Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Gander said:So, a small challenge to you Bushido. Give me a specific example of something that you believe YEC cannot explain while evolution can. I will attempt to study that specific example, and give you an answer based on the evidence.
gluadys said:A person needn't worry about it if they have little education or intelligence, or little time to do such study. What needs to be clear to all is clear to all. Much of the rest can be easily explained once the scholars have done their research. And if there are still obscurities, well they are grist for the scholars, but don't need to concern the average Joe or Jill too much as they are usually about technicalities, not anything very important.
hesalive said:What is faith without evidence?
Blind faith.
My daughter has for many years fallen away from her Christian beliefs and has finally come to me with a sincere line of question about evidence to support a God. What shall I tell her? The evolutionary story that all things created themself from a big bang till now, or the Theistic evolution story that says the same thing, just that God did it? Whats the difference? Niether one offers anything more than a call to blind faith. To tell someone that this is what the Bible teaches is dangerous in my opinion. The athiest can believe we came by happenstance according to the evolution story. What compelling evidence is there to convince someone that God did it if the evidence is so strong to say it could be done without him?
However, it does prove that the scientists who disproved a young earth did so from the scientific evidence with nothing whatsoever to do with evolution.Gander said:Proves nothing. They also thought it was flat long before Darwin.
The papers are where the scientific evidence IS. Don't you understand that? Peer-reviewed primary papers are presentation of evidence. That's where you find the data. So, having 600 papers per month with new data supporting evolution is quite a lot of data for a "bankrupt theory".You will excuse me if I am not moved by quantity of paper as opposed to actual scientific evidence.
Not a workable mechanism? What are you talking about? The workable mechanism has been known since Origin. It's called Natural Selection. What has come after shows just how workable the mechanism is in terms of genes, changes in populations, and changes in traits due to changes in genes.Evolution is bankrupt because while it comes up with lots of explainations and theories, it does not come up with the necessary evidence that shows a workable mechanism for evolution.
The Flood was indeed the initial theory used by geology. However, geology showed that the column could not possibly have been deposited by a Flood. That's what went on in geology from about 1790-1820. Layers were found to be impossible to be deposited by a Flood, so the Flood was restricted to fewer and fewer layers. Finally, by 1825 the deposits still thought to be deposited by a Flood were only the topmost gravels and morraines. By 1831 it was shown that even these could not possibly have been deposited by a Flood (most of them were deposited by glaciers). Therefore, there was now no part of the geological column that could be explained by the Flood.I think you are getting this backwards. The flood was recorded a long time before anyone knew about or needed to explain geological columns. The column is just part of the evidence left behind by the flood.
At the time marsupials evolved initially, there was only one continent -- Pangea. Therefore there was no problem of "travel". Once the continents separated, Australia separated before full placental mammals evolved and has been isolated since. So there is no problem for evolution here.Since I posted my question I have come across the land bridge theory. I am not convinced yet, as I have not had the time to get into any of the detail of this theory.
It should be noted that evolutionists have the same problem as creationists when it comes to mammal distribution. The fossils of marsupials have been found world wide, therefore there must have been a method of intercontinental travel.
That is the case. Despite Phillip Johnson's call for a "big tent" of creationists, the Discovery Institute has little regard for YECs. Of course, YECs have little regard for OECs, as witness the attacks at AiG against Hugh Ross. However, YECs are reluctant to attack IDers such as Behe, Dembski, and Johnson. They find the ID arguments too useful to discredit the people making them.hesalive said:I would like to offer a quote regarding this stance which I find very common among evolutionist and Theistic evolutionists.
"Although they have grown accustomed to scorn from evolutionary scientists, traditional creationists may be unhappy to discover that their own allies (other anti-Darwinians) regard them as poor cousins visiting from the trailer park- sincere but somewhat emabarrassing folk, whose unsophisticated manners and naive beliefs should be kept quietly in the background when others are talking about science."
It sounds like you are restricting "evidence" to scientific evidence. However, science is a very limited form of knowing. Science cannot tell you whether atheistic or theistic evolution is correct. Let me emphasize again: Science CANNOT tell you. That's where we come to your statement:My daughter has for many years fallen away from her Christian beliefs and has finally come to me with a sincere line of question about evidence to support a God. What shall I tell her? The evolutionary story that all things created themself from a big bang till now, or the Theistic evolution story that says the same thing, just that God did it? Whats the difference? Niether one offers anything more than a call to blind faith.
There is NO scientific evidence that evolution can happen without God. None. Zip. Zilch. That's because we can't do the relevant experiment to see if any of the processes science studies -- including evolution -- can happen without God. It's called methodological materialism or methodological naturalism. Anyone telling you that science shows evolution happens without God is misusing science.What compelling evidence is there to convince someone that God did it if the evidence is so strong to say it could be done without him?
Yes, the atheist can. Up until Darwin discovered natural selection, there was no answer to the Argument from Design. Therefore, it was not intellectually possible to be an atheist. Atheism was quite obviously a faith. Atheism is still a faith. However, natural selection has given the atheist an answer to the Argument from Design. Biological organisms can no longer be viewed as being manufactured artifacts like cars or airplanes. Plants and animals are designed, but designed by the unintelligent process of natural selection. So atheism is now possible. Doesn't mean it's right.The athiest can believe we came by happenstance according to the evolution story.
This doesn't answer our questions as to the source of your information. Are you saying you have done original research into young earth? If so, what is your data? Have you actually gone out and looked at the geological column anywhere? If so, where? What observations led you to conclude it was formed by a Flood.Gander said:You don't get scientific evidence in books or websites. The only evidence is in the physical world itself.
What you get in books and websites are theories, explainations, and viewpoints. You need to test this material yourself not blindly rely on it because it was written by someone with a string of letters after their name.
1. Relativity is not a law; it is a theory. It is the Theory of Relativity.Gander said:I would strongly dispute that. Take for examples the law of relativety, the laws of gravity, the laws of thermodynamics etc. These are not assumptions or theoretical explainations these are science (knowledge) proven in full. They are laws.
Ah, the old "science is only what is repeatable" argument. Yes, indeed, you have been getting your information from ICR or Dr. Dino.Neither evolution or creation can be deemed to be a science in strictly scientific terms because neither of the assumed original conditions are repeatable.
Thank you for demolishing your previous statement. Just what I said, but in different words. So evolution and creationism are indeed scientific theories because we can test for the effects.We can only theorise on the cause, but we can test the effects by applying science to the evidence around us.
The language you are using is Henry Morris' and early ICR. He uses "model" rather than theory. He even has tables supposedly comparing the two "models".From what I have studied the basic evolutionist model does not fit the evidence, where as the creationist (literal) model does.
Errors in both.I would like to point out at this point that even if I knew nothing of the theories of creation/evolution, I would believe in creation. Why?
Because I have total faith in Gods word and none in mans understanding.
And what is that "basic principle"?But, for all the gaps and misunderstandings in our knowledge the basic principle of creation has never been disproven.
Ah. Here we have it. Evolotion = atheism. Never read Darwin, have you? Tell me, does this sound like Darwin was dismissing God from existence?Evolution is not powered or motivated by any kind of search for true science. It is powered by the desperation of a humanistic society to dismiss God from their existance.
hesalive said:My daughter has for many years fallen away from her Christian beliefs and has finally come to me with a sincere line of question about evidence to support a God. What shall I tell her? The evolutionary story that all things created themself from a big bang till now, or the Theistic evolution story that says the same thing, just that God did it? Whats the difference? Niether one offers anything more than a call to blind faith. To tell someone that this is what the Bible teaches is dangerous in my opinion. The athiest can believe we came by happenstance according to the evolution story. What compelling evidence is there to convince someone that God did it if the evidence is so strong to say it could be done without him?
gluadys said:Unless she raises the issue, don't bring evolution into it at all. It neither supports nor denies the existence of God, so is useless for the purpose of convincing anyone of God's existence.
There are more than two possible answers. That was one of the things that sunk YEC in the 1982 Arkansas Trial -- the witness for creationism gave another possibility. In that case, it was that biological organisms come from infusion of new DNA that comes from space -- panspermia. Raelians have another answer to "were did I come from?". For Raelians, we were bioengineered by an alien species from another planet orbiting another star.hesalive said:The basic life question that has been asked long before you or I pondered it is "where did I come from" All other questions and answers decend from this question which has only two possiblities; created or accident.
Sometimes you don't have sufficient evidence to unequivocally decide the truth. That's why we have hung juries. Right now there is insufficient scientific evidence to decide if the universe was created by a deity or arose by some other means. The evidence you have is either 1) a personal relationship with God or 2) trust that the accounts of the intervention of God in history written in the Bible are accurate. If your daughter does not have a personal relationship or trust the Biblical accounts, then you will have to let her continue to search for the truth.To bypass this is to propose a truth without a foundation. This was my error in raising my daughter. I only conveyed blind faith to her. The results are self evident. A Budist or Muslim can make similar testimonies as to the life changing aspects of their belief in their lives, but what sepparates the truth from the non-truth? Evidence.
lucaspa said:There are more than two possible answers. That was one of the things that sunk YEC in the 1982 Arkansas Trial -- the witness for creationism gave another possibility. In that case, it was that biological organisms come from infusion of new DNA that comes from space -- panspermia. Raelians have another answer to "were did I come from?". For Raelians, we were bioengineered by an alien species from another planet orbiting another star.[\QUOTE]
Whether from an alien or other it is still creation.
For atheists, "where did I come from?" is not by accident, but not created by deity, either. Instead, the chemical and evolutionary processes -- natural selection -- are not accidents. They are caused, but not by deity. Of course, they have to have faith that the processes will happen in the absence of deity.
Whether by process or accident it is still happenstance.
No point made. The two still remain. All theories are just derivatives of the two.
Sometimes you don't have sufficient evidence to unequivocally decide the truth. That's why we have hung juries. Right now there is insufficient scientific evidence to decide if the universe was created by a deity or arose by some other means. The evidence you have is either 1) a personal relationship with God or 2) trust that the accounts of the intervention of God in history written in the Bible are accurate.
There is a 3).
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.
Thankyou for your input. None of it goes by without consideration. My discussions with my daughter are encouraging as she is asking for evidence. This is a welcome change from absolute refusal to even consider there may be objective evidence to support faith in God. I would not let the opportunity slip by without testifying to 1 and 2 above as well.
Thanks,
John
Yes, you don't have recourse to a zap-pow "miracle", but saying God can only work by zap-pow miracles is god-of-the-gaps theology. God doesn't have to work that way.artybloke said:"Of course, they have to have faith that the processes will happen in the absence of deity."
Why? If you mix up amino acids in the right way, using the correct proceedure, won't you always get peptides? And if you do to peptides what you need to do to get proteins, won't you always get proteins? Etc... We might not know all the chemical processes involved in getting from amino acids to life, but that doesn't mean that it isn't possible to map it according to purely physical and chemical means, without recourse to a diety to zap-pow a miracle in there.
However, there is faith that the chemical processes work in the absence of God.Chemical processes work according to chemical laws. There's no faith involved.
What science says is that you can't know, by science, that God is absent from what is explained by science! The question is: do any of the processes studied by science work in the absence of God?not because science tells me that there's a bit for God to do that can't be explained by science.
What you have in "zap-pow miracle" is god-of-the-gaps. What I am saying is that there are no gaps. That is, there is no gap in the material component of the explanation. But rather, God is necessary for all the material processes to work. No gaps. But complete presence of God.That's no more than the shifting sands of God of the Gaps theology.
It is? You equate manufacture by a mortal being to "creation" by God?hesalive said:lucaspa "There are more than two possible answers. That was one of the things that sunk YEC in the 1982 Arkansas Trial -- the witness for creationism gave another possibility. In that case, it was that biological organisms come from infusion of new DNA that comes from space -- panspermia. Raelians have another answer to "were did I come from?". For Raelians, we were bioengineered by an alien species from another planet orbiting another star."
Whether from an alien or other it is still creation.
Ah, but this is a problem. When Paul wrote that it was true. Paul was using the Argument from Design. However, the discovery of natural selection sank the Argument from Design as "proof" of God. No longer was it "clearly seen". Natural selection did not sink God, but did sink the "clearly seen".There is a 3).
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.
What are you trying to give her as "objective" evidence? If you try to give her creationist "evidence", you will lose her again.My discussions with my daughter are encouraging as she is asking for evidence. This is a welcome change from absolute refusal to even consider there may be objective evidence to support faith in God. I would not let the opportunity slip by without testifying to 1 and 2 above as well.
I don't see that. For instance, gravity causing an avalanche is not happenstance. It is inevitable and the results are predictable.hesalive said:lucaspa: "For atheists, "where did I come from?" is not by accident, but not created by deity, either. Instead, the chemical and evolutionary processes -- natural selection -- are not accidents. They are caused, but not by deity. Of course, they have to have faith that the processes will happen in the absence of deity."
Whether by process or accident it is still happenstance.
No. Becauseab1385 said:OK, Id like to start by saying that Im not a YEC, but I did pick up on the argument about 98.3 DNA similarit betweeb humans and chimps, I don't really think theis is a good anti-YEC argument. Surely we have 98% the same DNA because we are so similar? I mean, if God were to use DNA as the building blocks of life, and He created man and chimps to be physically very similar, then doesn't it stand to reason that our DNA would have been created similar?
Already done. Remember, YEC was the accepted scientific theory from 1700 - 1820 and special creation was still the accepted theory in 1859. So, scientists had already considered the theory and then found data to falsify it. Origin is filled with comparing evidence to special creation and showing the evidence makes no sense under special creation. As just one example, special creation has creatures made to fit their environment. But Darwin found a woodpecker on the pampas hundreds of miles from any tree! Why would a rational creator make a woodpecker where there are no trees?I guess I'm just trying to make the point that TE do look at the evidence for YEC before deicding the other way!
That's modern YEC. But the original YECers were testing scientific hypotheses. Testing them so well that they falsified them. Modern YEC looks the way it does because YEC is already a falsified scientific theory. So modern YEC can't use science.The problem with the "science" of YEC, as I see it, is that they set out to prove theological points, not scientific hypotheses based on the scientific evidence.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?