Talk:Frequent objections to creationism
This article is of an unacceptable quality and it must be dramatically improved upon or it will be recommended for deletion.
The title of the article states that it contain "Frequent Objections to Creationism" and yet most of the objections have no citations whatsoever that substantiate this claim of frequency.
The majority of the responses are also more of a discussion nature than publishable quality, which are likewise not supported by references.
--Mr. Ashcraft 23:16, 6 December 2006 (EST)
These "objections" are so horrible that I'm ashamed to have brought it up to you guys in the first place.
--RichardT 22:35, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm requesting to delete the last couple of comments I made where all I did was quote other people.
-RichardT 22:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
I really do think this article should be deleted.
-- RichardT 22:02, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
I was wondering if we can advance this page to make it work. I'm getting all the objections to creation I could find and it would be cool to get answers to them.
-- RichardT 2:43 PM EST, December 2 2006
I'm having loads of trouble with this... I have no idea why the reference I quoted for "The Cosmic Distance Scale" wouldn't work.
Never mind, Mr. Ashcraft taught me how to fix it.
-- RichardT 3:21 PM EST, December 2 2006
I am not familiar with the rules in writing on the Wiki pages. I thought prople are not suppose to make discussion on the "article" but on the "discussion" "page" over whatever is said in the article. You seems made your article page into a discussion page. Is this adequate? I am not sure, but I don't mind to go either way.
So, the oil. It does not really take that long to make a big puddle of oil in the ground. If the conditions are right, may be 2 or 3 million years will do, according to the secular idea of geology. It would certain not take billions of years. --Juvenis Sun 16:27, 2 December 2006 (EST)
Oh, but I thought it would be easier for us this way. I didn't know there was a rule about it... --RichardT 17:05, 2 December 2006 (EST)
You guys can start answering the current objections I have up now if you want while I try to find more that I could add. I'm hoping to get much much more though. --RichardT 19:38, 2 December 2006 (EST)
I think you've set it up just fine. Juvenis Sun is new and simply not familiar with our other response articles.
You shouldnt plan on others working on your article any time soon. There are still dozens of these topics left to be answered on the Index to creationist claims page.
Try to answers these yourself. Look up the topics on the AiG, ICR, and CRS websites, and provide references to any related articles you find in your responses.
--Mr. Ashcraft 21:44, 2 December 2006 (EST)
Alright, can do sir.
-- RichardT 22:19, 2 December 2006 (EST)
I guess you may feel that your question is not answered yet. So, I will try: In oil exploration, people do not really care if the earth is old or young. As long as the methods used lead to the the discovery of oil, the age of the earth is not a concern. The methods or the systems used in the guide of exploration are currently "labelled" as ones derived from classical (vs. creational) geologic data and models. Whether these systems support evolution or creation have already been broken down into many other topics of debate. Such as the fossil sequence, the rock correlation, the age of rock formation, tectonic history etc. etc (sorry, no links). It would not be suitable to use the single fact of finding oil or not as an argument for either evolution or creation model. Nevertheless, I would say the origin of hydrocarbon deposit would be a good topic for the debate. It does take TIME to produce the oil and gas. I am not sure how much have been talked about on this issue. I think this could be the end of this question. --Juvenis Sun 18:58, 4 December 2006 (EST)
Mr. Ashcraft, I don't see why what Juvenis Sun wrote should not be in the article.
-- RichardT 17:28, 5 December 2006 (EST)
Its an informal discussion - not an article. --Mr. Ashcraft 17:27, 5 December 2006 (EST)
Some criticisms to the responses given (This is from a ChristianForums.com thread I started, wanting peer review) :
God stretched out the heavens. What did this do to light and time outside the solar system? The objection assumes that everything was created in exactly the form it now has.
"What utter nonsense.
If we see a supernova that is 100,000 light years away we conclude it happened 100,000 years ago. If the universe is only 6000-10000 years old that means that God created a supernova for star that never existed. If you are to claim that God created a the explotion of a non-existant star you are claiming that God is deceiving us by presenting false evidence.
YEC supports a deceitful God. If God presents evidence that 100,000 years ago there was a star there then, since God never lies, there was a star there 100,000 years ago. If God presents evidence that a fossil is 30 million years old then 30 million years ago that creature roamed the earth."
"It's not the appearance of age (or maturity or whatever term they want to do) but the appearance of history which never happened.
Take the old "Adam was full grown" argument. That's not the problem Creationists. The problem is if we take the analogy to completeness Adam had a healed broken ulna from when he fell out of a tree when he was 6 and a scar from his appendecthomy when he was 10."
"Hmm, I noticed there was an attempt to answer my objection on that wiki page:
No applied science benefits from the idea of evolution. All empirical science depends on seeing what actually happens and basing hypotheses on that. The most that could be seen is variation within a kind, about which there is no dispute. The application of ideas of flood geology could potentially benefit mining and oil exploration, but they will not do so until someone is willing to try them. We constantly see new research reports on the amazing design of living creatures, sometimes without even a token acknowledgement of evolution; this is effectively applied creationism. On the other hand, evolutionary ideas have been a positive hindrance to science. Evolutionary ideas about the development of our posture led to back treatments that worsened patients' problems. Evolutionary ideas led to 198 human organs' being labelled vestigial. Now, all are known to be useful or even essential. In the same way, evolutionists label large areas of DNA as junk, thus greatly hindering investigation of what it actually does.
Too bad the response is a complete load of cow excrement.
First of all, there are examples of applied evolution. I've brought up comparative genomics (which is based on common descent relationships of species) repeatedly on the forum as an example of applied evolution that has applications in medical and agricultural research (here's a specific example with respect to AIDS research . No creationist has ever explained that away. And that's just one example of many. So yes, there are examples of applied evolution. To suggest there aren't is complete ignorance.
Second, the statement "We constantly see new research reports on the amazing design of living creatures ... this is effectively applied creationism". No, it's not. Labeling something as a "design" is not an application. An application is when you derive a methodology based of a particular set of knowledge and use it to accomplish something. See the aformentioned example regarding comparative genomics. *That's* an application.
Third, the idea that evolution has hindered science is also bogus. I notice none of those examples are cited. And even if they were, the author would have to demonstrate the relationship to biological evolution and that they were used in place of superior alternatives at that given time. That would be a hindrance. Simply suggesting that mistakes have been made in the past is not.
So yeah, that response was hardly an answer to my objection, considering it a) was based of false premises, and b) didn't offer anything in terms of valid support.
Try again."
"
If the earth is young, why is it that the predictions made for an old earth allow us to find oil?
Creation wiki response: Fewer and fewer oil reserves are being found. Even back in the 1950's only one hole in five produced oil. Is the naturalistic model all that good at finding oil?
The cost of drilling a well (onshore) is fairly minimal and can be done relatively quickly compared to the cost and time it takes to test a site and gain a degree of certainty in whether the site will be productive. Furthermore the Creationwiki claim that 'oil wells that do not produce oil = no oil found.' is just plain ignorance. You can't just drill a hole into an oilpatch and suck the stuff out, many dry wells are called so because the oil is too difficult to extract not because there is none there.
Originally Posted by Creationwiki
[More research needed.]
No kidding. "
"
Evolutionary ideas about the development of our posture led to back treatments that worsened patients' problems.
How so?
Evolutionary ideas led to 198 human organs' being labelled vestigial.
I would love to see a list of these organs.
In the same way, evolutionists label large areas of DNA as junk, thus greatly hindering investigation of what it actually does.
They were labeled "junk" because they did not code for proteins and we didn't know what they were for."
"This is awfully spurious. Yes, the name "junk DNA" was used informally, but it is a long jump to say that the name completely polluted the mindset of scientists and prevented them from researching the matter thoroughly.
For example, here is a link to an article from this year talking about research on the function of junk DNA:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4940654.stm"
So, from this we can see that we all agree that "Junk DNA" does have functions.
-- RichardT 15:06, 6 December 2006 (EST)
We have to answer these too...
"I notice you'd quoted me on the discussion page. However, you might want to include a few links as they didn't make it over. There's lots of info out there on applications of evolutionary biology (provided you know what you are looking for):
Primer on comparative genomics (i.e. how it relates to evolution): http://biology.plosjournals.org/perl...l.pbio.0000058 More info: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv...s.section.6697
Examples of comparative genomics research today:
Medical research:
AIDS: http://www.evolgen.com/images/journaloftheoretical.pdf Malaria: http://www.horizonpress.com/cimb/abstracts/v7/03.html
Agricultural examples:
Legumes: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1088312 Rice: http://www.plantphysiol.org/cgi/cont...f&siteid=plant More: http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/short/13/8/1818
Other examples of evolutionary application:
Forestry:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/03650e/03650e03.htm
Various:
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/bull.html http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/...alCode=ecolsys"
RichardT 19:20 6 December 2006 (EST)
I think I'm going to change the sections a little bit if that's ok with you guys.
RichardT 19:30 6 December 2006 (EST)
I was wondering if I can put oil and fossils into a geology section, and have the main science sections up with minor sections inside the main sections, what do you think? Mr. Ashcraft, you can change it how you like though...
RichardT 20:31 6 December 2006 (EST)
