RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth.
View related threads:
(in this forum
| in all forums)
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/10/2008 7:42:44 PM
|
|
|
CrimsonMoon
Posts: 24
Joined: 6/17/2005
From: Philadelphia, PA
Status: offline
|
Ok, I have returned with my supporting evidence. Gluadys, if you didn't see it yet, I do have another post up abit that talks about Peter and other stuff.
quote:
ORIGINAL: CrimsonMoon
DAY 1 - EVOLUTION: evolutionishts know that at one point there was nothing, and then "suddenly" there was an explostion of life.
Day 3 - EVOLUTION -- evolutionist know there was a sudden spring of plant life that exploded.
Citation? Where is the evidence that "evolutionists know" this? Where is this stated in a peer-reviewed paper or scientific text? Supporting evidence?
Explosion of Plant Life: The evolution of vasculature was a major event in plant history. Plants with vascular tissue do not appear in the fossil record until approximately 400 million years ago, well after the origin of land plants. After this date there was an explosion of plant life, indicating that vascular tissue is a highly successful adaptation to life on land. -- Penn State, Basic Concepts & Biodiversity
Explosion of Animal Life: Scientists have known for some time that most major groups of complex animals appeared in the fossils record during the Cambrian Explosion, a seemingly rapid evolutionary event. "The Avalon Explosion: Evolution of Ediacara Morphospace,", Jan. 4 issue of Science.
The Cambrian explosion event refers to the sudden appearance of most animal groups in a geologically short time period. "The explosive evolutionary pattern was a concern to Charles Darwin, because he expected that evolution happens at a slow and constant pace," Shuhai Xiao, associate professor of geobiology at Virginia Tech.
Ofcourse, evolutionitsts date this back millions of years, but the fact remains that evolutionists believe in a sudden explosion of both plant and animal life.
quote:
CrimsonMoon said: CREATION: The Bible confirms evoltionists' theory that the universe is expanding -- 19 verses throughuot the Bible (not just Genesis) state this, which explain why we can see starlight from stars that are billions of light years away, as observed by scientists today as the light-waves are being stretched and shifted while the universe continues to expand.
Glaudys said: Incorrect. No verse states this. Some people use anachronistic interpretation to make it appear that this concept is included in the bible. Apparently you are a proponent of anachronistic interpretation. Anachronistic interpretation is a violation of sound hermeneutics.
Here are a few verses that say God stretched out the heavens.
Is 42:5, God, the LORD, created the heaves and stretched them out, He created earth and everything in it.
Is 51:13 Yet you have forgotten the LORD, your Creator, the one who stretched out the sky like a canopy nd laid the foundation of the earth.
Jer 10:12 But God made the earth by His power, and He preserves it by his wisdom, With His understanding he stretched out the heavens.
These verses speak for themselves and I am obviously not interpreting them anachronisticly.
I don’t have to read scientific articles or come up with some formula to grasp the concept that if God says in Exodus that He made the world in six days, and that since He claims that He stretched out the universe, that this is how we see starlight billions of light-years away. That doesn’t take faith, it is rather obvious.
Genesis is not written for scientists, it is written for the everyday man. It is written that even a child could understand, because God wants even a child to understand. Without any outside evidence, other than “starlight is billions of years away” the Bible clearly shows how this is possible, within the boundaries of science, and still in accordance to how God claims to have made the world. I would think He remembers how he did it and knows what He is talking about.
quote:
Gluadys said: You are making a division that Darwin, and evolutionary biologists, do not make. You are saying that a "new species" is something different from one species diverging into a variety of species. In evolutionary biology, this difference does not exist. All modern species are modifications of their ancestral species. When different groups of a species are separated and modified in different ways, you get a variety of modified species.
There is certainly a difference between mirco evolution (all forms of dogs come from an ancestral wolf) and marcro evolution (a fish became a frog that became a wolf). For "evidence", read Darwin's Origins of Species
quote:
CrimsonMoon said: Evoultionists want us to believe we are a mistake, a genetic chance mutation, and that there is no afterlife.
Gluadys said: Not true. Many who accept evolution also believe that we are made by God, and that "we are special, made in His image, for a purpose and [that God]desires us to spend eternity with Him."
I said Evolutionists, not Thiestic Evolutionists. I already assumed you do not want to accept that part of evolution.
Here is more supporting evidence on the lack of supporting evidence for evolution by evolutionists in evolutionists journals, magazines, etc.
“Cosmology is unique in science in that it is a very large intellectual edifice based on a very few facts.”Arp, H. C., G. Burbidge, F. Hoyle, J. V. Narlikar, and N. C. Wickramasinghe, The Extragalactic Universe: An Alternative View,” Nature, vol. 346 (August 30, 1990), pp. 807-812.
“Big Bang cosmology is probably as widely believed as has been any theory of the universe in the history of Western civilization. It rests, however, on many untested, and in some cases untestable, assumptions. Indeed, big bang cosmology has become a bandwagon of thought that reflects faith as much as objective truth.” Burbidge, Geoffrey, “Why Only One Big Bang?” Scientific American (February 1992), p. 120.
“What is a big deal—the biggest deal of all—is how you get something out of nothing. I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar ‘Darwinian’ vocabulary—‘adaptation,’ ‘selection pressure,’ ‘natural selection,’ etc.—thereby believing that they contribute to the explanation of natural events. They do not, and the sooner this is discovered, the sooner we shall be able to make real progress in our understanding of evolution. I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science” Løvtrup, Søren, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (New York: Croom Helm, 1987), 469 pp.and pp. 422
“One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.” Wald, George, “The Origin of Life,” in The Physics and Chemistry of Life (Simon & Schuster, 1955), p. 9
“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.” Crick, Francis, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981, pp 88)
“Precious little in the way of biochemical evolution could have happened on the Earth. It is easy to show that the two thousand or so enzymes that span the whole of life could not have evolved on the Earth. If one counts the number of trial assemblies of amino acids that are needed to give rise to the enzymes, the probability of their discovery by random shufflings turns out to be less than 1 in 10 to the power of 40,000.” Hoyle, Sir Fred, and Chandra Wickramasinghe, “Where Microbes Boldly Went,” New Scientist, vol. 91 (August 13, 1991), p. 415
When asked in 1980, at a conference in Chicago, whether the mechanism underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macro-evolution, (can different varieties of dogs, known as micro evolution, logically be extended to explain macro evolution – a fish turning into a reptile or an ape turning into a human, one of the world’s leading evolutionists, Rodger Lewin answered, “At the risk of doing violence to the position of some of the people in the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.”
No matter what the biology textbook says, evolutionists know and admit that mutation-selection cannot account for evolution. Sir Fred Hoyle, Nobel-prize winner and English astronomer admitted that mutation selection cannot account for evolution. "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.”
On whether or not evolution is well supported by fossil evidence, evolutionist Dr. David Raup writes: “Darwin’s theory of natural selection has always been linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true.”
David B. Kitts, another evolutionist, explains why:"Despite the bright promise that paleontology (the study of fossils) provides a means of ‘seeing’ evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of ‘gaps’ in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them.”
Evolutionists admit that evolution seems impossible and that the chances against it ever happening are great, but they claim that if you have enough TIME, anything is possible: "The odds against the right molecules being in the right place at the right time (to form the first living cell) are staggering. Yet, as science measures it, so is the TIME SCALE on which nature works. Indeed, what seems an impossible occurrence at any one moment would, given untold eons (ages), become a certainty." (National Geographic Magazine, September 1976, page 390).
Huh? What seems as impossible occurrence at any one moment, if given untold eons, becomes a certainty??? Can I have some supporting evidence, please?
If there are so many serious problems with evolution, why is it that most scientists believe it? The famous evolutionist, Professor D. Watson explains that evolution is universally accepted “not because it has been observed to occur or can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative - special creation - is clearly incredible.”
In thier own words, evolutionists believe by faith that evolution is true, because faith in God is not an option.
So, take away the world-wide flood that Genesis and Peter says is true – fossils now need a new explanation, and the right molecules being in the right place at the right time is so unlikely, that we need lots and lots of time for it to by chance happen, so let’s make the earth billions of years old to increase the likelihood of this happening, so that we don’t have to believe in God, because that would take too much faith.
This has been somewhat fun, (except when it gets nasty). Therefore, I have said my peace, and I am leaving this thread becuase you are all my brothers and sisters in Christ (I assume) and I do not wish to fight.
_____________________________
"Be ready always to give a defense to anyone who asks you to account for the hope within you" -- Rabbi Cephus, 63 AD
My Blog: Nightmares and Dreamscapes
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/10/2008 8:13:27 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
#3
If God DID want us to believe in a literal 6 day creation, how could he have clearly worded it so that we understood that? Would this work --There was morning and evening -- the first day?
This is something I hadn't thought of before, but it is a question that I would like answers for from a theistic evolutionist like you Glaudys. IF God DID indeed create the universe in 6 literal days, what would He say in Scriptures that would convince you He did indeed create in 6 literal days? Sadly, I don't believe that there is ANYTHING that God could have put in His words to convince you of 6 literal days because your brain has been washed by evolution. But, I could be wrong, and if so, please tell CrimsonMoon and I what would be necessary for God to state in His Word to convince you you are wrong. He was as plainand declarative in Genesis as He could have possibly been, and I don't see how He could be more clear than that.
There is no problem with God's word.
There are two problems with creationism.
First is the interpretive problem. A literalistic interpretation of scripture is assumed to be the only correct interpretation without ever stating why it is correct. Literalism is treated as the default interpretation---the one to always be used except when there is good reason not to. Furthermore it is claimed that the "good reason" must be found in the text itself--never from something outside the pages of scripture.
Yet, without anything in the text itself, the vast majority of creationists skim over the cosmological texts in scripture as if the literal meaning did not designate a flat earth under a solid firmament holding up the waters above the sky. At the same time they totally ignore clear signals of a non-literal text such as talking snakes and magic trees..
More significantly they never justify why a literalistic reading of scripture must be the default reading. They ignore (or perhaps don't know) that for more than a millennium, the Christian default reading of scripture was an allegorical reading. Interpreters of scripture were expected to find and explain the allegories in scripture.
Personally, I don't think that any reading, literal, allegorical or other, should be given the preference of a default reading. Scripture is too various to allow for any one way of reading its diverse texts.
Furthermore, I do not agree that we are limited to looking at the text of scripture in order to interpret scripture. We need the historical and cultural background of the ancient authors to understand their intent. We must not assume that a way of presenting information that makes sense to us also made sense to them and their listeners.
And we need the testimony of creation as well. Scripture itself insists on this. Creationists always fall back on the testimony of creation to refute geocentrism. Modern creationism also depends on the testimony of creation to support its teaching of "Genesis kinds". Modern creationism accepts modern science as much as most scientists do and go to great lengths to interpret scripture in light of modern science. Note for example, that creationists do not dispute that many stars are millions and billions of light years from the earth. Scripture doesn't say that. If you really depended entirely on scripture you would not need to invent notions like "light in transit" or "decay of the speed of light". You could just say that scripture does not place the stars billions of light-years away from us.
Yet you would fault evolutionary creationists for interpreting scripture in light of the evidence for evolution although in other respects you also interpret scripture in light of scientific knowledge. You are using a double-standard here. We are doing no different than you. We are just harmonizing scripture and science in a different way than you do--one that to us makes more sense of scripture and science.
Which brings me to a second problem: mis-identifying the Word of God solely with scripture. Check the bible through and you will find not one place where a written word is referred to as the Word of God. Even the early Church seldom used the phrase to describe the biblical text. The more usual name given to the bible was "Holy Scriptures" (which simply means "Holy Writings".)
The one thing named in scripture as the Word of God is Jesus of Nazareth, the incarnation of divinity. And in the very place where Jesus is named the Word of God, we are also reminded that this Word is the Word that created everything that exists in nature. "All things came into being through him and without him not one thing came into being." Furthermore, he is also the one for whom all things were made and through whom they continue in being "for in him all things hold together".
Scripture, it is true, is given us by God, not because it is God's Word, but because it reveals God's Word, the Lord Jesus Christ. This was the understanding of Martin Luther.
Creation also, being the work of the Word, reveals the glory of God.
In the grand scheme of things, the revelation of God's Word in scripture can be considered more important, since it is directed toward salvation, while the revelation of God's Word in nature is along the lines of more general knowledge. But though the testimony of creation may be less important than the testimony of scripture IT IS NO LESS TRUE. How can the creator of nature tell us untruth through his creation?
To listen to the whole Word of God i.e. to listen to Jesus Christ, who is creator as well as redeemer, we must listen not only to the revelation of redemption (scripture) but also to the revelation of creation.
Of course, you will say, we have to interpret creation, and we can go wrong in our interpretation. True, but we also have to interpret scripture and we can go wrong in that interpretation too.
I have reasonable assurance that the current scientific interpretations of the age and origin of the universe, the sun and earth and of the process present and past of evolution, while incomplete in places, are not wrong. I have seen no creationist interpretation of the evidence of creation that belies the scientific explanation.
Since this evidence was created by God, and has no other known reasonable explanation, it follows that if I find contradiction between this and God's other revelation-the Holy Scriptures, the fault is not in God nor in what he revealed, but in the fallibility of my understanding.
To you, the statements in Genesis appear to be declarative. But that is not necessarily the case. Nor would any other statement help. As I said, the only way to make plain that these statements are intended to be declarative is to make the physical evidence of creation agree with them. God did not choose to do that. So I take it as God's intention that the statements are not declarative. In this I follow not modernism but an ancient tradition of Jewish and Christian interpretation of scripture to which we find testimony long before evolution became a burning issue.
In fact, in my personal history, it was discovering this tradition that led me to reject literalistic interpretations of scripture several decades before I gave the matter of evolution much thought.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/10/2008 8:50:46 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
He would make the evidence of creation agree with a literal reading of the scripture.
So that means He would have to create the earth young...which also means Adam and Eve would have been created as babies. You have basically put limits on God by implying He can not create the universe with age. How did you put these limits on God? By only accepting a literal interpretation of scripture if the evidence you see agrees with it, which forces God to create the universe w/o age. The evidence you see of which you interpret may not be how God meant for the evidence to be interpreted. Basically, unless your knowledge coincides with a scripture verse, you refuse to take it literally. This is egotistical from a Christian perspective. You have let evolution interpret the Bible, not the other way around. Evolution and knowledge has now become you final authority, not God's Word. That, my friend, is despicable.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/10/2008 9:21:47 PM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 1934
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: CrimsonMoon
CREATION: The Bible confirms evoltionists' theory that the universe is expanding -- 19 verses throughuot the Bible (not just Genesis) state this. God created the stars for light ON the earth. The stars were created above the earth, shining light on the earth, and over the last 6000 years have moved outwards, but the light was already on the earth from the beginning, so as the stars are pulled outwards they get farther away, but obviosuly the light path doesn't just dissapear -- this explains the spectrum of colors observed by sceinteists today as the light-waves are being stretched and shifted while the universe continues to expand.
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
If the stars moved from 'close to' the earth to their present apparent positions in 6000 years, their light would be redshifted far far more than it actually is.
But I think there would be far more difficulty getting all the stars close enough to the earth that the light could reach the earth 'naturally'. So if you're supposing that, say, all the stars were created within a light-day of earth, then it takes a day for the light to get to earth, and then the stars move away once the light reaches earth?
A light day is about 2.6 × 10^13 meters
The radius of the sun is about 7 * 10^8 meters
So if you packed the stars in like sardines, you could get at most about 10^14 sun-sized stars in there, enough for about 1000 galaxies, but there are "as many as 200 billion galaxies in the observable universe"
Not to mention the fact that it would be a trifle warm on earth.
The other alternative is that the stars were created at their current distances (minus 6000 years worth of expansion) with a solid beam of light between the star and earth created in place.
The problem with this idea is that even if those stars started receding on day 1, it'd still be 14.5 Billion years before we actually witnessed the red shift.
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/10/2008 9:37:42 PM
|
|
|
CrimsonMoon
Posts: 24
Joined: 6/17/2005
From: Philadelphia, PA
Status: offline
|
evry1needsgod -- send me an email
_____________________________
"Be ready always to give a defense to anyone who asks you to account for the hope within you" -- Rabbi Cephus, 63 AD
My Blog: Nightmares and Dreamscapes
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/10/2008 9:40:32 PM
|
|
|
CrimsonMoon
Posts: 24
Joined: 6/17/2005
From: Philadelphia, PA
Status: offline
|
Did no one see the scientific evidence I presented at the top of the page or the words of evolutionists on evolution as documented in their evolution magazines and journals?
_____________________________
"Be ready always to give a defense to anyone who asks you to account for the hope within you" -- Rabbi Cephus, 63 AD
My Blog: Nightmares and Dreamscapes
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/10/2008 10:25:29 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
He would make the evidence of creation agree with a literal reading of the scripture.
So that means He would have to create the earth young...which also means Adam and Eve would have been created as babies.
Now, you are inventing stuff. No, he would not have to create Adam and Eve as babies. He would have to create them without navels. He would have to create them without the shortened telomeres on their chromosomes that most adults have due to aging. He would have to create them without ERVs in the same location on their chromosomes as chimpanzees and gorillas. Indeed, they should not have ERVs at all as the only way to get them is to inherit them.
In short, although he would not have to create them as babies, he would have to create them without evidence of age and without features that can only come from inheritance.
quote:
You have basically put limits on God by implying He can not create the universe with age.
The only limit I put on God is one God puts on himself. To be truthful not only in all God says, but also in all God does. God's revelation in words should not contradict God's revelation in works. If God creates the universe with age, I expect the age presented to be the truth, because God is truth. If God really created the earth only 6,000 years ago, the evidence should lead conclusively in that direction. If God created the stars only 6,000 years ago, the evidence should lead conclusively in that direction.
The alternative (generally known as the Omphalos hypothesis) cannot be disproven, but it has been consistently rejected by Christians as incompatible with the truthfulness of God. For what reason would you propose it now?
quote:
By only accepting a literal interpretation of scripture if the evidence you see agrees with it,
It is not just a matter of seeing evidence. I am not unmindful of the fact that we can misconstrue evidence and come to erroneous conclusions. But when every attempt to falsify the suggested explanation of the evidence has come to naught, and when the suggested explanation consistently makes accurate predictions about more evidence--indicating that it is a fairly accurate model of reality----well, reality comes from God, so we have to take it seriously.
quote:
The evidence you see of which you interpret may not be how God meant for the evidence to be interpreted.
The God who gave us Holy Scripture also gave us created reality. If they are not compatible, either our interpretation is wrong or God lied in one of them. Take your pick. As for me, I have less confidence in my interpretations than I do in God's truthfulness.
quote:
Basically, unless your knowledge
It is not a matter of my personal knowledge, but of knowledge which I know has been examined by many others with more expertise and subjected to testing that I wouldn't even think of. It is knowledge that has won the consensus of 99% of those who have the best qualifications to judge it. I have no less reason to accept their consensus on biology than to accept the verdict of three or more dentists on whether I need my teeth fixed and how. No less reason to accept their consensus than the independent consensus of several mechanics on what is wrong with my car.
It is also not just a matter of what scientists tell us about the created world either. Christian theologians, scholars, experts in Hebrew and Greek, historians, archeologists, people who know how to read cuneiform and hieroglyphics, linguists and teachers of literature have also scrutinized the Bible as no other book has ever been scrutinized. They too have developed a theological picture of scripture. And I have no reason to reject the conclusions they have come to.
In fact, as I said earlier, this weighs more with me than the science for I am not a basically science-oriented person. My background is the study of literature. I understand words much better than I do things (and immensely better than I do numbers--at math I can be a real dunce.). I understand the way literature works. And for me, the bible very clearly works as literature, but it simply does not work as science.
I expect too that this background gives me a high measure of respect for literature. I cringe when people speak of literature as "merely" a story. Have they never heard that the pen is mightier than the sword? Jesus told stories and it got him crucified. Our God is a story-telling God, because stories are truthful in a very powerful way.
Science can give us facts, but stories give us meaning. And that is why we need scripture in addition to creation. But we don't need a scripture that disagrees with creation. That would be a lying scripture and God does not lie. (Or if he does he is not worthy of worship.)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/10/2008 11:15:27 PM
|
|
|
CrimsonMoon
Posts: 24
Joined: 6/17/2005
From: Philadelphia, PA
Status: offline
|
I know, I said I wasn't coming back, but I have been doing research on this for my own personal study the last couple hours, and I just had a thought?
If Peter was NOT referring to evolution, then what was he talking about when he warned the church that in the last days people will "deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water [and that] by these waters the world of that time was deluged and destroyed." (2 Peter 3:5-6).
_____________________________
"Be ready always to give a defense to anyone who asks you to account for the hope within you" -- Rabbi Cephus, 63 AD
My Blog: Nightmares and Dreamscapes
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/10/2008 11:41:04 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 864
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
Does scripture tell us why all meteors have nuclide ratios consistent with 4.5 billion years of radioactive decay? Why there are galaxies billions of light years away? Does it describe the cosmic microwave background?
Sure does! In Genesis 1 it says "In the beginning, God created..." Boy, whoda thunk it?! God actually DOES talk about these things! What an amazing God we have!
No mention of meteors, etc.
quote:
quote:
Did God lay down the speed of light, the strong and weak forces which control radioactive decay, the cosmic microwave background, etc.?
Already covered this. Quite a simple answer. See above...
Not a simple answer. We observe constant laws, one of which is a constant speed of light. We see galaxies at such a distance that it would require that light to travel for billions of years. What other conclusion is there to draw other than a universe that is billions of years old?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/10/2008 11:47:10 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 864
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
He would make the evidence of creation agree with a literal reading of the scripture.
So that means He would have to create the earth young...which also means Adam and Eve would have been created as babies.
Would God have created Adam with scars from injuries that he never suffered? What geologists and astronomers observe is a billion year HISTORY. We observe supernovae exploding hundreds of thousands of light years away. According to you the star that went supernova never existed. Is this how we are to look at the sky, as a sky filled with stars that never existed?
quote:
You have basically put limits on God by implying He can not create the universe with age.
An omnipotent deity could have created the universe last Thursday and implanted us all with fake memories. If the universe and earth are 6,000 years old then we have the same situation, a universe with a fake history.
quote:
The evidence you see of which you interpret may not be how God meant for the evidence to be interpreted.
Surely God would have known how it would be interpretted, wouldn't He?
quote:
Basically, unless your knowledge coincides with a scripture verse, you refuse to take it literally. This is egotistical from a Christian perspective. You have let evolution interpret the Bible, not the other way around. Evolution and knowledge has now become you final authority, not God's Word. That, my friend, is despicable.
Evolution has nothing to do with the dating of the Earth and the Universe.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/11/2008 12:05:09 AM
|
|
|
CrimsonMoon
Posts: 24
Joined: 6/17/2005
From: Philadelphia, PA
Status: offline
|
Am I being ignored?
_____________________________
"Be ready always to give a defense to anyone who asks you to account for the hope within you" -- Rabbi Cephus, 63 AD
My Blog: Nightmares and Dreamscapes
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/11/2008 12:05:54 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: CrimsonMoon
Ok, I have returned with my supporting evidence. Gluadys, if you didn't see it yet, I do have another post up abit that talks about Peter and other stuff.
quote:
ORIGINAL: CrimsonMoon
DAY 1 - EVOLUTION: evolutionishts know that at one point there was nothing, and then "suddenly" there was an explostion of life.
Day 3 - EVOLUTION -- evolutionist know there was a sudden spring of plant life that exploded.
Citation? Where is the evidence that "evolutionists know" this? Where is this stated in a peer-reviewed paper or scientific text? Supporting evidence?
Explosion of Plant Life: The evolution of vasculature was a major event in plant history. Plants with vascular tissue do not appear in the fossil record until approximately 400 million years ago, well after the origin of land plants. After this date there was an explosion of plant life, indicating that vascular tissue is a highly successful adaptation to life on land. -- Penn State, Basic Concepts & Biodiversity
Your statement was that there was "a sudden spring of plant life that exploded". The text does not refer to such an event. It refers to the relatively rapid appearance and spread of vascular plant life. And as your citation states, this occurred "well after the origin of land plants".
Plants were around a long time before they developed vascularity. There is nothing contrary to evolution in seeing an advantageous new trait spread rapidly.
quote:
Explosion of Animal Life: Scientists have known for some time that most major groups of complex animals appeared in the fossils record during the Cambrian Explosion, a seemingly rapid evolutionary event. "The Avalon Explosion: Evolution of Ediacara Morphospace,", Jan. 4 issue of Science.
Quote mine. You should have done a check on "avalon explosion" and "edicara". These are giveaways that the article is about animals that existed long before the Cambrian explosion and which show that the Cambrian explosion had a more gradual build-up than a first inspection of the fossil record would indicate.
It is now widely recognized that what made fossils much more abundant in the Cambrian was the development of easily preserved shells.
quote:
The Cambrian explosion event refers to the sudden appearance of most animal groups in a geologically short time period. "The explosive evolutionary pattern was a concern to Charles Darwin, because he expected that evolution happens at a slow and constant pace," Shuhai Xiao, associate professor of geobiology at Virginia Tech.
Quote mine. This is the sort of sentence that typically appears near the beginning of a scientific paper where the problem is set out. What you need to do is look at the conclusion of the paper where the problem is addressed.
quote:
CrimsonMoon said: CREATION: The Bible confirms evoltionists' theory that the universe is expanding -- 19 verses throughuot the Bible (not just Genesis) state this, which explain why we can see starlight from stars that are billions of light years away, as observed by scientists today as the light-waves are being stretched and shifted while the universe continues to expand.
Glaudys said: Incorrect. No verse states this. Some people use anachronistic interpretation to make it appear that this concept is included in the bible. Apparently you are a proponent of anachronistic interpretation. Anachronistic interpretation is a violation of sound hermeneutics.
Here are a few verses that say God stretched out the heavens.
I am familiar with the verses. But the verses do not say that "stretching out the heavens" is "expanding the universe". Nor would anyone even think the writers intended to say that unless they accepted the modern scientific theory of the Big Bang origin of the universe.
Is 51:13 Yet you have forgotten the LORD, your Creator, the one who stretched out the sky like a canopy nd laid the foundation of the earth.
A canopy does not expand. It can be folded up and unfolded again but once stretched out it does not continue to expand as the universe is continuing to expand. Furthermore, a canopy is stretched out over a stable foundation, just as Isaiah says. In another verse, Isaiah speaks of the heavens being stretched out like the curtains of a tent for people to live in.
This is the image clearly intended by the writers: a canopy, curtain or tent--in some cases a vault or dome--spread out over a foundation or piece of land. Not at all an expanding universe.
The latter idea comes only from modern science and can only be placed in scripture retroactively.
Strange that people who are willing to put the Big Bang into scripture are opposed to putting evolution into scripture. You would think they would go nicely together.
But neither the Big Bang, nor evolution, nor any other modern scientific idea (atoms, germs, tectonic plates) are found in scripture. Scripture, insofar as it references science at all, references the scientific understanding of the time in which it was written.
quote:
I don’t have to read scientific articles or come up with some formula to grasp the concept that if God says in Exodus that He made the world in six days, and that since He claims that He stretched out the universe, that this is how we see starlight billions of light-years away. That doesn’t take faith, it is rather obvious.
Yes you do, for without the scientific articles (or news accounts of them or school texts referring to them) you would have no idea the stars were that far away and light was travelling that far.
quote:
Genesis is not written for scientists, it is written for the everyday man. It is written that even a child could understand, because God wants even a child to understand. Without any outside evidence, other than “starlight is billions of years away” the Bible clearly shows how this is possible, within the boundaries of science, and still in accordance to how God claims to have made the world. I would think He remembers how he did it and knows what He is talking about.
Well no child, no everyday man, not even the most learned of biblical scholars understood the bible to be saying any such thing until scientists measured the distance to the stars AND confirmed the expansion of the universe.
This is anachronistically reading modern science into scripture (yet Christians who accept evolution are faulted for supposedly doing the same thing.)
quote:
There is certainly a difference between mirco evolution (all forms of dogs come from an ancestral wolf) and marcro evolution (a fish became a frog that became a wolf). For "evidence", read Darwin's Origins of Species
I have read Darwin's Origin of Species, more than once. (Not as often as the Bible, though). No, there is no difference. The problem is that you are incorrectly describing macro-evolution. Your sequence should read that a fish became a tetrapod and speciated into a variety of tetrapods, one of which became an amniote (a different one became a frog, so the frog is not in this sequence at all). The amniote tribe also developed several subgroups, one of which became a mammal. And of several mammalian varieties, one became a placental mammal and one of these became a carnivore and one of these became a canid from which developed a wolf.
Each step in this sequence follows exactly the same pattern as all dogs coming from an ancestral wolf. The process is the same whether it is all dogs coming from an ancestral wolf or all carnivores coming from an ancestral mammal or any other of the transitions named.
quote:
CrimsonMoon said: Evoultionists want us to believe we are a mistake, a genetic chance mutation, and that there is no afterlife.
Gluadys said: Not true. Many who accept evolution also believe that we are made by God, and that "we are special, made in His image, for a purpose and [that God]desires us to spend eternity with Him."
I said Evolutionists, not Thiestic Evolutionists.
No difference as far as evolution is concerned. There is only one scientific theory of evolution and that is the one theistic evolutionists (we prefer the name "evolutionary creationists") subscribe to. If there are people who want you to believe we are a mistake, a genetic chance formation and that there is no afterlife "evolutionist" is the wrong term by which to describe them. You might call them "fortunists" since they seem to worship the goddess Fortuna, or fatalists since they think we are pawns of fate. Whatever, their beliefs have nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
quote:
I already assumed you do not want to accept that part of evolution.
There is no such part of evolution.
quote:
Here is more supporting evidence on the lack of supporting evidence for evolution by evolutionists in evolutionists journals, magazines, etc.
I see you are a very diligent quote miner. Too bad you don't read more of these in their original context so you can see what the authors were actually getting at.
quote:
“Cosmology is unique in science in that it is a very large intellectual edifice based on a very few facts.”Arp, H. C., G. Burbidge, F. Hoyle, J. V. Narlikar, and N. C. Wickramasinghe, The Extragalactic Universe: An Alternative View,” Nature, vol. 346 (August 30, 1990), pp. 807-812.
Cosmology does not fall within the field of evolution.
quote:
“Big Bang cosmology is probably as widely believed as has been any theory of the universe in the history of Western civilization. It rests, however, on many untested, and in some cases untestable, assumptions. Indeed, big bang cosmology has become a bandwagon of thought that reflects faith as much as objective truth.” Burbidge, Geoffrey, “Why Only One Big Bang?” Scientific American (February 1992), p. 120.
Cosmology does not fall within the field of evolution. Big Bang theory is not part of the theory of evolution.
quote:
“What is a big deal—the biggest deal of all—is how you get something out of nothing. I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar ‘Darwinian’ vocabulary—‘adaptation,’ ‘selection pressure,’ ‘natural selection,’ etc.—thereby believing that they contribute to the explanation of natural events. They do not, and the sooner this is discovered, the sooner we shall be able to make real progress in our understanding of evolution. I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science” Løvtrup, Søren, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (New York: Croom Helm, 1987), 469 pp.and pp. 422
No biologist claims that life developed out of nothing and if Lovtrup Soren thinks this is part of the theory of evolution, he has a lot of learning to do before he has any right to sound off about it.
OTOH, it is Christian doctrine that the universe was created out of nothing. So it sounds like Mr. Soren is no friend of Christians either.
quote:
“One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.” Wald, George, “The Origin of Life,” in The Physics and Chemistry of Life (Simon & Schuster, 1955), p. 9
An unfortunate (and outdated--1955--) conflation of spontaneous generation with abiogenesis. Evolutionary biologists agree that spontaneous generation does not occur.
Also, the origin of life is not part of the theory of evolution.
quote:
“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.” Crick, Francis, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981, pp 88)
The origin of life is not part of the theory of evolution.
quote:
“Precious little in the way of biochemical evolution could have happened on the Earth. It is easy to show that the two thousand or so enzymes that span the whole of life could not have evolved on the Earth. If one counts the number of trial assemblies of amino acids that are needed to give rise to the enzymes, the probability of their discovery by random shufflings turns out to be less than 1 in 10 to the power of 40,000.” Hoyle, Sir Fred, and Chandra Wickramasinghe, “Where Microbes Boldly Went,” New Scientist, vol. 91 (August 13, 1991), p. 415
Hoyle and Wickramasinghe promote a hypothesis of panspermia--namely that the seeds of life emerge naturally (not created in any way) throughout the universe. Hoyle is a staunch atheist who opposed Big Bang theory because it sounded too creationist. Both are physicists, not biologists and are excellent exemplars of the adage that there is no one as dumb as an expert speaking of something he is not an expert on. Hoyle displays an abysmal ignorance of biology and evolution. Furthermore, his dedication to panspermia gives him a vested interest in undermining any notion that life could have originated on earth, whether by a creator or any other means.
quote:
When asked in 1980, at a conference in Chicago, whether the mechanism underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macro-evolution, (can different varieties of dogs, known as micro evolution, logically be extended to explain macro evolution – a fish turning into a reptile or an ape turning into a human, one of the world’s leading evolutionists, Rodger Lewin answered, “At the risk of doing violence to the position of some of the people in the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.”
This is case where you really really need to see the citation in context. You have no idea what Lewin is really referring to. (This was part of the neo-Darwinian/puntuated equilibrium controversy that turned out to be mostly a tempest in a teapot driven more by the strong personalities of the chief proponents of each school than by significant differences in theory. Furthermore, both camps fully accepted evolution.)
quote:
No matter what the biology textbook says, evolutionists know and admit that mutation-selection cannot account for evolution. Sir Fred Hoyle, Nobel-prize winner and English astronomer admitted that mutation selection cannot account for evolution. "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.”
Hoyle should have studied more biology. He was not a biologist, remember. His notions of evolution were very rudimentary and incorrect.
quote:
On whether or not evolution is well supported by fossil evidence, evolutionist Dr. David Raup writes: “Darwin’s theory of natural selection has always been linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true.”
Wow. You don't even know what you are reading here. Actually, even Richard Dawkins agrees it is not the case that fossils are an important part of the evidence for evolution. In The Ancestor's Tale, he says that the evidence in favor of evolution is so abundant and so sound we could be sure of evolution even if we had no fossil record at all. Darwin did not count the fossil record as a strong support of evolution. But he did count geographic dispersal as a very strong support of evolution.
Note that Raup is not saying that fossil evidence does not support evolution. He says that "most people assume" that the fossil record is very important. It is that assumption that is not strictly true. Not false---but not strictly true in that the fossil record is not as important as most people assume.
quote:
David B. Kitts, another evolutionist, explains why:"Despite the bright promise that paleontology (the study of fossils) provides a means of ‘seeing’ evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of ‘gaps’ in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them.”
The key term here is "species". Evolution does provide many transitional forms above the level of species. Almost all major transitions (on the level of class, order and many families) are accounted for. But few transitions at the level of genus and fewer still at the level of species. I don't know without checking whether Kitts was promoting the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium or not. But that hypothesis deals specifically with the lack of transitional forms at species level. Note that it never suggested that evolution was false.
quote:
Evolutionists admit that evolution seems impossible and that the chances against it ever happening are great, but they claim that if you have enough TIME, anything is possible: "The odds against the right molecules being in the right place at the right time (to form the first living cell) are staggering. Yet, as science measures it, so is the TIME SCALE on which nature works. Indeed, what seems an impossible occurrence at any one moment would, given untold eons (ages), become a certainty." (National Geographic Magazine, September 1976, page 390).
The origin of life is not part of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution assumes already existing life.
quote:
If there are so many serious problems with evolution, why is it that most scientists believe it? The famous evolutionist, Professor D. Watson explains that evolution is universally accepted “not because it has been observed to occur or can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative - special creation - is clearly incredible.”
In thier own words, evolutionists believe by faith that evolution is true, because faith in God is not an option.
That is not what Dr. Watson said. He said "special creation" is incredible. Many people who believe in God would agree with him. It is not God that is not an option. It is a hypothesis about how God created that is not an option. btw most creationists also now agree with Dr. Watson. They no longer support the hypothesis of special creation of every species as their forefathers in the 19th century did. Now they only promote the special creation of a few kinds and agree that most species evolved from those kinds. I believe Dr.Watson's statement is an old one that refers to the earlier creationist position.
quote:
So, take away the world-wide flood that Genesis and Peter says is true – fossils now need a new explanation, and the right molecules being in the right place at the right time is so unlikely, that we need lots and lots of time for it to by chance happen, so let’s make the earth billions of years old to increase the likelihood of this happening, so that we don’t have to believe in God, because that would take too much faith.
Oh, let's leave the flood for a different thread. That is geology, not biology. Btw it was Christian geologists who proved the flood was not global and certainly not responsible for most of the geological column. This was known before Darwin graduated from college. That is why 19th century anti-Darwinists were mostly what we would call old-earth creationists.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/11/2008 8:48:58 AM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
evry1needsgod,
quote:
Evolution is the culprit of relativity and post-modernism that has crept into well-intended Christian minds.
I don't think evolution is very post-modern. On the contrary, it seems to be an example of logical positivism. However, I think you have a good point -- just need to talk it out more. The TOE, perhaps, might be used by some to justify the relativistic goal of making of everyone "an island" -- really, as an outgrowth of positivism itself -- positivism, which is inspired by the Enlightenmient (modernism), leading to solipsism as its reductio ad absurdum -- that is, the denial of anything meaningful which can be communicated between individuals? See also, "Possiblity of an Island" by Michel Houellebecq if you feel like confronting the full heights of cynicism that post-modernism, combined with modernistic hubris and technology, might lead. But who wants to be cycnical?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/11/2008 8:55:51 AM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
"deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water [and that] by these waters the world of that time was deluged and destroyed." (2 Peter 3:5-6).
Interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/11/2008 9:19:26 AM
|
|
|
Carico
Posts: 531
Joined: 8/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: hellohellohi
evry1needsgod,
quote:
Evolution is the culprit of relativity and post-modernism that has crept into well-intended Christian minds.
I don't think evolution is very post-modern. On the contrary, it seems to be an example of logical positivism. However, I think you have a good point -- just need to talk it out more. The TOE, perhaps, might be used by some to justify the relativistic goal of making of everyone "an island" -- really, as an outgrowth of positivism itself -- positivism, which is inspired by the Enlightenmient (modernism), leading to solipsism as its reductio ad absurdum -- that is, the denial of anything meaningful which can be communicated between individuals? See also, "Possiblity of an Island" by Michel Houellebecq if you feel like confronting the full heights of cynicism that post-modernism, combined with modernistic hubris and technology, might lead. But who wants to be cycnical?
There's nothing logical about apes turning into people because it doesn't happen in reality. Such things can only happen in the imaginations of men. So evolution is an imaginary belief.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/11/2008 9:36:43 AM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
Logical positivism doesn't necessarily entail "logic." It's just the name that proponents of the movement gave it. It just has to do with the idea of developing an understanding of the world (perhaps even a philosophy) based on observation. I think it has all the possibilities of being a fallacy, really, but we would need to discuss it in depth in order to satisfactorily make such a claim. I am only passingly familiar with the idea.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/11/2008 10:02:57 AM
|
|
|
CrimsonMoon
Posts: 24
Joined: 6/17/2005
From: Philadelphia, PA
Status: offline
|
#1 Wow, I didn't realize this was a Thou Shalt Not Talk About Cosmology thread. The person who asked the original question asked for sceintific evidence of God Creating the wrold -- which INLCUDES Cosmology (and geology and astronomy) not just biology.
#2 - The original question asked me to do it without scripture. Scripture is my forte, whereas biology seems to be your forte, Gluadys. So in this thread, if you take away my area of "expertise" and pit me against you, I am at an unfair disadvantage to begin with. Then you tell me, I can't even talk about cosmology or geology in the discussion -- um, hello, I am a creationist remember:
Day 1 - Cosmology
Day 2 - Cosmology
Day 3 - Biology (of plants)
Day 4 - Cosmology
Day 5 - Biology
Day 6 - Biology
And the Fossils (geology) are the #1 "proof" of evolution -- and the #1 "proof" outside scripture of a world-wide flood. I don't care what other Christians said back before Darwin graduated, GOD SAID HE DESTROYED THE WHOLE thing.
If God DID want us to believe that the flood destroyed the whole world, how could he have clearly worded it in a way we would understood? Would this work? -- "I have decided to destroy all living things, for they have filled the earth with violence. (6:13) Look! I am about to cover the earth with a flood that will destroy every living thing that breathes. Everything on earth will die. (6:17) It will rain for forty days and forty nights, until I have wiped from the earth all the living things I have created. (7:4) What if He described it as, "Finally the water covered even the highest mountain on the earth,, rising more than twenty-tow feet above the highest peaks. (7:20) All the living things on the earth died. Everything that breathed and lived on dry land died. God wiped out every living thing on the earth. All were destroyed(7:21-24)."
But I know, I am not suppossed to talk about the flood. And I am not suppossed to use scripture.
God did not create moss (non-vascular plants) and then a billion years later, decide to create ferns (vascular plants). He created all at the same time -- and scientific evidence shows an explosion of this as I cited earlier. AND evolutionists admit that the fossil record does not contain evidence that non-vascular platns were first.
"they [non-vascular plants] do not seem to be the ancestors of the vascular plants [Tracheata] or of the hornworts or liverworts." And again, "no intermediate fossils have been found … . Chloroplast DNA comparisons suggest that psilophytes’ closest relatives are non-lycophyte vascular plants such as ferns … [but the] chemical evidence … fails to support a strong evolutionary relation between the psilophytes and the ferns … . Ancestral groups for psilophytes … are unknown at present". Margulis L. and Schwartz K.V., Five Kingdoms: An Illustrated Guide to the Phyla of Life on Earth, 3rd ed., Freeman, New York, 1998.
So, evem more evidence that vascular did not evolve from non-vascular. Which brings us back to the point -- there is sceintific evidence that evolutionists believe in a sudden explosion of plants.
Since you can't claim this is outdated, I suppose you will come up with a reason why this is either out of context or why these evolutionists don't know what they are talking about as you accused evolutionist Løvtrup, Søren and the Nobel-prize winner, Sir Fred Hoyle
quote:
Glaudys said: Incorrect. No verse states this. Some people use anachronistic interpretation to make it appear that this concept is included in the bible. Apparently you are a proponent of anachronistic interpretation. Anachronistic interpretation is a violation of sound hermeneutics.
CrimsonMoon said: Here are a few verses that say God stretched out the heavens.
Gluadys: I | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
