# The facts of Creation **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 2, 2004, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-facts-of-creation/237975 "2004-04-02T23:18:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![samhouch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f4b2a3/32.png) [@samhouch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samhouch)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-facts-of-creation/237975/61 "2004-04-04T16:33:40Z")
> [@Steel Rat](#): > > Exactly what I said. I’m referring to basic experiments in various laboratories that reproduced the very basics of life using elements that were likely present on the Earth a billion or so years after it was formed. Did they accomplish _life_? Again, life is more than material and/or energy. Did they actually create life from non-life? Although even (let’s pretend) they had, where did the smallest speck of ingredient come from? How about the other speck that had to combine with it. Where’s the evidence that corroborates the amount of time it’s thought to have taken for accidents to happen to add information to move from microbe to man. Geological, radiometric, atmospheric, astrophysic dating methods all have viable alternate conclusions from the same data. Creationists say "This data can be interpreted to be in line with the Genesis account (and thereby God’s involvement). Evolutionists, because God can’t be in the equation, find another conclusion. Same data (facts), different conclusions. ---
**Author:** ![Ilsa\_Lund](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a6a055/32.png) [@Ilsa\_Lund](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ilsa_Lund)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-facts-of-creation/237975/62 "2004-04-04T16:48:54Z")
He is referring to the Miller-Urey experiment testing the Oparin-Haldane model of the “primordial soup.” [Link](http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/icon1millerurey.html) ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-facts-of-creation/237975/63 "2004-04-04T17:02:32Z")
> [@](#): > > As a rational person, I acept what science has to say about natural origins. > As a Christian, I believe that God was the motive force behind it. > > Now I just wish I understood why that seems to offend both sides. From my experience, it doesn’t offend scientists at all. In fact, many respected biologists believe this, without anyone in their feild ridiculing them. The only thing that would offend them is if you insisted that God being the motive force was scientific fact as opposed to your own additional belief. From the standpoint of biology, the actions of a God on evolution would be superflous, uneccessary, as an explanatory device. But nothing rules them out as a historical reality other than lack of evidence for it. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-facts-of-creation/237975/64 "2004-04-04T17:09:33Z")
> [@](#): > > Science defines randomness created life, now you seem to be saying that randomness is really ordered. If it is really ordered what intelligence ordered it. Order out of randomness does not require intelligence to happen. Chaotic systems can often end up in ordered states, and indeed randomness vs. order is often largely a matter of what level of observation you look at a certain thing. A balloon, on the level of the motion of individual atoms, is incredibly random. But the sum action of all that random motion serves to create a highly ordered form on the macro-scale. You could say the same thing about a star. Your problem seems to be that you are stuck in the throes of Platonic essentialism, where a thing has an essential and unchanging nature of “random.” Randomness plays a part in supplying _variation_, dynamism. But when this comes up against constraints, that dyanmism can often produce ordered results, as in Johnathan D’s example, and many others from the natural world. ---
**Author:** ![Karmagun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Karmagun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Karmagun)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-facts-of-creation/237975/65 "2004-04-04T17:18:33Z")
> [@drgnrdr07](#): > > I would like one observable fact the the bible is correct about creation. Just ONE!!! Aren’t we supposed to be addressing the issue above rather than 1. listing pseudo-scientific claims that try (and fail) to falsify evolution and 2. discussing the teaching of science in school? I’m an atheist, so I can’t help the OP. It just looks like this thread is completely off-track. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-facts-of-creation/237975/66 "2004-04-04T18:23:01Z")
> [@Apos](#): > > Order out of randomness does not require intelligence to happen. Chaotic systems can often end up in ordered states, and indeed randomness vs. order is often largely a matter of what level of observation you look at a certain thing. A balloon, on the level of the motion of individual atoms, is incredibly random. But the sum action of all that random motion serves to create a highly ordered form on the macro-scale. You could say the same thing about a star. > > Your problem seems to be that you are stuck in the throes of Platonic essentialism, where a thing has an essential and unchanging nature of “random.” > > Randomness plays a part in supplying _variation_, dynamism. But when this comes up against constraints, that dyanmism can often produce ordered results, as in Johnathan D’s example, and many others from the natural world. I am really not hung-up on anything. Please show me an example of chaos turning into order without intelligent help of any kind. Life is simple, don’t try to complicate it to make black look like white. Love ---
**Author:** ![samhouch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f4b2a3/32.png) [@samhouch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samhouch)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-facts-of-creation/237975/67 "2004-04-04T18:24:50Z")
> [@drgnrdr07](#): > > I would like one observable fact the the bible is correct about creation. Just ONE!!! Prove to me the the earth was created 6000 years ago. Prove to me that everything came into existance all at once in its present state. Prove to me that all humans came from two with no genetic mutations at all… anything! All evidence and observable facts support that the Bible’s account of creation by God is correct. The same evidence (mis)interpreted is used to espouse evolution, although flawed. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-facts-of-creation/237975/68 "2004-04-04T18:28:39Z")
> [@Steel Rat](#): > > This reply was… > > I’m already there. I believe what I can observe and test. Not what someone thinks I should know becuase an old book that contradicts itself says I should know. You won’t be there until you see the contradictions of science also. And every other man made system of thought. Love ---
**Author:** ![Steel\_Rat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Steel\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steel_Rat)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-facts-of-creation/237975/69 "2004-04-04T18:35:11Z")
> [@samhouch](#): > > Did they accomplish _life_? Again, life is more than material and/or energy. Did they actually create life from non-life? > Although even (let’s pretend) they had, where did the smallest speck of ingredient come from? How about the other speck that had to combine with it. Where’s the evidence that corroborates the amount of time it’s thought to have taken for accidents to happen to add information to move from microbe to man. Geological, radiometric, atmospheric, astrophysic dating methods all have viable alternate conclusions from the same data. Creationists say "This data can be interpreted to be in line with the Genesis account (and thereby God’s involvement). Evolutionists, because God can’t be in the equation, find another conclusion. Same data (facts), different conclusions. I don’t know the details of what was accomplished. I don’t believe they created anything that we would call life, as in cellular structures, that just plain takes too long. As for “specks” of ingredients, toss in a few comets or comet-like bodies, hydrogen and carbon from nebulous gases and comets also, head from the sun and lightning, we end up with great gobs of stuff, not specks. Creationists can certainly SAY the various dating methods support a different conclusion, but they would be, and are, wrong. Show me established scientific literature that supports the genesis account and I’ll say you’re right. ---
**Author:** ![Steel\_Rat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Steel\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steel_Rat)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-facts-of-creation/237975/70 "2004-04-04T18:37:10Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > You won’t be there until you see the contradictions of science also. And every other man made system of thought. > > Love But I do see the contradictions. No one here ever said there weren’t contradictions in science. It’s Creationism that says it has the absolute answer in spite of it’s gross contradictions within itself and what we observe. ---
**Author:** ![Steel\_Rat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Steel\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steel_Rat)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-facts-of-creation/237975/71 "2004-04-04T18:38:35Z")
> [@samhouch](#): > > All evidence and observable facts support that the Bible’s account of creation by God is correct. The same evidence (mis)interpreted is used to espouse evolution, although flawed. Wow! You’ve convinced me. Umm, could you show us that evidence again? I seem to have missed it. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-facts-of-creation/237975/72 "2004-04-04T18:40:34Z")
> [@Steel Rat](#): > > Exactly what I said. I’m referring to basic experiments in various laboratories that reproduced the very basics of life using elements that were likely present on the Earth a billion or so years after it was formed. Yes, “were likely present” is an assumption, not fact. No one knows what the Earth looked like a billion years after it was formed. It is okay to say “I don’t know” when you don’t, because this is truth. We need to speak and write truth if we wish to learn more truth. Can’t you see scientists’ assumptions become barriors or limitations to real truth, because people try to make those assumptions true instead of looking in other places with others methods to find the real truth. Love ---
**Author:** ![Steel\_Rat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Steel\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steel_Rat)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-facts-of-creation/237975/73 "2004-04-04T18:41:21Z")
> [@Karmagun](#): > > Aren’t we supposed to be addressing the issue above rather than 1. listing pseudo-scientific claims that try (and fail) to falsify evolution and 2. discussing the teaching of science in school? > > I’m an atheist, so I can’t help the OP. It just looks like this thread is completely off-track. You’re right. Unfortunately all the facts are one-sided against creationism, so we’re stuck with those old smelly fields of study, Physics, Biology, Geology, Zoology, Paleontology, to eventually lead us to the truth. It’s a long battle, and we have a good start. If Creationism is taught to children as a legitimate scientific theory, however, we will be taking great leaps back to the dark ages. ---
**Author:** ![Steel\_Rat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Steel\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steel_Rat)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-facts-of-creation/237975/74 "2004-04-04T18:43:35Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > Yes, “were likely present” is an assumption, not fact. No one knows what the Earth looked like a billion years after it was formed. It is okay to say “I don’t know” when you don’t, because this is truth. We need to speak and write truth if we wish to learn more truth. Can’t you see scientists’ assumptions become barriors or limitations to real truth, because people try to make those assumptions true instead of looking in other places with others methods to find the real truth. > > Love We’re learning the best way we know how. We make assumptions, yes, based on educated guesses. The more we study, the more we learn. Perhaps you could please enlighten us as to the absolute truth. ---
**Author:** ![samhouch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f4b2a3/32.png) [@samhouch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samhouch)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-facts-of-creation/237975/75 "2004-04-04T18:58:20Z")
> [@Steel Rat](#): > > Perhaps you could please enlighten us as to the absolute truth. 42, wasn’t it, Mr. Adams? ---
**Author:** ![Steel\_Rat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Steel\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steel_Rat)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-facts-of-creation/237975/76 "2004-04-04T19:07:12Z")
> [@samhouch](#): > > 42, wasn’t it, Mr. Adams? And God’s great message to all sentient life everywhere, “Sorry for the inconvenience.” ---
**Author:** ![samhouch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f4b2a3/32.png) [@samhouch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samhouch)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-facts-of-creation/237975/77 "2004-04-04T19:08:51Z")
> [@Steel Rat](#): > > Wow! You’ve convinced me. Umm, could you show us that evidence again? I seem to have missed it. Heredity and the existence of “kinds” of living things that don’t change kind from generation to generation. The complexity of living organisms with purpose and function that defy randomness and speak instead of intelligent design. The complexity of the universe and how precise our little “open system” is balanced to allow the complex life to live on Earth. The history of God’s interaction and revelation of His existence, as well as His ongoing interaction with those who seek Him. (“Seek and you will find.”) How am I doing so far? ---
**Author:** ![zwaldd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a9adbd/32.png) [@zwaldd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zwaldd)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-facts-of-creation/237975/78 "2004-04-04T19:16:42Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > Can’t you see scientists’ assumptions become barriors or limitations to real truth, because people try to make those assumptions true instead of looking in other places with others methods to find the real truth. Scientific assumptions are based on the only absolute truth available to us: reproduceable observations. ---
**Author:** ![Steel\_Rat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Steel\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steel_Rat)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-facts-of-creation/237975/79 "2004-04-04T19:18:46Z")
> [@samhouch](#): > > Heredity and the existence of “kinds” of living things that don’t change kind from generation to generation. > The complexity of living organisms with purpose and function that defy randomness and speak instead of intelligent design. > The complexity of the universe and how precise our little “open system” is balanced to allow the complex life to live on Earth. > The history of God’s interaction and revelation of His existence, as well as His ongoing interaction with those who seek Him. (“Seek and you will find.”) > > How am I doing so far? Terrible. How does Heredity point to a creator? Define a “kind” and how it points to a creator. How do you figure these “kinds” don’t change? How do you account for the different races of human. Animal hybridization wouldn’t work if “kinds” didn’t change from generation to generation. How would you get a Chihuahua from a Wolf (from which all dogs are derived) if the “kinds” didn’t change from generation to generation? There are accounts in the Bible where individuals were sought by god, and they didn’t need to seek him. What changed? Perhaps if he had kept his hand in it there wouldn’t be any question. He must have gotten a PS2 and is too busy playing Halo to pay attention to man any more. The history of God’s interaction is nothing but allegory and anecdote. ---
**Author:** ![NorwegianBlue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/6bbea6/32.png) [@NorwegianBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NorwegianBlue)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-facts-of-creation/237975/80 "2004-04-04T19:31:25Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > I am really not hung-up on anything. Please show me an example of chaos turning into order without intelligent help of any kind. Life is simple, don’t try to complicate it to make black look like white. > > Love I think I can provide an example or two here. Try this. Put salad oil and water in a blender. Add a little chaos by turning on the blender. Stop the blender and do not intervene. You will notice by observing and not interacting that the oil and water will seperate on their own creating order where chaos had just prevailed. The Oil will rise to the top and the Water will settle to the bottom creating a Binary seperation of the two liquids. We all understand Why this will happen, but it happens on it’s own, from the point the chaos stops, and without intelligent intervention. Another simpler explanation of order without intelligent intervention would occur in a gravity free enviornment, outer space for instance. any liquid in the abscence of gravity will form a sphere. water cannot remain in liquid form in a vaccuum, But the molten matter that made the planets can and did. Gen1:2 “And the Earth was \*\*without Form \*\* and Void…” :eek: So Creation and Evolution thrown together in the schools will mix about as well as oil and water. leave them together long enough and the two will seperate on their own, naturally. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-facts-of-creation/237975.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-facts-of-creation/237975.md?page=5)