• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

A Challenge for Anti-evolutionists

coachboyd1982

Christian Teacher/Coach
May 24, 2011
148
7
North Carolina
Visit site
✟23,035.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

Sorry. I meant that as to say you can't prove there is a God using science. He is so far above that. Yes, some of the things we know about science give us evidence of the validity of the bible. That I agree with.
 
Upvote 0

spiritual warrior

Active Member
May 27, 2011
283
12
Travelling from here to glory...what a ride!
✟489.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private


DL, I am not as well versed on this immediate subject as I used to be, but I do remember that Dr. Remine came up with a scientifically satisfactory study of "kinds" in Baraminology. I don't know when i will get the chance to look that up again, so if you are interested you might want to look him up.
 
Upvote 0

spiritual warrior

Active Member
May 27, 2011
283
12
Travelling from here to glory...what a ride!
✟489.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private


This is a myth. Just as we can test other natural phenomena, whether directly or second hand through a phenomena's effects, so we can test indirectly the fact of God. The major facts of cosmology demonstrate a power beyond mere physical ability of those phenomena to work harmoniously. Then you also have the fact of 1/3 of Scripture being fulfilled prophecy, sometimes hundreds to thousands of years after the word was spoken.

You can't see the wind, nor can you trap it in a test tube and dissect it in a lab, yet we can study its effects as it moves upon the face of the earth. So is it with God...every miracle that God performs is the effect of Him moving somewhere upon the face of the earth.

We also need to get rid of this nonsense about faith being something other than fact based. Faith is not some mystical thing we employ when we cannot hear or see or taste something. yes, some people step up to God a and take a leap of faith, blind faith, but the faith that we eventually have to have in order to walk with God is an evidence-based faith. You can see your car, and you operate in faith everyday when you stick your car key in the ignition and crank it over.

True believers walk in fact-based faith after a while...if they don't, then they fall away and are no longer true believers.

 
Upvote 0

spiritual warrior

Active Member
May 27, 2011
283
12
Travelling from here to glory...what a ride!
✟489.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private


Now who's living in the dark ages...

Rock strata demonstrates flood geology. Starlight demonstrates nothing because there are so many unwarranted and illegitimate assumptions thrown into the mix that it is not a valid science even...same with radiometric readings...far too many assumptions involved.

All the facts together, there is more clear evidence for a earth between 6,000 - 12,000 years old than there is for millions of years. A true scientist will take the theory with less unverifiable assumptions over the one with hundreds of unverifiable assumptions...that is, unless it is his pet theory that he is trying to protect.
 
Upvote 0

metherion

Veteran
Aug 14, 2006
4,185
368
39
✟28,623.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married

(citation needed), and (citation needed on the specific case especially since it is in the face of evidence)

What does evolution lack? Evidence. There is no observable instance or evidence of life forming from non-life (except the creation account, but God is life, so that really doesn't count, does it?)
You’ve already been corrected that evolution does not deal with the origin of life. Continuing to make this mistake would be bearing false witness, something you claim to decry every post.

f we all evolved from a common ancestor, then the fossil evidence showing changes from one species to another should be ABUNDANT, but instead it is incredibly lacking; nay, non-existent.
Your refusal to see it when shown is not a lack.

WHAT evidence? Specifics, please. And also point out how it fits with the fossil record, and human history, and the history of the species alive today. SPECIFIC evidence, not broad claims.

Your Java man quote is a lie perpetrated by people with something to sell. Lucy is an ape, just like humans are apes. I’ll show that later if asked/challenged.

That’s funny because
a) creationist organizations like AIG are the ones who have statements of faith that ‘if scientific evidence contradicts our preconceived notions of Scripture, reality is WRONG’,
b) modern science does no such thing,
and c) God is beyond the scope of science. Science cannot deal with the supernatural, since science USES methodological naturalism. Since we can only measure the natural, only natural causes may be discerned empirically.

Of course DNA is going to be similar. There are only a number of ways a given species can be built adequately and of the same material to prosper in an Earthly condition.
Really? So it was impossible for God to make some species out of DNA and some species out of AFLA? (AFLA= Another Four-Letter Acronym).

Of course God created life. How did it happen on it's own accord? (Saying that is not part of the science of evolution is not an answer)
But it ISN”T part of evolution, it’s part of a different field called abiogenesis. And so far, let’s see...
a) amino acids have been shown to form without an organism present,
b) vesicles will spontaneously form under the correct conditions,
c) there are already self-catalyzing organic reactions,
etc, etc, etc. Those there were ones I could recall off the top of my head.

Good thing that it isn’t just chance, then.

If the OT is the word of God, I say let ToE be proven before assuming anything in science.
Of course, “the word of God” does not mean “literal history throughout or completely false”. I guarantee you neither me nor DL think that the OT is not the word of God.

What if God agreed? What if God subjected Himself to testing? All that'd be left would be to deny reports of the tests, huh?
Why do you seem to have this preconceived notion that science/scientists = God deny atheistic propoganda machine/atheists? Where did you get it from? It’s totally wrong.

Also, God COULD come down, and if He could be tested by our instruments, He’d have to use natural means. Sure, He could give evidence that it was Him doing things supernaturally, but it would not be scientific evidence. Especially because as soon as He left, we’d be unable to detect that it was Him doing things again.

So evolution is a conspiracy? Really? Among who, for what purpose, and what about the volumes of useful information coming from its use?

Assuming the initial condition of something is subjective.

And your scientific training on how it is done to make your opinion actually relevant is...?


All science has done is flatter itself as being above because it can point to something and say it's there.
Really? So discoveries and inventions of novel things that no one has ever heard of before is just ‘pointing to something and saying it’s there’?

The simple fact of the matter is that evolution caught on because it is either that or nothing in secular belief
Your simple fact of the matter is completely wrong. It would not have caught on if it did not have evidence. Merely refusing to recognize it does not make it go away.

And of course, if God MADE things starting old, with histories that never happened, there’s a word for that. It’s called deception. And I thought God wasn’t the author of confusion here.

I’ve seen reports on so called “baraminology”, and one thing I have seen is that any test for separating between kinds puts humans in the ape kind, unless they are directly and ad hoc separated out.


Citation needed.

But you can measure and test the wind, put instruments in the wind, and feel it on your face.

And are you saying that if it isn’t a miracle, it ISN”T God’s doing?

Rock strata demonstrates flood geology.
Specific examples.

Starlight demonstrates nothing because there are so many unwarranted and illegitimate assumptions thrown into the mix that it is not a valid science even...same with radiometric readings...far too many assumptions involved.
And your training/qualifications that would indicate that I should put your opinion here above the actual scientists and teh entire field that is decades old is...?

All the facts together, there is more clear evidence for a earth between 6,000 - 12,000 years old than there is for millions of years.
Outright false.

A true scientist will take the theory with less unverifiable assumptions over the one with hundreds of unverifiable assumptions...that is, unless it is his pet theory that he is trying to protect.
Funnily enough, this describes creationist organizations far more than actual science, especially if you’ve actually spent years at university studying some of the stuff.

Metherion
 
Upvote 0

Dark_Lite

Chewbacha
Feb 14, 2002
18,333
973
✟52,995.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single

You still haven't cited something. Cite something.

Assuming the initial condition of something is subjective.
The fact of the matter is, YEC has only been neglected in light of scientific hypothesis. It has never been proven wrong.

Ah, the interpretation argument. Unfortunately, it doesn't work. There is no other interpretation than what we have now. YECism was falsified over one hundred years ago. Catastrophism was cast out in favor of uniformitarianism for good reason. People just didn't decide to change their views. Uniformitarianism was posited because it is the best explanation for the evidence.

If you throw out uniformitarianism (which YECism must), then you undermine much of science. Biology, geology, physics, chemistry, and pretty much any other natural science you can think of becomes unreliable. All of our knowledge would be built on sand.

Dating methods are something YEC's should have never been threatened by. The practicality of God creating everything with a starting age of numero uno makes no sense.

God creating everything "aged" makes even less sense. The Omphalos hypothesis turns God into an author of confusion. God is not the author of confusion.


Well, let's see. Science has given us all of our modern technology, doubled average human life expectancy, cured diseases, and in general greatly advanced our understanding of the universe. Creationism has created a persecuted mob mentality, allowed charlatans to rise as "authority figures," attempted (somewhat successfully, unfortunately) to undermine the education system, and allowed some people to come up with the idea that "science" is a massive conspiracy against "truth."


No, it caught on because it's the best explanation for the evidence. Evolution has been around for 150 years, has been greatly refined, and is still being refined. It has stood the test of scientific time. Creationists never seem to realize that a biologist who could actually overthrow evolutionary theory would be set for life.

Of course that is no offense toward evolution theists, but deep down you want the scriptures to be true. And this is a key logic to rationalize what a lot of creationists in the media beat around but never really say

It's not "deep down." As Christians, we believe the Bible to be true. There is a difference between disagreeing with a literal interpretation of the creation account and disagreeing with the Bible.


Baraminology is the closest thing to science creationists have for defining "kind." But unsurprisingly, the definition of "kind" shifts around in there too. Then there's the constant revising of it in order to make sure humans and apes are separate "kinds." Baraminology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia You can check the sources for yourself.

Rock strata demonstrates flood geology.

If the rock strata demonstrated a global flood, we would see it. Most/all fossils would all be present in one layer of the strata, and the strata the world over would have layers at the same places with markers of flooding. The radiometric dating of the fossils inside the strata would all converge on the same number.

Except, we don't see any of that. We see fossils at many different layers, and the deeper the layer, the older the fossil. The two independent dating methods (strata and radiometric) converge on the same age for these fossils, and give us great evidence that the fossils are getting progressively older.

Starlight demonstrates nothing because there are so many unwarranted and illegitimate assumptions thrown into the mix that it is not a valid science even...same with radiometric readings...far too many assumptions involved.

Well that's convenient. What are the "unwarranted and illegitimate assumptions" then? Astronomy has math and physics backing it up. Creationism has "God created starlight in motion." Which sounds more like an unwarranted assumption to you?


Creation "science" organizations force their members to sign statements of faith in which they pledge to reach conclusions that support creationism (young/old, depending on the organization). Take Answers in Genesis (AiG), for example. I was reading through their explanation of Noah's Ark yesterday to refute something in the other thread in this forum.

AiG tells us that God gave the animals a "homing instinct" to get to the Ark. They then tell us that God gave all the animals a magic hibernation ability to stay asleep on the Ark in order to help Noah deal with food. Absolutely no evidence for such an idea in the empirical world. Little or no evidence from Scripture (which isn't scientific anyway). Those are assumptions for a pet theory.
 
Upvote 0

Sum1sGruj

Well-Known Member
May 9, 2011
535
9
37
On Life's Orb
✟716.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian

Some creationists think too hard. I see debates with some and it hurts my spirits. God bless them for defending the bible, but you know, they go about it the wrong way.

Noah's ark can be easily interpreted.
For one, you cannot downplay human ingenuity. Man has a driving force capable of doing many things if determined enough. God commanding one to do something is probably the king of all incentives.

I will have to agree that God must have commanded the animals to come to the ark, as Noah certainly would not have been able to do so. But that is where the 'pet theory' ends.
For the herbivores, he simply gathered food. Water- it was raining pretty hard (understatement). Other food- fish in the sea. Whether a lot of them died due to changing salinity is neither here nor there. It was edible, and so it fed him, his family, and the animals.
Following the flood, the herbivores ate the remains of stored food until crops came in, while the others continued to eat fish. Eventually, life sprung up and animals prospered once again.

How did they get across seas to other continents? Simple, in the same way the bird he sent out never came back. They simply dispersed and migrated through the Alaskan corridor to Canada. Australia? Human migration. They brought with them animals they would need to survive on a purely vegetative continent. Marsupials were commonly used in sacrifice among certain pagan religions, and were domesticated in one form or another for their suits and nutrition. After all, they must have seen them as special because they are so different from other species.

See, there are many ways to prescribe explanations, but science has become so flattered by atheistic intrigue that people forget it is only an alternative logic for a godless reality. Assumptions is all one really has to go on. Science assumes the initial condition of everything, and so it becomes subject to all this.
 
Upvote 0

twinc

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2011
778
5
Wirral
✟1,281.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status

Why is it you see contradictions where others do not - surely it must be that "two men look out from the same prison bars but one sees earth and the other stars" - it seems you have not considered the topic of 'simul et ex nihilo' = no evolution possible or necessary and God did not and could not guide that which did not and could not happen - twinc
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Dark_Lite

Chewbacha
Feb 14, 2002
18,333
973
✟52,995.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
"citation needed citation needed citation needed" Someone thinks he's a wikipedia censor on patrol

When you make claims, you need to back them up. Currently, all we have for your accusations is you saying so and then claiming there's a conspiracy on Wikipedia to block your supporting evidence.

Forgive me if that's not very convincing.
 
Upvote 0

The Outlier

Regular Member
Apr 20, 2011
1,143
115
Shelby County, OH
✟24,198.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
The problem with evolutionary scientists isn't that they are liars or that they are fools. The problem is that classes in design, engineering, and quality control are not prerequisites for evolutionary science. While there are many people in the above fields that are evolutionists, evolutionary science is ignorant of how design really works. They say design is by chance, or that animals intentionally adapt to their envoronments over time, but never say how they know how to do that. How do all those animals communicate with each other over generations to motivate each other to a linear change in biology, and how is it possible to even change one's biology? The idea that the strong survive has a lot of truth n it. The idea that ONLY the strong survive is flawed. What about sheep? Then there is the problem of order coming out of randomness and the second law of thermodynamics. In order to talk about the universe, all one has to do is study it. In order to talk about how the universe is not designed, one has to at least study design first and do some of ones own successful designing. Plus living organisms are much more complex than machines. To say that they have no designer is absolutely absurd.
 
Upvote 0

Jase

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2003
7,330
385
✟10,432.00
Faith
Messianic
Politics
US-Democrat
I don't think you realize how flawed your "ideas" about Noah's ark are.


How do you explain the Earth having 5 mass extinction level events, when Noah's Ark would only explain one? How did Noah survive asteroid impacts? How did he and the animals survive "Nuclear" winter? Did all the Continents converge to form a supercontinent, then break up again, and repeat this cycle multiple times while Noah was bobbing around the ocean?
 
Upvote 0

twinc

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2011
778
5
Wirral
✟1,281.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status

what seems to be huge problems for you are no problem/s to creationists - so just become a creationist and solve your own problem/s - twinc
 
Upvote 0

Jase

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2003
7,330
385
✟10,432.00
Faith
Messianic
Politics
US-Democrat
what seems to be huge problems for you are no problem/s to creationists - so just become a creationist and solve your own problem/s - twinc
I used to be a creationist, until I opened my eyes to the moutain of evidence against it, and realized I was living with cognitive dissonance.

Creationists cannot explain extinction level events or plate tectonics in light of a literal reading of the Bible.
 
Upvote 0

metherion

Veteran
Aug 14, 2006
4,185
368
39
✟28,623.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married

No. They do not say design is entirely by chance, nor that animals intentionally adapt. The appearance of design is apparent in part due to a feature in human psyche called intelligent agent recognition, which I will be happy to explain if desired. But it is also not all chance, as natural selection works in the same manner as a feedback loop.

Furthermore, animals do not intentionally adapt, that is the lamarkian idea of evolution, which is replaced and bettered by Darwin’s idea, which has been refined to the current TOE with new discoveries.

Just to make sure we are on the same level, let’s take the example of the giraffe. If I understand you right, you are saying that the ancestor to giraffes originally had a short neck, and by consciously REACHING for tall leaves forced its neck to grow. Am I correct in saying that is what you are thinking of? Because evolution doesn’t work that way.

but never say how they know how to do that.
Natural (or nowadays, and in some cases, artificial) selection.

How do all those animals communicate with each other over generations to motivate each other to a linear change in biology, and how is it possible to even change one's biology?
They don’t. Evolutionary theory does not teach that they do.

The idea that the strong survive has a lot of truth n it. The idea that ONLY the strong survive is flawed.
It isn’t “only the strong survive”. It’s survival of the FITTEST, not the STRONGEST. In some cases, being fitter might mean being weaker. Less muscle bulk could equal more speed, so a weaker mouse might run faster and escape the cat. There is also intelligence. The chimp that figures out to use a stick to get termites eats more protein that the one that doesn’t. Or maybe just the most offspring. Salmon don’t even parent their young, they spawn by laying lots of eggs and leaving clouds of fish-sperm everywhere. Or sea turtles, they are rather prolific, laying MANY eggs, and there are just too many for predators to get them all.

Fit can mean many things besides strong.

What about sheep?
What about them? Right now, sheep are artificially selected for things like stupidity and wool quality and meat amount, instead of naturally selected for by predators.

Then there is the problem of order coming out of randomness and the second law of thermodynamics.
I already covered that a few pages back.


No, it isn’t necessary to STUDY design to say it is not designed, evidence must be put forward that it could ONLY be designed. So far every example of ID has been shot down. Also, machines do not self-reproduce with variation, organisms do. And if you want to go about how ‘absurd’ it is whether or not they would work without being designed, study organic and biochemistry. (I am studying graduate level organic come the fall, during the summer I’m doing research on my thesis). Then you can find out just how things work and whether or not they need to be artificially put together, or if they just follow the simple rules of chemistry.

And then, of course, there’s the idea that just seems to be permeating everything that ‘if it isn’t a miracle, God didn’t do it/direct it.’ God works through the natural just as well. God could (and I believe did) make EVERYTHING even if He didn’t preform miracles at each and every step.

Especially with quotes like:
but science has become so flattered by atheistic intrigue that people forget it is only an alternative logic for a godless reality.

And twinc- you haven’t responded to my refutation of your ‘simul et ex nihilo’ argument in the other thread. If you don’t want to do it over there, I’ll gladly move it over here for you.

Metherion
 
Upvote 0

Sum1sGruj

Well-Known Member
May 9, 2011
535
9
37
On Life's Orb
✟716.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian

For the same reason that there is no practicality in God making the Earth 'brand new'. Of course things are going to be initially 'old'. Five mass extinction levels and 3 billion years are required for ToE to work, and some should really think about that concept before throwing it up against creationism. It is subjective to itself.

The pearly gates did not wait a billion years for clams to produce it.

I will keep stating that until it sinks in, because there never was any reason for Christians to believe dating techniques hurt YEC, or that similar DNA is more then the likeness of species. It does not have to attribute to any kind of 'hierarchy' period.

There is no reason to bring down the word of God to mere morals in light of a subjective idea built on a godless reality. I see YEC's getting the shaft nowadays and there is no reason why they should. After all, I am providing a very logical defense for YEC and if it isn't, feel free to tell why.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

twinc

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2011
778
5
Wirral
✟1,281.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status

says who - yes they can,just ask at one of their websites or books - twinc
 
Upvote 0

Sum1sGruj

Well-Known Member
May 9, 2011
535
9
37
On Life's Orb
✟716.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
No they can't. Their response is "Goddidit". That's not a scientifically verifiable claim, and therefore a cop out.

Only if God did in fact not do it. It's a cop out to believe in God and not what agrees with something as subjective as radiometric dating and evolution.
Scientifically, the universe is infinite with no beginning, we came and went before we came, and life is an extremely improbable happening needing infinite universes to possibly contain such an occurrence.
There is only one prevalent god and His Word states everything was made in 6 days. Whether dating techniques are accurate or not is irrelevant. Why many creationists make a mountain out of a molehill is beyond me, or scientists for that matter. They should be the ones out of anyone to know logical subjection seeing how their careers are based around reason.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Dark_Lite

Chewbacha
Feb 14, 2002
18,333
973
✟52,995.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single

Omphalos hypothesis makes God into a liar. God is not the author of confusion. That is why your defense is illogical.
 
Upvote 0