Theory of Creation?

[juliod]

The big problem in the debate over creation is the utter lack of a "theory of creation".

They never tell us the where and when or their theory, and never tell us the evidence that supports it.

For example, Genesis is true, then the three most important events in history are 1) The Creation, 2) The Flood, and 3) The Babel story.

Some creationists accept 4004 BC for the date of creation. But I have never seen anyone put a date on the other two.

The Babel story should be very easy to support, since all branches of linguistics should point to the location of the tower as the origin.

It's also remarkable that no creationist organization has yet built a replica ark and showed that it it seaworthy and capable of carrying a large number of animals, etc.

DanZ

[seventil]

My question is for all the atheist/agnostics:

What kind of Creation model would please you? Basically, what do you want? Give me an outline of what you would like to see as far as a "Creation Theory" - perhaps myself and some of the other Creationists here can work on it. I would be more than happy to put work in on a working Creation model that would help explain our beliefs, scientifically.

I know Jose and others were discussing teaching the Flood scientifically; perhaps we could go all the way, from time 0 to present.

[Jose]

What kind of Creation model would please you? Basically, what do you want? Give me an outline of what you would like to see as far as a "Creation Theory" - perhaps myself and some of the other Creationists here can work on it. I would be more than happy to put work in on a working Creation model that would help explain our beliefs, scientifically.

I'm not sure that it's an issue of what would please us. It's a question of being scientific--for which I mean that the model should be supported by evidence that can be found in God's Creation, and not contradicted by evidence in God's Creation. There is little problem if there are portions for which we have no data, because that is assumed to be true for all of science. That's why we call things "theories" rather than "facts."

When people say that there is no "theory" of creation, they are using the scientific definition of "theory." That is: an explanation, based upon data, that has been tested sufficiently rigorously to be considered very likely to be correct. By this definition, "creation" has no support beyond the bible. In fact, there are other creation models, put forward by other religions, all of which have the same degree of support. It is probably this difference of opinion among religions that leads some of us to look at the world itself for clues, rather than at someone else's description of its origin.

So, the question is not one of explaining your beliefs, or of providing scientific mechanisms by which creation or the Flood could have happened. It's a question of supporting the hypothesis with data--because it is the data that make it scientific.

I know Jose and others were discussing teaching the Flood scientifically; perhaps we could go all the way, from time 0 to present.

The Flood thread is a plea to creationists to provide support for a major portion of their particular creation model. I see it as a "fair test," in which we consider the model seriously, and ask if it has adequate explanatory power to explain what we see in the world around us. To go from time 0 to the present (biblical time 0, or current cosmological time 0?) we'll have to use several threads, because the nature of the data is so different. Otseng, among others, has suggested that we should present more of the data, and try to demonstrate why we find it compelling. This is a good idea. Where should we start?

[seventil]

To go from time 0 to the present (biblical time 0, or current cosmological time 0?) we'll have to use several threads, because the nature of the data is so different.

The old earth model t=0 up to life arising on earth would be identical. (Agreed?)

The young earth model would have a t=0 of much younger of course; however, to explain the 'stretching' of the universe, we could not use any known physical laws. T would get pretty crazy if the matter of the universe was sped up to faster than light speeds due to our lack of understanding of matter at above light speeds. However, we could use a theoretical model of T=0 of a relative age equal to the current thought age of the universe. However, from T=0 to T=(the end of the accelerated universe) - 4004BC - would be a non standard time flow of effectively zero time.

I just made that up off the top of my head, so feel free to critique it!

Otseng, among others, has suggested that we should present more of the data, and try to demonstrate why we find it compelling. This is a good idea. Where should we start?

I think we should develop a consortium. Why? Because I like the word. Haha... seriously though, I think we need some dedicated people that would spend time developing and researching data and theories for the model. Perhaps a forum or a topic thread with only select memebers able to post in (threads can get out of hand sometimes). Our focus should be on providing a working model of Creation theory through science.

We should also provide some ground rules on what we will and will not do.

As a start:

The Creation Theory model will NOT include:

Any quotes from evolutionists supporting theism.

Any scientific evidences taken out of context specifically attempting to defame or disprove the current evolutionary theory.

"God did it!" will only be used in instances where physical and natural laws cannot adequately explain the theory. An example is above with the acceleration of time/space/matter from t=0 to t=4004BC. (And that was just speculation, perhaps there is more logical solution?)

[seventil]

The theory should follow these guidlines:

• Consistent (internally and externally)
• Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
• Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)
• Empirically Testable & Falsifiable
• Based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments
• Correctable & Dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered)
• Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
• Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

[Gollum]

"God did it!" will only be used in instances where physical and natural laws cannot adequately explain the theory.

Sorry but No. Science does not accept lack of current evidence or shortcomings of existing theories as evidence or proof of the validity of other theories. You will need positive evidence of creation, not merely the lack of explanation from natural causes.

I am willing to be shown otherwise but I suspect that this is all an exercise in futility. "Evidence" in science translates to information about the physical world. "Creation" in this context is a reference to a process not of the physical world. The very best that you can accomplish is to demonstrate that there are phenomena (i.e. pieces of evidence) that are poorly explained or unexplained by existing non-creationist theories. Coming up with "physical evidence of the non-physical" is a true oxymoron but it is the only possibility if you want to be judged "scientific".

In your example, if you plan to assert time/space acceleration from t=0 to t=4004BC then you will need to show a mechanism by which the fundamental physical laws of the universe are adjustable by natural means. Just ringing in a miracle doesn't cut it because you are assuming the very thing that you are attempting to prove (i.e. divine intervention.) Certainly if we accept that God, for some reason, completely restructured the laws of the universe about 6000 years ago then trivial details like creating life or the flood are no problem at all.

[juliod]

What kind of Creation model would please you? Basically, what do you want? Give me an outline of what you would like to see as far as a "Creation Theory"

As I said in the starting post to this thread, what we would look for (at first blush) is an account of the three main events in history: 1) Creation, 2) The Flood, and 3) The Tower of Babel.

Give us round-figure dates for these and show how they fit into the historical framework of the various world cultures. You'll have some serious compression to do. My copy of the Oxford Illustrated History of Ancient Egypt begins at one million, seven-hundred-thousand years before present.

Explain where the Tower was, and how each language group descends from it's location.

DanZ

[juliod]

However, from T=0 to T=(the end of the accelerated universe) - 4004BC - would be a non standard time flow of effectively zero time.

Don't try to start with astrophysics. It is geology that shows the extreme age of the earth, and it is reletively easy to explain. Try to explain, for example, the difference between the Appalachian Mountains and the Rockies in terms of a young earth.

(BTW, in terms of this discussion, I am not interested in old earth models.)

DanZ

[Gollum]

BTW, in terms of this discussion, I am not interested in old earth models.

That's indicative of the problem isn't it? If you wanted to really be scientific about this then you would be developing a model that best fits the known facts ... all of them. Picking a model first and then cherry-picking facts (e.g. ignore Astrophysics) to support it is backwards.

Your perogative of course, but it bears no resembelence to science or the scientific method.

[juliod]

but it bears no resembelence to science or the scientific method.

Well, it is, actually. The challenge in this thread is for the creationists to state their theory. My claim is that there is no Creation Theory. Other than "The bible says...."

Once you have two or more theories then you can try to decied between them. As it is now, evolution (and related theories) are the only ones around.

DanZ

[old ag]

The big problem in the debate over creation is the utter lack of a "theory of creation".

They never tell us the where and when or their theory, and never tell us the evidence that supports it.

For example, Genesis is true, then the three most important events in history are 1) The Creation, 2) The Flood, and 3) The Babel story.

Some creationists accept 4004 BC for the date of creation. But I have never seen anyone put a date on the other two.

The Babel story should be very easy to support, since all branches of linguistics should point to the location of the tower as the origin.

It's also remarkable that no creationist organization has yet built a replica ark and showed that it it seaworthy and capable of carrying a large number of animals, etc.

DanZ

Really, one should be at least conversant in the current literature before hurling barbs. "Noah's Ark, A Feasibility Study", John Woodmorapple, 1996, Pub. by ICR (Institute for Creation Research), $22.00 available thru answersingenesis.org ought to settle that question. You can order models of the ark and various discussions of it thru several Christian outlets and bookstores.

Ussher put dates on the flood and Babel over 300 years ago for heaven's sake and Newton wrote in defense of that chronology! (As an aside, the complete blackout of information on the active and real faith of those who founded modern science is one of the blackest marks against our government school system). Ussher's "Annals of the World" has recently been reprinted by the above noted AIG organization and is also available at the AIG site. Several articles concerning the language question have appeared in "TJ" the technical journal of creation over the last few years; indeed one is in the current issue; also available at AIG website.

As for a Theory of Creation, again you can almost take your pick. The modern creationist movement started when Dr. John Morris and a collaborator wrote a creationist based theory of geology in the early 60's. Dr. Russell Humphrey (PhD physics LSU) published a cosmology over 10 years ago concerning the starlight travel problem of a young universe employing Einstiens equations in the process (ever consider a reverse black hole?). The ICR and AIG websites are a gateway to anything you might want to investigate.

And LASTLY, evidence? That goes to the heart of the matter. Creationist look at the same stars you do; at the same fossils you do; they just start with different assumptions! What explanation most clearly fits the observable evidence? What assumptions are made and what practices are employed to "analyze" a piece of evidence? That may be a whole different debate string!

Old Ag