Of course evolutionists are going to shape their findings into their theories

[joeskis]

Of course evolutionists are going to shape their findings into their theories of the origin of the universe/life. Why would we expect them not to? I'm not being synical here.

I have often heard creationists (of which I am one) complain that evolutionists always shape their findings to fit their idea of evolution. And when data contradicts their idea they come up with another explanation that continues to support the theory of evolution.

Well what's wrong with this? If their perspective is that their is no creator then they have to shape all their data to fit their idea of evolution. Creationists do the same. We believe in a creator so any data we find we will make it fit our idea of how the universe/life got started.

It would be nice if you could find 100% objective and unbiased scientists. But I don't think that's possible.

 

[Dannager]

Well what's wrong with this? If their perspective is that their is no creator then they have to shape all their data to fit their idea of evolution.

This is where the problem lies. Evolutionists don't have the perspective that there is no creator. If they did, theistic evolutionists wouldn't exist. Any field of science requires that it remain neutral with respect to the supernatural. In other words, science neither believes in nor denies the existence of a creator. Evolutionists take (as far as science goes) a neutral position.

Creationists do the same. We believe in a creator so any data we find we will make it fit our idea of how the universe/life got started.

Again, here's we have a problem. Creationists don't do the same thing. Instead of a neutral position they adopt a positive position. That is, they take their belief that God created the earth 6,000 years ago to the science table with them. That's bad science. It means that you have to discard evidence (something you can never do in scientific study!) in order to make your belief system work.

It would be nice if you could find 100% objective and unbiased scientists. But I don't think that's possible.

Most scientists are as unbiased as you can possibly be. Creationist "scientists" who take their faith-based beliefs to the science table are about as biased as you can possibly be.

 

[busterdog]

Of course evolutionists are going to shape their findings into their theories of the origin of the universe/life. Why would we expect them not to? I'm not being synical here.

I have often heard creationists (of which I am one) complain that evolutionists always shape their findings to fit their idea of evolution. And when data contradicts their idea they come up with another explanation that continues to support the theory of evolution.

Well what's wrong with this? If their perspective is that their is no creator then they have to shape all their data to fit their idea of evolution. Creationists do the same. We believe in a creator so any data we find we will make it fit our idea of how the universe/life got started.

It would be nice if you could find 100% objective and unbiased scientists. But I don't think that's possible.

Certainly there are shades of gray where this is concerned. But complete objectivity exists only in God. YECs have the same problem.

THis is why you need an absolute value or polestar upon which to base your knowledge. This explains what happened in the garden with the fall of man -- knowledge is a problem.

Jesus and His Word are the answer. Lots of us can give good testimony on the point. Relatively few in this world can be satisfied that this has been proven. Reason can always find grounds to reject this claim.

 

[Mallon]

If the OP were true, we wouldn't have YEC organization like AiG operating according to these self-professed, conflicting principles:

"No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. "

"When properly understood, the 'evidence' confirms the biblical account."

 

[SuperSaint4GodDBZStyle]

If the OP were true, we wouldn't have YEC organization like AiG operating according to these self-professed, conflicting principles:

"No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. "

"When properly understood, the 'evidence' confirms the biblical account."

I agree with that all the way.

 

[SuperSaint4GodDBZStyle]

"In Newton's time it was aceptable to mix physics and metaphysics. Newton himself, though he was among the first to discern the universality of the laws of nature, found no conflict with his firm belief in God of creation. There was enough mystery left to be explained in the physical world that one cold imagine God being active in almost every event."

Schroeder, Gerald L. The Hiddnen Face of God: Science reveals the ultimate truth. TOUCH STONE. New York, NY. 2001. page 16.

Even the early scientists believed in Creation.

 

[Athene]

I have often heard creationists (of which I am one) complain that evolutionists always shape their findings to fit their idea of evolution. And when data contradicts their idea they come up with another explanation that continues to support the theory of evolution.

That's because creationists tend to not fully understand the way scientific reasearch works. Why do you think Darwin, Einstein, Newton and Gallileo are all famous scientists? Was it because their scientific work confirmed what was already known?

 

[Jase]

I agree with that all the way.

Then you agree that Creationists do not do science in anyway. That definition from AIG is completely counter to the entire foundation of science. You can't say "if the evidence disagrees with my interpretation of scripture, the evidence is wrong" and call it science.

 

[Dannager]

Even the early scientists believed in Creation.

I imagine that this is because no naturalistic explanation had been uncovered yet. Fortunately, we have such explanations now.

 

[SuperSaint4GodDBZStyle]

Then you agree that Creationists do not do science in anyway. That definition from AIG is completely counter to the entire foundation of science. You can't say "if the evidence disagrees with my interpretation of scripture, the evidence is wrong" and call it science.

Well, I'm sorry. I'm not familiar with all of AIG's objectives. I'm just going off the Bible, some accredited and knowledge scientists that I know that are christians, and my own studies that I've learned in college from my professors.

 

[SuperSaint4GodDBZStyle]

Would God all for an ape to turn into a man and then call it His greatist creation.

 

[Mallon]

Would God all [sic] for an ape to turn into a man and then call it His greatist [sic] creation.[sic]

Would God form man out of dirt and call it His greatest creation?
Is one process really worse than the other?

 

[SuperSaint4GodDBZStyle]

God made us in His image.

 

[Mallon]

God made us in His image.

I agree. And I accept evolution.

 

[vossler]

I agree. And I accept evolution.

It just took Him 4.5 billion years and countless tries but He finally did get it right.

 

[lucaspa]

Of course evolutionists are going to shape their findings into their theories of the origin of the universe/life. Why would we expect them not to? I'm not being synical here.

Well what's wrong with this? If their perspective is that their is no creator then they have to shape all their data to fit their idea of evolution.

Sorry, but you have a misconception here. You are saying that evolution = atheism. That is not the case. The people who decided that evolution was true were all theists!

Evolution is NOT atheism!

It would be nice if you could find 100% objective and unbiased scientists. But I don't think that's possible.

Of course it is. The scientists who were creationists in 1790 -- and they were all creationists and young earthers and flood geologists to boot -- decided that young earth, flood geology, and special creation were wrong by 1860.

Now, if they were biased, how could they do that?

 

[lucaspa]

It just took Him 4.5 billion years and countless tries but He finally did get it right.

What "countless tries"? Do you think God had to make humans, specifically in our physical form, to be "right"? Of course not.

 

[Xaero]

It just took Him 4.5 billion years

... which is in god's view just like "yesterday or a watch in the night"

and countless tries

... are more like countless turns on the pottery-wheel until the clay is shaped - this is the way god creates..


i slowly see it clearer what kind of problems YEC have: they have a screwed picture about god ..

I have more awe before a god who used evolution than before the yec god who seems like a deceiving [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] to me.

 

[Mallon]

It just took Him 4.5 billion years and countless tries but He finally did get it right.

And the first Christians believed Christ would return in their own lifetimes.
Evidently, God doesn't operate according to human timeframes. Imagine that!

 

[crawfish]

I'll reiterate what many here have already said.

Creationism is a dogma. It's a religious belief and the evidence is either altered or ignored based on its support of that dogma. Evolution is NOT a dogma - those scientists who support it believe it only because of the preponderance of evidence behind it. Should new physical evidence arise that indicates that life developed differently, they would be the first to accept it.

Creationists work from the solution back - they feel they already have the ultimate answer. True scientists work from the evidence forward. Anybody who tries to use evolution as a way to disprove God has taken it to the new level of dogma, and is thus no true scientist. Many of us who believe that evolution is probably true still believe in God, and still believe that God was the creator.