• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.
  7. There has been an addition to the announcement regarding unacceptable nick names. The phrase "Let's go Brandon" actually stands for a profanity and will be seen as a violation of the profanity rule in the future.

Call for Submissions

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by J_B_, Oct 26, 2021.

  1. J_B_

    J_B_ Well-Known Member

    772
    +229
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    Do you think you could propose a better creationist model, put it on a better scientific footing, than the ones you are familiar with? If so, please submit your idea.

    FYI, I can think of several possible objections to asking that question in the first place. Further, I'm aware many will simply not be interested. That's fine. I don't need to hear those responses. If you're willing to answer in the spirit of how the question was asked - just because it would be interesting to try - I'd like to hear from you.

    Maybe it would help to know 3 things:
    1) I'm not a science denier. I use science in my job every day.
    2) Though I believe God created the universe, I don't think what is typically passed off as creation science accomplishes anything.
    3) I think it was a fair question to ask me to consider what, based on my objections to evolution, an alternative to evolution would look like. I tried, and though I'm fond of the result, it shouldn't be surprising it came to nothing.

    The point is - I tried. I'm curious to see who on the other side of the issue might give it a try as well.
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. Mark Quayle

    Mark Quayle Well-Known Member Supporter

    +3,116
    United States
    Reformed
    Widowed
    Can you link to the model you tried? I'm not sure what you are referring to.
     
  3. MorkandMindy

    MorkandMindy Not Left not Right but Forward Supporter

    +739
    United States
    Single
    US-Others
    Greetings J_B_

    I tend to see life like this:

    Lots of things have two (or more) ways of understanding them:

    There's the useful one and the scientific one, which is often very unhelpful, though sometimes it is very helpful.

    like if someone says the Sun is high in the sky I say 'it just looks like that because the World had turned so now we face it'

    or if it's a thousand or more years ago and someone is navigating a ship at night by heading toward a particular constellation I might have been tempted to say that constellations don't actually exist, but then very soon I might not exist.

    And so on. We mainly live with what is applicable.

    I consider the apparent and the scientific to be like two layers of understanding, sometimes one is more useful and sometimes the other.
     
  4. Mark Quayle

    Mark Quayle Well-Known Member Supporter

    +3,116
    United States
    Reformed
    Widowed
    Sometimes, the scientific is only provisional, or just another 'apparent'.
     
  5. J_B_

    J_B_ Well-Known Member

    772
    +229
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    There's no point. As I said, it came to nothing. My reason for mentioning it was simply that I tried to answer what I thought was a fair question. If you think it's fair to flip the question and ask for an alternative proposal to scientifically investigate creation by an intelligent being, I'd appreciate your participation. If you don't think it's a fair question, that's fine. I don't mind you sitting out.

    If you want a little help to get started, I suppose I could throw some more out there to get the ball rolling.
     
  6. J_B_

    J_B_ Well-Known Member

    772
    +229
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    OK.
     
  7. Mark Quayle

    Mark Quayle Well-Known Member Supporter

    +3,116
    United States
    Reformed
    Widowed
    Well, you asked for an answer better than the ones I'm familiar with. I'm not sure, if by that you mean 'better than the ones I have heard from others besides myself' or 'better than some I have heard even from myself' or what. Because I'm am very familiar with mine! So I read further and see you wanted something better (apparently to those who disagreed with you or somehow didn't think yours worthy in some way) that they would propose.

    But oh well, mine (a take on the cosmological argument) to me makes great sense, haha, and I have yet to hear what I think is a decent refutation of it, though, like all the cosmological arguments, it fails to convince anyone who does not want to believe.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  8. J_B_

    J_B_ Well-Known Member

    772
    +229
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    I meant: better than what you've heard from others.

    The question I was asked was, 'You criticize evolution. What is your alternative to evolution?' I just wanted to be clear that my answer was not creation science. I took a stab at an alternative hypothesis.

    So, my question was intended for those who reject creation science. Would some among those who reject creation science be willing to try proposing a better approach to the study of creation by intelligent beings.

    But if you want to summarize your position in a short paragraph, feel free.
     
  9. setst777

    setst777 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +429
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    Yes. God is the I AM (I have always been). God, who is the creator of all things, just always existed. We know nothing about what God did before creating the heavens and the earth and all that is in them, but God said, "I am what I am." As first cause, God is just uncreated being. That may seem illogical to many, but that is a statement of fact by God. We live and exist in God's reality. In Him, we live and move and have our being.
     
  10. Mark Quayle

    Mark Quayle Well-Known Member Supporter

    +3,116
    United States
    Reformed
    Widowed

    What I believe allows a very wide range of possibilities. Time is, in a manner of speaking, a mere tool, to God. He invented it, he can use it as he pleases, making something take billions of years from one POV and 6 days, from another, and do so without lying. I don't by that mean to say that I believe he did so. I'm just saying that even if some form of Darwinian Evolution could be proven, it would not rule out a literal Genesis 1.

    I reject evolution on its own merits, as I understand them. Those of its proponents that are atheistic, call, "'God of the Gap' fallacy", on people like me concerning the cosmological argument for the existence of God, when they themselves use the same kind of reasoning. They see a gap, and fill it with "maybe", or "it looks like", and so on. Then they claim they have myriad evidences, neglecting that they need more than myriad to take us through the steps, or even to demonstrate for sure that there ever was one step taken, that can only be interpreted to support Darwinian Evolution. I have just as many "maybe" and "it looks like" reasons to distrust their methodology and therefore their conclusions, as they have to support their conclusions.
     
  11. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,872
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    Why/how are scientific explanations "often very unhelpful"?
     
  12. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,872
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    Anything about creation that is scientific?
    I promise that I will not be as dismissive to your replies and you are to science-based evolution comments.
     
  13. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,872
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    Therein lies the rub, eh?

    Are you a cosmologist? Studied cosmology scientifically? Have a related or relevant background on the subject?

    I'm guessing not, based on your forays into other areas of relevance to evolution - let us all recall that despite admitting that you do not understand even basic genetics, you nevertheless felt justified in making what you apparently thought were decent arguments against evolution using genetic-based claims.

    So why should your acceptance of your take on the cosmological argument have any relevance at all?

    Would my take on whatever it is that you did/do despite having no demonstrable knowledge of the subject matter?
     
  14. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,872
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    Part of the problem with such a request is the fact that creation science appears to consist entirely of attacks on evolution, most of which are spurious and baseless and often not science-based at all (like the screeds attempting to negate evolution because Hitler loved Darwin and similar lies). Those outputs that are not direct attacks ('this part of evolution is false!') are indirect attacks ('evolution cannot explain THIS!'). I am unaware of any actual attempts to look into, explain, test, etc. creation as such, scientifically. The closest I think I have see would be Jon Wells' paper on centrioles - but that was just an hypothesis based on a lack of a substantive background literature review, and one that he never bothered to follow up on for obvious reasons. Certainly no creation 'science' pubs that I am are of are honest presentations of scientific issues. I say this as someone that owns a dozen or so creation 'science' books (of which every one is as I describe above) , several volumes of CRSQ, who has read hundreds of creation 'science' papers and essays, etc.

    Asking for an alternative scientific model of creation is like asking for an alternative scientific explanation for the luminiferous ether.
     
  15. J_B_

    J_B_ Well-Known Member

    772
    +229
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    I appreciate your reply. I expected many would react as you have. As I said, if it's not a valid question, I don't expect an answer. However, given I also indicated in the OP I was aware I would get these objections, would you be willing to consider that maybe I'm asking for something different than the typical creationist approach? The problem is, I don't want to give you an answer. I want to see how you would do it.

    Still, to get things rolling, maybe I could suggest something that might get you thinking. This is intentionally an overly simplistic example because I don't want to influence too much what you might produce. Here we go ...

    Suppose we have a population of sheep. Some sheep have black spots on their coats, some don't. The related alleles affect nothing but the color of their coats. It doesn't change how healthy the animals are, how strong, how fast, how virile. It doesn't affect how tasty they are. Nothing is different but the presence or absence of spots on their coats. Further, left to themselves, the population would contain approximately 50% with spots and 50% without.

    However, these sheep live among wolves. This particular population of wolves has an interesting characteristic. After a sheep dies, they drag the sheepskin to their den. It's as if they're decorating their den. They give the impression of a primitive form of artistic creativity in the way they like to decorate their dens with these sheepskins. Again, there is no apparent survival benefit to doing this. The wolves that decorate their dens aren't healthier. It doesn't change how strong, how fast, how virile, etc. As such, grant me that we attribute this artistic bent as a sign of creative intelligence in these wolves.

    Further, the wolves prefer spotted coats. In the presence of these wolves, the population mix is now 40% with spotted coats, 60% without. The allele frequency has changed, even though no DNA mutation has occurred. The sheep continue to give birth with a 50/50 frequency, so if the wolf presence were removed, the population would return to a 50/50 coat distribution. Is the change in allele frequency evolution? (That's a side question, but I'd be curious to hear your answer).

    One last detail. No one has ever observed these creative wolves hunting sheep. They've only been observed hunting mice. The prevailing opinion is that they only take the coats to decorate their dens after the sheep have died of natural causes (e.g. old age). You, however, want to investigate whether these intelligent wolves are the cause of the shift from a 50/50 population to a 40/60 population.

    Now the main question. How would you go about this investigation?
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2021
  16. essentialsaltes

    essentialsaltes Stranger in a Strange Land

    +23,303
    United States
    Atheist
    Legal Union (Other)
    If what you're seeking is not a 'creationist' model but an 'anti-evolution' model, there are not going to be any options that are 'on a better scientific footing'.

    At a bare minimum, all 'creationism' entails is a demiurge -- a creator. Beyond that, you can either accept what science tells us about the natural world, or you can reject it. But if you need to reject a fundamental theory of biology, any pretense of a scientific footing goes out the door.
     
  17. J_B_

    J_B_ Well-Known Member

    772
    +229
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    See post #15.
     
  18. essentialsaltes

    essentialsaltes Stranger in a Strange Land

    +23,303
    United States
    Atheist
    Legal Union (Other)
    I'm no expert, but this particular case might not be, depending on how evolution is precisely defined. You're describing a difference of allele frequency at birth, to the frequency of the adult population. But we know, for instance, that there are roughly 105 male human births for every 100 female births. But this ratio evens out as a cohort ages (and indeed females predominate in the elderly). But the birth ratio does not seem to change much over time, so far as I know. I don't know that 'allele changes in a given cohort as they age' is evolution.

    Similarly, you've stipulated that the sheep continue to give birth in a 50/50 ratio (somehow). So there does not seem to be any change in frequency from one generation to the next. So I'll leave it to the biologists to rule on whether this is or isn't evolution. But leaving aside the nit-picking...

    More generally, yes, predator-prey relationships can have evolutionary effects. (Though again, you've stipulated that these species may not be predator and prey.)

    The first thing that comes to mind is to raise some of these sheep in A) a different continent or B) in an enclosure, where there are no wolves. But you've already stipulated that "if the wolf presence were removed, the population would return to a 50/50 coat distribution".

    So the simplest explanation seems to be that the wolves are indeed responsible for the shift. Removing that one variable made the effect go away.

    (It occurs to me that if there were a difference between A and B, that would be interesting. If the sheep were on a different continent (case A), and there was no effect. BUT, if wolves were nearby in case B), maybe they stare daggers at the one type of sheep, from outside the enclosure, making them nervous so they die of heart attacks. Or they whisper cruel things to the sheep so that they are driven to suicide.)
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2021
  19. setst777

    setst777 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +429
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    There is adaptation, and then there is evolution.

    The definition of true evolution entails that, in time, one kind of life form evolves into a different kind of life form.

    Adaptation, is the ability with in the genetic code for a kind of life form to adapt to changes in the environment or other outside influences. Most such adaptations result from forms of gene expression that are more likely to survive in a given environment or influence, while those other gene expressions that are not so advantageous will die off or be killed.

    In addition, there are mutations. Mutations do not result in a change of kind of life form, and most mutations end in death or some kind of debilitating disease state. But in rare instances, mutations result in some kind of change, whether good, bad, or neutral.

    We have no scientific evidence today that supports or denies evolution, which is why evolution is considered by the scientific community as a theory rather than scientific fact.
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2021
  20. essentialsaltes

    essentialsaltes Stranger in a Strange Land

    +23,303
    United States
    Atheist
    Legal Union (Other)
    Gravity is a fact.
    Newton's theory of gravity is a scientific theory that explains that fact.

    Evolution is a fact.
    Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific theory that explains that fact.
     
Loading...