Is evolution a fact or theory?

[Job 33:6]

@dcalling
You claim that the fossil succession doesnt support evolution because there are too many gaps. Which is untrue. I displayed many elephant and horse transitionals, and you just deny that they are transitionals at all, which is baseless. Your justification...see below.

You suggest horses are bred in ways in which they develop multiple toes, in which case they wouldnt be transitionals because they are the same "type". Which is further untrue, because no breeder breeds horses to have multiple toes.

Then you suggest that finding multiple toed horses is equivalent to digging up a human with 6 fingers, which is also untrue. As fossils like those of these horses are found in collections of multiple specimen. There are no collections of 6 fingered humans.

You are just making false claims left and right and just making stuff up, rather than just admitting that you are wrong.

This is what we call denial and intellectual dishonesty, and i cant be bothered to continue with it.

 

[The Barbarian]

However it appears one of Noah's sons has the polluted DNA from the nehlims.

Which son is that?

 

[NobleMouse]

@dcalling
You claim that the fossil succession doesnt support evolution because there are too many gaps. Which is untrue. I displayed many elephant and horse transitionals, and you just deny that they are transitionals at all, which is baseless. Your justification...see below.

You suggest horses are bred in ways in which they develop multiple toes, in which case they wouldnt be transitionals because they are the same "type". Which is further untrue, because no breeder breeds horses to have multiple toes.

Then you suggest that finding multiple toed horses is equivalent to digging up a human with 6 fingers, which is also untrue. As fossils like those of these horses are found in collections of multiple specimen. There are no collections of 6 fingered humans.

You are just making false claims left and right and just making stuff up, rather than just admitting that you are wrong.

This is what we call denial and intellectual dishonesty, and i cant be bothered to continue with it.

Hi K-BIF and @The Barbarian! Thank you, as always, for your views and inputs regarding what is believed and accepted within natural science. It is apparent that you both have an extensive knowledge of what is taught within mainstream scientific academia and largely held within the scientific community.

While you may wish it otherwise, there are some assertions of evolution that will forever remain at odds with the Bible. Evolution has supposedly been occurring over literally billions of years and the process of life progressively changing and becoming more complex spans many many millions of years - a good example as has been previously discussed is fish evolving into tetrapods.

Now, those with a scientific affinity here in the forum are very intelligent, so let's not be willingly ignorant of the Bible. We know what Genesis 1 states of creation; we know that a literal 6-day creation is again affirmed in Exodus 20:8-11, and again in Exodus 31:17. Moses didn't write the ten commandments, God did (twice since Moses broke the first tablets... so in a sense that makes them doubly true : ) Does evolution say fish/birds evolved on the same literal 24-hr day, then the next day everything on land including man evolved? Clearly not. Jesus said in Matthew 19:4 we were created male and female from the beginning. Does evolution draw this same conclusion? No. In Genesis we're told man was formed of the dust of the ground, then again in 1 Corinthians 15:47 and a separate/special/unique creation above all else that was created. Evolution would say man actually is one of the beasts of the field. From God's word it is understood that creation was approximately 6,000 - 10,000 years ago. Evolution would say that humans alone have been around in some form for millions of years.

To deny the assertions of science is not intellectual dishonesty. Rather, to deny to truth of God is a form of "spiritual dishonesty" - a despising and denying of the supernatural work of God and treat it with contempt as is spoken of in 1 Thessalonians 5:19-22. When God speaks and things happen, this is a supernatural/miraculous event taking place. From the paragraph above we are testing the assertions of evolution and holding to what is good (the word of God). The assertions of evolution do not hold up with the word of God and we are told to abstain from every form of evil, including this. Where there is the supernatural there is no explanation that can be offered by science, only the truth found in God's word.

 

[The Barbarian]

Hi K-BIF and @The Barbarian! While you may wish it otherwise, there are some assertions of evolution that will forever remain at odds with the Bible. Evolution has supposedly been occurring over literally billions of years and the process of life progressively changing and becoming more complex spans many many millions of years - a good example as has been previously discussed is fish evolving into tetrapods.

This is completely consistent with the Bible. Even creationists accepted a very old Earth until the Seventh-Day Adventists invented YE creationism in the 20th century.

[quote[Now, those with a scientific affinity here in the forum are very intelligent, so let's not be willingly ignorant of the Bible. We know what Genesis 1 states of creation; we know that a literal 6-day creation is again affirmed in Exodus 20:8-11, and again in Exodus 31:17.[/quote]

Actually, neither says that it's literal. That's a modern revision.

 

[dcalling]

Your statement was specifically about gaps in the fossil succession.

If my statement is subjective, then yours was as well in claiming that transitionals are lacking. Because you cannot say theyre lacking if there is potential that what I am showing you, are in fact transitionals.

And no, this isnt comparable to digging up a human with 6 fingers, because they are collections of fossils that are found. Its not like its just one specimen, its collection of these things. No collection of 6 fingered humans has been found.

I am more interested in repeatable verifiable tests, but since you can't provide any and keep going back to fossiles, I have to keep pointing you the flaws of fossiles.

 

[dcalling]

Like or not the fossil records as evidence are flawed, you like your interpertation and does not like mine because we are both biased.

I have repeatly asked you for repeatable, verifable tests that show how humans were evolved from apes, all you can provide are one version of the interpertation of a observation, not test. Really wish you can see that. Welcome to continue the disscusion any time.

@dcalling
You claim that the fossil succession doesnt support evolution because there are too many gaps. Which is untrue. I displayed many elephant and horse transitionals, and you just deny that they are transitionals at all, which is baseless. Your justification...see below.

You suggest horses are bred in ways in which they develop multiple toes, in which case they wouldnt be transitionals because they are the same "type". Which is further untrue, because no breeder breeds horses to have multiple toes.

Then you suggest that finding multiple toed horses is equivalent to digging up a human with 6 fingers, which is also untrue. As fossils like those of these horses are found in collections of multiple specimen. There are no collections of 6 fingered humans.

You are just making false claims left and right and just making stuff up, rather than just admitting that you are wrong.

This is what we call denial and intellectual dishonesty, and i cant be bothered to continue with it.

 

[dcalling]

Which son is that?

Not sure, I would assume it is the cursed one.

 

[Job 33:6]

Hi K-BIF and @The Barbarian! Thank you, as always, for your views and inputs regarding what is believed and accepted within natural science. It is apparent that you both have an extensive knowledge of what is taught within mainstream scientific academia and largely held within the scientific community.

While you may wish it otherwise, there are some assertions of evolution that will forever remain at odds with the Bible. Evolution has supposedly been occurring over literally billions of years and the process of life progressively changing and becoming more complex spans many many millions of years - a good example as has been previously discussed is fish evolving into tetrapods.

Now, those with a scientific affinity here in the forum are very intelligent, so let's not be willingly ignorant of the Bible. We know what Genesis 1 states of creation; we know that a literal 6-day creation is again affirmed in Exodus 20:8-11, and again in Exodus 31:17. Moses didn't write the ten commandments, God did (twice since Moses broke the first tablets... so in a sense that makes them doubly true : ) Does evolution say fish/birds evolved on the same literal 24-hr day, then the next day everything on land including man evolved? Clearly not. Jesus said in Matthew 19:4 we were created male and female from the beginning. Does evolution draw this same conclusion? No. In Genesis we're told man was formed of the dust of the ground, then again in 1 Corinthians 15:47 and a separate/special/unique creation above all else that was created. Evolution would say man actually is one of the beasts of the field. From God's word it is understood that creation was approximately 6,000 - 10,000 years ago. Evolution would say that humans alone have been around in some form for millions of years.

To deny the assertions of science is not intellectual dishonesty. Rather, to deny to truth of God is a form of "spiritual dishonesty" - a despising and denying of the supernatural work of God and treat it with contempt as is spoken of in 1 Thessalonians 5:19-22. When God speaks and things happen, this is a supernatural/miraculous event taking place. From the paragraph above we are testing the assertions of evolution and holding to what is good (the word of God). The assertions of evolution do not hold up with the word of God and we are told to abstain from every form of evil, including this. Where there is the supernatural there is no explanation that can be offered by science, only the truth found in God's word.

There are few Christians I know who hold a literal 6 day view. Even church leaders and Senior Pastors, public speakers and the highest educated religious leaders that I've come across, do not hold such a view. Beyond that, even in scripture and study bibles, there too, the view is not held.

And because of what we see in science, there is further reason to discredit the 6 day literal interpretation.

But ultimately, one side has evidence, which some people are in denial of. While the other side just has their personal feelings and interpretation. Its a point of contention in which I'm more comfortable staying of the side of evidence.

Also, to be fair look at the other side. You have guys comfortably just outright making stuff up about people breeding horses with multiple legs and finding collections of 6 fingered humans and gaps in the fossil succession that make it invaluable to the theory. The other side, when displaying dishonesty, isn't a side I would want to be on.

 

[Job 33:6]

@dcalling

Ill just copy my post here

"Part of my post, brings up the discussion about how microbiologists use modern day rates of mutation, examine differences between animals A and B, and based on the rate of mutation and modern day differences, predict the temporal location of A and B's common ancestor.

This only makes sense if the fossil succession is a product of common descent with relation to genetic alterations.

Because, not every modern day animal mutates at the same rate. For example, a mouse might undergo a larger amount of genetic drift over time, than an elephant (different rate of producing offspring and generations over time with associated mutations). So, a common ancestor between two mice or two elephants, could be guessed to exist at different times in the past. An ancestor between two mice of X genetic difference, could be guessed to be more recent existing, than two elephants of X genetic difference, because the mice could produce X genetic difference in a shorter amount of time (because they mutate faster).

But if someone predicts where the common ancestor is (in time), based on mutation rates in those modern day living animals, then it is more than just a question about order of DNA and order of fossils, it is a question about genetic differences, and rates of mutation.

So its not comparable to...human beings just upgrading software, or just buying the new iphone and adding some new pieces. It is indicative of change that is a product of modern day, observed mutation.

The reason it is not comparable, is that anyone can take a phone and go buy a new one at any time. Anyone can download a software update at any time. But fossils dont exist at "any time", they exist at specific times which reflect mutation rates of their associated descendants.

Thank you for your thoughtful response, otherwise."


The test for this, which has been repeated, involves using observed mutation rates to predict the temporal location of ancestral fossils, and another test involves predicting the temporal presence of fossils based on genetic relatedness of life today.

Genetic relatedness does not need to correlate with temporal succession. In genesis 1, God created fowl and animals of the sky, prior to creating creatures that walked the earth. But this isnt the temporal succession of life on earth (according to every field of science). So we understand that there is something broken with the literal interpretation of genesis. That, or all of geology and biology and paleontology and fundamentals of physics, paleoeography and chemistry, are all wrong. Take your pick...

This idea that God just made life look "as if" it evolved, but in fact he just keeps creating and destroying life millions of times over, its just absurd and is completely made up (no scripture or science backing this idea). And no young earther ever attempts to explain what a "kind" is, so there is no way for them to objectively define Gods creation versus what has evolved. Instead they propose that horses could be bred to have differing numbers of toes because miohippus could not possibly have evolved into modern day horses, rather its morphological changes and decreased number of toes must be a product of adaptation.

But then when they realize that fossil transitions span vast morphological changes, all of a sudden, God goes back to destroying and remaking and destroying and remaking, millions of times over.

As much you guys are trying to stick by scripture, you are going against scripture proposing these bizarre explanations.

Young earthers will completely make up a million and one explanations that are totally baseless, if thats what it takes to deny evolution.

 

[Job 33:6]

And the reason the above is in fact a test, is because a hypothesis is made (that a common ancestor exists in Y temporal location). The hypothesis is logical. Mutations are visually observed, therefore if two mice have an observable difference in their genome, one might propose that the difference was gradually built up over time by said mutations. If this were true, one might be able to predict the presence of an ancestral link in a certain period of time based on the observed rates of mutation. Its science 101.

Ifgenus A has X genetic difference from genus B, then at their current mutation rate (observable change in DNA), their common ancestor should exist at Y temporal location, if there is one.

Its a proposition that can tested. The outcome could be correctly predicted or not, it is a test, deeming the hypothesis, falsifiable, ie the ancestral form might exist at a different period of time than the period predicted.

------------------------------------
Tiktaalik did not need to exist in the devonian, it could have been found in the ordovician, silurian, cambrian, carboniferous, permian etc. and the test could have resulted in the disproof of evolution. But thats not what happened.


The young earth proposition, involves God creating and destroying life, millions of times over. This certainly isnt testable, there isnt even a verse in scripture that proposes it. And yet this is what young earthers are proposing right here in this chat. Its embarrassing.

 

[The Barbarian]

dcalling said: ↑
However it appears one of Noah's sons has the polluted DNA from the nehlims.

Barbarian asks:
Which son is that?

Not sure, I would assume it is the cursed one.

I've heard creationists argue this before. In 1992, Henry Morris, the ICR director, wrote that "Hamites", were intellectually and spiritually inferior to other people. However, I always thought of it as a reflection of Morris' background in a segregationist society, rather than being evidence of creationism being intrinsically racist.

Creationists, as you probably know, believe that black people of African descent are Hamites.

 

[2tim_215]

And the reason the above is in fact a test, is because a hypothesis is made (that a common ancestor exists in Y temporal location). The hypothesis is logical. Mutations are visually observed, therefore if two mice have an observable difference in their genome, one might propose that the difference was gradually built up over time by said mutations. If this were true, one might be able to predict the presence of an ancestral link in a certain period of time based on the observed rates of mutation. Its science 101.

Ifgenus A has X genetic difference from genus B, then at their current mutation rate (observable change in DNA), their common ancestor should exist at Y temporal location, if there is one.

Its a proposition that can tested. The outcome could be correctly predicted or not, it is a test, deeming the hypothesis, falsifiable, ie the ancestral form might exist at a different period of time than the period predicted.

------------------------------------
Tiktaalik did not need to exist in the devonian, it could have been found in the ordovician, silurian, cambrian, carboniferous, permian etc. and the test could have resulted in the disproof of evolution. But thats not what happened.


The young earth proposition, involves God creating and destroying life, millions of times over. This certainly isnt testable, there isnt even a verse in scripture that proposes it. And yet this is what young earthers are proposing right here in this chat. Its embarrassing.

Dakes' Bible which was revised several years ago, taking out that racist crap.

 

[Job 33:6]

Barbarian asks:
Which son is that?



I've heard creationists argue this before. In 1992, Henry Morris, the ICR director, wrote that "Hamites", were intellectually and spiritually inferior to other people. However, I always thought of it as a reflection of Morris' background in a segregationist society, rather than being evidence of creationism being intrinsically racist.

Creationists, as you probably know, believe that black people of African descent are Hamites.

Which son is that? The answer is, whatever son that needs to be imagined, to believe in young earth creationism.

Young earthers seem to enter a sort of imaginary scientific nihilism.

Factual Claim = the fossil succession supports evolution

creationist response = there are too many gaps.

scientist factual response = here is a thorough succession of fossils

creationist imaginary response = God created and destroyed millions of times over, they aren't actually related (if morphologically they look like different animals to me).

creationist backup imaginary response = God created animals to adapt, so they are related if they do look similar, but if they are morphologically too different, in my opinion, then they must have been created as another kind.

scientist factual response = Well why are theropod like birds present right after theropods?

creationist imaginary and response = well, God must have just made life in a way in which it looked as if it evolved, but in fact, he is creating and destroying over and over, and just using the old body plans to upgrade life just as someone might upgrade computer software (I guess He didnt get it right with version 1.0 so he had to patch it and remake version 2.0?).

scientist factual response = but evolution isnt a ladder, it goes in many directions and sometimes even backwards the way it came.

creationist imaginary response = maybe God didnt like version 2.0 and just needed to remake version 1.0? Well, maybe they just adapted new morphological features.

scientist factual response = we can predict where fossils are based on mutation rates of living organisms

creationist imaginary response = well maybe God just made it look that way, He just created everything just the right way and at just the right time, to make it look as if mutations in DNA caused morphological changes over time, but in reality, it never happened, life didnt evolve. Even though it looks like it has to anyone with common sense.

Whatever it takes to...get by. Whatever it takes to not recognize evolution. Whatever needs to be baselessly imagined, that is what will be proposed. And any scientific evidence, well, who knows, all of existence could all be a big dream. whatever stretch of the imagination it takes to not recognize evolution.

 

[NobleMouse]

This is completely consistent with the Bible. Even creationists accepted a very old Earth until the Seventh-Day Adventists invented YE creationism in the 20th century.

Why didn't you research to confirm before making this statement, and @KomatiiteBIF why did you agree? Where is this being taught? It is wrong. Adherents to a literal interpretation of Genesis go back as far as to when the Bible was being written down. It is clear from Exodus that the Hebrews followed a 7-day cycle with 6 days of labor and observed the 7th day as the Sabbath in recognition that God labored for 6 days and rested on the 7th day.

Further, there are numerous early church fathers who believed that creation was actual narrative including Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, Basil the Great, etc... Even a number of early church fathers who didn't adhere to a literal interpretation of Genesis, such as Augustine of Hippo (who didn't believe in 24-hr days), held to an orthodox understanding of creation and the earth being young.

Sources (I'll stop at 5):
Theophilus of Antioch – The Contextual Literalist
The Early Church on Creation
ECG: Creation and the Church Fathers
The Early Church Defended Creation Science
Did Early Church Fathers Believe in a Literal Six Day Creation?

In short, it has been believed long before May 21, 1863 at the founding of the 7th Day Adventist Church that God created everything ex-nihilo, and that He has the power and ability to create everything in the way and time we're given in the text of Genesis.

Actually, neither says that it's literal. That's a modern revision.

Given that line of reasoning one is incapable of believing anything that is written. In fact, one is unable to back up their faith that they believe Jesus died for their sins and that by accepting Him as their Lord and Savior, they were given His righteousness while He took the wrath for all of their sins on the cross. Why would anyone believe that? Because it's written in the Bible, so what?? According to this (faulty) reasoning, just because it is written this does not mean it's literal... it's just a "modern revision" (whatever that is meant to imply).

The argument that none of the scriptural references to the creation account is in reference to actual days falls flat because not only is it written and affirmed throughout scripture, but beyond the text we see that this actually affected how people lived their lives... following a 7-day cycle with observance of the Sabbath on the 7th day; it influenced the thinking of early Church fathers. Even continuing on today we still observe this 7-day cycle - though many now worship on the 1st day of the week.

The real reason, and K-BIF touched on it in post #208, is:

"And because of what we see in science, there is further reason to discredit the 6 day literal interpretation."

Aside from the other reasons cited, I believe the main driving reason in this view is that science is being held in ultimate authority, and like Francis Bacon, man's interpretation of the works of God in nature are used to interpret scripture rather than using scripture to interpret scripture.

There are no personal feelings to influence a biased/poor exegesis of, "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." It says the same thing in Hebrew. This is hardly more complex in a literary sense than "See Spot run." This is just what the text says - a 3rd grader would understand this as 6 days... so why do those who are so intelligent have difficulty understanding the text? It doesn't even require interpretation to understand "days". On the other hand, it requires a lot of reading-between-the lines / nebulous "spiritual" ideas to infer this means something drastically different. The Bible is evidence, we are living in evidence - what are we doing this weekend? Hopefully attending a church that teaches the word of God out of the Bible, right? Why every 7 days is this cycle repeated? Think about it. Who is going around saying the Bible is not evidence or lesser evidence than something else? It's better evidence than a rock, a fossil, or DNA... with these things we don't have words that tell us when or how they got there, what they do, how they function... so we have to make up assumptions, create relationships that may/may not exist, and draw inferences from observations in the present. The Bible actually has words--no guesswork as to what Exodus 20:11 means - just ask some kid on the street and have them read it.

Evolution is a theory and a lie. There are no transitional fossils being discovered. What is being dug up, in actuality, are in essence idols - being used to prop up a form of worshiping self and the highly esteemed perception of knowledge. Like a modern-day tower of Babel, but instead of being built upon brick it is built upon theories and assumptions. As the serpent asked in the garden, "Did God really say...?" what I'll say now is, "Yes, yes He really did say not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and yes He really did say 6 days of creation, then making the 7th day holy."

 

[Job 33:6]

I agreed with barbarian, because I agree that evolution is consistent with scripture. Not in a literal sense however.

The book of Job for example, talks about bizarre beasts, one of which breaths fire.

When taken in a literal sense, someone might read this and say, well, that contradicts science, a leviathan breathing fire?

But when you look at the book of Job and the lessons contained within, its really not about the leviathan, its about God demonstrating his dominion and infinite power. The leviathan doesnt need to be real in order for the book to be truth. And so, only in a literal sense, would the book of job with its fire breathing beast, contradict real life, or evolution.

People subjectively determine what is to be taken literally and what is not. And there is no reason that the book of genesis is an exception to this.

 

[Job 33:6]

I think the question is...

Is science...the word of man? Or is it, research that allows for the understanding of the word of God?

For example, the word of man, might state that gravity exists. But is it the word of man? Or is it just man speaking of what God has created? Man didnt just make gravity up. It is something created by God and it is real and exists as a part of creation.

If biological evolution is scientifically justified and valid, then I would say that it isnt the word of man, it is man speaking of what God has created.

Now, its interesting though because, what if our observation of gravity, contradicted a literal understanding of scripture? What would we do? That is, in essence, what is going on here.

So one camp says, well gravity is real, and this is Gods creation. So our interpretation of scripture must be wrong. The other camp says, well no, people throughout history, for the past 2000 years have believed that gravity is not real. So, really its science that is wrong, gravity doesnt exist and mans understanding of it is wrong.

And there is no easy way to settle this dilemma.

 

[dcalling]

Barbarian asks:
Which son is that?



I've heard creationists argue this before. In 1992, Henry Morris, the ICR director, wrote that "Hamites", were intellectually and spiritually inferior to other people. However, I always thought of it as a reflection of Morris' background in a segregationist society, rather than being evidence of creationism being intrinsically racist.

Creationists, as you probably know, believe that black people of African descent are Hamites.

To your first question, I am not sure. Maybe all of them, but some have more (the one who populated Cannon).

To you second question. Not all of them
In fact I believe those cursed ones are much smarter and stronger, since those are human/angle hybrids, i.e. the famous of the old age.

I think it is the evolutionists (at least the initial ones) who are the real racists, who believe that blacks/asians evolved slower than whites.

 

[dcalling]

First, not all creationists believe in young earth. When God first created light, there is no sun so the concept of 'day' on that first day is up for interpretation. God said a thousand years to him is a day, which basically means a billion year or a day is no difference to God.

Second, from your post below, what is the mutation rate (i.e. change per million year or generation)? And just because we observe small mutations, does it mean small mutations can actually amount to bigger ones? Have we ever tested to show that what small mutations can amount to (i.e. have we ever observed a single celled organism mutated to multi-celled organism)?

@dcalling

Ill just copy my post here

"Part of my post, brings up the discussion about how microbiologists use modern day rates of mutation, examine differences between animals A and B, and based on the rate of mutation and modern day differences, predict the temporal location of A and B's common ancestor.

This only makes sense if the fossil succession is a product of common descent with relation to genetic alterations.

Because, not every modern day animal mutates at the same rate. For example, a mouse might undergo a larger amount of genetic drift over time, than an elephant (different rate of producing offspring and generations over time with associated mutations). So, a common ancestor between two mice or two elephants, could be guessed to exist at different times in the past. An ancestor between two mice of X genetic difference, could be guessed to be more recent existing, than two elephants of X genetic difference, because the mice could produce X genetic difference in a shorter amount of time (because they mutate faster).

But if someone predicts where the common ancestor is (in time), based on mutation rates in those modern day living animals, then it is more than just a question about order of DNA and order of fossils, it is a question about genetic differences, and rates of mutation.

So its not comparable to...human beings just upgrading software, or just buying the new iphone and adding some new pieces. It is indicative of change that is a product of modern day, observed mutation.

The reason it is not comparable, is that anyone can take a phone and go buy a new one at any time. Anyone can download a software update at any time. But fossils dont exist at "any time", they exist at specific times which reflect mutation rates of their associated descendants.

Thank you for your thoughtful response, otherwise."


The test for this, which has been repeated, involves using observed mutation rates to predict the temporal location of ancestral fossils, and another test involves predicting the temporal presence of fossils based on genetic relatedness of life today.

Genetic relatedness does not need to correlate with temporal succession. In genesis 1, God created fowl and animals of the sky, prior to creating creatures that walked the earth. But this isnt the temporal succession of life on earth (according to every field of science). So we understand that there is something broken with the literal interpretation of genesis. That, or all of geology and biology and paleontology and fundamentals of physics, paleoeography and chemistry, are all wrong. Take your pick...

This idea that God just made life look "as if" it evolved, but in fact he just keeps creating and destroying life millions of times over, its just absurd and is completely made up (no scripture or science backing this idea). And no young earther ever attempts to explain what a "kind" is, so there is no way for them to objectively define Gods creation versus what has evolved. Instead they propose that horses could be bred to have differing numbers of toes because miohippus could not possibly have evolved into modern day horses, rather its morphological changes and decreased number of toes must be a product of adaptation.

But then when they realize that fossil transitions span vast morphological changes, all of a sudden, God goes back to destroying and remaking and destroying and remaking, millions of times over.

As much you guys are trying to stick by scripture, you are going against scripture proposing these bizarre explanations.

Young earthers will completely make up a million and one explanations that are totally baseless, if thats what it takes to deny evolution.

 

[NobleMouse]

I think the question is...

Is science...the word of man? Or is it, research that allows for the understanding of the word of God?

Science is the study of (even though 2/3 of scientists don't believe in God), God's creation. I will agree the study of God's creation has the potential to reveal truths that are not directly detailed in God's word.

For example, the word of man, might state that gravity exists. But is it the word of man? Or is it just man speaking of what God has created? Man didnt just make gravity up. It is something created by God and it is real and exists as a part of creation.

Yes, gravity is a good example of a truth that apparently exits (although also good about this example is that it demonstrates man's very limited knowledge as science cannot really explain how gravity works other than to say it is associated with the mass of an object and can be mathematically expressed/calculated).

If biological evolution is scientifically justified and valid, then I would say that it isnt the word of man, it is man speaking of what God has created.

The study of life (biology) can reveal truths.

Now, its interesting though because, what if our observation of gravity, contradicted a literal understanding of scripture? What would we do? That is, in essence, what is going on here.

As I've pointed out, man still doesn't have a full understanding of gravity and that is observable in the present and can be tested over and over again. How does this correlate with evolution? Pretty much doesn't. We cannot go back a supposed millions/billions of years to observe and we cannot see supposed transitions between kinds (going back to the example of the fish becoming a tetrapod). We cannot take a fish and make it a tetrapod here in the present... so we've got a problem here. What can we observe about evolution here in the present? Well, we can see species adapting to their environments, but never becoming something they aren't already. The fish remains a fish... the bird remains a bird... man remains a man. What else we can observe in the present are billions of fossilized remains... many damaged and missing significant portions, and so the imagination is recruited to fill in the blanks. I don't doubt there are some educated guesses taking place, but I believe science is also where the acronym SWAG comes from : )

So one camp says, well gravity is real, and this is Gods creation. So our interpretation of scripture must be wrong. The other camp says, well no, people throughout history, for the past 2000 years have believed that gravity is not real. So, really its science that is wrong, gravity doesnt exist and mans understanding of it is wrong.

Yes gravity is real and is a part of God's creation - no imagination required to "see" it in action. Evolution (the kind that takes a protozoa and makes it into a geologist) isn't something that we see in action - it requires imagination and some assumptions. We can observe adaptation, but it requires a great deal of imagination to say well if things just keep adapting and changing and morphing... enough times maybe the tetrapod might become... a bird. Everyone would buy into evolution if it were as blatantly apparent as gravity, but obviously this is not the case. Even with geology the same is true, everyone would buy into billions of years if it were as apparent as gravity. The problem with both is that there are some very significant assumptions being made. You and I both know the doctrine of uniformity is a big assumption and assumes all things in the past have been as they are in the present. There are even assumptions in both radiometric dating and isochron dating... none of these are absolutely "pure" (no assumptions). Evolution is even more elusive. We don't need to make assumptions about gravity.

And there is no easy way to settle this dilemma.

A good place to start is: Could God have created everything in 6 days, as it is stated in the Bible? Is it possible? Could God have made man from the dust of the ground? Could God have made us male and female from the very get-go?

I'm going to take a leap here and guess you don't believe that Jonah was really in the belly of a great fish either? Jesus said that just as Jonah was in the belly of the fish for 3 days, so will He be in the belly of the earth of 3 days... fulfilling prophesy. Could God have made a fish where Jonah would be in the belly and remain alive for 3 days? Why should creation be any less true, or any less miraculous than say the parting of the red sea, manna from heaven, or the virgin birth of Christ? Do miracles only happen when it involves people getting healed or saved from peril? I don't think that would be sound theological doctrine. What are your thoughts? Also, thank you for engaging in this discussion and sharing your thoughts too!

 

[Job 33:6]

Well, one theory, the theory of gravitation, we were born and have lived our entire lives accepting. Evolution on the other hand, especially here on CF, we have been raised with an opposition to. We have deep seated beliefs that, that psychologically, we dont want to change.

Rather than attacking the analogy by trying to discredit evolution, you should examine the analogy consider the dilemma that is being proposed. What would you do if, hypothetically, a literal interpretation of scripture, defied something as obviously existent, as gravity?

Here is quoted material from PhD young earth creation scientist, Kurt Wise.

Kurt P Wise, geology (In Six Days) - creation.com

Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but "I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate".

And, if you read the dialogue leading up to this final paragraph, you see that at 8th grade he was already convinced of young earth creation. But no 8th greater understands geology, to be fair. Unless they are some kind of child prodigy, they wouldnt know much about geology at all, as they havent had long to learn it.

So, at the start he is convinced and already has underlying faith based bias, which leads him to accept young earth creation, before he even understands science (probably before he even hit puberty). And it came to the point where he would even say that "I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate". A scriptural based opinion, not a scientific one.

And I think this is what young earth people here on these forums are relating to. Literal, scriptural based views, not scientific ones. Which, up front sounds righteous. But if those preconceptions are in your heart before you know something like geology, you are destined to reach a point of denial. To the extent that, if I had to guess, there is probably no literal test that you could ever see that would lead you to believe the earth is old, or perhaps that evolution occurs.

So I would just turn back to the analogy again and ask, what if gravity defied a literal interpretation of scripture? What would you do? Would you stand by scripture and do everything in your power to deny gravity, or would you embrace it and rewrite your interpretation?

Thats really what it comes down to.