Creationist that wants to learn about evolution.

[Mike Flynn]

And yes Creation and Creationism are different, however, completely refuse the notion that if you believe in evolution you cannot believe in creation, which the word 'Creationism' tends to reflect.

Except that Creationism is usually defined as a belief that God has created in a way that is defined by a literal reading of the Genesis account.

The assertion that evolution disqualifies a belief that God has created, is a false assertion usually broadcast by atheists...and, ironically, creationists as well (its the one point they agree about).

It tends to give the 'Creationist' a religous point and the 'Evolutionist' a scientific point, yet there is nothing stopping such a person from believing Genesis one and evolution. These terms can be ambiguous.

In fact, I have found that evolution (and science) has enhanced my understanding of biblical theology. Do I get 2.5 points?

 

[Modus]

The problem is that what is outside the Bible is also God. After all, didn't God create? That means that what science studies is God's Creation, and all the evidence in it was put there by God.

What you are doing is pitting God vs God. See the first quote in my signature.

I agree with you that science is the study of God's creation. My point was that if science says something that contradicts what I have come to know through the bible, I'm not going to adjust what I believe on account of something science says. Does that make sense?

Ah, but what is the "word of God"? Don't you mean your interpretation of Genesis 1-8? What about Luke 2:1? Didn't empirical testing show that not all the world was enrolled? Doesn't that outweigh the "word of God" such that you now interpret Luke 2:1 to mean the Roman world?

I'm not sure I'm understanding you about Luke 2:1. Do you mean, why don't I take that litterally and why I do take Genesis 1-8 litterally? Please clarify.

Science is 100% correct when it falsifies. The earth is not flat. 100%. The earth is not the center of the solar system. 100%. The earth is not less than 20,000 years old. 100%. Each species was not created in its present form. 100%.

Ok here is the thing. One of the things you have posted to be 100% are not 100% to me. I have seen mountains of evidence for the earth being round and that earth is not at the center of the universe but I have seen very little good evidence for the earth being old. Again, that is why I am here, to look at the evidence and judge for myself. So far what I have come to know in scripture is against this and I'm not about ready to just say "hey, maybe they are right, I guess since everybody else believes it I will too" I am very thorough (and open) when it comes to this so forgive me if I don't just take your word for it.

 

[Modus]

In fact, I have found that evolution (and science) has enhanced my understanding of biblical theology. Do I get 2.5 points?

Haha! I get it.

 

[ForeRunner]

I agree with you that science is the study of God's creation. My point was that if science says something that contradicts what I have come to know through the bible, I'm not going to adjust what I believe on account of something science says. Does that make sense?

No. it doesn't make any sense. That means you are believing your interpertation of the Bible over God himself. Therefore, you are creating a fasle idol of your interpertation of the Bible.

Ok here is the thing. One of the things you have posted to be 100% are not 100% to me. I have seen mountains of evidence for the earth being round and that earth is not at the center of the universe but I have seen very little good evidence for the earth being old. Again, that is why I am here, to look at the evidence and judge for myself.

There is just as much evidence for the things you listed as there is for evolution as well as an old earth, and it was all arrived at using the same method.

So far what I have come to know in scripture is against this and I'm not about ready to just say "hey, maybe they are right, I guess since everybody else believes it I will too" I am very thorough (and open) when it comes to this so forgive me if I don't just take your word for it.

Then go to a library, you don't have to believe us. That is the wonderful thing about science, it is verifiable by anyone through experimentation.

 

[Modus]

Let me ask you guys a question. At one point in time, do you think most people would have agreed that through scientific studies one could prove the earth was flat?

 

[JVAC]

That is the point of science to make theories and prove or disprove them, I think it is generally agreed that through scientific studies one COULD prove the earth was flat, however, it has been proven otherwise, but the point is we couldn't figure it out without using science, ie, the scientific method.

(sorry Modus, but I was playing devils advocate and playing off of the wording. If thou wishest to smite me thou mayest.)

 

[seebs]

Let me tell you a related story.

There's a girl, who asks her dad what he does for a living. "I build houses." She grows up knowing that her dad builds houses. Furthermore, she comes to know that he is a deeply honest man, and never, ever, lies.

One day, she finds out that, in fact, he hires subcontractors, and that his role in the building of houses is purely organizational. It is true that, without him, there would be no house. It is true that he causes the house. However, he never lifts so much as a hammer, digs no holes, and so on.

Should she stop trusting him? Should she reject this new evidence? Or, perhaps, should she accept that the answer he gave was true enough for a small child, and captures the essence of his life in a way that a long answer wouldn't have?

 

[Apathe]

Let me tell you a related story.

There's a girl, who asks her dad what he does for a living. "I build houses." She grows up knowing that her dad builds houses. Furthermore, she comes to know that he is a deeply honest man, and never, ever, lies.

One day, she finds out that, in fact, he hires subcontractors, and that his role in the building of houses is purely organizational. It is true that, without him, there would be no house. It is true that he causes the house. However, he never lifts so much as a hammer, digs no holes, and so on.

Should she stop trusting him? Should she reject this new evidence? Or, perhaps, should she accept that the answer he gave was true enough for a small child, and captures the essence of his life in a way that a long answer wouldn't have?

Great point seebs...excellent point.

 

[Apathe]

Modus - To weigh in on this from an agnostic (as far as YEC or OEC is concerned) point of view here's my take and 99.9% of the people on this board probably disagree with me:


I believe that most of the evidence points to evolution. The reason I'm agnostic about it is because the evidence is fairly weak. What I mean by that is that you can't really take one portion of evolution and make a good case out of it...it all builds and depends on itself. For instance, the geological layer. Most evolutionists would have you believe that it is a clear cut existance that cannot be disputed. Woodmorappe (sp?) makes a fine argument that only 0.6% of the world shows a portion of all the layers present in the same spot and most locations may only have one or two layers. Evolutionists have supplied ad-hoc theories of why this anomolie occurs such as erosion and different ways decay happens. By itself, the geological layers aren't good proof of evolution, but take on radiometric dating, plate movement projections, erosion projections, etc, etc, etc and it builds a strong case for evolution.

Creationists (real ones...not the drive-by liars) are exploring several branches of theoretical science that could unravel evolution. Catastrophic Plate Tectonics, Accelerated Radioactive Decay, White Hole cosmatology are all exciting areas of research that are to this day unproven. If, however, a creationist should manage to prove one or more of these or similar theories then it breaks down some of the dependent evidence of evolution and the theory begins to collapse on itself. This is why I'm agnostic...I lean evolutionist, but I acknowlege the fact that evolution could be wrong but the burden of proof is on the YEC's right now...not the evolutionists.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I believe that most of the evidence points to evolution. The reason I'm agnostic about it is because the evidence is fairly weak. What I mean by that is that you can't really take one portion of evolution and make a good case out of it...it all builds and depends on itself. For instance, the geological layer. Most evolutionists would have you believe that it is a clear cut existance that cannot be disputed. Woodmorappe (sp?) makes a fine argument that only 0.6% of the world shows a portion of all the layers present in the same spot and most locations may only have one or two layers. Evolutionists have supplied ad-hoc theories of why this anomolie occurs such as erosion and different ways decay happens. By itself, the geological layers aren't good proof of evolution, but take on radiometric dating, plate movement projections, erosion projections, etc, etc, etc and it builds a strong case for evolution.

Creationists (real ones...not the drive-by liars) are exploring several branches of theoretical science that could unravel evolution. Catastrophic Plate Tectonics, Accelerated Radioactive Decay, White Hole cosmatology are all exciting areas of research that are to this day unproven. If, however, a creationist should manage to prove one or more of these or similar theories then it breaks down some of the dependent evidence of evolution and the theory begins to collapse on itself. This is why I'm agnostic...I lean evolutionist, but I acknowlege the fact that evolution could be wrong but the burden of proof is on the YEC's right now...not the evolutionists.

None of this has to do with evolution. The theory of evolution is biology, not geology.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Let me ask you guys a question. At one point in time, do you think most people would have agreed that through scientific studies one could prove the earth was flat?

Actually, educated people in Europe knew that the earth was round from the time of the Greeks.

 

[Apathe]

None of this has to do with evolution. The theory of evolution is biology, not geology.

True, but isn't the theory dependent on the radiometric dating from the geology field? Isn't the theory dependent on correctly identifying which layers fossils are found in so it can be theorized where the fossil fits in the transition from amino acids all the way to modern man (or animal or whatever)? While evolution is BIOLOGY, research in physics and geology can certainly have a positive or negative impact on the feasability of the mainstream scientific views of biology.

 

[Meatros]

Actually, educated people in Europe knew that the earth was round from the time of the Greeks.

Not to mention that those who didn't believe the world was round probably didn't believe this because of any scientific studies.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

True, but isn't the theory dependent on the radiometric dating from the geology field? Isn't the theory dependent on correctly identifying which layers fossils are found in so it can be theorized where the fossil fits in the transition from amino acids all the way to modern man (or animal or whatever)? While evolution is BIOLOGY, research in physics and geology can certainly have a positive or negative impact on the feasability of the mainstream scientific views of biology.

Yes, evolution is dependent on works in other fields. Finding billion year old fossil bunnies in Precambrian rock would certainly throw the notion of common descent out of whack.

Yet, this hasn't happened. Plus, you have lines of descent that have been originally theorized via comparitive anatomies and fossil sequences confirmed by molecular genetics. That such a confirmation would turn out to be nothing more than a giant coincidence... Well, it would certainly give scientists something to think about.

 

[Oncedeceived]

First of all, I do reject evolution. I believe there is good evidence on both sides here, ( i don't know if there is enough for either to be absolutely proven, but thats why I'm here) but the main reason I reject evolution is because of what has been proven to me outside of science.
If evolution conflicts with something God says in the bible, I would definately go with God.
No amount of empirical testing can outwiegh the word of God. I also believe that science is harmonius with the bible.
Those two last statements seem to contradict each other but actually they do not. It only explains why I would choose to reject something that is hostile to my faith even if it has lots of evidence for it. The word of God has been proven to me to be 100% correct, it has never failed me. Science is not always 100%. Nobody can argue with that (well, they can't argue the latter at least)

I can better describe it like this: A child is told by his father "son, don't touch that heater bar its hot" So the son believes it. The child starts thinking "hmm, wonder if that heater bar really is hot?" and he reaches out and touches it. The second his flesh burns he goes into the realm of believing to the realm of knowing that bar is hot. Once I reached out and touched the heater bar of God's love and forgiveness, I went from believing to knowing. Any heater bar expert can tell the child that that heater bar is not hot, but he doesnt care what anybody tells him becuase he knows its hot and no amount of reasoning is going to change his mind.

So now you see why I believe the word of God over science. And I suspect you could say something similar about your beliefs in evolution. So before we start a flame war of insults before we start the website referencing wars, please, I am willing to actually study some material on evolution to get a better understanding of it. So now you know where I stand, and I really would'nt like to debate why I believe what I do here. If you are really that interested in why I believe what I believe, email me or ask me somewhere else, this isn't the topic of the thread. Also I think I need to clarify that I am not starting this thread to try and disprove evolution. You already know that my knowledge is limited on the subject it would be pointless of me to start in like I know everything about it and start making ridiculous claims (like most of the christians on here that I have been seeing, ive also been guilty of it myself) And please brothers, don't turn this thread into another flame war. IF your need to be right is greater then your need to be effective then please dont post here.

With that said, I would like start asking questions. From what I have read, fossil evidence supporting evolution has had a bad history of producing frauds and just plain mistakes, however I do know there are some contenders up for possible missing link finds. Does anybody have any info on fossils of species in a transitional period. (i have read a bit on the archeoptryx, so Im pretty familiar with that stuff) or any fossil records relating to missing link stuff.

Modus, I am a little late in getting in here and I haven't read any of the responses that you have gotten in this thread. I must say that it is always good to look to at the evolutionary evidences that are on unbiased sites and sources. I say unbiased in a very reserved way because all sources have biases and you must determine what are results of that and what isn't. I have some very good links that helped me when I was looking at this issue myself. I will pm them to you later when I have a little more time, of course time is not easily made right now.

 

[lucaspa]

I agree with you that science is the study of God's creation. My point was that if science says something that contradicts what I have come to know through the bible, I'm not going to adjust what I believe on account of something science says. Does that make sense?

Not necessarily.

If you mean that you don't let science tell you theology, then that makes sense.

If you mean that you won't abandon your interpretation of particular verses based on what science has found, then it doesn't.

When you say "come to know through the bible", you are referring to your interpretation of the Bible. This is what you think the Bible says. Or, what you think God meant. If you have evidence from God that He did not mean that, then I don't see why you don't change your interpretation.

I'm not sure I'm understanding you about Luke 2:1. Do you mean, why don't I take that litterally and why I do take Genesis 1-8 litterally? Please clarify.

That and a little more. I don't know of any Christian that takes Luke 2:1 literally and insists that it is true. Instead, they accept the extrabiblical evidence and change the interpretation. So the question is: why don't you do the same for Genesis 1-8 in the face of the extrablical evidence?

Ok here is the thing. One of the things you have posted to be 100% are not 100% to me. I have seen mountains of evidence for the earth being round and that earth is not at the center of the universe but I have seen very little good evidence for the earth being old.

That's because
1. You aren't looking very hard.
2. Round earth and heliocentrism get tested daily by ways we can all see: spaceships arriving at Mars, say, or pictures from orbit.
3. However, the evidence that shows the earth is very old is a) somewhat arcane geology and 2) most of it was gathered in the period 1790-1831 and so you don't see it again.

Again, that is why I am here, to look at the evidence and judge for myself. So far what I have come to know in scripture is against this and I'm not about ready to just say "hey, maybe they are right, I guess since everybody else believes it I will too" I am very thorough (and open) when it comes to this so forgive me if I don't just take your word for it.

Then get off your butt and go to your public library. Get a good geology textbook and go thru it. Get Genesis and Geolgy by CC Gillespie. It's only $15 or less on amazon.com. Get Davis Young's The Biblical Flood: A Case History of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence.

You can start here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geohist.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html dating the age of the earth

You can also remember that all the geologists that falsified a young earth were creationists. Many of them were ministers. If the evidence was enough to convince them, perhaps you should take their word for it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/2/part12.html
"Many evangelical Christians today suppose that Bible believers have always been in favor of a "young-universe" and "creationism." However, as any student of the history of geology (and religion) knows, by the 1850s all competent evangelical Christian geologists agreed that the earth must be extremely old, and that geological investigations did not support that the Flood "in the days of Noah" literally "covered the whole earth." Rev. William Buckland (head of geology at Oxford), Rev. Adam Sedgwick (head of geology at Cambridge), Rev. Edward Hitchcock (who taught natural theology and geology at Amherst College, Massachusetts), John Pye Smith (head of Homerton Divinity College), Hugh Miller (self taught geologist, and editor of the Free Church of Scotland's newspaper), and Sir John William Dawson (geologist and paleontologist, a Presbyterian brought up in a fundamentalist atmosphere, who also became the only person ever to serve as president of three of the most prestigious geological organizations of Britain and America), all rejected the "Genesis Flood" as an explanation of the geologic record (or any part of that record), and argued that it must have taken a very long time to form the various geologic layers. Neither were their conclusions based on a subconscious desire to support "evolution," since none of the above evangelical Christians were evolutionists, and the earliest works of each of them were composed before Darwin's Origin of Species was published. The plain facts of geology led them to acknowledge the vast antiquity of the earth. And this was before the advent of radiometric dating."

Check out the history for yourself.

 

[lucaspa]

Yes it is Schroeder, and I think it is enough to say that the Genesis one deals with time in "Aeon" and in Genesis two and thus on it deals with more human terms, such as generations, years, days, so on. I don't see how the 'literal' reading of the two do not support eachother. This part of the bible seems to be quite clear.

Doesn't work that way. This is an example of "selective data" -- looking only at what you want to look at. Genesis 1 and Gensis 2-3 contradict in far more than time. Although even if you use "aeon" in Genesis 1 with each day (yom) standing for an aeon, you are still stuck with Genesis 2:4 that says that creation of the heavens and the earth took place within a single day (beyom). Even if you are into "aeon", you just lost your 6 aeons.

There are two (well, really 3) separate creation stories that contradict. One is Genesis 1:1 to 2:4a. The second is Genesis 2:4b - Genesis 5. The third is Genesis 5:1 thru Genesis 8. The contradictions are a clear indication that they are not met to be read literally, because to do so conflicts with Rules 5 and 7 of how to interpret. Call the stories A, B, and C.

Contradictions:
1. The name of God is different between A and B. "Elohim" for A and "Yahweh" for B.
2. In A creation takes 6 days, in B (Genesis 2:4b) it happens in a single day (beyom).
3. In A the order of creation is: plants, water creatures and birds, land creatures, and then plural humans both male and female. In B the order of creation is: no plants but apparently seeds and no rain, a human male, plants, animals and birds (no water creatures), woman. In C males and females plural together are created together.
4. The mechanism of creation is different. In A all entities including creatures are spoken into existence -- "let there be" -- but in B all the animals and birds and the human male are formed from dust or soil. The human female is formed from the rib of the male.
5. Entrance of death for humans. A doesn't mention it. B is internally contradictory. Genesis 2:17 implies that eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil will cause death (within the day) but Genesis 3:22 says Adam and Eve are kicked out of the Garden so that they will not eat the fruit of the Tree of Eternal Life and "live forever", saying that they would have died anyway without eating the fruit. C is different. Genesis 6:1-3 says that "heavenly beings" (not mentioned in A and B) are mating with human females. In Genesis 6:3 God decides to make people mortal and limits their lifespan to 120 years. No mention of any fruit of any tree.

And yes Creation and Creationism are different, however, completely refuse the notion that if you believe in evolution you cannot believe in creation, which the word 'Creationism' tends to reflect. It tends to give the 'Creationist' a religous point and the 'Evolutionist' a scientific point, yet there is nothing stopping such a person from believing Genesis one and evolution. These terms can be ambiguous.

One can believe "in the begininng God created the heavens and the earth". However, you cannot accept evolution/science and any kind of mechanism of creation gleaned from a literal reading of Genesis 1. Schroeder tried. He even tried to be a good scientist and make a risky prediction. He predicted, based on the time contraction equations, that the universe is 16-18 billion years ago. Unfortunately, new and better data has shown that the universe is 13.4 billion +/- 0.4 billion. Too young for Schroeder's theory. He made a scientific theory and then had it falsified by the data, just like any other failed scientific theory.

And this is the big danger, IMO, in trying to make Genesis 1 be a story of how God created. It ties an untestable theological concept -- God created -- to a very testable and falsifiable scientific theory of how God created. That tying together is completely illogical. What happens when the scientific theory, like Schroeder's or YEC, is falsified? Do you then decide that "God created" is falsified too?

Schroeder was just doing stupid theology. He is trying to dictate to God how God had to create to satisfy Schroeder. Far better to study God's Creation and let God tell Schroeder how God created. It's better to listen to God than dictate to God. Don't you think?

 

[lucaspa]

Let me ask you guys a question. At one point in time, do you think most people would have agreed that through scientific studies one could prove the earth was flat?

No. Because that is not the way science is done. You try to show ideas to be false. Not "prove" them. In science, "prove" is verbal shorthand for "I have shown to be false every alternative explanation we can think of."

At the time people thought the earth was flat they did not have a concept of "science" as we have it now. The theory that the earth was flat was developed based on induction or conclusions from observations. These were very limited observations: standing on a flat plain, having the horizon look flat on the ocean, having the sun and moon appear to go overhead from one side of the earth to the other.

However, once formulated, the theory did lend itself to what science does: making deductions.

For instance, you would deduce that, if the earth really were flat, that ships disappearing over the horizon would disappear all at once; that the shadow of the earth on the moon would have a straight line, that shadows at two different places where it was noon at the same time would have the same angle, etc.

Those deductions got tested. The Babylonians were an inland people and not sailors, so they missed the fact that ships dissappear hull first, with the top of the mast disappearing last. But they were troubled by lunar eclipses where the earth's shadow was a curve.

Erasthones showed that the earth was not flat about 500 BC with the shadows experiment. After that, the only people who thought the earth was flat were those that were ignorant of the data or who insisted on a literal reading of the Bible. And there were many of the latter. Enough that in 500 AD a book called Christian Topography was published that advocated a flat earth based solely on the Bible. They didn't want to accept Erasthone's experiment and the other data.

That attitude sound familiar? Read your earlier posts.

 

[lucaspa]

True, but isn't the theory dependent on the radiometric dating from the geology field?

No. Not at all. The earth was known to be old long before radioactivity was discovered. The relative ages of rock strata had been worked out by 1830. What radiometric dating gave was the absolute ages of the rocks.

Isn't the theory dependent on correctly identifying which layers fossils are found in so it can be theorized where the fossil fits in the transition from amino acids all the way to modern man (or animal or whatever)?

No. The layers were identified long before Darwin published Origin. So, the layers are already identified correctly. What could have happened is that evolution could have been falsified if the fossil record had shown that ancestor-descendent relationships inferred from other data did not happen in the fossil record. For instance, the morphological and physiological data said mammals evolved from reptiles. Reptiles came first. So, if the fossil record had shown that there were lots of mammals in rock layers before the first reptile appeared, evolution would have been falsified. Hasn't happened.

While evolution is BIOLOGY, research in physics and geology can certainly have a positive or negative impact on the feasability of the mainstream scientific views of biology.

Not really. Unless you call paleontology to be geology.

Let me give you one example. In the late 1800s Lord Kelvin gave a calculation of the age of the earth based on the physics of the time. Since his calculations gave an age of only 30 million years or so, Kelvin declared that he had called evolution and geology into doubt. Ah, the arrogance of physicists! The biologists and geologists were troubled but knew that their own data was sound. It turned out that Kelvin was wrong! He didn't know about radioactive decay and his calculations therefore were wrong.

Yes, the data from various scientific fields has to come together to make a consistent, unified whole. However, that doesn't mean that any field has priority such that it can declare another field to be wrong.

 

[Modus]

1. You aren't looking very hard.
Then get off your butt and go to your public library.

Oh man. I dont sleep at least one night a week if not more, I'm pretty buisy these days. It's not like I'm just sitting around here guys. I'm asking for help becuase I consider this subject important and I don't have a lot of time with my lifestyle. I still have a few questions that ill post later.