h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Kiteman

You really do seem to dislike Creationists. Now, seeing as how I am new to this h2g2 I don't to get into a slagging match here. I will save that for the origins board! However, I will point to some evidence for Creation (not even YEC):

1. The very fact that the universe exists is evidence for creation. If there is no God who created the universe, why does the universe even exist? I believe the laws of thermodynamics suggest that the universe had a beginning. The universe could not have created itself so something must exist outside the universe to create-God. In fact, many people claim that the Big Bang supports the idea of God. I will ask you to look at this and see what you make of it ‘http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/universe.asp’.

2. The design in the world points to Creation. The universe is just to complex to have come about by chance. From chemistry, for example, take the ratio of electron to proton mass. If these were any smaller or larger, chemical bonding could not happen. Take photosynthesis. An amazing operation. It is far too complex to have come about by chance. The complexity of a cell. We have come a long way since thinking that cells were ‘simple’. Cells are amazingly complex. There is the nucleus which contains DNA and chromosomes, the mitochondria were aerobic respiration takes place etc etc. If one part of the structure of the cell was to vanish, the whole cell would be destroyed. It is like a mousetrap with a spring, platform, hammer etc. If one ‘piece’ disappears, the whole structure will be useless. The mousetrap must be made fully formed by a creator. In the same way, cells must have been created fully formed by a creator (God).



I am going to stop now as I will set up my own list which contains evidence for creation. I will of course have a link from origins board. Of course, I don’t expect you to believe any of it….

God Bless

Good_News

Well it looked to me like Kiteman covered every bit of scientific evidence for your biblical creation. I did not see any bit of valid scientific evidence left out.

1. Why does there have to be a "why"? Isn't it enough that it 'is'? Can you not live your own life to the full benefit of yourself, your loved ones and the world at large without handing over he credit to a deity whose existance is completely debateable and completely unproven?

2. Take cancer, mental illnesses, birth deformities, day time television, etc etc...

Please let me know when you have compiled your list of *evidence* (you are, of course, aware that scripture is not allowed as evidence, since its authorship has poor provenance, its originality is unverified and it has not been peer-reviewed). Should any of the evidence invalidate evolution, I will happily renounce my status as a YEC hunter, and hand in my badge to my nearest at my soonest.

Hello GN,

Pardon the intrusion, but I cannot resist commenting...

"1. The very fact that the universe exists is evidence for creation."

Um... no. That simply does not follow. The fact that the universe exists is evidence that it exists. You cannot infer anything further from that information. Sorry.

"If there is no God who created the universe, why does the universe even exist?"

Anthropomorphism, I'm afraid. You, as a (nominally) intelligent creature, seek a reason for things. However, this is a human prejudice. The universe does not require a reason for anything. You are not being objective.

"I believe the laws of thermodynamics suggest that the universe had a beginning."

You'll pardon me if I take this statement with a pinch of salt, unless and until you can answer this question:

What are the laws of thermodynamics, and more specifically, what is entropy?

Until you can answer that question clearly and concisely, I cannot take seriously anything you have to say on the matter. (And before you ask, I'm a chartered chemical engineer - my familiarity with thermodynamics comes from a degree level education and over a decade of professional experience).

"The universe could not have created itself"

Your evidence for this statement please?

"so something must exist outside the universe to create-God."

You leave out who created your god. He can't have created himself, by your logic, so something outside HIS universe must have created him. Who was that?

If you're going to say that your god is eternal and uncreated, then your problem is that that is an equally good argument to use in favour of the universe as eternal and uncreated.

I shall be interested to see you answer to this question, if you have one.

"In fact, many people claim that the Big Bang supports the idea of God."

... for a certain definition of "many". Many people claim that they've been abducted by small grey aliens. Personally, I tend to think that if "many people" believe something, it's very probably wrong.

"I will ask you to look at this and see what you make of it ‘http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/universe.asp’."

I think it's very funny.

"2. The design in the world points to Creation."

Only if you lack understanding of biochemistry. In fact, the "design" of which you speak points very clearly to chance mutation and natural selection. If there was a designer, he/she was criminally negligent or incompetent.

"The universe is just to complex to have come about by chance."

Nonsense. Anyone who says that simply doesn't understand the laws of chance - but then, not many people do. Witness the number of lottery tickets sold each week. If people UNDERSTOOD probability, they'd never buy a lottery ticket.

"From chemistry, for example, take the ratio of electron to proton mass. If these were any smaller or larger, chemical bonding could not happen."

You sound like you're parroting something you've heard. For instance - what IS the ratio of proton to electron mass? Do you KNOW? Do you know WHY it matters, or are you just taking it on faith that whoever told you it does is right? Does your education fit you to make such a judgement?

"Take photosynthesis. An amazing operation. It is far too complex to have come about by chance."

Please explain, in detail and using Kekule diagrams in balanced chemical equations, the process of photosynthesis.

"The complexity of a cell. We have come a long way since thinking that cells were ‘simple’. Cells are amazingly complex."

Please state, clearly and concisely, the main points of difference between plant and animal cells.

Note, I'm only asking these questions to test whether you have the educational background to understand what you're saying. If you do not, I can more easily dismiss you as simply parroting what you've been told without understanding. If you do, then we can perhaps have a discussion.

"There is the nucleus which contains DNA and chromosomes,"

Question: is DNA made of chromosomes, or is it the other way round?

"If one part of the structure of the cell was to vanish, the whole cell would be destroyed."

Ah. Not strictly true, I'm afraid. I fear the old mousetrap analogy coming along...

"It is like a mousetrap with a spring, platform, hammer etc."

Yup, right on time.

"If one ‘piece’ disappears, the whole structure will be useless. The mousetrap must be made fully formed by a creator. In the same way, cells must have been created fully formed by a creator (God)."

Arrant nonsense, I'm afraid.

Consider: what does a mousetrap DO? It traps mice. A hole in the ground is a mousetrap. A hole in the ground with some food at the bottom is a BETTER mousetrap. Mousetraps of that type could EVOLVE.

But if you're looking at what most people think of when they think mousetrap, once again, your imagination has failed. Sure, it's a mousetrap NOW - but what was it BEFORE?

Consider - Monday, I need a doorstop. So I cut a piece of wood and use it as a doorstop.

Tuesday, I need a coathook .Do I make one from scratch? No. I stick a wire to my doorstop.

Wednesday, I want a catapult for flicking bits of bait into the pond where I'm fishing. Do I make one from scratch? No. I use my coathook, adding a spring.

Thursday, NOW I want a mousetrap. I could try making one from scratch, or I could take my catapult and add a trigger.

The point here is this: I started off with a simple structure - just a piece of wood. It was USEFUL, as that simple structure, not for catching mice, but for holding my door open. At each stage, I added something simple, and used it for something else. And at every stage, it was USEFUL.

Sure, by Friday, I've got a mousetrap, and if you take anything away it no longer works AS A MOUSETRAP. But at every stage along the way I was using it for doing something else, so the fact it was no good as a mousetrap didn't matter.

Now, you turn up on Friday and say that my mousetrap is just a mousetrap and is useless if you take anything away. I look at you as though you're stupid, because *I* know that if you take away the trigger it's a catapult, and if you take away the spring it's a coathook, and so on.

Similarly, biochemists look at you as if you're stupid because you look at structures in the cell and state baldly, from a position of ignorance, that they are irreducibly complex. If you knew anything about the subject, you'd know those structures were once simpler, and did different jobs.

The mousetrap analogy is fatally flawed, so fatally I'm quite surprised you even bring it up.

"I am going to stop now as I will set up my own list which contains evidence for creation."

I shall be fascinated to see this, please do provide a link. Please note, I for one am interested in what you say - evidence FOR creation. Please do NOT provide what you think is evidence AGAINST evolution. This is logically unnecessary. I am interested only in positive evidence FOR young-earth creation. I've been trying to find some for several years now, and despite having spoken on this site with several YEC believers, whenever I ask about evidence they always start rubbishing evolution, rather than answering the question. I look forward to your answer, and hope you're different.

"I don’t expect you to believe any of it…."

If you have, as you say, positive evidence, then surely "belief" is irrelevant? If, on the other hand, "belief" is required, then what you have is not evidence, it is faith. Forgive me if I'm not interested in your superstitions. You say you have evidence - great! Let's hear it.

H.

Oh, one other thing, GN - please do not attempt to answer any of my questions by posting links to other websites. I'm asking what YOU know, not what other people know, so please answer me yourself in your own words. I'm interested in YOUR personal level of understanding of the issues and facts, not what someone else has put on a website.

Only if YOUR personal understanding meets some minimum criteria can we have a meaningful conversation. Simply saying "Dr. So-and-so's theory on goddiditandranaway.com says so" is not an answer. A chimp could do that.

Also, please do not plead that you do not have the time to respond. If you have the time to read AND UNDERSTAND the background material to this question, you have the time to explain, concisely, the answers to the questions I have posed. If you say you don't have the time, I'm afraid I'll suspect that you don't really understand what you're talking about. (Sorry to sound suspicious, but I've conversed with creationists before, and the "I haven't got time to answer that" tactic is depressingly common. As I say, I hope you're different.)

H.

Wow! Go for, HvA! You ought to come on the Science boards occasionally, show us amateurs exactly how to kick creationist arses!

In case you didn't know, creation v. evolution discussin has officially been quaranteened (spelling?) on the Religion & Ethics board. The scientists wouldn't have them, but neither would the Christians

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-perl/h2/h2.cgi?state=threads&board=religion.question&

GN: have you ever heard of William Paley? He was a creationist. He maintained that if one found a watch on a country path, that one would not have thought that it got there purely by chance. That it had been created by an unseen hand: ' the inference we think is inevitable, that the watch must have had a maker -- that there must have existed, at some time and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer, who comprehended its construction and designed its use. ' Well, the Creationists then go on to use this argument in biology. they invariably point to the human eye as an example of an organ which, of you remove one of its components, ceases to function. They claim that the eye must have been therefore designed. What they fail to work out is that a series of stepwise refinements to a very simple design serves to explain how such a marvellous organ could have arisen. the patch of light-sensitive cells becomes recessed, giving directionality. The recess then becomes a cavity with a narrow opening, and therfore a pinhole camera. The pinhole camera develops a lens, therefore sharp images, and so on. And we can *see* this in action today: compare the eye of the primitive nautilus with some of its more advanced cousins, the squid, for example. Now I managed to work this out for myself in my early teens. Why can't Creationists? Or is it more that they *can* actually grasp this argument but prefer *not* to, instead indulging in fallacies and downright misrepresentations? And does this flawed reasoning seep out and pollute other perceptions of the world about us, for instance political ones? Even I, as a non-Conservative and non-Christian, can see the huge inconsitencies between a faith which treats all human beings as equal, and a political philosophy which thinks that some human beings are better than others, especially those born into wealth. I direct you to my posting in another thread, http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F48874?thread=639607&latest=1#p7017357 , for an example of how fundamentally at odds Christ's message is with modern day Conservatism.

'Also, please do not plead that you do not have the time to respond.'

Well, in that case, don't expect a reply before July because I AM actually very busy at the moment. If you remind me in July or near about then, I shall spend more time on it.

July???

How much time do you think this is going to take? I haven't asked you anything that should take you more than about thirty minutes to answer.

No, hang on, let me amend that - I haven't asked you anything it would take ME any longer than thirty minutes to answer.

If you're suggesting it's going to be three months before you can spare me thirty minutes, then I can only ask what you're even doing answering me now if you're so incredibly busy.

If you're suggesting it's going to take you longer than thirty minutes to answer, then please don't bother, as you would in that case stand revealed as simply another superstitious person parroting other people's knowledge without any comprehension of its meaning or implications.

And I was *so* hoping you would be different to every other ignorant, evasive creationist I've ever come across. Hey ho. I guess you really are all alike.

H.

'If you're suggesting it's going to be three months before you can spare me thirty minutes, then I can only ask what you're even doing answering me now if you're so incredibly busy.'

If you must know, I am very busy at work at the moment and am trying to get a promotion. Not that it was any of your business however.

Now, I do not have the time to research and write out a small essay so you can either wait untill July or withdraw your request.

I think we'll be quite happy to wait. Two months should be enough tom come up with a robust defence of Creationism, if it is defensible.

BTW: I think the reason than people don't like Creationists is because they regard them much as they would regard snake-oil salesmen, peddling ludicrous falsehoods. The Creation is a myth, a story. It is not a theory. It's not even a scientific idea as it doesn't make any falsifiable predictions.

Bad news, eh Hoov? Or expected. Good News: < I am very busy at work at the moment> Has your work got considerably more busy since yesterday when you were able to post this rather detailed post: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F2019506?thread=640491&latest=1 And ouch! You really know how to throw your head above the parapet. Or is the post below set-up to allow you to say 'I told you so' when scientists decide to query your 6000 year old earth theory? http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/A4046861 Which was written today...so you became busy at work when exactly? Bookmarks for future humour.

"If you must know, I am very busy at work at the moment and am trying to get a promotion. Not that it was any of your business however."

You're right. And in fact, not only is it none of my business - I have absolutely no interest in your excuses. I asked only that you did NOT plead lack of time. But you have. Hey ho. So far, so predictable.

"I do not have the time to research and write out a small essay"

I did not ask for a small essay. Perhaps you were not educationally equipped to understand my desperately simple questions. For your convenience, I shall repeat them, in even simpler form:

1. State the laws of thermodynamics, and describe what entropy is and how it might be calculated.
2. What is the ratio of the mass of the proton to the mass of the electron, and why does it matter?
3. Give the balanced chemical equations for the reactions involved in photosynthesis, with Kekule diagrams where necessary.
4. State the main points of difference between plant and animal cells.
5. Is DNA made of chromosomes, or vice versa?

Please bear in mind that YOU brought these subjects up, not me.

YOU are the one taking up a position of supposed knowledge on these subjects, and yet you refuse to demonstrate even the most basic familiarity with the principles of the subject on which you claim authority.

If someone claimed to be an authority on your Bible, would it not be reasonable to test their claim? And if you asked them where Jesus was born, and they said "I haven't got time to research the answer, I'm trying for promotion at work", wouldn't you write them off as a rather inept fraud who wasn't even competent to *pretend* to know things?

All these questions are, for someone who even superficially knows what they're talking about, answerable very quickly, to the point of being blindingly obvious.

Your reluctance to even *begin* to answer, and your admission that in order to even start you'd need to do research, merely confirms what I'm rather depressed that I accurately predicted - that you're an ignorant, uneducated person parroting lies you've been told by someone else because they have the same imaginary friend you do.

Prove me wrong. Do. Please.

H.

This post has been removed.

Some people are going to take that analogy the wrong way Hoo of course they are the type of people who do not see it as an 'analogy' but equate it as creationist=paedophiles which it does not...but hell it works for me.

Good point Alfster. I do tend to forget that on this site one must so often provide subtitles for the hard of thinking.

To all those too stupid to understand the point I was making in my last post:

I did NOT say, or mean, that Creationists are paedophiles.

I meant that Creationists are AS BAD as paedophiles.

I hope that's made it clear.

H.

'I meant that Creationists are AS BAD as paedophiles.'

That has to be one of the most disgusting and offensive remarks I have ever read on this board or off it. All my life I have been a law-abiding, charitable person. I have tried my best to help people all my life. I have beeen involved in the local Sunday school and am a local cub leader (religion not mentioned there apart from the traditional prayer at the end in case you are worried). To be called as bad as a child-rapist simply because I believe in Genesis is an insult beyond description.

I really don't know how you sleep at night.

I too think that a statement like that is way over the top. There's no need for it really. Creationists don't abuse other human beings and ruin their lives through so doing. We lock up child abusers but we don't lock up creationists.

Meanwhile, the guide entry has disappeared. Unless it was a *very short* summary.

GN, saying something is 'as bad as' something else doesn't mean it's the 'same' as something else. Just that a person sees the two things as being just as bad, in their opinion.


az

"Creationists don't abuse other human beings and ruin their lives through so doing."

Not by *their* standards they don't. And neither do paedophiles. Which is one fundamental similarity - neither of them see anything wrong on what they're doing. But to me, teaching an impressionable child to never question authority, to simply accept without evidence the writings of an old book in preferences to centuries of scientific progress since the enlightenment - in short, condemning them to the benighted ignorance of superstition - DOES ruin their lives, whether they themselves are equipped to realise it or not.

"We lock up child abusers but we don't lock up creationists."

Well, yes, because at the moment in this country it is not illegal to teach superstitious nonsense to children and lie to them by calling it "science".

I have no objection whatever to creationism being taught in its place - religious studies classes. It is when the superstitious demand that it takes equal billing with science that I believe actual, literal abuse of children is being perpetrated.

"That has to be one of the most disgusting and offensive remarks I have ever read on this board or off it."

I'm interested that I've made an impression on you. I'm even more interested that despite my asking you several desperately simple questions, twice, you're still wasting your time on this self-righteous posturing rather than simply answering.

"To be called as bad as a child-rapist simply because I believe in Genesis is an insult beyond description."

I have given my carefully considered and logically argued reasons for making what I believe to be a valid comparison. I'm fascinated to see that you have decided not to argue with that comparison, merely to be insulted by it. If you consider my comparison of creationists with paedophiles to be inaccurate or invalid, then please, explain why.

If you can't... well, then I know how YOU sleep at night. Ignorance is bliss, so they say.

H.