Evolution Exposed

[Loudmouth]

In this case we are talking about Uniformitarianism. Darwin tried to adapt this for his theory of gradualism. This did not work as well for Darwin as it did for Hutton.

How was uniformitarianism a supernatural hypothesis?

 

[bhsmte]

They go away when new information show they are not facts.

Sure. Do you have any to share with the group?

 

[The Cadet]

This is all nit-picking really.

Um... No?

Me: "This guy fundamentally misunderstands the nature of scientific inquiry and evidence, and as a result almost everything he says is false."
You: "This is all nit-picking really."

Beg your pardon? No, I'm sorry, this could hardly cut more to the core of the argument if he was claiming all swans are white and I showed him a black swan. He claims that things like the big bang are not science because we can't repeat them. As if we needed to replicate something in a laboratory to establish its existence scientifically! This is not how science works. Inference doesn't suddenly stop working just because the matter is in the past.

And of course, you hand-wave away the numerous errors I pointed out. Everything he said up until the abiogenesis segment (where I just gave up watching, because I felt like cleaning my room, or washing the gimp, or doing literally anything less depressing and boring than listening to yet another creationist repeat the same old lies) is completely wrong. He either knows nothing about the material he's talking about, or he's just outright lying about it. Either way, he's not worth listening to.

Also, you know what's completely missing from his talk? Sources. You know, backing up what he's saying in the scientific research. So even if I couldn't immediately show you why he's wrong, I could just as easily say "citation needed" and leave it at that.

Then there's dark matter and dark energy, which are just fancy names for fudge factors dreamed up to rescue the failing and nonsensical Big Bang idea.

Um... No? Dark matter and dark energy were both proposed as phenomenon to explain the appearance of galaxies having a very odd mass distribution, and more mass than they ought to. It was first proposed in the 1930s, although truly robust evidence for it didn't show up until the 60s. To claim that it was needed to "shore up" the big bang shows a complete ignorance of both the modern and historical context and evidence for both dark matter and the big bang. Look, it's okay not to know anything about a given subject. But it's not okay to not know anything about a very difficult and complex subject, then claim to educate others in that subject.

 

[florida2]

Creation scientists also use their ideas successfully in their everyday work. This is another red herring.

I'd love to see that - it would be hilarious.

Geneticists and others involved in medicine use evolutionary theory all the time.

Astrophysicists have the Big Bang and resulting expansion as a cornerstone of everything they do.

All that I've ever seen from creation 'scientists' is, at best, ignorance coupled with confirmation bias and, at worst, deliberate misinformation. By the way, this is from someone who used to be a YEC!

 

[Split Rock]

It's just a belief system - a religion if you like.

No, it is not. It is a scientific theory that explains the diversity and distribution of life on earth. It is used by scientists everyday in their research. It makes testable predictions and has never been falsified. That is what a scientific theory is. Are you a scientist, btw?

 

[Split Rock]

But secular scientists do exactly the same thing. They rule out any possibility of God being involved and even if the evidence points the other way, it cannot be taken into consideration as one famous evolutionist once quipped.

Science cannot evaluate supernatural cause, therefore, scientific theories do not make use of them. We would be very happen to consider supernatural cause, if one of you guys would explain how to test for it. Maybe you will be the first? Please, be my guest.

As far as evidence pointing the other way, I would love to see some of this evidence. Can you present any?

Finally, in science we observe first, then form an hypothesis, then test it. Do creationists do this? Or do they form their conclusion first, then try and find data to support their conclusion, while ignoring the data that does not.

 

[Split Rock]

One man's view.

Actually, this isn't just "one man's view," it is the consensus of the scientific community.

 

[Split Rock]

No they don't - quite the opposite in fact. The creationists have nothing against honest science and have nothing to fear since such science must by definition, always be in agreement with God's laws, since He created them in the first place. What the creationists object to is unproven ideas being presented as fact or only half-truths being told - in other words, exactly what evolutionists accuse them of doing.

How is the theory of evolution not "honest science?"

 

[Cearbhall]

One man's view.

It's the view of nearly everyone who's educated on the subject.

 

[eclipsenow]

Hi Cadet,
I agree with almost everything in your post except this little bit.

See, kids, this is why you don't get your science from an organization with a statement of faith which claims the bible as an absolute authority. These people aren't interested in furthering scientific discovery. They have their answers, and anything that goes against those answers will be denied, and most likely lied about.

I would rephrase it something along the lines of "See, kids, this is why you don't get your science from an organisation with a statement of faith which shows they cannot even read their own bible properly in the first place! These people aren't even interested in the different literary genres of the bible, let alone furthering science."
Then we'd be on the same page!

As historian and theologian Dr John Dickson says:

"In what follows, I hope to demonstrate that both sides of the debate—as they typically present themselves—make a similar mistake. They form their conclusions about the biblical account of creation in isolation from the conclusions of many mainstream contemporary biblical historians. And it is as a historian that I wish to address this theme.

Sixday creationists and scientific materialists approach the opening chapter of the Bible in a ‘literalistic’ fashion. I use the word ‘literalistic’ deliberately, as I want to distinguish between literalistic and literal. A literalistic reading takes the words of a text at face value, interpreting them with minimal attention to literary genre and historical context. A literal reading such as my own, on the other hand, gives serious consideration to both the literary style and the historical setting of a text. It tries to understand not only what is said but what is meant—i.e. what the original author intended to convey. Sometimes in literature what is meant and what is said do not have a one to one correspondence. In metaphor, for example, what is meant is greater than what is said (‘The Lord is my shepherd’, Ps. 23:1). In hyperbole what is meant is less than what is said (‘If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away’, Mt. 5:30). One can read such literary devices literally—trying to discern what the literature intends to convey—without reading them literalistically.

Both sixday creationists and scientific materialists approach Genesis 1 as if the original author had intended to narrate the mechanics of creation in historical prose. I believe this is a mistaken, literalistic reading."
http://www.iscast.org/journal/articles/Dickson_J_2008-03_Genesis_Of_Everything.pdf​

 

[eclipsenow]

The best way to undermine the Bible and Christianity is to insist that Christians be young earth creationists. It is the creationists who insist that science disproves the Bible.

Not only that, there is great historical evidence that the first chapter of Genesis 1 is actually a creative narrative undermining and acting as a polemic against the Babylonian Enuma Elish. It's a theological text, not one trying to "narrate the mechanics of creation in historical prose" (Dr John Dickson, in my post above).

 

[Cearbhall]

I would rephrase it something along the lines of "See, kids, this is why you don't get your science from an organisation with a statement of faith which shows they cannot even read their own bible properly in the first place! These people aren't even interested in the different literary genres of the bible, let alone furthering science."

I think that's what he meant by "absolute authority." I took that to mean Biblical literalism.

 

[eclipsenow]

I think that's what he meant by "absolute authority." I took that to mean Biblical literalism.

Well, as a Christian I think the Bible is the final authority... but authority on what? It's focus is on how a loving and gracious God has rescued a rebellious humanity, not the dull mechanics of what-God-made-when. The first chapter is a highly structured narrative, almost like a poem, with Day's 1 to 3 the Forms, Day's 3 to 6 the Filling of the Forms, and Day 7 the Purpose of the Forms. (Us enjoying it all).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework_interpretation_(Genesis)
It somewhat mirrors but subtly changes the Enuma Elis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enûma_Eliš
It's a polemic. That Creationists read it literally is just shameful, really. There's no excuse for it, and the original authors of Genesis never intended it that way.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Raqia comes from the Hebrew verb raqa, which means "beat," "stamp," "beat out" and "spread out." Occurring 11 times in the Old Testament, raqa has the meaning to "stamp one's feet" (twice), stamp something with the feet (once), spreading metal (four times), spreading out the earth (three times), and spreading the sky or the clouds (once). So, the verb raqa does not necessarily refer to the beating out of a solid object, but to a spreading out process, whether the object be solid or not.

Genesis 1:8 says that God Himself defines what the raqia is, saying "God called the expanse heaven." So, the so-called firmament is nothing more than heaven itself and does not comprise a separate structure. This fact is further emphasized in Genesis 1:20, where God says, "... let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens." Obviously, birds cannot fly through a solid structure, clearly indicating that raqia is not a solid object.

Well done, very well done.

 

[morse86]

Hebrew was a dead language for more than 2000 years.

Just think about how old english and new english are different in just a span of 200-300 years?!?!? Why do you think the old hebrew is the same as the new hebrew!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The product, if you mean God's creation, is the product of special creation. "Gen 1: In the beginning God created..."

Thumbsup!

 

[Audacious]

Hebrew was a dead language for more than 2000 years.

Just think about how old english and new english are different in just a span of 200-300 years?!?!? Why do you think the old hebrew is the same as the new hebrew!

Because modern Hebrew is a language revived from ancient Hebrew and are mutually intelligible languages.

 

[joshua 1 9]

How was uniformitarianism a supernatural hypothesis?

It was actually Charles lyell that worked it out. Truth and error tend to get mixed together. Abraham was called to come out from among them. As Christians we are to properly discern the truth. Abraham and Moses were highly educated. They had the best education you could get in their day. Still as Christians we go beyond what man is able to teach us. The Holy Spirit of God will guide you and lead you into all the truth you will ever need. God is able to help each individual to discern between truth and error.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Science cannot evaluate supernatural cause, therefore, scientific theories do not make use of them.

Science is able to test how healthy we are. God will rescue and protect those who love Him. He will satisfy them with long life. Science is fully aware that Christians live longer. Of course in order to be healthy we have to eat right, exercise and control our stress. Not everyone is willing to do that.

 

[morse86]

Because modern Hebrew is a language revived from ancient Hebrew and are mutually intelligible languages.

What?!?!?

Do you think the Old English is like the New English?

Here is a example of the Old English:

On þyssum geare man halgode þet mynster æt Westmynstre on Cyldamæsse dæg 7 se cyng Eadward forðferde on Twelfts mæsse æfen 7 hine mann bebyrgede on Twelftan mæssedæg innan þære niwa halgodre circean on Westmyntre 7 Harold eorl feng to Englalandes cynerice swa swa se cyng hit him geuðe 7 eac men hine þærto gecuron 7 wæs gebletsod to cynge on Twelftan mæssedæg 7 þa ylcan geare þe he cyng wæs he for ut mid sciphere togeanes Willelme ... 7 þa hwile com Willelm eorl upp æt Hestingan on Sce Michaeles mæssedæg 7 Harold com norðan 7 him wið gefeaht ear þan þe his here com eall 7 þær he feoll 7 his twægen gebroðra Gyrð 7 Leofwine and Willelm þis land geeode 7 com to Westmynstre 7 Ealdred arceb hine to cynge gehalgode 7 menn guldon him gyld 7 gislas sealdon 7 syððan heora land bohtan.

If Old English was a dead language for more than 2000 years.....do you think it could be revived? Do you think we would know the pronunciation or even the meanings of the words?

Modern hebrew IS NOT old Hebrew.