When does "Creationism" fail?

[vossler]

Indeed I do. There is no difference. If I have reservations about my doctor's opinion, I can go and get a second opinion. Same with a mechanic, a lawyer, a contractor or a scientist or a theologian. But when the second and the third and the fourth opinion all agree with the first opinion, then I have to consider it seriously.

The thing is, I don't need a second opinion, the issue has no bearing on my health, car, well-being, house or anything else of substance. It is, on top of my own evaluation, also contrary to the overwhelming consensus of all the respected pastors and theologians that I've come across and look up to for spiritual guidance and direction.

But it is man's idea (yours or your teachers) that anything in science affects your standing with God. Nothing in a science text has any power to affect your standing with God.

That's true, true science doesn't and can't, man's wrongly held presuppositions however can.

You have not shown that the scientist is telling you something contrary to the bible. Not any more contrary than a spherical and moving earth.

That's your opinion.

And the scientist is able to show you the evidence on which his conclusions are based.

That's exactly why I find his evidence lacking, because it is full of conjecture and speculation. Nothing hard and fast to grab a hold of, mostly nebulous jargon that isn't backed up by anything concrete.

Be specific. Give us an example of the pertinent data you found terribly lacking.

I've yet to see anything that even remotely can justify the assertion that man is a product of evolution, who's grandparents were apes and before that some other lifeforms.

Same here. The difference is that I do not find an old earth or evolution clearly contrary to God's Word or to the scriptures when interpreted in the light of God's Word.

Hence our completely different world views.

 

[Assyrian]

Unlike you, I'm not hung up on this issue, never was. First of all it never was a doctrinal issue and that in and of itself should keep it from being brought up today. Yet obviously this is a big issue for you because you never fail to raise it as a defense.

No misinterpretation of scripture is a doctrinal issue, or if it is a doctrine built on a misinterpretation it is a doctrine we can do without.

However I would say the big doctrinal issue for you with geocentrism and flat earth is inerrancy or inspiration. It is not a question of some doctrine being off but scripture getting it wrong. That was the issue with geocentrism and it is the issue with YEC today.

Did someone try to teach these things to you when you were young? Did that contribute to you no longer believing Genesis?

I do believe Genesis, the same as I believe the prodigal son and the book of Revelation. As you said yourself

Scripture takes on many different forms and I believe in all of them

As I child I remember reading reading Genesis in my children's bible and thinking how much like my dinosaur book it was. I fell away from my childhood innocence later and became a YEC but the Lord has opened my eyes again.

 

[vossler]

No misinterpretation of scripture is a doctrinal issue, or if it is a doctrine built on a misinterpretation it is a doctrine we can do without.

I'm not quite sure what it is you're saying here.

However I would say the big doctrinal issue for you with geocentrism and flat earth is inerrancy or inspiration. It is not a question of some doctrine being off but scripture getting it wrong. That was the issue with geocentrism and it is the issue with YEC today.

It all depends on how you see Scripture. For me this isn't an issue. I've never see those topics holding inerrancy hostage, for you they obviously do. It is but one of many issues where we sit on opposite sides of the fence.

As I child I remember reading reading Genesis in my children's bible and thinking how much like my dinosaur book it was. I fell away from my childhood innocence later and became a YEC but the Lord has opened my eyes again.

Maybe another childlike experience will open your eyes once again.

 

[lucaspa]

Over the course of time on this thread, and among the various YEC arguments out there, it seems that our beloved youth-earthers, are always seeking to find a hole somewhere, to crawl in and say, see if "this hole is here than evolution does not work", only to later find that hole is occupied, so they continue from the motor in the cell's flagellum, to the eye, to the woodpecker's tongue, to "why do we not have fur?", continually trying to find gaps, continuing on in there pursuit, when they find out this space is occupied.

The answer to your question is in your confusion of "creationism" with "our beloved young-earthers"

Creationism fails when it is falsified by the data.

This does not mean that our "beloved young-earthers" will admit creationism has failed.

You must always keep the idea separate from the people who advocate the idea. You seem to want to find a point where "our beloved young-earthers" will admit that creationism is wrong.

You may never get that. Get used to disappointment.

However, what you can do is keep showing how creationism fails.

But let us assume for a day that they find a gap so big, that it causes the whole evolutionary theory to collapse, there by taking with it chunks of biology, and genetics with it.

Does this make young-earther-creationism the valid theory on the origin of life, and the age of the earth?

Of course not. YEC has already been shown to be false. There is no way to overcome that.

So ... what may happen is that evolution is also shown to be false. But there is nothing that is going to make the earth be young.

What you are overlooking Hitesh, is the basics of deductive logic: true statements cannot have false consequences.

YEC has false consequences. It can't ever be true.

 

[lucaspa]

That's true, true science doesn't and can't, man's wrongly held presuppositions however can.

Considering that the scientists who showed a literal Genesis 1-8 to be wrong were all creationists, what "wrongly held presuppositions" do you think they had?

Science is simply reading God's second book. When you deny science, you are denying God.

I've yet to see anything that even remotely can justify the assertion that man is a product of evolution, who's grandparents were apes and before that some other lifeforms.

If you keep your eyes tightly closed, of course you won't see anything.

Have you read Origin of Species? Have you read any anthropology books detailing fossil hominids? Have you done a PubMed search using "evolution"?

God left the evidence there for us to find. If you don't want to listen to God, you can obstinately refuse. At that point I have to stop going after you as a lost sheep and try to protect the rest of the flock and keep them from following you away from God. Sorry.

I suggest
F. Clark Howell, Early Man Time Life Library, 1980
Francis M Clapham, Our Human Ancestors, 1976
http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html

for some of the fossil evidence that humans are a product of evolution and arose from other hominid species.

 

[lucaspa]

Because scientists are not experts on origins. God is.

But scientists are reading God's book on origins: Creation itself. You think God lied to all of us?

God's book on origins is there for everyone to read. That's what makes science so reliable: everyone must be able to go to the physical universe (God's Creation) and see the same thing.

However, not everyone is going to read Genesis 1-8 the same way. Why do you put your trust in a book instead of God?

 

[busterdog]

But scientists are reading God's book on origins: Creation itself. You think God lied to all of us?

God's book on origins is there for everyone to read. That's what makes science so reliable: everyone must be able to go to the physical universe (God's Creation) and see the same thing.

However, not everyone is going to read Genesis 1-8 the same way. Why do you put your trust in a book instead of God?

You


_______________________________


Me

Notice the line that seperates us.

Neither wit, nor really good rhetoric, will get either one of us over it.

If anything the insulting rhetorical questions like the one about "God lying" just makes the line longer and bolder

_______________________________________________________________

 

[gluadys]

That's exactly why I find his evidence lacking, because it is full of conjecture and speculation. Nothing hard and fast to grab a hold of, mostly nebulous jargon that isn't backed up by anything concrete.

I am not talking about evidence that is lacking. I am talking about evidence that is present and forms the basis for scientific conclusions. Are you saying the evidence itself is conjecture and speculation, or only the conclusions? The evidence is concrete and does back up the conclusions.

As for "jargon" that is scientific terminology, and if you are too lazy or disinterested to learn a modicum of accurate terminology, you have no basis for saying the conclusions are merely conjectural. All you can say is that you don't understand the lingo and have no desire to learn enough to understand what is being said.

I've yet to see anything that even remotely can justify the assertion that man is a product of evolution, who's grandparents were apes and before that some other lifeforms.

Can you name three examples of evidence scientists present as supporting this conclusion? (There are lots more, but let's limit it to three for now.)

 

[lucaspa]

If anything the insulting rhetorical questions like the one about "God lying" just makes the line longer and bolder

And why do you think the question was either insulting or rhetorical? Busterdog, do you think that God lied to us in His Creation?

If you answer "yes", then you have a reason for distrusting what we find via science. Of course, it also means you have a reason for distrusting God on anything.

If you answer "no", then you are going to have to give up creationism. Is that really so hard to do? If so, ask yourself "why?"

You say God is the expert on origins. I would agree. But I don't understand why God wouldn't put that knowledge into His Creation. Why would not God's Creation show how God created?

Let me submit for your consideration that you aren't defending God but a literal interpretation of the Bible. Is that literal interpretation more important than God?

 

[lucaspa]

That's exactly why I find his evidence lacking, because it is full of conjecture and speculation. Nothing hard and fast to grab a hold of, mostly nebulous jargon that isn't backed up by anything concrete.

No, a scientist can't operate that way. I think you are mistaking the summary of scientific conclusions for the evidence.

If you read Origin of Species, there is a lot of evidence.

For instance, Darwin says that more individuals are born than survive and reproduce. It is one of the premises underlying natural selection.

In the chapter entitled "Struggle for Existence" Darwin gives this example:
"With plants there is a vast destruction of seeds, but, from some observations which I have made, it appears that the seedlings suffer most from germinating in ground already thickly stocked with other plants. Seedlings, also, are destroyed in vast numbers by various enemies; for instance, on a piece of ground three feet long and two wide, dug and cleared, and where there could be no choking from other plants, I marked all the seedlings of our native weeds as they came up, and out of 357 no less than 295 were destroyed, chiefly by slugs and insects." Origin of the Species 6th Edition, pg 54

Later, Darwin goes on to summarize natural selection:

"If, during the long course of ages and under varying conditions of life, organic beings vary at all in the several parts of their organization, and I think this cannot be disputed; if there be, owing to the high geometric powers of increase of each species, at some age, season, or year, a severe struggle for life, and this certainly cannot be disputed; then, considering the infinite complexity of the relations of all organic beings to each other and to their conditions of existence, causing an infinite diversity in structure, constitution, and habits, to be advantageous to them, I think it would be a most extraordinary fact if no variation ever had occurred useful to each beings welfare, in the same way as so many variations have occured useful to man. But if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterized will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance they will will tend to produce offspring similarly characterized. This principle of preservation, I have called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection." [Origin, p 127 6th ed.]

The style is the stilted language of the 19th century, but it is not "nebulous jargon". It is a straightforward deductive argument.

If you want to see evidence, you have to open your eyes!

 

[vossler]

God left the evidence there for us to find. If you don't want to listen to God, you can obstinately refuse. At that point I have to stop going after you as a lost sheep and try to protect the rest of the flock and keep them from following you away from God. Sorry.

Let's be real here, you've never seen me as a lost sheep. When I first came to this forum almost three years ago I certainly wasn't seen as a lost sheep then and there's no reason to believe I've suddenly become one now.

 

[Assyrian]

I'm not quite sure what it is you're saying here.

To take an example we should be able to agree on, The Catholic Church interprets our Lord's 'This is my body' literally and they build a major doctrinal position on on their literal interpretation. But just because the interpretation is a doctrinal issue doesn't make the interpretation correct, and if the interpretation is wrong we certainly don't need any doctrine built on it do we?

Your argument that it is alright to reinterpret the geocentric and flat earth passages in the light of science because they are not doctrinally important, but we can't reinterpret Genesis because it is doctrinal, is like a Catholic arguing the the body and blood passages must be literal because of Transubstantiation. We should get our doctrines from a proper interpretation, not base our interpretation on doctrine.

But in any case, there is no doctrine that depends on a literal interpretation of Genesis. God is creator whether he took six days or billions of years. We are his creation made in his image whether he moulded man out of mud or used evolution.

Original sin is based on a fifth century mistranslation and misinterpretation of Roman 5:12 'in whom all sinned', and anyway most TEs actually do believe in a literal Adam and in some form of original sin. Their view on original sin seems dependant on their denomination background rather than their view of evolution.

It all depends on how you see Scripture. For me this isn't an issue. I've never see those topics holding inerrancy hostage, for you they obviously do. It is but one of many issues where we sit on opposite sides of the fence.

They are not an issue to me either. They only become an issue if you apply David Cooper's quote in you sig to them. But clearly you don't, you reserve that, rather inconsistantly, for Genesis. But neither the Genesis days, geocentrism nor flat earth are matters of inerrancy or inspiration. They only contradict the truth if you insist on a literal interpretation against the evidence we have learned through science whether it is the shape, movement or age of the earth.

Maybe another childlike experience will open your eyes once again.

1Cor 14:20 Brothers, do not be children in your thinking. Be infants in evil, but in your thinking be mature.

 

[Assyrian]

Let's be real here, you've never seen me as a lost sheep. When I first came to this forum almost three years ago I certainly wasn't seen as a lost sheep then and there's no reason to believe I've suddenly become one now.

You may say that, but your avatar says "baaaa".

 

[lucaspa]

Let's be real here, you've never seen me as a lost sheep. When I first came to this forum almost three years ago I certainly wasn't seen as a lost sheep then and there's no reason to believe I've suddenly become one now.

I'm sorry, but that is how I see you. I don't know what you are referring to three years ago or if you are even referring to me.

Three years ago there was not a Christians only section, but all discussion of evolution and creationism took place in one forum where atheists were welcome. Sometimes the atheists were harsh to creationists. I was one of those who sought to mitigate that harshness and keep the conversation tracking to the science, not an attack on theism.

 

[vossler]

I am not talking about evidence that is lacking. I am talking about evidence that is present and forms the basis for scientific conclusions. Are you saying the evidence itself is conjecture and speculation, or only the conclusions? The evidence is concrete and does back up the conclusions.

I'm saying things that are called evidence are nothing but conjecture and speculation.

As for "jargon" that is scientific terminology, and if you are too lazy or disinterested to learn a modicum of accurate terminology, you have no basis for saying the conclusions are merely conjectural. All you can say is that you don't understand the lingo and have no desire to learn enough to understand what is being said.

Jargon isn't necessary to show someone something as obvious as evolution is suppose to be. Just show me the transitional fossils.

Can you name three examples of evidence scientists present as supporting this conclusion? (There are lots more, but let's limit it to three for now.)

Fossils & chromosomes are two that come to mind. I don't have time nor the inclination to research this topic further.

 

[vossler]

I'm sorry, but that is how I see you. I don't know what you are referring to three years ago or if you are even referring to me.

Three years ago there was not a Christians only section, but all discussion of evolution and creationism took place in one forum where atheists were welcome. Sometimes the atheists were harsh to creationists. I was one of those who sought to mitigate that harshness and keep the conversation tracking to the science, not an attack on theism.

Three years ago when I first started posting here there was a Christians only section (this one) and you were a prominent poster here.

 

[lucaspa]

Three years ago when I first started posting here there was a Christians only section (this one) and you were a prominent poster here.

My recollection is that the Christians only section came right before I took a hiatus and that was 2.5 years ago. I don't remember you at all from that time.

But anyway, that still doesn't tell me why you feel I don't look on you as a lost sheep and why you are so adamant about it. All I can do is repeat my earlier statement.

Perhaps you are offended because you don't view yourself as lost?

Can I ask about your signature? What does Cooper advise doing when there is extrabiblical evidence that contradicts a literal reading? For instance, does Cooper insist on a literal reading of Luke 2:1?

 

[lucaspa]

Jargon isn't necessary to show someone something as obvious as evolution is suppose to be. Just show me the transitional fossils.

OK. Are you willing to do a bit of looking up, since I can't show you pictures here? Wait, I can attach one that Gould published: a series of transitionals between 2 species of snails. See attachments.

Transitional individuals from one class to another
1. Principles of Paleontology by DM Raup and SM Stanley, 1971, there are transitional series between classes. (mammals and reptiles are examples of a class)
2. HK Erben, Uber den Ursprung der Ammonoidea. Biol. Rev. 41: 641-658, 1966.

Transitional individuals from one order to another
1. C Teichert "Nautiloidea-Discorsorida" and "Actinoceratoidea" in Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology ed RC Moore, 1964
2. PR Sheldon, Parallel gradualistic evolution of Ordovician trilobites. Nature 330: 561-563, 1987. Rigourous biometric study of the pygidial ribs of 3458 specimens of 8 generic lineages in 7 stratgraphic layers covering about 3 million years. Gradual evolution where at any given time the population was intermediate between the samples before it and after it.

Transitionals across genera:
1. Williamson, PG, Paleontological documentation of speciation in cenozoic molluscs from Turkana basin. Nature 293:437-443, 1981. Excellent study of "gradual" evolution is an extremely fine fossil record.

Transitional individuals in hominid lineage
1. CS Coon, The Origin of Races, 1962.
2. Wolpoff, 1984, Paleobiol., 10: 389-406
3. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/11/science/12FOSSIL.html?tntemail1
4. Lucy site at AMNH http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/atapuerca/africa/lucy.php

Transitional series from one family to another in foraminerfera
1. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/foram/foramintro.html
2. http://cushforams.niu.edu/Forams.htm

Speciation in the fossil record
1. McNamara KJ, Heterochrony and the evolution of echinoids. In CRC Paul and AB Smith (eds) Echinoderm Phylogeny and Evolutionary Biology, pp149-163, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1988 pg 140 of Futuyma.
2. Kellogg DE and Hays JD Microevolutionary patterns in Late Cenozoic Radiolara. Paleobiology 1: 150-160, 1975.

Reptiles to mammals
1. http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm
2. Allin, E. F. 1975. Evolution of the Mammalian Middle Ear. Journal of Morphology 147:403-38.

Fish to amphibians:
1. A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan
Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin and Farish A. Jenkins, Jr Nature 440, 757-763 (6 April 2006)

Whale transition:
1. http://www.neoucom.edu/Depts/ANAT/whaleorigins.htm
2. http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v413/n6853/full/413277a0_fs.html
3. http://darla.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/whaleorigins.htm
4. http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/mpm/struthers.html
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/babinski/whale_evolution.html

Transitional websites:
http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_04.htm
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/transitionals.htm
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Miller.html

9. Horse evolution: http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm
10. Transitional fossils: http://asa.calvin.edu/ASA/resources/Miller.html
11. Human transitionals http://www.jestercourt.com/~capella/aguide/transfos.htm
12. Dino to bird transitionals http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html
13. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/link/ transitionals for quite a few transitions, mostly evolution of tetrapods.

Sloths from land to water
1. http://www.corante.com/loom/archives/004489.html

 

[gluadys]

I'm saying things that are called evidence are nothing but conjecture and speculation.

Fossils & chromosomes are two that come to mind. I don't have time nor the inclination to research this topic further.

So are you saying it is conjecture that hominid fossils exist? Is it conjecture that chromosomes exist?

Or are you saying this evidence exists, but doesn't mean what scientists claim it means? IOW it is not the evidence that is conjectural, but the conclusions scientists have come to?

What do you mean by "things that are called evidence are nothing but conjecture and speculation"? Is the existence of fossils and chromosomes in question? Is it speculation that they exist?

 

[gluadys]