In reference to God creating an earth made with apparent age,

[RickG]

I know who created the earth and the universe personally.

I am not questioning who created the earth and the universe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It wasn't meant to support my POV, because my POV, is creation. It was meant to show that the scientific community itself can't even agree on everything that you and others here say is solid evidence and accurate processes. All your claims here apparently are more filled with bravado than any actual understanding.

People here are willing to help you to learn. Creating nonsensical posts and running away from defending them is not a winning debate technique.

 

[RickG]

It wasn't meant to support my POV, because my POV, is creation. It was meant to show that the scientific community itself can't even agree on everything that you and others here say is solid evidence and accurate processes. All your claims here apparently are more filled with bravado than any actual understanding.

In support of a specific scientific concept there is what is called a consensus. This consensus is not based on opinions of the scientists. It is based on what the majority of research shows it to be. As for scientists can't agree, then what about the more than 30,000 independent Christian denominations.

 

[StanJ]

I am not questioning who created the earth and the universe.

Well actually you are if you're accepting evolution.

 

[RickG]

Well actually you are if you're accepting evolution.

This thread is not about evolution. Stop changing the subject of the topic.

 

[StanJ]

In support of a specific scientific concept there is what is called a consensus. This consensus is not based on opinions of the scientists. It is based on what the majority of research shows it to be. As for scientists can't agree, then what about the more than 30,000 independent Christian denominations.

They pretty much all agree on the basics but as we are social beings most denominations are independent because of that issue not because they don't agree on the basics. Sadly there is a Great Divide between 3 or 4 major sectors in Christianity and they are part of the reason why places like this exist.

 

[StanJ]

This thread is not about evolution. Stop changing the subject of the topic.

Then why does it keep on getting brought up? There are people that believe in an old Earth concept but don't believe in evolution?
In any event the main subforum is Creation and Evolution, so if this has nothing to do with Evolution then why is it in this sub forum?

 

[RickG]

They pretty much all agree on the basics but as we are social beings most denominations are independent because of that issue not because they don't agree on the basics. Sadly there is a Great Divide between 3 or 4 major sectors in Christianity and they are part of the reason why places like this exist.

And the same with science. The over all concepts are agreed upon, however, there can be disagreements with the specifics.

 

[RickG]

Then why does it keep on getting brought up? There are people that believe in an old Earth concept but don't believe in evolution?
In any event the main subforum is Creation and Evolution, so if this has nothing to do with Evolution then why is it in this sub forum?

Review the topic of the thread. If you want to discuss evolution, participate in one of the evolution threads. But regardless of Creation of Evolution, the over all discussion is science.

 

[Hoghead1]

Why would that be? So people who have a lot more education than I have in evolution won't look so bad when I prove them wrong?

Good luck, if you think you can approve them wrong. Incredible claims require incredible evidence. So I sure hope you have an incredible case ready.

 

[Hoghead1]

I think you're showing your fear now, but here is what one Nobel Prize Laureate said;

“Only one theory has been advanced to make an attempt to understand the development of life – the Darwin-Wallace theory of evolution. And a very feeble attempt it is, based on such flimsy assumptions, mainly of morphological-anatomical nature that it can hardly be called a theory.”

Nobel Laureate Ernst Boris Chain (1906-1979), winner of the 1945 Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology
(Chain, as cited in The Life of Ernst Chain: Penicillin and Beyond, by Ronald W. Clark, London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1985, p. 147.)

 

[Hoghead1]

Yes, but Chain is speaking here for Chain, not for the rest of the scientific community.

 

[lesliedellow]

Well actually you are if you're accepting evolution.

Nope.

 

[Hoghead1]

I don't know what it's fully entails but it basically eliminates got out of the process of creation based on Genesis 1 and that is all the gripe I need.
As far as the theory is concerned it cannot be observed from the beginning and despite the fact that some experiments have been observed they still haven't confirmed the theory, unlike The Germ Theory which really has not been a theory for many many years.

"Eliminates got out of teh picture/" You mean God, don't you? And no, evolution does not necessarily rule out God.

 

[Hoghead1]

That's exactly my point... Why is it still a germ Theory when it's been proven, and why is evolution considered factual when it is still called a theory and hasn't been proven?

In science, the label "theory" is applied to any two or more assumptions linked together. Whether it is proven or not, it is still called a theory. The reason why evolution is central in science is that it is probably one of the best-supported theories in modern science. If you took the time to study the literature , you would see there are mountains of evidence behind it.

 

[Hoghead1]

Quite convenient for the scientists that formulated their own theories. Maybe those of you who push evolution and take a tip from Albert Einstein, when he wrote; "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

Why pursue and believe in something that can never be proven right? There are just so many inconsistencies in this area.

Why try and invalidate something that has mountains of evidence behind it?

 

[Hoghead1]

Well then that probably explain why mathematics have been able to refute evolution.

I guess it also explains why it is never been directly observed from its beginning and cannot be falsified. It's far too inexact.

Did you directly observe God creating in six days? Yes, evolution entails some read degree of speculation, but the same is every more so true of those who hold with a literal interpretation of genesis.

 

[Hoghead1]

Let me get this straight you're a calvinist who doesn't believe in the accuracy and literalness of Genesis 1? That must be some cognitive dissonance you're working with there?

You should read Calvin's commentary on Genesis. He says that God did not intend Scripture to give us an astronomy lesson. God did not intend Scripture to be a book of science, in other words.

 

[Hoghead1]

Well actually you are if you're accepting evolution.

No, that is incorrect. What is in question is how fundamentalist Christians understand the role of God in creation and whether that is correct. The are other options for Christians.

 

[Hoghead1]

Then why does it keep on getting brought up? There are people that believe in an old Earth concept but don't believe in evolution?
In any event the main subforum is Creation and Evolution, so if this has nothing to do with Evolution then why is it in this sub forum?

Can you give us some examples of those people?