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.
How does one argue for young earth creationism with intellectual integrity? Two requirements: First, be misinformed. Second, have integrity.
Between Christian schools, Fundamentalist churches, and the ICR, I had the first requirement covered.
Regarding the second requirement, uh, er, let's just say that I didn't quite do as well as my debate partner thinks I did.
Consider: Why does a flower unfold?
-----
If God is the Creator of Nature (as I believe, the creator of all the Universe, all of Nature), then it has to be that He necessarily created how Nature works, of course.
But if one does believe God originated this Universe and Nature -- all -- gravity, how matter behaves, chemistry, physics....
Then Nature itself is a flower unfolding.
That doesn't answer my question.If God is the Creator of Nature (as I believe, the creator of all the Universe, all of Nature), then it has to be that He necessarily created how Nature works, of course.
But if one does believe God originated this Universe and Nature -- all -- gravity, how matter behaves, chemistry, physics....
Then Nature itself is a flower unfolding.
Wrong. Did you ever hear of supernovas? See How Old is the Earth.the bible says stars are for signs and marking of calendars and travel. God could've placed those there in an instant to be used.
Wrong. Did you ever hear of isochrons? See How Old is the Earth.Even dating methods aren't that accurate and can be disputed.
This is not a debate that will go far. You are using naturalistic explanations with current measurements to back up your theory. There is no account in science for a supernatural Creator who can greatly influence things as He sees fit.Wrong. Did you ever hear of supernovas? See How Old is the Earth.
Wrong. Did you ever hear of isochrons? See How Old is the Earth.
I am not dictating what Christians can believe. I am saying that if Jesus upholds creationism, Adam and Eve, and the flood, and you say creationism, Adam and Eve, and the flood didn't happen because science says it didn't happen, then that would mean Jesus was lying about those things. Was Jesus simply ignorant about those things, even though it says in John 1:1 that "in the beginning was the Word, and the word was with God, and the word was God?" That nothing could be made without Him and He was there for all of it? If you believe in Jesus, then I would take His word over that of a scientist considering Jesus took part in the creation and that scientist really has no clue.You are in no position to dictate to other Christians what they can believe.
I am not dictating what Christians can believe. I am saying that if Jesus upholds creationism, Adam and Eve, and the flood, and you say creationism, Adam and Eve, and the flood didn't happen because science says it didn't happen, then that would mean Jesus was lying about those things. Was Jesus simply ignorant about those things, even though it says in John 1:1 that "in the beginning was the Word, and the word was with God, and the word was God?" That nothing could be made without Him and He was there for all of it? If you believe in Jesus, then I would take His word over that of a scientist considering Jesus took part in the creation and that scientist really has no clue.
To believe in God means supernatural events took place that naturalistic studies cannot comprehend or account for. So why do Christians, who believe in miracles and supernatural events, believe in man-made science and naturalistic explanations?
Nice to meet you as well. I apologize if any of my posts come off as rude. I have ADHD and sometimes get in trouble for the way I say things. I never intend to come off as rude or someone who is a know-it-all. In fact, I consider myself a student in all things.Ah, so we meet in passing. Nice to meet you.
By the way, if what you say is true, then you would be the first former staunch atheist I met who is now a creationist.
I am not saying it is impossible. I am just saying I have not yet met such a person. So I hope you don't mind if I admit to some skepticism of your claim.
Can you tell us what arguments had convinced you to become a staunch atheist that lauded evolution? What books or other sources influenced you? What organizations were you involved in?
You do understand that childhood naivete and teenage apathy are not the same as staunch atheism, yes?
As for me I had become a staunch creationist after reading The Genesis Flood by Henry Morris, and after hearing debates by Duane Gish. Also, as I mention in the OP, the book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis was also a primary source.
In the OP I mention some of the specific creationist arguments I found impressive.
And no, my creationism was not simply childhood naivete or teenage apathy. A former debate partner writes about me:
He was something that you almost never see: an honest creationist. He argued on CompuServe for young-earth creationism and was one of its better, more coherent advocates. While most creationists would just make their claims and then refuse to support or discuss them...Merle would make the effort to support his claims and to engage in discussion. A real rarity among creationists. Source
I am sure you will agree with me that some people claim to be hearing from God and they are not. So I do not find "God spoke to me" to be a convincing argument.
Are you aware of the magnitude of the evidence for evolution? In the OP, I describe being overwhelmed by the evidence.
Yes, you might find a few cases of fraud, poor reasoning, or misinterpretation. But all of it? Be serious.
If all of this is fraud, that is like telling me I am on The Truman Show; that one day I will find the door leading off the stage; and that I will learn that all of science was one huge effort to fool me. Then we can all go have a beer together and laugh at how the thousands of research papers fooled me. Right?
Wrong.
Read the OP, please. I discuss why the transitional fossils are so important.
I can't understand how you could have been a staunch defender of evolution, and not realize that nobody is claiming to find "a complete A to Z roadmap of an entire creature's transition perfectly laid out".
That would like me complaining that Creationism is not true, for storks couldn't possibly be bringing all the babies to the hospital. If I was making such straw man arguments, I suspect you would shake your head in sorrow and doubt my creationist credentials.
Evolutionists are emphatic, that, though the fossil record is imperfect, it still gives strong evidence of what happened. I am curious how a former staunch evolutionist would not know that.
I am a studied bible student myself nearly on my way to becoming a pastor. I've studied the bible for almost 20 years and sat under many great teachers and pastors. I also have the Holy Spirit inside of me. I believe I am well qualified to share what is in the bible and the things Jesus said about creation.No, you're not saying Jesus upholds creationism.
You are saying you have inerrant knowledge of
what he said, what the bible means, and the
innate nature of universe, wiser than the Pope,
more knowledgeable than all the finest researchers.
I am a studied bible student myself nearly on my way to becoming a pastor. I've studied the bible for almost 20 years and sat under many great teachers and pastors. I also have the Holy Spirit inside of me. I believe I am well qualified to share what is in the bible and the things Jesus said about creation.
You can doubt my testimony that God spoke to me. That is okay.
But how does one have a sudden conversion like had?
Nice to meet you as well. I apologize if any of my posts come off as rude. I have ADHD and sometimes get in trouble for the way I say things. I never intend to come off as rude or someone who is a know-it-all. In fact, I consider myself a student in all things.
With everything I have said, you might find it strange that I would be okay with the concept of an old earth. There is a biblical scholar I really admire named Dr. Michael Heiser. He is incredibly intelligent and makes good arguments for an old earth.
I never grew up in church or in the faith. None of my family were believers (except for my departed grandma who was a passive Catholic and never talked about her faith). I had no concept of God. What I loved as a kid was science. I entered several science fairs, once being selected by my school as the top prize and going on to the next level (but was defeated there). I loved astronomy the most. I lived in Texas when comet Hale-Bopp came around. I made my dad take me to several dark-out events where I took my telescope to see the comet away from the city lights. Would often go to science museums and had a massive rock collection. I could go on and on.
I remember in high school taking Oceanography. We were watching a video on whale evolution and I was sitting next to my Christian friend. I gave him a hard time about how stupid his beliefs were when there was proof right on the screen that whales evolved and weren't created.
You can doubt my testimony that God spoke to me. That is okay. But how does one have a sudden conversion like had? Someone like me with ZERO Christian influences, hated anything to do with God, and made fun of Christianity and religion as a whole. I was also pro-choice and stood up for gay rights and would've been considered a strong LGBT ally.
When God spoke to me, it sent my entire world into a tailspin. I was in a room with my step-brother. It was the two of us. I heard a voice that was not mine ask me a question about life and death. He heard nothing. For MONTHS I had horrible anxiety and panic attacks. I didn't understand. It took quite a while, but my entire worldview changed. My family makes fun of me and don't understand how I changed so suddenly. But there are plenty of similar conversion stories in the bible.
Ever since I opened my mind to creationism, there wasn't a single scientific theory that intelligent creationists couldn't poke a hole in. Theories and ideas that could be explained a different way and with a biblical worldview. That is the way with science. Things you tell me are 100% factual and proven today will be an old disproven theory ten years from now. But the more men try to discover, the more confused they become, leading many more scientists to open their minds about the possibility of a creator.
There are plenty of people on the side of science who say science can never be doubted or disputed. "Trust the science!" they scream.Only an ignorant naif thinks anything in science is 100 percent
factual and proven.
If those are the people you talk to no wonder you dont get
good information.
There are plenty of people on the side of science who say science can never be doubted or disputed. "Trust the science!" they scream.
Well, I am just one of the millions, or even billions, of people who had similar conversion stories. How faith quickly exploded throughout the known world despite intense persecution and the threat of death under Roman rule and in the face of Greek knowledge and philosophy. How that expansion continues today in China and other places where it is illegal to be a Christian and punishable by death, yet new converts stand ready to die for their beliefs.Thanks, I will.
I dunno. But not having had that experience, I have to go by the evidence. And this experience was personal to you, and it can't be shared. So unless and until I get some similar message that convinces me, I have to stick with the evidence that is accessible to me.
And I hope you can see that, however powerful this experience was for you, it had nothing to do with the physical evidence we all have available, with which to form hypotheses and theories about how the world works.
There are plenty of people on the side of science who say science can never be doubted or disputed. "Trust the science!" they scream.
Yes, I find that strange. After all, you posted that the stars might not be as old as claimed, and you attacked the validity of radiometric dating. Now we find out that, when you posted that, you forgot to mention that you are okay with the concept that the stars may be very old and that the findings of radiometric dating may be consistent with the actual age of the rocks?With everything I have said, you might find it strange that I would be okay with the concept of an old earth.
I never heard of Heiser, but I heard of Lee Strobel, John Ankerberg, Pat Robertson, William Lane Craig, Hugh Ross, Hank Hannegraff, C. I. Scofield, and Francis Schaeffer. All have made statements open to the concept of an old universe. See Notable Christians Open to an Old Uinverse.There is a biblical scholar I really admire named Dr. Michael Heiser. He is incredibly intelligent and makes good arguments for an old earth.
Okay, as a teenager you made fun of another boy who disagreed with something you were seeing in a video in school. That hardly qualifies you as a studied, staunch atheist who promoted evolution, which was your claim in your first post.I remember in high school taking Oceanography. We were watching a video on whale evolution and I was sitting next to my Christian friend. I gave him a hard time about how stupid his beliefs were when there was proof right on the screen that whales evolved and weren't created.
I don't know. Was there a cute girl in the youth group?You can doubt my testimony that God spoke to me. That is okay. But how does one have a sudden conversion like had? Someone like me with ZERO Christian influences, hated anything to do with God, and made fun of Christianity and religion as a whole.
If that ever happened to me, I would go see a doctor.When God spoke to me, it sent my entire world into a tailspin. I was in a room with my step-brother. It was the two of us. I heard a voice that was not mine ask me a question about life and death. He heard nothing. For MONTHS I had horrible anxiety and panic attacks. I didn't understand.
Remember, I was once one who presented these same hole-poking arguments in public. The OP, for instance, describes what happened when I attempted to validate my wonderful hole-poking argument.Ever since I opened my mind to creationism, there wasn't a single scientific theory that intelligent creationists couldn't poke a hole in. Theories and ideas that could be explained a different way and with a biblical worldview.
Now you're just mocking and trying to discredit my testimony. Yes, I gave my entire life to Jesus because there was a cute girl in youth group despite the fact I've never stepped foot in church my entire life.Yes, I find that strange. After all, you posted that the stars might not be as old as claimed, and you attacked the validity of radiometric dating. Now we find out that, when you posted that, you forgot to mention that you are okay with the concept that the stars may be very old and that the findings of radiometric dating may be consistent with the actual age of the rocks?
If you are okay with the concept that the earth could be very old, I see no need to address your arguments that the earth is young.
I never heard of Heiser, but I heard of Lee Strobel, John Ankerberg, Pat Robertson, William Lane Craig, Hugh Ross, Hank Hannegraff, C. I. Scofield, and Francis Schaeffer. All have made statements open to the concept of an old universe. See Notable Christians Open to an Old Uinverse.
Okay, as a teenager you made fun of another boy who disagreed with something you were seeing in a video in school. That hardly qualifies you as a studied, staunch atheist who promoted evolution, which was your claim in your first post.
I, on the other hand, was at one time indeed a studied, staunch Creationist.
I don't know. Was there a cute girl in the youth group?
If that ever happened to me, I would go see a doctor.
Just saying.
Remember, I was once one who presented these same hole-poking arguments in public. The OP, for instance, describes what happened when I attempted to validate my wonderful hole-poking argument.
Years ago I was fighting the good fight of creation on the Internet. I argued that evolution was impossible, for it required that the genetic code had to be changed to make new kinds of animals. It did not seem feasible to me that evolution could do this. I argued in the CompuServe debate forum, basing my arguments on Michael Denton’s Evolution: A Theory in Crises.
My favorite illustration was the difference between mammals and reptiles. The differences between living mammals and reptiles are substantial. Mammals all have hair, mammary glands, a four-chambered heart, and the distinct mammalian ear, with three little bones inside. These features are found in no living reptiles. I argued that this is because there is no viable intermediate between the two, that an animal could have either the reptile genetic code or the mammal code but could not be in the middle.
An evolutionist disagreed with me. He told me that in the past there had been many intermediates. He said that there were animals that, for instance, had jaw and ear bones that were intermediate between reptiles and mammals. How did he know this? He gave a reference to an essay in Stephen Gould’s Ten Little Piggies. I wrote back that since the local library had a large collection of children’s book, I should be able to find that book. (I thought that was quite a zinger.)
I borrowed the book, and found an interesting account of how bones in the reptile jaw evolved and changed through millions of years to become the mammals’ ear. That sounded like such a clever tale. How could Gould believe it? Perhaps he made it up. But there was one little footnote, a footnote that would change my life. It said simply, “Allin, E. F. 1975. Evolution of the Mammalian Middle Ear. Journal of Morphology 147:403-38.” That’s it. That’s all it said. But it was about to make a huge impact on me.
You see, I had developed this habit of looking things up, and had been making regular trips to a university library. I was getting involved in some serious discussions on the Internet, and was finding the scientific journals to be a reliable source of information. Well, I couldn’t believe that a real scientific journal would take such a tale seriously. But wait. Before I would declare victory, I needed to check it out.
On my next trip to the library, I found my way to the biomedical journal archive. I retrieved the specified journal, and started to read. I could not believe my eyes. There were detailed descriptions of many intermediate fossils. The article described in detail how the bones evolved from reptiles to mammals through a long series of mammal-like reptiles.
I paged through the volume in my hand. There were hundreds of pages, all loaded with information. I looked at other journals. I found page after page describing transitional fossils. More significantly, there were all of those troublesome dates. If one arranged the fossils according to date, one could see how the bones changed with time. Each fossil species was dated at a specific time range. It all fit together.
I didn’t know what to think. Could all of these fossil drawings be fakes? Could all of these dates be pulled out of a hat? Did these articles consist of thousands of lies? All seemed to indicate that life evolved over many millions of years. Were all of these thousands of “facts” actually guesses?
I looked around me. The room was filled with many bookshelves; each was filled with hundreds of bound journals. Were all of these journals drenched with lies?
Several medical students were doing research there. Perhaps some day they would need to operate on my heart or fight some disease. Was I to believe that these medical students were in this room filled with misinformation, and that they were diligently sorting out the evolutionist lies while learning medical knowledge? How could so much error have entered this room? It made no sense.
How can you explain those mysterious mammal-like reptiles? Reptiles and mammals today are quite distinct from each other. Mammalian features include differentiated teeth (incisors, canines, premolars, molars), double rooted teeth, a distinct jaw joint, three bones in the ear (stapes, incus, malleus), the diaphragm, limbs under the body, a different arrangement of toe bones, and a braincase that is firmly attached to the skull. No reptile has these features. But when we look at ancient fossils, we find a strange series of animals with features in the middle.
They begin 300 Ma (million years ago) in the Pennsylvanian. It was a different world. There were no mammals, flowering plants, or even dinosaurs. According to the fossil record, these would all come later. The world belonged to amphibians and reptiles. Early Synapsids such as Haptodus appeared. Their dentary jaw bones rose in the place where later animals would have a new jaw joint–the mammalian joint.
Then advanced pelycosaurs (270 Ma) like the Dimetrodon had signs of a bony prong for the eardrum. Later, cynodonts like the Procynosuchus (236 Ma) had jawbones more similar to mammals, but they still had the reptile’s jaw hinge.
The Probainognathus (238 Ma) and the Thrinaxodons (227 Ma) have signs of two distinct jaw joints, the reptilian and the mammalian. This allowed some of the bones that had been part of the reptile’s jaw to transmit vibrations to the ear. This was the beginning of the special mammalian ear bones.
By the time the Sinoconodon appears (208 Ma) the mammalian jaw joint predominates, and the reptilian jaw joint is small.
The Morganucodon (205 Ma) has teeth like a mammal, a distinct mammalian jaw joint, and only a tiny remnant of the reptile’s jaw. It’s malleus and incus ear bones remain attached to the jaw.
By the late Cretaceous period (80 Ma) early placental mammals like the Asioryctes had jaws and ears that were transformed to the mammalian type. Two of the reptile’s jaw bones, the quadrate and the articular were no longer part of the jaw. Instead they had become parts of the middle ear, the malleus and incus.
This is only a brief overview of these strange creatures. In reality, there are thousands of species that span many millions of years, with many intermediate stages of many different features.
Now what on earth was God doing? Why was he slowly introducing mammalian features into the fossil record? Why did he progressively change the design of the jaw, ear, teeth, and limbs until the animals look more and more like mammals? Should I just shrug my shoulders? “God moves in mysterious ways.” Problem resolved? No, I shall ask why.
Did God learn from past experience and introduce new creatures with improvement every several thousand years or so? Creationists would cringe at that suggestion. Then why do we find this progression? It is difficult to escape the all-too-obvious conclusion: God must have allowed the first mammal to evolve from reptiles through a process involving many millions of years.
As a Creationist, I finally came to the point where I considered that possibility. It instantly become apparent that this would be a huge change in worldview. For if the first mammal evolved from reptiles, then where did the second mammal come from? If God used thousands of transitions to evolve the first mammal, did he then just copy that design to create the second and third mammals? That makes no sense. These mammals must have evolved also.
In fact, we would need to conclude that all mammals have evolved from these mammal-like reptiles. Think for a minute of all of the varieties of mammals that you know–elephants, tigers, mice, dogs, and whales, to name a few. Did all of these descend from a sequence of mammal-like reptiles? Is there any other way to explain all of these intermediates?
The impact of that day in the library was truly stunning. I didn’t know what to say. I could not argue against the overwhelming evidence for mammal evolution. That was hopeless. But neither could I imagine believing it. Something had happened to me. My mind had begun to think. It was becoming free. And it was not about to be stopped. Oh no. There is no stopping the mind set free.
I went to the library and borrowed a few books on evolution and creation–diligently studying both sides of the argument. I started to read the evolutionist books with amazement. I had thought that evolutionists taught that floating cows had somehow turned into whales; that hopeful monsters had suddenly evolved without transitions; that one must have blind faith since transitional fossils did not exist; that one must simply guess at the dates for the fossils; and that one must ignore all of the evidence for young-earth creation. I was surprised to learn what these scientist actually knew about the Creationist teachings of flood geology, of the proposed young-earth proofs, and of the reported problems of evolution.
And I was surprised at the convincing answers that they had for these Creationist arguments. I was surprised to see all the arguments they had for evolution. I read with enthusiasm. I learned about isochrons, intermediate fossils, the geologic column, and much, much more.
I would never see the world in the same light. Several weeks later I found myself staring at the fossil of a large dinosaur in a museum. I stared with amazement. I looked at the details of every bone in the back. I wondered if a design so marvelous could really have evolved. But I knew that someone could show me other animals that had lived earlier that had transitional features to this dinosaur. And I knew that one could trace bones back through the fossil record to illustrate the broad path through which this creature had evolved. I stared and I pondered. And then I pondered some more.
Within days, I had lost interest in fighting evolution. I began to read more and write less. When I did debate, I confined my arguments to the issue of the origin of life. But I could no longer ignore what I had learned. Several months later I first sent out an email with probing questions to a creationist who had arrived on the scene. He never responded. I have not stopped questioning.
---------------------------
This is from my website: Did We Evolve?
I am not dictating what Christians can believe. I am saying that if Jesus upholds creationism, Adam and Eve, and the flood, and you say creationism, Adam and Eve, and the flood didn't happen because science says it didn't happen, then that would mean Jesus was lying about those things. Was Jesus simply ignorant about those things, even though it says in John 1:1 that "in the beginning was the Word, and the word was with God, and the word was God?" That nothing could be made without Him and He was there for all of it? If you believe in Jesus, then I would take His word over that of a scientist considering Jesus took part in the creation and that scientist really has no clue.
To believe in God means supernatural events took place that naturalistic studies cannot comprehend or account for. So why do Christians, who believe in miracles and supernatural events, believe in man-made science and naturalistic explanations?
There are plenty of people on the side of science who say science can never be doubted or disputed. "Trust the science!" they scream.
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?