problem
If formerly the evolutionist had the appendix going and now has it coming, he cannot explain why it is first present in some marsupial animals like the wombat, but absent in all the mammals between the wombat and apes and man, apart from the rabbit and a few rodents, and especially explaining the absence in monkeys.
Evolutionary postulations would have us believe that a tailed mammal without an appendix gave rise to a monkey with a tail but still without an appendix, which then gave rise to an ape without a tail but with an appendix, and then on to man where the appendix has developed to the extreme! Although an oversimplification, the above exemplifies the incredible problem the evolutionist now has with his supposedly vestigial appendix. With one argument he has us believing it’s going and with the other it’s coming. Perhaps it is neither going nor coming.The Creationist Viewpoint
The fiat creationist would expect various kinds of animals to have alimentary tracts based on a common design, with modifications and specialisations on that basic blueprint being made in appropriate areas.19 Such alterations would still be according to plan and purpose, and conforming to the structural and functional needs of the organism in question in its natural environment. The organism would also have an inbuilt ability to adapt within a fixed range to allow for growth to maturity and adjustment to environmental variations. The caecum and appendix, when viewed as separate but related specialised entities in structure and function in the digestive tracts of different animal kinds, do not contradict creationist expectations.
In summary therefore, the human vermiform appendix appears to be a complex and organised structure both in its development and maturation, and almost certainly has corresponding complexity in its functions which, like most gastrointestinal functions, are still awaiting further clarification. It would appear that the functions of the appendix would be most important when the organ itself has most prominence, and this is in the developing foetus and early existence after birth. The inside of the bowel is outside the body and the area where substances foreign to it have their greatest chance of attack. The appendix appears to be strategically placed and structurally composed of tissues which are vital in establishing and maintaining the various types of body defences or immunity necessary in recognition of such assaults and having a part to play in their repulsion. The appendix is thus one of the guardians of the internal environment of the body from the hostile external environment.
Conclusions
The vermiform appendix occurs only in a few diverse mammals.
This supports the view that among animal kinds with respect to the occurrence of such a particular and specialised feature one sees mosaicism in its distribution with discontinuity between animal kinds. A careful assessment of the embryology of the appendix in humans indicates that quantitatively it has a very early and rapid development during the critical stages of bowel growth and organisation. However, microscopically the tissues of the appendix are complicated and highly specialised, but this qualitative aspect of the organ’s growth does not occur until just after birth when the neonate takes on essential bacteria to reside in its colon.
The appendix would appear to have a role (although not as the sole organ) in establishing and maintaining the bowel-blood barrier for such bacteria in its area. The special aspects of the mucus produced in this area (the antibacterial paint-like action) along with the appendix figuring in the development of its region have been discussed. It has also been shown that the appendix can in no way be vestigial in an evolutionary sense. The hallmarks of the appendix thus appear to be creative design and organisation as if it is formed according to a plan to play a specific purpose. If one studies any organ or organism in the living world, one comes across such a discontinuous and mosaic distribution of structural and functional features among animal kinds. The features for structure and function go hand in glove with each other, obeying sound principles of design engineering and organisation yet possessing incredible functional capacities. Notwithstanding such features, there is also an economy of effort to achieve them and within the system an inherent beauty.
For the full text, for people who can understand technical biology..
Here.------------------------------------------
Creationists and evolutionists all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.
The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.
Thus the presuppositions that stem from either side.
----------------------------------------------
Here's another article on chance.
"The argument from probability that life could not form by natural processes but must have been created is sometimes acknowledged by evolutionists as a strong argument.1 The probability of the chance formation of a hypothetical functional ‘simple’ cell, given all the ingredients, is acknowledged2 to be worse than 1 in 1057800. This is a chance of 1 in a number with 57,800 zeros.
These numbers defy our ability to comprehend their size. Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, has used analogies to try to convey the immensity of the problem. For example, Hoyle said the probability of the formation of just one of the many proteins on which life depends is comparable to that of the solar system packed full of blind people randomly shuffling Rubik’s cubes all arriving at the solution at the same time3—and this is the chance of getting only one of the 400 or more proteins of the hypothetical minimum cell proposed by the evolutionists (real world ‘simple’ bacteria have about 2,000 proteins and are incredibly complex). As Hoyle points out, the program of the cell, encoded on the DNA, is also needed. In other words, life could not form by natural (random) processes.
Evolutionists often try to bluff their way out of this problem by using analogies to argue that improbable things happen every day, so why should the naturalistic origin of life be considered impossible. For example, they say the odds of winning the lottery are pretty remote, but someone wins it every week. Or, the chances of getting the particular arrangement of cards obtained by shuffling a deck is remote, but a rare combination happens every time the cards are shuffled. Or the arrangement of the sand grains in a pile of sand obtained by randomly pouring the sand is extremely complex, but this complex and improbable arrangement did occur as a result of random processes. Or the exact combination and arrangement of people walking across a busy city street is highly improbable, but such improbable arrangements happen all the time. So they argue from these analogies to try to dilute the force of this powerful argument for creation.
You probably realize there is something illogical about this line of argument. But what is it?
In all the analogies cited above, there has to be an outcome. Someone has to win the lottery. There will be an arrangement of cards. There will be a pile of sand. There will be people walking across the busy street. By contrast, in the processes by which life is supposed to have formed, there need not necessarily be an outcome. Indeed the probabilities argue against any outcome. That is the whole point of the argument. But then the evolutionist may counter that it did happen because we are here! This is circular reasoning at its worst.
Note several other things about these analogies:
Creationists do not argue that life is merely complex, but that it is ordered in such a way as to defy a natural explanation. The order in the proteins and DNA of living things is independent of the properties of the chemicals of which they consist—unlike an ice crystal where the structure results from the properties of the water molecule. The order in living things parallels that in printed books where the information is not contained in the ink, or even in the letters, but in the complex arrangement of letters which make up words, words which make up sentences, sentences which make up paragraphs, paragraphs which make up chapters and chapters which make up books. These components of written language respectively parallel the nucleic acid bases, codons, genes, operons, chromosomes and genomes which make up the genetic programs of living cells.
The order in living things shows they are the product of intelligence. The result of the lottery draw is clearly the result of a random selection—unless family members of the lottery supervisor consistently win! Then we would conclude that the draw has not been random—it is not the result of a random process, but the result of an intelligent agent.
The arrangement of cards resulting from shuffling would not normally suggest anything other than a random process. However, if all the cards were ordered by their suits from lowest to highest, we would logically conclude that an intelligent agent arranged them (or ‘stacked the deck’ in card-playing parlance) because such an arrangement is highly unlikely from genuine shuffling—a random, non-intelligent process.
The arrangement of the sand grains in a pile would not normally suggest it resulted from intelligent activity rather than natural processes. However, if all the sand grains were lined up in single file, or were in a neat rectangle, we would attribute this to an intelligent agent, or a machine made by an intelligent agent, as this would not be likely from a natural process.
The arrangement of people crossing a busy street would not normally suggest anything other than a random process. However, if all the people were ordered from shortest to tallest, or some other ordered arrangement, we would suspect that an intelligent agent was responsible for putting them in this order—that it did not result from chance. If 20 people were arranged from shortest to tallest, the odds of this happening by chance are less than one in a billion, billion (1018), so it would be reasonable to conclude that such an ordered arrangement was not due to chance whereas there would be nothing to suggest intelligent involvement if there was no meaningful pattern to the arrangement of people.
Many scientists today claim that an invisible ‘intelligent cause’ is outside the realm of ‘real’ science. These scientists have redefined science as naturalism (nature is all there is). However, scientists recognise the evidence for an invisible intelligent agent when it suits them. For example, forensic science determines if past events were the result of accident or plan and purpose (‘Who done it?’). The Piltdown ape-man fraud was discovered, after some 40 years and numerous postgraduate research theses, when researchers had the opportunity to examine the original bones and not just replicas, and they noticed file marks on the teeth.4 Such marks do not happen by natural processes and the researchers recognised the involvement of a human (intelligent) agent—a hoaxer."
---------------------
And yes, assumptions are not necessarily basis for circular arguments, but in this case, assumptions make an argument circular.
Quote from DonExodus himself:
"You do realize by saying there was an Earth 540 million years ago youre assuming creationism is false before you make your first statement."
In this case, both evolution and creationism have relied on presuppositions. Thus unless one presupposition contradicts the other, there will really be no clear winner.
