Creationist "arguments" - different karyotypes

[Sam Davis]

He is countering an argument made by creationists. Do you understand the creationists' argument? Faith in God does not come into it.

I will go back and review the OP and see if I can make sense of it.

For the Christian faith in God is everything.

 

[expos4ever]

I personally believe the Genesis account and take it as literal. All things are possible with God.

Of course all things are possible, but that gets us nowhere. It is possible that God could have given us two heads, but He didn’t.

It is time for honesty and realism. Evolution is a fact in any reasonable interpretation of “fact”. The more we deny this, the crazier we seem. And rightly so.

 

[Sam Davis]

Then why do you think you have a dog in this fight?

I’m trying to explain that Christianity is a religion based upon faith not science.

 

[Speedwell]

I’m trying to explain that Christianity is a religion based upon faith not science.

I don't think anyone here disagrees with you about that.

 

[Sam Davis]

I don't think anyone here disagrees with you about that.

Then why are we arguing Christian doctrine via science?

I believe what God says in Genesis regardless of what chromosomes an ape has.

 

[expos4ever]

Many Christian beliefs go against science such as Jesus raising the dead or the parting of the Red Sea. That is why Christianity is based in faith not science.

These analogies are not appropriate in the present context. There is a mountain of evidence demonstrating that evolution happened. So it would be highly irrational to deny evolution. There is no mountain of evidence that Jesus did not rise, or that the Red Sea was not parted.

I understand where you are coming from but the evidence in evolution is conclusive.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Then why are we arguing Christian doctrine via science?

I believe what God says in Genesis regardless of what chromosomes an ape has.

Because creationists are trying to impose Christian doctrine on science. (and in schools and in the law and in Government)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Because you are attempting to argue science with people of faith.

You seem to be missing the point, which is the problem of creationists trying to make scientific arguments for non-scientific beliefs - and failing. Typically, those arguments do not attempt to justify faith beliefs but to falsify the scientific position under the misapprehension that if the science is wrong, the faith beliefs must be right.

Attempts to falsify the scientific position are to be encouraged, but it can't be done by attacking straw men or misrepresenting the evidence.

 

[Speedwell]

Then why are we arguing Christian doctrine via science?

We're not. We're arguing against bad scientific arguments made in defense of creationist doctrine.

I believe what God says in Genesis regardless of what chromosomes an ape has.

That's fine, but if you want to argue about how many chromosomes an ape has you better have a scientific bass for it.

 

[Sam Davis]

the evidence in evolution is conclusive.

When you use the word evolution that is a pretty broad topic.

Are you speaking of man evolving from apes? I doubt that evidence is conclusive.

 

[Speedwell]

When you use the word evolution that is a pretty broad topic.

Are you speaking of man evolving from apes? I doubt that evidence is conclusive.

Man is an ape. Specifically, a member of the Family Hominidae.

 

[expos4ever]

When you use the word evolution that is a pretty broad topic.

Are you speaking of man evolving from apes? I doubt that evidence is conclusive.

We need to be truthful - the evidence is indeed conclusive; there is virtual unanimity among experts that evolution happened.

 

[Sam Davis]

Man is an ape. Specifically, a member of the Family Hominidae.

According to whom? Science or God?

I believe man was created by God in his image.

 

[Sam Davis]

We need to be truthful - the evidence is indeed conclusive; there is virtual unanimity among experts that evolution happened.

Who are these experts? Alister McGrath?

 

[Speedwell]

According to whom? Science or God?

I believe man was created by God in his image.

So do I, but I see no difference if He created us from a handful of dust or from a precursor primate.

 

[miamited]

Hi SLP,

Thanks for your response:

The fact of the matter is, when creationists try to use scientific arguments against evolution, they nearly always fail (and I only say 'nearly' because I have yet to see all creationist arguments).

I believe that we need to understand that when anyone, (creationist, atheist, scientist, biologist) tries to use scientific methodology to explain anything that God has done...it fails.

Here is just a shortlist of the things that God has claimed to have done in His word that, as far as I'm aware, science has not been able to prove:

Flooding the entire earth.
Turning a river, and all ground water of an entire city/nation to blood.
Causing both fire and ice to rain down from the sky at the same time.
Causing a shadow to go backwards.
Parting a sea to cause a wall of water to stand on both sides of a chasm.
Causing a woman, never having sexual relations, to be pregnant.
Raising a dead man from the grave.

So, when I hear people say that 'science' has proven that God couldn't have done something, I'm a bit skeptical because I can't honestly think of anything else that God has claimed to have done that science supports. If science is our end all be all of knowledge, then God cannot exist. There is literally nothing that God has done that can be supported through what is our 'scientific methodology'.

God works outside of all the laws and limitations of science. Let's take an example that should be easy for a 'christian scientist'. How did the fertilized embryo of Jesus come to be implanted on the wall of Mary's womb? Provide for me all of the scientific understanding of how that came about.

BTW

Thanks Ted, but I have a feeling that given your stated position, no amount of education would alter your pre-conceived conclusions.

I won't take offense, because I've been in these discussions a lot and I know how people are prone to use the fallacy of 'education' to counter such claims as are being made on this thread, but...

I can't speak for education, but wisdom begins with the fear/respect of God. Personally, while I'd like to be 'educated' regarding some things I do for my job and how to work my car, I'll take wisdom over education every time when it comes to the things of God. As this post should fairly well point out, education is never going to prove either God or the things that God has done.

However, the basic tenet that God can do what is impossible to us, needs to always be acknowledged in such discussions as these. Science tells us that the birth of that baby in Bethlehem, while a host of angels appeared to shepherds proclaiming his arrival, can be nothing but a pure fabrication. Faith, on the other hand, tells us that it is merely another of the simple works of our merciful and compassionate and loving God.

Science certainly has its place in modern life, but it doesn't answer everything. We must know, and this comes from that education you don't think I have, what its limitations are. There is not a person on the earth who can reproduce the opening of a sea whereby there are two walls of unaided water standing on both sides of the opening chasm. Not a single solitary soul. Not the most educated person that either of us knows. Not even the wisest person that either of us knows. The physical description of the reality of the parting of the Red Sea, cannot be duplicated by anyone!!!!! Does that mean that it didn't happen? Or, does it mean that God can do things that we can neither duplicate nor explain how they were done?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Speedwell]

Who are these experts? Alister McGrath?

Alister McGrath is a theologian, not a scientist.

 

[Sam Davis]

So do I, but I see no difference if He created us from a handful of dust or from a precursor primate.

I find it rather insulting to claim that intelligent man evolved from an ape.

 

[Sam Davis]

Alister McGrath is a theologian, not a scientist.

No, he is a scientist and a theologian.

 

[expos4ever]

Who are these experts? Alister McGrath?

This is a hill you do not want to die on as you will be unceremoniously handed your hat.

On a silver tray.

Almost all experts in relevant fields: biology, genetics, palaeontology, etc believe evolution happened.