Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
However, multiple lines of evidence point to Creation being old. We are not talking about a just a miracle but a miracle constructed in a way that intentionally hides it from later observers. Why would God create geological layers with fossils arranged like they are? Why would He create photons in a pattern that showed galaxies that billions of lightyears away?
Everyone knows that the layers were deposited during the flood....God hid nothing from us.
The geological record fits perfectly with the old earth model. It shows no evidence for a global flood. If there was a Flood, God would have had to miraculously arranged the sediments to make it look like it never happened.
Sure are a lot of scientific theories being tossed about here. I would only remind you all that they are that indeed: THEORIES. None of them are TRUTHS. For every theory developed ten are abandoned, unless to do so would irretrievably shake a worldview. Creationists come under such ferocious fire these days, when they are only doing the same thing evolutionists have been doing for decades: interpreting the evidence according to their worldview. In the creationist's case, that worldview is informed by the Word of God. In the evolutionist's case it is a belief that man is good and is naturally evolving into even greater goodness - which conflicts with God's Word from beginning to end. I have no explanation for "theistic" evolutionists unless it is to say they'll go with anything that won't get them into trouble with the World. I for one, could give a fig about the World's opinion. The World hated Christ, I'm honored to be hated by the World as well.
Science is largely independent of worldview because it requires theories to make predictions. If theory A predicts X and theory B predicts Y, one can conclusively decide between A and B by looking to see if X is true or Y is true. The politcal/religious/social/etc orientation of the observer will not change reality.
I hope no one is under the impression that any of this is anything other than human opinion! Science has not falsified anything. The statement that a young earth and a global flood have been falsified beyond a reasonable doubt is nothing more than opinion; one that I do not share. In my opinion, and many others, young earth and global flood theories haven't been falsified any more than the theory of common descent and evolution and origin of species through random mutation and natural selection have in your mind. Science is merely a search, a way of thinking, not a conclusion in and of itself. I choose to believe that God created the earth in 6 days and that man was created out of the hand of God, not evolving from the lower life forms that man was given dominion over just as is written in Genesis. That is a theological statement that is nether proven nor falsified by science. Science, in fact, cannot even touch that faith issue.
LewisWildermuth - I do not see the earth as old, I see it as having been dramatically altered in just such a way as a catastrophic Flood would have altered it. Do you propose to know the Truth of what happened in the beginning without the slightest shadow of doubt? What if you find in the end that things happened just as recorded in Genesis? If I need to face God in error, I'd just as soon err on the side of simple faith, unburdened by convictions born from the intellect of man.
I am not in any YEC "movement" I am simply a Christian who takes God at His Word as the Spirit leads me in the study of it. My rejection of evolution is not a result of studying science, it is the result of studying the Word. But I have seen numerous souls lost to evolutionary teaching brought back to belief in God by Creation ministries. Exactly how do you see danger in that?
Notto, I know that those teachers that make such professions are not teaching science, but that does not alter the fact that such professions are being made.
You are free to believe whatever you want, just don't call it science and try to get it into the classroom. Mainstream science is based on repeatability of observations, peer review, and consensus of scientists world wide. It is not based on Faith.
A challenge was posted on these boards to find a single scientist who believes that the earth is young based on the scientific evidence alone. Not a single one could be found.
Evolution is accepted worldwide as the explaination for the world as we see it. It is accepted by scientists of all religious backgrounds. It is supported by numerous independent lines of evidence. It is beneficial in describing evidence and making predictions in the realm of biology. It is a scientific theory just like gravity or relativity or plate techtonics.
If someone didn't believe the theory of gravity because of their religious views it would not change the theory or the evidence that supports it one bit. It would just seem silly.
I hope no one is under the impression that any of this is anything other than human opinion! Science has not falsified anything. The statement that a young earth and a global flood have been falsified beyond a reasonable doubt is nothing more than opinion.
not really; true statements cannot have false consequences.
__________________ MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
What I'm saying is that science pretty much has already tested the possibility. What tells you that it has to be a supernatural event? If science hasn't already tested the theory why are you so adamant that it was a miracle? And no the definition of resurrection isn't of a supernatural event in fact all it means is the rising of the dead, or comeing back to life. The reason why we think of it as a miracle or supernatural event is because we know it is proven that that is an impossiblity.
well okay, if you want to put it that way:
it is an impossibility* based on current evidence that a dead person would come back to life through natural processes. ace, we have now discounted natural processes.
God is a supernatural entity, God can do things that are not natural, he is supernatural. God Brings Jesus back to life (or Jesus just comes back to life since he is God...) a supernatural process.
so we have discounted a natural process, but not the supernatural one. the whole point I make here, is that science cannot cope with supernatural phenomenon, so there is no point trying to analyse supernatural phenomenon with science.
* well impossiblity assuming he was clinically dead, he might not have been, just in a coma, but this is beside the point, though it does provide a potential naturalistic explanation.
__________________ MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
In the creationist's case, that worldview is informed by the Word of God. In the evolutionist's case it is a belief that man is good and is naturally evolving into even greater goodness - which conflicts with God's Word from beginning to end.
no, you got the evolutionists world view completely wrong, and tempered it with a little evolution=atheism, which it doesn't.
__________________ MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
Fragment of Dreams – You oversimplify science. If it were as simple as examining X and Y in order to determine whether A or B were true we could all simply kick back and leave it to a supercomputer to end this debate without any human intervention. And the word “predict” is simply a sophisticated replacement for “guess”. No one views reality directly, we can only perceive it. No human thought is free from one’s worldview. You wake up with a worldview in the morning and every thought that passes through your mind throughout the day flows through the filter of that worldview. Throughout scientific work there are gaps in data that must be bridged by informed guesswork – and no matter how “informed” that guesswork is, it is remains GUESSWORK. It is during the construction of those bridges that worldview inserts itself. With macroevolution there is a TREMENDOUS gap of “billions of years” that precedes even the earliest observations. I would also point out, in relation to another of your posts that the “geological record” is not a physical construct; it is simply a theoretical framework. Nowhere on earth will you find a contiguous representation of the model. Also – creation science does not posit that there was only one flood; it posits that there was one catastrophic Flood, followed by an entire history of subsequent local flooding.
Notto – Yes, thank you, I am free to believe whatever I want, but I would request that you please not put words into my mouth that were never spoken. I have NEVER advocated the teaching of special creation in the classroom – only that SCIENCE be taught, with evolution presented clearly as THEORY with its flaws and gaps identified, instead of as conclusive, uncontested truth. I believe that is compatible with what you are requesting. God forbid that a public schoolteacher would attempt to instruct my child out of Scripture – that is my duty and right as a parent. As I articulated above to Fragment of Dreams faith most certainly is in the equation of science, not relegated to religion alone. If scientists do not hold faith in the work done by others before them, rather than solely on their own work, they have absolutely no construct on which to build. And when faced with a task, each scientist must choose which theoretical framework on which to build from a veritable smorgasbord of options. Simply because evolution is a popular theory does not transform it into unshakable truth. As an example of this, there is one poster up here that has repetitively lain the dogmatic belief of geocentrism at the door of the Christian Church. This is unfounded. Geocentrism was taught by Aristotle BC and Ptolemy in the 2nd century AD. Copernicus (a creationist) finally postulated a heliocentric theory in the 16th century. Before then, all the world believed the popular geocentric view. But they were wrong. Then Galileo (also a creationist) came along and verified Copernicus’ findings. The mistake that the Roman Catholic Church made at that time was to accept as dogma the belief system of the pagan philosophers as taught by the Aristotelians at the universities (the ancient philosophers were making a popular comeback at the time) who claimed that the geocentric system was taught in Scripture and that Galileo was contradicting the Bible. Galileo paid the price for that mistake. I personally draw a parallel between this earlier mistake and the current one being made within parts of the Church today in regard to macroevolution.
Linear Mode
