Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy! (Moved)

[AV1611VET]

That is the creationists liability as they have not been able to piece a cogent scientific theory that can falsify the theory of evolution.

Seeing as they aren't the ones who came up with it in the first place ...

All they do is write apologetics to convince their flock that evolution is evil.

Amen!

 

[Estrid]

Why don't you tell me what it is? Any example? I certainly have asked questions in threads in this forum, like in Evolution Lesson, which is supposed to be there for that, while never getting satisfactory answers.

I just said that if every relevant fact matches with
evolution, and none of it (zero) matches the way you
choose to interpret the Bible, and call that True, we'll,
seems there is a problem in your choice.

God is just as real either way but if there is a God evolution of
species is what happened in his creation.

It's questionable practice to put your choice ahead of facts
written with great clarity into the earth itself, undeniable to anyone
who is, yes, respectful enough to learn to read what is written there.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's questionable practice to put your choice ahead of facts written with great clarity into the earth itself, undeniable to anyone who is, yes, respectful enough to learn to read what is written there.

Too bad you can't read the handwriting on the wall:

Daniel 5:25 And this is the writing that was written, MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN.

 

[dlamberth]

God is just as real either way but if there is a God evolution of
species is what happened in his creation.

The Nature of God is to Create. Always, always, always creating, never stopping. Science has blessed us with a window in the Creating process of God which we have named "evolution".

 

[AV1611VET]

The Nature of God is to Create. Always, always, always creating, never stopping.

What's the last thing He created ex nihilo?

 

[dlamberth]

Too bad you can't read the handwriting on the wall:

Daniel 5:25 And this is the writing that was written, MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN.

That's not on a wall. It's in a book.

When we take a look at the Earth itSelf, which can not lie, it tells a factual story of the evolutionary change of the physical aspect of the planet as well as life on it.

 

[dlamberth]

What's the last thing He created ex nihilo?

Not a thing

 

[AV1611VET]

That's not on a wall. It's in a book.

Wow.

Some can't even see the wall.

That's sad.

 

[dlamberth]

Wow.

Some can't even see the wall.

That's sad.

Getting out and seeing the Earth isn't so bad. Quite an enjoyment for me. It's where God becomes alive.

 

[Frank Robert]

Seeing as they aren't the ones who came up with it in the first place ...

They did come up with ID as an alternative to evolution and want ID to be taught as science. In order to do that they (creationists) need to demonstrate that it is valid science which they appear to avoid.

 

[Estrid]

They did come up with ID as an alternative to evolution and want ID to be taught as science. In order to do that they (creationists) need to demonstrate that it is valid science which they appear to avoid.

Valid research is most welcome, ID would be the discovery of all time.

Claims of achievement are premature at best.

 

[AV1611VET]

They did come up with ID as an alternative to evolution and want ID to be taught as science.

They picked the wrong discipline (science), didn't they?

In order to do that they (creationists) need to demonstrate that it is valid science which they appear to avoid.

No argument there.

 

[AV1611VET]

Valid research is most welcome,

If Creationism has to be researched, then I'd say someone has a problem.

... ID would be the discovery of all time.

Yup ... scientists would take credit for it, then end up ruining it.

Claims of achievement are premature at best.

Yup.

 

[FredVB]

You were impressed with my statements that I would give arguments a chance, listening to them, and leaving it possible that I could change my mind, according to what you yourself said, before. I was not 100% committed to any position of origins, and I know I was asking questions in the right place, though I still just got heated argument against me, for that, but it really left real questions not answered. So it leaves me still thinking those cannot be answered in ways to support the perspective of evolution itself as the origin.

Of the questions you have asked that you feel are unanswered, which one do you find most telling? I'd be happy to give a go at addressing it.

We wonder what specifically you wonder, with what you are dissatisfied.
Please ask what seems to you a real question.
Sorry about being a bit snippy.

I asked about any credible example from what has been found of specimens that were creatures directly ancestral to a biological family recognized now but not included in it. There should be examples. It would weigh in favor of evolution to me. But when I asked before I got dismissive replies and responses that did not really answer what I asked for. Like that pretty well known meme, prove me wrong. I want to see what there is.

I just said that if every relevant fact matches with
evolution, and none of it (zero) matches the way you
choose to interpret the Bible, and call that True, we'll,
seems there is a problem in your choice.

God is just as real either way but if there is a God evolution of
species is what happened in his creation.

It's questionable practice to put your choice ahead of facts
written with great clarity into the earth itself, undeniable to anyone
who is, yes, respectful enough to learn to read what is written there.

If evolution as conceived did not have gaps that I perceive, we might say it has facts I should not put my "choice" before. I am willing to go with facts ... in fact. But as far as evidence goes, I think there is evidence for what things are said in the Bible, and trusting Jesus. And if the Bible can be interpreted differently, what different way is there, and why should it be interpreted that different way?

 

[Estrid]

I asked about any credible example from what has been found of specimens that were creatures directly ancestral to a biological family recognized now but not included in it. There should be examples. It would weigh in favor of evolution to me. But when I asked before I got dismissive replies and responses that did not really answer what I asked for. Like that pretty well known meme, prove me wrong. I want to see what there is.



If evolution as conceived did not have gaps that I perceive, we might say it has facts I should not put my "choice" before. I am willing to go with facts ... in fact. But as far as evidence goes, I think there is evidence for what things are said in the Bible, and trusting Jesus. And if the Bible can be interpreted differently, what different way is there, and why should it be interpreted that different way?

Sorry if your personal experience involves people being rude or
dismissive. I encounter the same.

To provide examples of what you ask for would take more time
than I have to devote to it, and my eagerness is tempered by
the word you use "credible". My experience is that people
set their own standards for what they choose to call "credible".

As for "gaps", we note there are gaps in the history of ancient Rome,
in accounts of WW2, and in your or my personal history.

Whether the gaps are of such a natu re as to show that there
was no WW2, or that the overall description is correct is another
matter.

If I choose to say that my perception of gaps indicates that the
history of WW2 does not have facts, I'm not being
reasonable.

In the dismissive dept, you did not address the fact that all relevant
evidence matches ToE, and vice versa.
Zero evidence matches the Bible account of simultaneous creation
of all "kinds".

If you think that is incorrect, please show me how.
Of course there is evidence for Bible facts.
Egypt, say. Lots of things. For the creation
account, no.

None of this has to do with trust in Jesus, so please
let's stay on topic.

 

[tas8831]

I simply don't buy the concept of 'infinite density'

Oh, well, why didn't you say so before?

 

[tas8831]

I asked about any credible example from what has been found of specimens that were creatures directly ancestral to a biological family recognized now but not included in it. There should be examples. It would weigh in favor of evolution to me. But when I asked before I got dismissive replies and responses that did not really answer what I asked for. Like that pretty well known meme, prove me wrong. I want to see what there is.



If evolution as conceived did not have gaps that I perceive, we might say it has facts I should not put my "choice" before. I am willing to go with facts ... in fact. But as far as evidence goes, I think there is evidence for what things are said in the Bible, and trusting Jesus. And if the Bible can be interpreted differently, what different way is there, and why should it be interpreted that different way?

Please start a new thread on this subject specifically.
I would like to learn about your perceived gaps.

 

[FredVB]

I asked about any credible example from what has been found of specimens that were creatures directly ancestral to a biological family recognized now but not included in it. There should be examples. It would weigh in favor of evolution to me. But when I asked before I got dismissive replies and responses that did not really answer what I asked for. Like that pretty well known meme, prove me wrong. I want to see what there is.

If evolution as conceived did not have gaps that I perceive, we might say it has facts I should not put my "choice" before. I am willing to go with facts ... in fact. But as far as evidence goes, I think there is evidence for what things are said in the Bible, and trusting Jesus. And if the Bible can be interpreted differently, what different way is there, and why should it be interpreted that different way?

Sorry if your personal experience involves people being rude or dismissive. I encounter the same.

To provide examples of what you ask for would take more time
than I have to devote to it, and my eagerness is tempered by
the word you use "credible". My experience is that people
set their own standards for what they choose to call "credible".

As for "gaps", we note there are gaps in the history of ancient Rome,
in accounts of WW2, and in your or my personal history.

Whether the gaps are of such a nature as to show that there
was no WW2, or that the overall description is correct is another
matter.

If I choose to say that my perception of gaps indicates that the history of WW2 does not have facts, I'm not being reasonable.

In the dismissive dept, you did not address the fact that all relevant
evidence matches ToE, and vice versa.
Zero evidence matches the Bible account of simultaneous creation
of all "kinds".

If you think that is incorrect, please show me how.
Of course there is evidence for Bible facts.
Egypt, say. Lots of things. For the creation account, no.

None of this has to do with trust in Jesus, so please
let's stay on topic.

If you cannot make time to show several examples of an ancestor directly preceding one biological family it is not included in descending from its species, as you asked me, "Please ask what seems to you a real question," then find just one example, sources to refer to can help. More examples could be more powerful to persuade me, but even with one I will make of it what I will, and maybe it would be persuasive enough, that evolution does produce a new biological family. Evidence among vertebrates would be more obvious.

Other things of history have gaps, but are defined for us by what is recorded of those. The theory of evolution only has gaps, as far as I yet see, until any biological families are actually connected to any others as demonstrable examples of evolution.

Evidence you say matches evolution theory does not do so exclusively, they can be seen as consistent with creation to those with that perspective. The gaps between families remain conspicuous to me, unless they are shown connected by evolution. So fossil examples are relevant.

As Jesus spoke about the beginning with the Bible account being true, my trust in Jesus is relevant to say.

Please start a new thread on this subject specifically.
I would like to learn about your perceived gaps.

I am no longer interested in starting threads, it has been a very long time since I ever did. I have spoken about gaps in other threads, in Evolution Lessons that is specifically relevant, as that thread is meant for that, yet, as I said, what I say and what I ask for are just dismissed.

 

[Estrid]

If you cannot make time to show several examples of an ancestor directly preceding one biological family it is not included in descending from its species, as you asked me, "Please ask what seems to you a real question," then find just one example, sources to refer to can help. More examples could be more powerful to persuade me, but even with one I will make of it what I will, and maybe it would be persuasive enough, that evolution does produce a new biological family. Evidence among vertebrates would be more obvious.

Other things of history have gaps, but are defined for us by what is recorded of those. The theory of evolution only has gaps, as far as I yet see, until any biological families are actually connected to any others as demonstrable examples of evolution.

Evidence you say matches evolution theory does not do so exclusively, they can be seen as consistent with creation to those with that perspective. The gaps between families remain conspicuous to me, unless they are shown connected by evolution. So fossil examples are relevant.

As Jesus spoke about the beginning with the Bible account being true, my trust in Jesus is relevant to say.



I am no longer interested in starting threads, it has been a very long time since I ever did. I have spoken about gaps in other threads, in Evolution Lessons that is specifically relevant, as that thread is meant for that, yet, as I said, what I say and what I ask for are just dismissed.

I'm not entirely sure what is your point about families.
You are good with kingdom, phylum, class, order, (but not family)
genus and species evolving? Just no common ancestor to families?

A "last common ancestor" to existing mammal families would be
a small somewhat rodentlike creature that survived the extinction of
the dinosaurs.

None of the existing families were present before the end of dinosaurs.

Meet our last common mammalian ancestor | New Scientist

Each of the existing mammal families has an extensive fossil history
leading back to a common ancestor.
As can be independently seen by anyone who wishes to make the effort.

On evidrnce for evolution. All relevant data is consistent with
the theory. Nobody has ever found anything contrary. It doesn't
matter if lots of things fit a theory. ONE exception and the theory
is kaput. So far, no exceptions.

No theory will ever have a complete data set, so the "gaps " thi g applies
to every theory in every field- and is kind of meaningless.

On data consistent with creation...like what?
What specifically do you see as consistent with " creation"?

What do you even mean by " creation"? All life forms created
simultaneously?
I'd have to know what you think before I can show you whether
there is data that falsifies the belief.
Nov" theory" of creation I've ever heard can stand on the
evidence.
The list of excuses for the failure of creationism to match the
evidence goes on and on. "Circular reasoning" " fake bones"
"Unreliable dating" "embedded age" "paradigm" ...ad nauseum.

As for your complaint about being "dismissed", it's whining on
one side, and being insulting on the other. You've gotten a lot
of thoughtful responses.

If dismissal is a subject, "Bible right so you wrong" is a popular fav.

Your thing about "trust in Jesus" is essentially that.
"Trust" uber alles. Hand wave, dismiss countless hours of
research.
What if said trust is actually faith in one's self,
that they've got all about the Bible figured out,
know more thanmillions of other Christians, and, bonus
pointsf, more than any scientist on earth.

What do you think?

 

[FredVB]

I'm not entirely sure what is your point about families.
You are good with kingdom, phylum, class, order, (but not family)
genus and species evolving? Just no common ancestor to families?

A "last common ancestor" to existing mammal families would be
a small somewhat rodentlike creature that survived the extinction of
the dinosaurs.

None of the existing families were present before the end of dinosaurs.

Meet our last common mammalian ancestor | New Scientist

Let me be clear about this, perhaps I had not been. I am asking for evidence from fossils. Yes, biological families are relevant to that. I see from examples I find of specimens lined up illustrated in apparent sequence for evolution from one to another, which are yet distinct and not species to species. These are gaps to me, and those are not convincing of evolution. And I once believed evolution was explained when I was in school. As a believer I came to where I admitted I saw these gaps, with nothing shown species to species outside of biological families, that still remain. Out of all the specimens from fossils, there should be some example of a direct ancestor species to another species that is classified in a new biological family if evolution explains it. I tried just now to word that in a clear way, I don't know if I can ask for such an example in a better way. If families are explained again to me as being arbitrary then there still would be sequences of direct descent to what any would recognize as a distinct biological family, and I want the fossil specimens shown which designate that species to species. There are many many fossils and there would be something to show for that if evolution is shown from the fossils.

What was shown for me is a hypothetical animal. I am not asking for that to be shown. Of course there are hypothetical creatures thought of to explain things, including in the gaps between fossil specimens that were to be sequential in evolution. And I understand genetic relationship claimed, but that is not anything showing they were not created by the Creator they have in common. I really understand the Creator can use the same design in many ways. So it is fossil specimens that are needed to show me evidence I ask for.

Each of the existing mammal families has an extensive fossil history
leading back to a common ancestor.
As can be independently seen by anyone who wishes to make the effort.

On evidence for evolution. All relevant data is consistent with
the theory. Nobody has ever found anything contrary. It doesn't
matter if lots of things fit a theory. ONE exception and the theory
is kaput. So far, no exceptions.

No theory will ever have a complete data set, so the "gaps " thi g applies
to every theory in every field- and is kind of meaningless.

On data consistent with creation...like what?
What specifically do you see as consistent with " creation"?

What do you even mean by " creation"? All life forms created
simultaneously?
I'd have to know what you think before I can show you whether
there is data that falsifies the belief.

Actually I know evolution theory is constantly revised and the order has changed a bit over the decades. Things according to evolution theory have already been shown to be wrong, among the scientists and teachers holding to the theory, and they hold now to the current accepted form. And it would still change when things of that are shown to be wrong. Evolution theory itself is unfalsifiable.

I see from the Bible account that forms of life were created, and not eons apart. It is not a view from science, but I don't see enough convincing from evolution theory to dismiss that.

As for your complaint about being "dismissed", it's whining on
one side, and being insulting on the other. You've gotten a lot
of thoughtful responses.

If dismissal is a subject, "Bible right so you wrong" is a popular fav.

Your thing about "trust in Jesus" is essentially that.
"Trust" uber alles. Hand wave, dismiss countless hours of
research.
What if said trust is actually faith in one's self,
that they've got all about the Bible figured out,
know more thanmillions of other Christians, and, bonus
pointsf, more than any scientist on earth.

What do you think?

I don't agree that it is whiny, but others use that accusation, and I see you fluctuate between being somewhat understanding and admitting I am open to seeing new things, as I am, and belittling then too, such as with the whiny being insulting accusation. I can say you tried with responses, but as I ask for something not yet shown I tried to be clearer. I still try to have the communication go somewhere. If it can't there is no reason to go on.

What other interpretation do you see possible? You have not explained that.