i want a straight up answer from YEC's

[visa]

Again I bet you a million to one that you get all of your information from creationist web sites and your creationist preacher.

Wow those are long odds consol, are you saying that it's highly unlikely that they got their info from other creationists? Or are you just flaunting your ignorance again?

Just try reading it again, this time without the bile in your mouth and your brain in gear.

 

[theFijian]

Just try reading it again, this time without the bile in your mouth and your brain in gear.

That's right, 1,000,000 to 1. That's some long shot isn't it. Trying getting a brain consol

 

[mathclub]

OVERWHELMING evidence. One of the top 3 fallacies used by evolutionists. Proof by assertion. If you assert that there is OVERWHELMING evidence enough times, people will start to believe it.

What about when you actually provide the evidence? Whether you are talking age of the earth, evolution or the non existance of some world wide biblical flood there is evidence that many people would be happy to provide you to back up these claims. Have you actually seen the evidence for yourself or read any of it? Or do you simply close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears and repeat 'there is no evidence, there is no evidence' over and over until you actually believe it. the evidence is out there, it's not hard to find or understand. start at www.talkorigins.org is my advice.

Evolution is an origin science and origins science is 100% based on worldview interpretations of data.
Any data that does not support the worldview is thrown out.

There is no such thing as 'origin science'. This is a term made up by religious people to try and justify what's in the bible. Whatever you mean by 'origin science', there is no type of science that throws out data because it doesn't support a worldview, it just doesn't happen. Can you give any examples of data being thrown out cause of a worldview or are you just rambling?? Your statement also conveniently ignores the large number of respected christian scientists.

Where the conversation starts and ends between young Earth and old Earth view of the world comes down to the worldwide flood of Genesis.
It accounts for the difference between thousands and Billions of years in interpretation of the data.

lol, this worldwide flood that there is no evidence for? Actually it doesn't even matter whether there ws a flood or not, because it is just not possible that a flood could suddenly change all the data to make us think that the world is suddenly millions of years old when it's actually thousands of years old. I'll give one example, something you seem incapable of doing. Tree rings can date back specific years. Independant growths in different countries date back over 11,000 years, which is before god supposedly created the world. How would a wordwide flood affect this so it fits with your worldview? Dendrochronology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What exposes the absolute hypocrisy and clearly worldview driven dogma of the naturalist intellectual elites is that they say that a flood on Earth is an absurd hypothesis despite various suggestions that such a flood could have taken place, yet on the other hand don't discount a flood on Mars, a planet with no trace of water.

lol, I don't know a single thing about floods on mars and couldn't care less, it has nothing to do with anything. But using just a smidgeon of logic (you should try it sometime), how about this ... we have studied our own planet intensively for centuries and know a lot about it now. From the evidence we have we know that a worldwide flood never happened. By comparison we know virtually nothing about Mars so we are not able to confidently say whether or not a worldwide flood ever happened there in the past. The fact it has no water now does not mean it did not have water some time in the past.

Or the outright ignoring of geologic features we have noticed the last 30 years such as the phenomenon of Mount Saint Helens or the Little Grand Canyon, which show that dramatic alterations to rearrange mountains, form canyons etc can occur in periods of time that can be measured in days not hundreds of millions of years.

Who is ignoring these geological features? sometimes geographical processes happen quickly sometimes they happen very slowly. I remember reading in Bill Brysons brief history of everything about a mountain of several hundred feet growing in a farmers field in a matter of weeks. Does this mean all mountains grow that quickly? obviously not. I honestly don't even being to see how an eruption or rapid erosion is evidence of a young earth at all, it is honestly laughable.

So of course you can make claims that there is "OVERWHELMING" evidence
when in reality the only thing there is "OVERWHELMING" evidence for is how incredibly worldview driven evolution is as a theory and how incredibly biased the scientific community is towards that worldview.

the only thing the scientific community is biased towards is truth, evidence and data. if you could provide evidence for any of your claims then your worldview would be accepted. You can not, and so it is not, and that is that.

 

[OllieFranz]

Evolution is an origin science and origins science is 100% based on worldview interpretations of data.
Any data that does not support the worldview is thrown out.

A scientific theory is a model of the rules under which nature normally. As a model, it is not perfect. It only models specific aspects of nature, and outside its scope it may be wildly off, but usually there is a different model available to cover that area. For example, a Mercator projection map is one of the most accurate models of the equatorial region but wildly off in the polar regions, while a polar projection is accurate at its reference pole, off at the equator, and even further off at the opposite pole. Or in physics, we have a jump from classical Newtonian mechanics or Einsteinian Relativity on the macro- and mezzo- scales to Quantum Physics on the micro- scale.

If something which is supposed to be in the model's range does not behave as predicted, it is called an anomaly and set aside, but it is not "thrown out." No, it is looked at more carefully.

Yes, the first reaction is to assume the anomaly is false data -- a lie, a misunderstanding, a fraud, etc. When Mary told Joseph that she was pregnant, he planned to "put her away" or divorce her. Pregnancy without sex did not fit in his model of how children are made. It was an anomaly. But Joseph didn't stop there, he sought confirmation. The confirmation in that case was that yes Mary was pregnant, and yes she was still a virgin.

Whenever the Catholic Church needs to rule on a miracle the first thing they do is investigate every possible way that it could have been faked. They do this while believing in miracles, and expecting some of the claims to be genuine. They find most of them to be fakes, but they do endorse certain few others.

Likewise with scientists. They pay a lot of attention to the anomalies. That is how science advances. Take the famous example of the bumblebee. Based only on Bernoulli's principles, a bumblebee's body is not aerodynamic, and yet it flies. For years, it was an anomaly in the theory of flight. But the scientists did not "throw it out," they studied it to try to discover why the bumblebee flies. The discovered other forces at work besides the classic four of Bernoulli. They are much smaller, and only influence small, light objects. Anything larger than the bumblebee is too massive for these forces to affect.

Likewise with the speed of light. An experiment by Michelson and Morely failed to give the expected result. They repeated the experiment, and got the same "wrong" answer. Others repeated it, and got the same "wrong" answer. Einstein asked the question, what happens if we assume that the "wrong" answer is the right answer? What if the speed of light is always the same, no matter how fast its source is moving toward or away from you? The result of these questions was Relativity.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wow! Go, zombie thread, go!

[ @ tags]

 

[anabaptistfaith]

given the OVERWHELMING evidence for an old earth and evolution why do you consitently ignore it? why do you get your points refuted over and over and over but never listen? why don't you do some research? why do you belive things that come from a site such as AIG when they reject any science that would destroy their beliefs? why why why? is your faith really that weak? are you afraid of science? as someone's signature on here says, if your faith is affected by science that is weak faith. now why are you guys so closed minded? why? i want answers.

If you don't mind, I'll avoid wading through all the comments (many unrelated) that have ensued in the multiple pages of this thread. I am only new to this forum and so far have not seen much of anything that would make it worthwhile to spend much time here. Hence, I did not come across this challenge until awhile after it was written. Frankly, it disappoints me to see that the majority of the comments have come from evolutionists, and many of these tend to be short, unsubstantiated ones. So I'll say it up front: I am a biblical young earth creationist and a regular reader at creation.com, a website containing some 7500 articles with more added daily. You may bulk at this, claiming that I am feeding myself on non-scientific information and had better do some research for myself. But the fact remains that many of these writers are Phd scientists who could be making a better income somewhere else but bend themselves to the task because of their intense love for the truth of God's Word.


Now let me respond directly to the original challenge. The first question is a good example of what I mean by unsubstantiated. Where is this “overwhelming evidence”? I am not excluding the possibility of the existence of any evidence for evolution. There may very well be evidence for your side. But the creationists also have evidence. In other words, the best we can come up with is evidence for our view of history, which is based on our worldview. This is not a matter of “science vs faith” but is essentially “faith vs faith”. Since no one of us was there to see the distant past, we cannot state our ideas about history as dogmatically as we can about the things we can repeat and prove in the laboratory today. Hence, both sides have the same data, and it is a matter of whose interpretations of the data are most consistent with it. For example, evolutionary interpretations of the data found in the form of fossils is that it all happened slowly over much time. The creationist interpretation is that this happened quickly in the catastrophic event of Noah's Flood. Who is most consistent? It is obvious to a child that dead things do not lay around waiting to fossilize. Scavengers are plentiful enough to make that impossible. It is also child's play to realize that dead fish float rather than sinking in the hopes of beating the insurmountable odds and fossilizing.



The second question claims that we have had our points refuted over and over again. Please give a specific incident for us to critique.


Next the question arises as to our supposed lack of research. Again, let me remind you of the existence of creation scientists, many of which have done original research. There is Dr. Robert Carter, who has done much interesting research in his field of marine biology. Then there is Dr. John Baumgardner, who is responsible for what is recognised as the world's best computer simulation of plate tectonics. Also consider that Isaac Newton, considered the father of modern science, was a creationist. You can find much more detail on these and many more creation scientists by dong a simple search of creation.com. So I return the question, do you think creationists are doing original research?


Next the questioner accuses us of rejecting science that would destroy our beliefs. But what do you have to say to the many times that the dates arrived at via carbon dating have been rejected. Let me leave you with one who has more expertise in this area, geologist Dr. Tas Walker, who has written an informative article you can find by searching the phrase "little known facts about radiometric dating" at creation.com.


No, my faith is not weak. In fact, it is so strong that I am willing to accept a few cases where godless evolution seems to be gaining ground as something that still does not destroy my Creator. After all, the majority used to believe in a flat earth. Besides, history shows that places where evolution seemed to triumph just need enough time, revelation by God, and investigation by creation scientists. Incidentally, I view the persistence of evolution as evidence for how hardhearted people bent against a divine explanation can be. It also give credence to 2 Peter 3:5,6 "...For this they are willingly ignorant of, that by the Word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished..."


I will not guarantee that I will be visiting this thread again to view responses, since doing so may turn out to take more time than I wish to devote to sitting inactively at a computer typing away to the wind of unchanging evolutionary dogma that goes unsubstantiated. However, private messages will receive more attention. And if you provide actual evidence (again, I concede there is some for evolution), you will be noticed even more.

P.S. Yes, you can safely ignore Kent Hovind. To avoid undue controversy, please do see the article that was linked to Answers in Genesis and what they have to say about him.

 

[Hespera]

If you don't mind, I'll avoid wading through all the comments (many unrelated) that have ensued in the multiple pages of this thread. I am only new to this forum and so far have not seen much of anything that would make it worthwhile to spend much time here. Hence, I did not come across this challenge until awhile after it was written. Frankly, it disappoints me to see that the majority of the comments have come from evolutionists, and many of these tend to be short, unsubstantiated ones. So I'll say it up front: I am a biblical young earth creationist and a regular reader at creation.com, a website containing some 7500 articles with more added daily. You may bulk at this, claiming that I am feeding myself on non-scientific information and had better do some research for myself. But the fact remains that many of these writers are Phd scientists who could be making a better income somewhere else but bend themselves to the task because of their intense love for the truth of God's Word.


Now let me respond directly to the original challenge. The first question is a good example of what I mean by unsubstantiated. Where is this “overwhelming evidence”? I am not excluding the possibility of the existence of any evidence for evolution. There may very well be evidence for your side. But the creationists also have evidence. In other words, the best we can come up with is evidence for our view of history, which is based on our worldview. This is not a matter of “science vs faith” but is essentially “faith vs faith”. Since no one of us was there to see the distant past, we cannot state our ideas about history as dogmatically as we can about the things we can repeat and prove in the laboratory today. Hence, both sides have the same data, and it is a matter of whose interpretations of the data are most consistent with it. For example, evolutionary interpretations of the data found in the form of fossils is that it all happened slowly over much time. The creationist interpretation is that this happened quickly in the catastrophic event of Noah's Flood. Who is most consistent? It is obvious to a child that dead things do not lay around waiting to fossilize. Scavengers are plentiful enough to make that impossible. It is also child's play to realize that dead fish float rather than sinking in the hopes of beating the insurmountable odds and fossilizing.



The second question claims that we have had our points refuted over and over again. Please give a specific incident for us to critique.


Next the question arises as to our supposed lack of research. Again, let me remind you of the existence of creation scientists, many of which have done original research. There is Dr. Robert Carter, who has done much interesting research in his field of marine biology. Then there is Dr. John Baumgardner, who is responsible for what is recognised as the world's best computer simulation of plate tectonics. Also consider that Isaac Newton, considered the father of modern science, was a creationist. You can find much more detail on these and many more creation scientists by dong a simple search of creation.com. So I return the question, do you think creationists are doing original research?


Next the questioner accuses us of rejecting science that would destroy our beliefs. But what do you have to say to the many times that the dates arrived at via carbon dating have been rejected. Let me leave you with one who has more expertise in this area, geologist Dr. Tas Walker, who has written an informative article you can find by searching the phrase "little known facts about radiometric dating" at creation.com.


No, my faith is not weak. In fact, it is so strong that I am willing to accept a few cases where godless evolution seems to be gaining ground as something that still does not destroy my Creator. After all, the majority used to believe in a flat earth. Besides, history shows that places where evolution seemed to triumph just need enough time, revelation by God, and investigation by creation scientists. Incidentally, I view the persistence of evolution as evidence for how hardhearted people bent against a divine explanation can be. It also give credence to 2 Peter 3:5,6 "...For this they are willingly ignorant of, that by the Word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished..."


I will not guarantee that I will be visiting this thread again to view responses, since doing so may turn out to take more time than I wish to devote to sitting inactively at a computer typing away to the wind of unchanging evolutionary dogma that goes unsubstantiated. However, private messages will receive more attention. And if you provide actual evidence (again, I concede there is some for evolution), you will be noticed even more.

P.S. Yes, you can safely ignore Kent Hovind. To avoid undue controversy, please do see the article that was linked to Answers in Genesis and what they have to say about him.

try thinking more and typing less

 

[anabaptistfaith]

A scientific theory is a model of the rules under which nature normally. As a model, it is not perfect. It only models specific aspects of nature, and outside its scope it may be wildly off, but usually there is a different model available to cover that area. For example, a Mercator projection map is one of the most accurate models of the equatorial region but wildly off in the polar regions, while a polar projection is accurate at its reference pole, off at the equator, and even further off at the opposite pole. Or in physics, we have a jump from classical Newtonian mechanics or Einsteinian Relativity on the macro- and mezzo- scales to Quantum Physics on the micro- scale.

If something which is supposed to be in the model's range does not behave as predicted, it is called an anomaly and set aside, but it is not "thrown out." No, it is looked at more carefully.

Yes, the first reaction is to assume the anomaly is false data -- a lie, a misunderstanding, a fraud, etc. When Mary told Joseph that she was pregnant, he planned to "put her away" or divorce her. Pregnancy without sex did not fit in his model of how children are made. It was an anomaly. But Joseph didn't stop there, he sought confirmation. The confirmation in that case was that yes Mary was pregnant, and yes she was still a virgin.

Whenever the Catholic Church needs to rule on a miracle the first thing they do is investigate every possible way that it could have been faked. They do this while believing in miracles, and expecting some of the claims to be genuine. They find most of them to be fakes, but they do endorse certain few others.

Likewise with scientists. They pay a lot of attention to the anomalies. That is how science advances. Take the famous example of the bumblebee. Based only on Bernoulli's principles, a bumblebee's body is not aerodynamic, and yet it flies. For years, it was an anomaly in the theory of flight. But the scientists did not "throw it out," they studied it to try to discover why the bumblebee flies. The discovered other forces at work besides the classic four of Bernoulli. They are much smaller, and only influence small, light objects. Anything larger than the bumblebee is too massive for these forces to affect.

Likewise with the speed of light. An experiment by Michelson and Morely failed to give the expected result. They repeated the experiment, and got the same "wrong" answer. Others repeated it, and got the same "wrong" answer. Einstein asked the question, what happens if we assume that the "wrong" answer is the right answer? What if the speed of light is always the same, no matter how fast its source is moving toward or away from you? The result of these questions was Relativity.

I like your stand for Christianity and the Truth of God's Word, but I do not see power in your argument. You are dealing with observational science and trying to compare it to evolutionary theory, which is historical science. While the bumble bee is a presently observable phenomenon, evolution is dealing with past things. The bumble bee anomaly was a proven problem--it didn't appear that it could fly but it could be unquestionably proven that it did. On the other hand, evolutionary anomalies are not proven problems. For example, the origin of ATP synthase, the world's most efficient motor found in the cell, is problematic only if interpreted by evolution theory. Invoke instantaneous creation on the scene, and the problem is no longer there.

 

[Hespera]

I like your stand for Christianity and the Truth of God's Word, but I do not see power in your argument. You are dealing with observational science and trying to compare it to evolutionary theory, which is historical science. While the bumble bee is a presently observable phenomenon, evolution is dealing with past things. The bumble bee anomaly was a proven problem--it didn't appear that it could fly but it could be unquestionably proven that it did. On the other hand, evolutionary anomalies are not proven problems. For example, the origin of ATP synthase, the world's most efficient motor found in the cell, is problematic only if interpreted by evolution theory. Invoke instantaneous creation on the scene, and the problem is no longer there.

the bumble bee thing is about some engineer who using his calculations of know aerodyamics didnt see how it could fly. has zero to do with the ToE

, evolutionary anomalies

what is an evolutionary anomaly supposed to be?

 

[mathclub]

I like your stand for Christianity and the Truth of God's Word, but I do not see power in your argument. You are dealing with observational science and trying to compare it to evolutionary theory, which is historical science. While the bumble bee is a presently observable phenomenon, evolution is dealing with past things. The bumble bee anomaly was a proven problem--it didn't appear that it could fly but it could be unquestionably proven that it did. On the other hand, evolutionary anomalies are not proven problems. For example, the origin of ATP synthase, the world's most efficient motor found in the cell, is problematic only if interpreted by evolution theory. Invoke instantaneous creation on the scene, and the problem is no longer there.

You are incorrect in stating that evolution is an historical science and not an observational one. This is taken directly from www.talkorigins.org. I suggest you look around there a bit more if you want the things you say about this topic to have any basis in truth.

"Evolution has never been observed."

Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.
The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples.
Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming. What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.

 

[OllieFranz]

I like your stand for Christianity and the Truth of God's Word, but I do not see power in your argument. You are dealing with observational science and trying to compare it to evolutionary theory, which is historical science. While the bumble bee is a presently observable phenomenon, evolution is dealing with past things. The bumble bee anomaly was a proven problem--it didn't appear that it could fly but it could be unquestionably proven that it did. On the other hand, evolutionary anomalies are not proven problems. For example, the origin of ATP synthase, the world's most efficient motor found in the cell, is problematic only if interpreted by evolution theory. Invoke instantaneous creation on the scene, and the problem is no longer there.

Again, one does not "invoke" a miracle (like the virgin birth or "instantaneous creation") until after you have rejected all natural explanations. There are too many ways that an event can be faked or misunderstood. One must consider and exhaust the possibility that the woman is lying and pregnancy occurred naturally before declaring it a miracle. Because of this, there is only one claim of virgin birth that is considered true, even though there are countless claims of miraculous conceptions and births throughout the literature of world religions.

But with science, it is true, there is no room for miracles. This is not, as often claimed an atheist, materialistic conspiracy. Most scientists are theists who grew up in the Judeo-Christian Western culture. Going back to its roots, the early scientists were almost all Christians, and most of them were devout believers. But right from the start, science has employed a materialistic methodology.

Science is the study of the normal laws of nature. A scientific theory is a model of one aspect of those laws. Each model has its own limitations, and areas where it should not be invoked, but all models have one limitation that they share: all models must be materialistic. That is they must explain natural events through natural processes. Science cannot study non-natural (for example supernatural) events, and it cannot propose non-natural processes.

Science can tell us things about the water that was poured into the urns at Cana. It can tell us things about the wine that was poured out. But it cannot explain, nor does it try, to explain what happened in between. Whatever happened under Jesus' direction, it was not a natural process.

This is why science "throws out" miracles. Some atheists claim that "Science disproves God" or "Science shows that miracles are impossible. They are wrong. But even though they make these erroneous statements, there is no reason to claim that we need a "new" science or that science must be re-invented to allow for God and Miracles. It already allows for them, but then says "but I'm not studying miracles, I'm studying natural processes."

I'm not sure what the difference is that you are trying to make between "observational science" and "historical science." Are you saying that every generation of scientists has to re-invent their science models from scratch because we can't trust science done in the past?

Or are you, perhaps, saying that science based on actually observing nature is more trustworthy than science based on historical speculation? If you are saying this, then I agree, and will state that in that sense all modern science is observational science, and is more trustworthy than some of Aristotle's claims about nature and the Universe which the organized Churches (not just the Catholic Church, but also the Lutherans, the Calvinists, the Anglicans, etc) held up as established fact, or the claims of Henry Morris, credited by many with being the founder of the modern Young Earth Creationism movement.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Again, one does not "invoke" a miracle (like the virgin birth or "instantaneous creation") until after you have rejected all natural explanations.

Isn't the very act of "invoking" a miracle somewhat arrogant, considering one can never reject the natural explanation of "something we haven't discovered yet"?

 

[anabaptistfaith]

Again, one does not "invoke" a miracle (like the virgin birth or "instantaneous creation") until after you have rejected all natural explanations. There are too many ways that an event can be faked or misunderstood. One must consider and exhaust the possibility that the woman is lying and pregnancy occurred naturally before declaring it a miracle. Because of this, there is only one claim of virgin birth that is considered true, even though there are countless claims of miraculous conceptions and births throughout the literature of world religions.

But with science, it is true, there is no room for miracles. This is not, as often claimed an atheist, materialistic conspiracy. Most scientists are theists who grew up in the Judeo-Christian Western culture. Going back to its roots, the early scientists were almost all Christians, and most of them were devout believers. But right from the start, science has employed a materialistic methodology.

Science is the study of the normal laws of nature. A scientific theory is a model of one aspect of those laws. Each model has its own limitations, and areas where it should not be invoked, but all models have one limitation that they share: all models must be materialistic. That is they must explain natural events through natural processes. Science cannot study non-natural (for example supernatural) events, and it cannot propose non-natural processes.

Science can tell us things about the water that was poured into the urns at Cana. It can tell us things about the wine that was poured out. But it cannot explain, nor does it try, to explain what happened in between. Whatever happened under Jesus' direction, it was not a natural process.

This is why science "throws out" miracles. Some atheists claim that "Science disproves God" or "Science shows that miracles are impossible. They are wrong. But even though they make these erroneous statements, there is no reason to claim that we need a "new" science or that science must be re-invented to allow for God and Miracles. It already allows for them, but then says "but I'm not studying miracles, I'm studying natural processes."

I'm not sure what the difference is that you are trying to make between "observational science" and "historical science." Are you saying that every generation of scientists has to re-invent their science models from scratch because we can't trust science done in the past?

Or are you, perhaps, saying that science based on actually observing nature is more trustworthy than science based on historical speculation? If you are saying this, then I agree, and will state that in that sense all modern science is observational science, and is more trustworthy than some of Aristotle's claims about nature and the Universe which the organized Churches (not just the Catholic Church, but also the Lutherans, the Calvinists, the Anglicans, etc) held up as established fact, or the claims of Henry Morris, credited by many with being the founder of the modern Young Earth Creationism movement.

The majority of what you said about science is true. However, I feel a clarification of what I meant by "historical science vs observational science" is needed. In your post (above) you were obviously referring to what I would label observational science. Science, as many people think of the word, has to do with sending men to the moon, investigating cancer, etc. That is, it has to do with presently observable processes which we can see for ourselves under a microscope or in a laboratory. However, when people refer to evolution as science, a more accurate term would be "historical science" since, like creationism, it deals with unobservable, unrepeatable events in the past. So what you said above is not applicable to historical science. In other words, historical science does indeed delve into the explanation of a religious belief. And while evolution is not intended to do this in every case, it is essentially an explanation of a religious belief--that no God was necessary to get us here. So be careful before labeling evolution theory with so authoritative a label as "science."

Let me comment further on an attitude of yours that I find to be seriously flawed. However, I say this respectfully, and before I delve into disagreement, I want to make it plain that my desire is not to start an argument or to tear you down but to present truth that you may have never heard before.

I gather that you are abhorrent of a miraculous explanation of something (in this case, origins) if it is not necessary and that this is why you espouse evolution. But being a Christian, this view is not consistent for you. Hebrew scholars the world over recognize that the grammatical structure of Genesis is obviously that of historical narrative. But more importantly, Jesus stated that from the beginning of creation Adam and Eve were made male and female. There is no room left for ape-men and such like. Jesus is also known as saying that if one does not believe Him when He speaks of earthly things, it does not seem feasible for one to believe when God speaks of heavenly things. If you cannot accept God's earthly story of creation as literal, then what is the point of believing His spiritual story of redemption, the latter of which is based on the historical accuracy of Genesis (if there was no literal Adam, then a literal Jesus and literal redemption is negated)? You seem to be taking science (man's words) and putting it in a higher place than God's words which declare an instantaneous creation.

It is interesting that you note the beliefs of the founding churches. Incidentally, history records that the early church fathers would not have questioned a literal reading of Genesis and an acceptance of a 6, 24-hour day creation. It was only when evolution came along that there was reason to doubt this belief. Doesn't this indicate that a plain reading of Genesis brings about the belief it was meant to inspire--a literal creation over 6 24-hour days? Indeed, the early scientists were Christians, and many were inspired by their belief in a literal Creation and Fall. For substantiation, search "the biblical roots of modern science" on creation.com.

Speaking, of Anglicans, Catholics, etc., have you ever heard much about my religion--Anabaptist--from which I get my username? Incidentally, I am a contributor to the online project that is taking place at anabaptistfaith.com.

 

[OllieFranz]

The majority of what you said about science is true. However, I feel a clarification of what I meant by "historical science vs observational science" is needed. In your post (above) you were obviously referring to what I would label observational science. Science, as many people think of the word, has to do with sending men to the moon, investigating cancer, etc. That is, it has to do with presently observable processes which we can see for ourselves under a microscope or in a laboratory. However, when people refer to evolution as science, a more accurate term would be "historical science" since, like creationism, it deals with unobservable, unrepeatable events in the past. So what you said above is not applicable to historical science. In other words, historical science does indeed delve into the explanation of a religious belief. And while evolution is not intended to do this in every case, it is essentially an explanation of a religious belief--that no God was necessary to get us here. So be careful before labeling evolution theory with so authoritative a label as "science."

And my point is that evolution is every bit as much an observational science as chemistry.Scientists 1) make observations about events in nature, and 2) collate those observations seeing what they have certain things in common. Then 3) they either try to quantify the relationship between different events or ask why the are so similar, followed by the alternate third step as a fourth step. At this point they have a tentative model, called a hypothesis, and using this model come up with tests or experiments to verify the hypothesis. They work out what the model predicts will be found at the conclusion of the test. If the actual results agree, the hypothesis has been verified, and it is re-labelled a theory. Newtons laws of motion, and all of Newtonian Mechanics was derived in this way, and the evolutionary model was derived in exactly this way, as well.

On the other hand, Henry Morris based his YEC theory on nothing more an extremely literal reading of Genesis, similar to the way the Churches accepted Aristotle's geocentrism due to an extremely literal reading of Bible verses such as the sun standing still in the sky for Joshua.

Let me comment further on an attitude of yours that I find to be seriously flawed. However, I say this respectfully, and before I delve into disagreement, I want to make it plain that my desire is not to start an argument or to tear you down but to present truth that you may have never heard before.

I do not believe my attitude is flawed. I do believe that miracles happen, but I also know that there are frauds, there are events that have natural explanations, but the first person to observe the event is unaware of the natural process involved, and there are events that are natural that no one has a natural explanation for -- yet. If I am going to properly use the brains that God gave me, I need to realize that 99.99% of all events claimed to be miracles are natural events.

I praise Him when He performs a miracle (even "small" miracles hidden inside natural events, like the birth of a new life), But I think He expects me to know the difference between a genuine miracle and a "Jesus in the stain" event.

I gather that you are abhorrent of a miraculous explanation of something (in this case, origins) if it is not necessary and that this is why you espouse evolution.

I am not abhorent of miraculous explanations. I think the Big Bang was a miracle -- a big miracle (albeit partially hidden in a natural event). But when I talk of origin science, I have to talk about science, and science can only address the natural event part of the Big Bang.

But being a Christian, this view is not consistent for you. Hebrew scholars the world over recognize that the grammatical structure of Genesis is obviously that of historical narrative. But more importantly, Jesus stated that from the beginning of creation Adam and Eve were made male and female. There is no room left for ape-men and such like. Jesus is also known as saying that if one does not believe Him when He speaks of earthly things, it does not seem feasible for one to believe when God speaks of heavenly things. If you cannot accept God's earthly story of creation as literal, then what is the point of believing His spiritual story of redemption, the latter of which is based on the historical accuracy of Genesis (if there was no literal Adam, then a literal Jesus and literal redemption is negated)? You seem to be taking science (man's words) and putting it in a higher place than God's words which declare an instantaneous creation.

It is interesting that you note the beliefs of the founding churches. Incidentally, history records that the early church fathers would not have questioned a literal reading of Genesis and an acceptance of a 6, 24-hour day creation. It was only when evolution came along that there was reason to doubt this belief. Doesn't this indicate that a plain reading of Genesis brings about the belief it was meant to inspire--a literal creation over 6 24-hour days? Indeed, the early scientists were Christians, and many were inspired by their belief in a literal Creation and Fall. For substantiation, search "the biblical roots of modern science" on creation.com.

There is nothing inconsistent about being a Christian and pursuing a science which uses a materialistic methodology. Science would not have even begun if it weren't for Christians who believed that God created a world of order, and that He willed that we learn to use that order to subdue the earth. Learning about God's creation and its nature through science does not mean there is no other truth to learn, but it does mean following the restrictions on the model you are examining.


When you play chess, you are restricted to an 8x8 playing board and certain legal moves. There are versions of what is called "fairy chess" which use boards of different size and shape, and there are versions where some of the pieces have different moves. These are all interesting games and enjoyable to play, but they are not chess. Likewise, while you are "playing" science, you are restricted to the boundaries of science. Examining miracles may be profitable, but it is not science. When I take off my "science hat" and put on another hat (churchmember, parent, etc.) then I am free to talk about miracles as much as I would like.

Speaking, of Anglicans, Catholics, etc., have you ever heard much about my religion--Anabaptist--from which I get my username? Incidentally, I am a contributor to the online project that is taking place at anabaptistfaith.com.

I do know that the Anabaptists were the first denomination to re-introduce the idea that one had to choose to be baptized, and therefore had to be old enough to choose, and that it was one of the first "bottom-up" denominations, and in this respect they were the fathers of many of today's evangelical denominations, starting with the Baptists. But I don't know much about the modern Anabaptist Church.

Personally, I am not all that worried about denominations. When I look for a church, I have three criteria. First, do I agree with it on the big issues, the ones recorded in the traditional Creeds? I don't mind a little disagreement on the non-essential doctrines. Second, is it nearby? I don't think a three hour dive each way gains me anything if there is another acceptable church five minutes away. And, third, what is the congregation like. A congregation should be like a family. We should be able to have disagreements, and even fights, but still love and support one another. We should be there for guidance and comfort without hovering. We should be able to have fun together, but when the occasion calls for it, be serious and studious as well. And this is all based on the local congregation, which cannot be correlated very well to which denomination the congregation holds allegiance.

 

[mathclub]

Science, as many people think of the word, has to do with sending men to the moon, investigating cancer, etc. That is, it has to do with presently observable processes which we can see for ourselves under a microscope or in a laboratory. However, when people refer to evolution as science, a more accurate term would be "historical science" since, like creationism, it deals with unobservable, unrepeatable events in the past. So what you said above is not applicable to historical science. In other words, historical science does indeed delve into the explanation of a religious belief. And while evolution is not intended to do this in every case, it is essentially an explanation of a religious belief--that no God was necessary to get us here. So be careful before labeling evolution theory with so authoritative a label as "science."

so you're going to keep repeating this drivel even tho you are blatantly just wrong with everything you say and I have shown that on the last page?

So I guess now you know that evolution is 'observational science' then you accept the theory now? brilliant

 

[Cabal]

"i want a straight up answer from YEC's"

Yeah....good luck with that

 

[angel tabitha]

given the OVERWHELMING evidence for an old earth and evolution why do you consitently ignore it? why do you get your points refuted over and over and over but never listen? why don't you do some research? why do you belive things that come from a site such as AIG when they reject any science that would destroy their beliefs? why why why? is your faith really that weak? are you afraid of science? as someone's signature on here says, if your faith is affected by science that is weak faith. now why are you guys so closed minded? why? i want answers.

Excuse my french but how the hell do you believe in evolution and God. Do you not know he who was is and has yet to come. Why so foolish? Do you not understand the contradictions of evolution and the creator. Are you that lost in the world. You cannot believe in two things that contradict eachother. One that says it forms itself and the other(God) who says I am the creator. You truely need guidance. It is not science people are afraid of it is the misusuage of science to lead people astray and away from God that people are frustrated about. Science is only good when it does not lie, but it seems it has brainwashed you into its lies and for that I am saddened

 

[AV1611VET]

Science is only good when it does not lie, but it seems it has brainwashed you into its lies and for that I am saddened

You tell'em, sis!

 

[Cabal]

Excuse my french but how the hell do you believe in evolution and God. Do you not know he who was is and has yet to come. Why so foolish? Do you not understand the contradictions of evolution and the creator. Are you that lost in the world. You cannot believe in two things that contradict eachother. One that says it forms itself and the other(God) who says I am the creator. You truely need guidance. It is not science people are afraid of it is the misusuage of science to lead people astray and away from God that people are frustrated about. Science is only good when it does not lie, but it seems it has brainwashed you into its lies and for that I am saddened

Your personal interpretations of the Bible don't give you the right to go around calling people foolish, or imply they need guidance.

Ask yourself why your deity is apparently saying one thing and actually doing something else.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your personal interpretations of the Bible don't give you the right to go around calling people foolish, or imply they need guidance.

But we're called everything but what's in our profiles, right?

Liars, cheaters, hypocrites, deceivers -- we're all that and more, aren't we?

(Please spare me, "If the shoe fits" or "If it walks like a duck...")