-
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.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
A General Case for Creationism
- Thread starter clue
- Start date
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
I'm an evolutionist. What you were describing is called abiogenesis and it is a lot more complicated than what you're thinking.
Upvote
0
I know it's complicated. In fact, I think it's IMPOSSIBLE! But it is one of the many assumptions that the whole theory of Evolution is based on!
Upvote
0
It means putting them on a list of "Scientists who disagree with Darwin or evolution" was bloody stupid and an attempt to pad the list.
After all, if they were dead before Darwin wrote Origins they couldn't form an opinion on it, could they?
Not so much. Behe, for instance, accepts common descent and an old earth and universe. Yet I've seen his name on those lists, simply because of his IC stuff.
A list of "Scientists who disagree with Evolution" is an attemp to argue by authority. The very first step is making sure those people actually are authorities on the subject in question.
Moot? Would you like to see these lists? They're quite common. Or are you just unable to address them, and trying to avoid the subject?
These lists are anything but moot. I have learned, through experience, to verify the claims of Creationists personally. I mentioned those lists as an explanation of why I ask for specifics.
That's not an assumption of evolution. Problem solved.
Some people don't think we ever went the moon, too.
No, it's not. Problem solved.
Now, are you going to provide the names of those "evolutionists who became Creationists" or not?
Upvote
0
Just because you think something is impossible doesn't mean it is. I'm sure people from the 1500's thought the idea of traveling to the moon was impossible (or at the very least, would require divine intervention).
Anyway, the theory of evolution doesn't care where life originally came from. Whether God created it, extraterrestrial lifeforms seeded the planet, or it formed naturally from pre-existing chemicals, the theory of evolution only deals with how the diversity of life formed on this planet (through changes and adaptations over generations of living organisms).
edit: Heh, Morat is quicker on the draw. Funny how we both used the same moon analogy, though.
Upvote
0
Morat, now that I know you're serious and now that I have a better understanding of your underlying logic...
Okay I concede this.
But what if they disagreed with some/all of the assumptions that Evolution is based on that they would have been aware of when they were living? Could they then be put on these lists?
All the references that I've read about Michael Behe refer to him as part of the Intelligent Design movement. So, I for one, haven't been misled.
But I will concede that there might be some/many errors with some/many Creationist sites, but that can be said of Evolutionary sites too.
So, are you saying "Yes, only biologists should have any kind of a say in the Evolutionary debate" or "No, biologists should not be the only ones to have a say in the Evolutionary debate"?
Either way, I can produce Biologists who believe in Creation, if you would like.
I think I have addressed the issue of these lists.
Really? Okay. I've never had a problem with these sites. Please read them in the future for the definitive stance on Creationism. Even I would be skeptical of any other sites.
Answers in Genesis
Institute for Creation Research
Really. Wow, I'm going to have to get back with you on this one.
So, if I can somehow prove to you that it is, will you give Creationism a chance?
Et tu, Brute?
Even you can't fathom this? I don't understand. I didn't question LiveFreeOrDie when he made his statement about a Creationist who turned Evolutionist. I took it at face value. Because to me, in all probability, this could have occurred. I am just asking you guys to return the favor.
Well, one of those guys wrote a book about his conversion. Will that suffice?
Amazon - From Evolution to Creation
Okay I concede this.
But what if they disagreed with some/all of the assumptions that Evolution is based on that they would have been aware of when they were living? Could they then be put on these lists?
All the references that I've read about Michael Behe refer to him as part of the Intelligent Design movement. So, I for one, haven't been misled.
But I will concede that there might be some/many errors with some/many Creationist sites, but that can be said of Evolutionary sites too.
So, are you saying "Yes, only biologists should have any kind of a say in the Evolutionary debate" or "No, biologists should not be the only ones to have a say in the Evolutionary debate"?
Either way, I can produce Biologists who believe in Creation, if you would like.
I think I have addressed the issue of these lists.
Really? Okay. I've never had a problem with these sites. Please read them in the future for the definitive stance on Creationism. Even I would be skeptical of any other sites.
Answers in Genesis
Institute for Creation Research
Really. Wow, I'm going to have to get back with you on this one.
So, if I can somehow prove to you that it is, will you give Creationism a chance?
Et tu, Brute?
Even you can't fathom this? I don't understand. I didn't question LiveFreeOrDie when he made his statement about a Creationist who turned Evolutionist. I took it at face value. Because to me, in all probability, this could have occurred. I am just asking you guys to return the favor.
Well, one of those guys wrote a book about his conversion. Will that suffice?
Amazon - From Evolution to Creation
Upvote
0
It's all in the terminology. "Abiogenesis" sounds so much more scientific than "spontaneous generation" that some people might actually get the impression it's possible.
Upvote
0
But do you agree that spontaneous generation is an assumption that (marco)evolution is built on?
But here are the implications:
If God created it, you should worship and honor Him for the Excellent Being that He is.
If ETs created it, you should worship and honor them for the Excellent Beings they are.
If natural processes created it, you should live your life the way you want to and to heck with anything else.
Diversity of life - within the same kind of lifeforms or into different kinds of lifeforms?
Upvote
0
Nope. Like I said, where life came from is irrelevant to how it evolved. The only criteria is that life had to come from somewhere.
Those three implications are based on assumptions.
In the case of God or ET's, that He (or they) would want to be worshipped and honored.
In the case of a natural process, you're ignoring the constraits put into place by the natural world and human society. While I can go on a murder-spree, I probably wouldn't be able to so for very long before my butt is thrown in jail. Similarily, I can suck back all the tetrachloroethylene I want, but it probably won't be too conductive to my survival.
Diversity of all life from pre-existing life. So yes, early lifeforms evolving into different "kinds" of lifeforms.
Upvote
0
Nope. Because how would you know?
Try "most". YEC sites, in particular, tend to have the same inaccurate (or deceptive) quotes and fradulent lists. Which is what happens when people don't check sourses.
I said what I said: When looking for authorties on evolution, biology is the place to start. If you're not a biologist, it's very unlikely you're an authority.
Feel free. I'm especially interested in your original claim, which was evolutionists who became Creationists. Got any biologists in that group?
Definitive is your opinion.
No. Why would that be evidence for Creationism? This is not a binary decision. Falsfiying evolution does not prove Creation.
If you want me to give Creationism a chance, start with evidence for Creationism.
You mean Gary Parker, Ed.D who has never published a single paper? He was quite the evolutionist before. He did help write programmed textbooks, but that's technical writing.
However, I'll grant you this one, even though there is utterly no way to tell if this is a Well's thing. Now, where are the others? You said more than one...
Upvote
0
I am sorry you think that my "statement is very biased from the get go." Since my intention was to fairly set out the major positions, interpretations or theories regarding measuring the time frame for creation and since it was intended to be a synopsis of a large body of young earth creationist material I had read, I would appreciate it if you would correct my statement so that it does correctly and objectively state the position of those persons who think the universe is only 6,000 years old and who think only 144 hours elapsed from the first spark of creation through God's creation of the first man and woman with a soul.
You imply that you do not necessarily reject the scientific evidence to the contrary, but rather that you apparently do believe the scientific evidence that supports it, and apparently think that the scientific evidence in support of a universe that is less than 6000 years old is stronger than the scientific evidence to the contrary. Please discuss this in greater detail.
Have you examined the scientific evidence that indicates that the universe is older than 6,000 years? If so, what is it about that evidence that causes you to reject it?
What scientific evidence have you examined that shows the universe is only 6000 years old? What is it about such evidence that you find particularly convincing?
Thank you.
Upvote
0
clue: "So, are you saying "Yes, only biologists should have any kind of a say in the Evolutionary debate" or "No, biologists should not be the only ones to have a say in the Evolutionary debate"?
Morat: "I said what I said: When looking for authorties on evolution, biology is the place to start. If you're not a biologist, it's very unlikely you're an authority."
For whatever it's worth (which is probably very little), I think you both have valid points on this issue. Since the theory of evolution is almost entirely a biological theory, professional biologists tend to be by far the best authority one can quote. However, there are some subtheories or assumptions that may involve such other disciplines as mathematics, quantum mechanics or physics that require persons trained in those areas to be involved. Although any person may be qualified to give an opinion on an issue, for that opinion to truly be considered an authoritative opinon or an expert opinion, the person expressing it should be considered an authority in that particular field.
Morat: "I said what I said: When looking for authorties on evolution, biology is the place to start. If you're not a biologist, it's very unlikely you're an authority."
For whatever it's worth (which is probably very little), I think you both have valid points on this issue. Since the theory of evolution is almost entirely a biological theory, professional biologists tend to be by far the best authority one can quote. However, there are some subtheories or assumptions that may involve such other disciplines as mathematics, quantum mechanics or physics that require persons trained in those areas to be involved. Although any person may be qualified to give an opinion on an issue, for that opinion to truly be considered an authoritative opinon or an expert opinion, the person expressing it should be considered an authority in that particular field.
Upvote
0
You're right, Pete. I might have been a little hasty.
An initial response after determining that a higher power might exist would more likely be:
1. why did he create me?
2. what does he want from me?
3. has he ever tried/is he trying to communicate with me?
Upvote
0
Here is an example of what I am talking about.
Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
Here is a quote from the following article:
When Newton was investigating the movement of the planets, he quite clearly saw the hand of God at work. He wrote, 'This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being.... This Being governs all things . . . as Lord of all.' 'Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance'. (clue added the emphasis).
Could the Creationists then claim him as one of their own??
'Most' is still not 'all'.
So a geologist who claims to have irrefutable proof that the Earth is NOT billions of years old, but in fact only a handful of thousands of years old would have no bearing on the theory of Evolution?
If you answer yes to this question, then all I can say is "I disagree" and we will just leave it at that.
Gary Parker is a biologist.
Yes it is. But the reason why I suggested these sites in the first place was because of your claim that most YEC sites 'tend to have the same inaccurate (or deceptive) quotes and fradulent lists'. If you ever found any errors on these sites, you would have made a believer out of me and maybe even others.
Okay, you're right. Would it make you at least rethink some of the assumptions that Evolution is based on and thereby, the whole notion that Evolution is somehow proven or a scientific fact??
Other threads have been devoted to this.
If you grant me this one, why do I need to produce others? I have just proven that there is at least a possibility for one. Is it so hard to imagine another?
And what are my current restrictions now? I have to find a Creationist who:
1. has a biological degree
2. has to have a Ph.D. in that degree
3. had to have converted from Evolution to Creationism
4. had to somehow prove that he REALLY believed in Evolution
5. had to have published Evolutionary papers before to prove # 4
6. anything else?
I put forth these scientists in the first place because of livefreeordie's comment about a Creationist who turned into an Evolutionist. With the restrictions you are now putting on me, his guy (a geologist) would have failed the test. So, the fact that this specific issue is even being pursued is ironic, at the very least.
And in the end, will this really matter anyway? Will it sway you in the least? I'll put forth the effort, but not if it really isn't going to make a difference.
Upvote
0
At the other extreme are those who believe the English translation of the Bible's creation account should be applied literally. Some within this group believe the Bible means six consecutive 24-hour periods of time (i.e., 144 hours total), and there is scientific evidence to support a young Earth. Under this theory, the important thing is to not let ones faith waiver in the face of supposed contrary scientific evidence but rather to stand true to Gods word and ones faith."
Other threads have been devoted to this.
Some.
That a case can be made for and against an old universe. But the only one being taught in schools is the 'for' evidence. It makes me question whether I am being brainwashed or not.
Evidence for a young Earth
That scientists with the highest credentials concluded that the universe was young. That it is in alignment with a sacred book (that details a God) that has persevered since ancient times. Which is in alignment with my own personal belief that there is too much complexity in this universe to have arrived here by chance or natural processes. There must have been some kind of intelligent and directive force behind it all.
Upvote
0
This statement is completely at odds with modern scientific thought.
The only thing taught in schools is science. Do you equate the teaching of science with brainwashing?
Pure garbage. If it was so bloody obvious, don't you think more scientists would support the young-earth position? Don't you think the Affiliation of Christian Geologists might instead support the young-earth view?
If you find this persuasive, then I assume you are unaware that are far more scientists with far higher credentials who think the evidence for multi-billion-year-old Earth is indisputable.
You mean the Mahabharata right?
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Similar threads
