Creationist: Do you have scientific reasons for rejecting Evolution?

[USincognito]

Guys. Can we get the thread back on topic and address the OP?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Good --- you can start with Jesus Christ Himself, Who interpreted Scripture literally. His disciples did, the Biblical authors themselves did, and the early Church Fathers did as well.

As the quote pointed out, Augustine didn't invent the Allegorical Method, Philo of Alexandria did.

Philo invented it, Origen perfected it, and Augustine used it.

"And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived." (Numbers 21:9)

Literal interpretation: a brass serpent cures snake bites.

God's allegorical interpretation:
Jhn 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

appears to me that God invented the allegorical interpretation.

 

[Asimis]

Guys. Can we get the thread back on topic and address the OP?

Yes please!

Well, there seems to be nothing much to add to the thread. Creationists clearly have no scientific reasons for rejecting Evolution.


As.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, there seems to be nothing much to add to the thread. Creationists clearly have no scientific reasons for rejecting Evolution.

No, but we've got better reasons --- Biblical ones.

 

[Arik Soong]

No, but we've got better reasons --- Biblical ones.

So I think you should know why the American Association of the Advancement of Science and the National Academy of Sciences do not take the arguments of creationists seriously.

 

[AV1611VET]

So I think you should know why the American Association of the Advancement of Science and the National Academy of Sciences do not take the arguments of creationists seriously.

But they'll accept our tax dollars, right?

 

[Asimis]

No, but we've got better reasons --- Biblical ones.

Then please go here and post them.


As.

 

[Psudopod]

But they'll accept our tax dollars, right?

What does this have to do with anything?

Money is money and everyone pays taxes, whether their theories stand up scientifically or not.

 

[Psudopod]

No, but we've got better reasons --- Biblical ones.

What about all those Christians who do accept evolution?

 

[JohnR7]

Creationists clearly have no scientific reasons for rejecting Evolution.

I have all kinds of scientific reasons for rejecting evolution. There is no scientific evidence for evolution. It is just speculation.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

I have all kinds of scientific reasons for rejecting evolution. There is no scientific evidence for evolution. It is just speculation.

Keep saying it, maybe it'll come true someday.

 

[JohnR7]

So I think you should know why the American Association of the Advancement of Science and the National Academy of Sciences do not take the arguments of creationists seriously.

That is creationism in a narrow sense as in YEC. This has nothing to do with creationism in a broad sense. In general science claims they have nothing to say one way or the other about creationism in this sense. Although I can find plenty of scientific evidence for Creationism. Esp in but not limited to DNA studies, Linguistics, archeology and historical studies in genearal. As well as a geology and a study of the fossil record.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

That is creationism in a narrow sense as in YEC. This has nothing to do with creationism in a broad sense. In general science claims they have nothing to say one way or the other about creationism in this sense. Although I can find plenty of scientific evidence for Creationism. Esp in but not limited to DNA studies, Linguistics, archeology and historical studies in genearal. As well as a geology and a study of the fossil record.

On the contrary. Science has a lot to say about creationism, and most it can be summed up with "No, it doesn't."

 

[TeddyKGB]

But they'll accept our tax dollars, right?

The NAS is publicly funded but the AAAS, IIRC, is not.

 

[JohnR7]

On the contrary. Science has a lot to say about creationism, and most it can be summed up with "No, it doesn't."

Lets take a look at what Francis Collins has to say about creationism on page 171 of his new book: "The Language of God".

Taken at face value, the term "creationist" would seem to imply the general perspective of one who argues for the existence of a God who was directly involved in the creation of the universe. In a broad sense, many deists and nearly all theists, including me, would need to count themselves as creationists. (Francis Collins )

In addition to this, we have taken a survey on this very fourm and more than half of people who voted said that TE is Creationism. So the only problem is that people want to be careful not to be associated with YEC. Because YEC make up a very big group in this country.

YEC are not the only creationists though. There is still OEC, GAP & TE. 96% of the people in America belive in God and that makes them creationists. Most are either YEC or TE, but a few are GAP. Most OEC tend to be TE now a days.

 

[Asimis]

I have all kinds of scientific reasons for rejecting evolution. There is no scientific evidence for evolution. It is just speculation.

Yawn

 

[AV1611VET]

Yawn

Is is okay to delete this thread from my subscription list now?

 

[Dal M.]

Is is okay to delete this thread from my subscription list now?

Why not? You've already admitted that creationists can't oppose the theory of evolution on scientific grounds, and are wholly motivated by their religion. That pretty much answers the question posed in the OP.

I'd say you're done here, unless you'd like to apologize for wasting everyone's time.

 

[Psudopod]

So after 18 pages, the answer to the OP appears to be a resounding no, then?

 

[Joman]

There is much evidence against macro-evolution.

One of the main ones I like to point out is the evidence of sedimentary layers upon the surface of the earth. The layers of sediment cannot have been laid down over extensive periods of time.
The sediment layers are banded into discernible layers because each layer consists of a distinct constituency of materials. Water being the obvious means of filtering materials into segmented layers. There are extremely thick layers and thin ones and every thickness in between. The problem with believing that such a result was obtained over long periods of time is that, such belief would require me to think that for any such long period in mind, the earth only had one consiturency of materials to deposit. And, that is absurd isn't it?

The Deluge however, easily explains the global size and enviroment required for evidencing the deposits.

Joman.