Richard Dawkins disappoints again

[Speedwell]

Just scientifically speaking, macro evolution and billions of years have serious problems. If this were not so, then like gravity, nobody would have doubt of the claims of billions of years and protozoa to man evolution. It is not just the stupid that do not believe in billions of years and macro evolution, but people from all levels of intelligence, all education levels, all walks of life, every culture, every nation that discard and reject these vain imaginings. Is it that secular science has an overwhelmingly apparent truth on it's hands, but just trips and fumbles in its attempt to communicate?? I mean, evolution and billions of years is the only thing allowed to be taught in public schools and universities, and still cannot seem to sell everyone despite the great tactical advantage over just believing the truth of God's word! What an epic failure. If we want to boast about something, let us boast in the Lord (not the ideas of man in fine hubris) - see 2 Corinthians 10:17.
.

Bit of an exaggeration, that. Belief in creationism is rarely found outside of fundamentalist Protestant sects, mostly in the southern US.

 

[sfs]

What would the evidence really be for something that has never been seen before? The answer is that the evidence would be whatever you personally find convincing in your mind to sell you on believing something is true (this is true of all things not seen).

That's also true of all things seen. Seeing is just one more kind of evidence, and like all evidence can be misleading.

In far contrast to protozoa to man evolution, we have gravity, something that can be completely observed/tested/falsified, here in the present.

On the contrary. . . In direct parallel to evolution, we have gravity that we can observe close up, and we have the behavior of distant objects, which we cannot manipulate. We find that the distant objects -- which we cannot manipulate -- behave exactly like we would expect if the same forces were acting on them as we see in objects we can manipulate. We also infer the gravitational behavior of objects on very long time scales -- things like the orbit of Pluto, or long-period comets -- and find that it too looks like the same force is operating as we see locally.

Similarly, we can observe mutation, genetic drift and natural selection operating in real time. When we extrapolate those processes to longer time periods, we find that the actual relationships of different species look exactly like we would expect if the same processes had produced them.

That's why both gravitation (whose fundamental nature we don't understand at all) and evolution (whose fundamental nature is pretty straightforward) are both parts of science.

The "overwhelming evidential support" is fossils

No, the overwhelming evidential support comes from genetics, not fossils.

 

[sfs]

geez I guess I must have missed it then. Mustve' been reading too many Biblical passages and not paying attention to the animals just macrevolutioning before our very eyes.

I've spent lots of time reading Bible passages, too, but I've also had time to observe the evidence for common descent. (Sarcasm contributes very little, by the way.)

As Speedwell points out, the rest of what you wrote seems not to undercut the case for evolution at all, and in fact does not address the evidence for common descent in any way.

 

[NobleMouse]

Bit of an exaggeration, that. Belief in creationism is rarely found outside of fundamentalist Protestant sects, mostly in the southern US.

The following article supports that there are people in a wide array of religious beliefs, cultures, and backgrounds that do not accept darwinistic ideas:

For Darwin Day, 6 facts about the evolution debate

 

[Speedwell]

The following article supports that there are people in a wide array of religious beliefs, cultures, and backgrounds that do not accept darwinistic ideas:

For Darwin Day, 6 facts about the evolution debate

That link is in general agreement with my opinion--only 34% of Americans are creationists. a majority being Protestants of one kind or another. No doubt there are creationists in every sect and religion which comprise the "People of the Book." I discovered when I belonged to that organization that even the very liberal Episcopal Church harbored a few. But they were not troublesome nor wedded to the right-wing political agenda which seems to be a distinguishing mark of creationists these days, neither did they regard those who disagreed with them about it as part of a global conspiracy to deny the existence of God, another distinguishing characteristic of creationism.

 

[NobleMouse]

That's also true of all things seen. Seeing is just one more kind of evidence, and like all evidence can be misleading.

This affirms that just because one sees a fossil, it does not mean anything in and of itself as far as how it relates to other life, how it got there, when it died, etc... These questions require attempts at piecing clues together and imagination. This is true whether one believe in a young earth or an old earth. You and I can imagine the fish is related to the tetrapod because of seeing the fossil of a lobe-finned fish, but we weren't there to see it alive, and so we either imagine it represents some intermediate form, like Tiktaalik, or that it is a variation of a created fish kind that God made on day 5.

On the contrary. . . In direct parallel to evolution, we have gravity that we can observe close up, and we have the behavior of distant objects, which we cannot manipulate. We find that the distant objects -- which we cannot manipulate -- behave exactly like we would expect if the same forces were acting on them as we see in objects we can manipulate. We also infer the gravitational behavior of objects on very long time scales -- things like the orbit of Pluto, or long-period comets -- and find that it too looks like the same force is operating as we see locally.

Nobody ever observed a protozoa become a man directly, or indirectly for that matter. What has been observed (directly and appropriately inferred indirectly) is that life will adapt to it's environment (as we would both expect it to since God gave the command to multiply and fill the earth). The earth is not a homogeneous environment, so we'll expect life to diversify, but protozoa do not become people, kind A does not become kind B, invertebrates do not become vertebrates, etc... Another interesting quote by an astronomer, physicist, and cosmologist - who was openly agnostic as far as his religious beliefs go (Robert Jastrow):

"We can assume that in a relatively short time — perhaps within 100 million years — the one celled organism evolved into a colony of cells. With the further passage of time, groups of cells within those colonies assumed specialized functions of food-gathering, digestion, the structural features of an outer skin, and so on; thus began the stage of evolution leading to the complex, many-celled creatures which dominate life today.
The fossil record contains no trace of these preliminary stages in the development of many-celled organisms. The first clues to the existence of relatively advanced forms of life consist of a few barely discernible tracks, presumably made in the primeval slime by soft, wriggling wormlike animals. These are found in rocks about one billion years old. These meager remains are the earliest traces of many-celled animal life on the planet."
Source: Robert Jastrow, Red Giants and White Dwarfs : Man's Descent from the Stars (1971), p. 249 [Emphasis added]

Similarly, we can observe mutation, genetic drift and natural selection operating in real time. When we extrapolate those processes to longer time periods, we find that the actual relationships of different species look exactly like we would expect if the same processes had produced them.

This is exactly what I was illustrating with the Mark Twain quote in post #14. We have a narrowly observed truth here in the present (studying the behavior/function of DNA)... which has never observably resulted in a completely new life form, and extrapolated this mentally to infer that such behavior produced all forms of life from a single-celled organism from billions of years ago. This is akin to the 1.3 million-mile long lower Mississippi that Twain wryly mocked. Again, such large wholesale assertions based on miniscule facts observed in the present.

That's why both gravitation (whose fundamental nature we don't understand at all) and evolution (whose fundamental nature is pretty straightforward) are both parts of science.

No, the overwhelming evidential support comes from genetics, not fossils.

Logical fallacy. Genetics is [1] not available from fossils supposedly 10's or 100's of millions of years old, [2] where genetics is observed in the present, macro evolution is not transpiring, and [3] similarities in DNA is not isolated to one possibility (common ancestry), but is equally possible given a common creator. And since God said this is what He did on days 3, 5, and 6, and it is possible for Him to do this, it should bear credence, though apparently is only a "YEC" view. Since DNA represents a building block God used for creating life, it would make absolutely no sense if DNA was dissimilar among different life forms possessing similar qualities, so logically God would construct the bilateral eyes of, say a fish, using somewhat similar DNA to construct bilateral eyes of, say a human. Whether we're talking about finches in the Galapagos or E.Coli experiments, the result is the same where we have adaptation to the environment, but the finch remains a finch and E.Coli remains E.Coli. Another fitting quote by Robert Jastrow:

"At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
God and the Astronomers (1978), p. 116; (p. 107 in 1992 edition).

As I stated in post #21 when seeking after truth, science can arrive at some truths, but cannot arrive at all truths as is evident in God's word and what is observably true.

 

[sfs]

This affirms that just because one sees a fossil, it does not mean anything in and of itself as far as how it relates to other life, how it got there, when it died, etc... These questions require attempts at piecing clues together and imaginat

Attempts that produce hypotheses, which you then test.

This is true whether one believe in a young earth or an old earth.

In my experience, that is simply not true. Believers in a young earth know the truth and do not want to be bothered by having to explain data. Honestly, I have never seen a young earth creationist offer any explanation for the genetic data.

Have you ever looked at genetic data?

Logical fallacy.

It can't be a logical fallacy since it was an analogy, not an argument.

Genetics is [1] not available from fossils supposedly 10's or 100's of millions of years old, [2] where genetics is observed in the present, macro evolution is not transpiring, and [3] similarities in DNA is not isolated to one possibility (common ancestry), but is equally possible given a common creator.

[1] Mass measurements are not available for objects supposedly millions or hundreds millions of miles away. [2] Where mass is measured with small objects, orbiting is not transpiring, and [3] elliptical orbits is not isolated to one possibility (universal gravitation), but equally possible given a common creator. See?

Your point [3] is wrong, by the way. No creationist has ever offered an actual explanation for why genetics should appear the way it does if a common creator (without common descent) were responsible.

And since God said this is what He did on days 3, 5, and 6, and it is possible for Him to do this, it should bear credence, though apparently is only a "YEC" view. Since DNA represents a building block God used for creating life, it would make absolutely no sense if DNA was dissimilar among different life forms possessing similar qualities, so logically God would construct the bilateral eyes of, say a fish, using somewhat similar DNA to construct bilateral eyes of, say a human. Whether we're talking about finches in the Galapagos or E.Coli experiments, the result is the same where we have adaptation to the environment, but the finch remains a finch and E.Coli remains E.Coli.

You appear to have invented what you think the genetic evidence is and then refuted your own imaginary version. Why not learn what the real evidence is instead?

 

[NobleMouse]

That link is in general agreement with my opinion--only 34% of Americans are creationists. a majority being Protestants of one kind or another. No doubt there are creationists in every sect and religion which comprise the "People of the Book." I discovered when I belonged to that organization that even the very liberal Episcopal Church harbored a few. But they were not troublesome nor wedded to the right-wing political agenda which seems to be a distinguishing mark of creationists these days, neither did they regard those who disagreed with them about it as part of a global conspiracy to deny the existence of God, another distinguishing characteristic of creationism.

I never specified percentages, I stated that there are people in all walks of life, backgrounds, education levels, etc... that reject evolution.

If there is any political agenda going on, it is to marginalize biblical creationism as a mystical belief and that it is for the ignorant, and any scientist who accepts the word of God on creation cannot be a "real" scientist. It is observed; however, that there are real scientists that do real scientific research, have real degrees from prestigious universities, that believe the account of creation is true, which dispels this agenda is being nothing more than a form of discrimination.

 

[Job 33:6]

Everything you've stated is an exaggerated and baseless defense aimed solely in an attempt to discredit me so as to uphold theories that [1] are not supported by unequivocal evidence and [2] are supported by unfalsifiable axioms. Clever, but not unexpected. You can become as voluminous and as technical as you wish to be in your knowledge of a given discipline of science, but it does not take away from the basic foundational principles (that anyone can understand) upon which it rests - uniformitarianism and naturalism. This is obvious to any lay person. I'll await the natural law-based theories to be presented that explains how babies are born of virgins, or 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish become enough food for 5,000 men (not counting women and children) leaving 12 baskets full of leftovers, or how people are raised from the dead after scourging and crucifixion, etc...

Just scientifically speaking, macro evolution and billions of years have serious problems. If this were not so, then like gravity, nobody would have doubt of the claims of billions of years and protozoa to man evolution. It is not just the stupid that do not believe in billions of years and macro evolution, but people from all levels of intelligence, all education levels, all walks of life, every culture, every nation that discard and reject these vain imaginings. Is it that secular science has an overwhelmingly apparent truth on it's hands, but just trips and fumbles in its attempt to communicate?? I mean, evolution and billions of years is the only thing allowed to be taught in public schools and universities, and still cannot seem to sell everyone despite the great tactical advantage over just believing the truth of God's word! What an epic failure. If we want to boast about something, let us boast in the Lord (not the ideas of man in fine hubris) - see 2 Corinthians 10:17.

Geologists and biologists who accept billions of years and evolution from a common ancestor to all life will never be able to unequivocally prove these assertions to be true and in the same breath, never be able to disprove the word of God to be true. These theories too will fall away in time and what will remain, in the end, is the word of God. What is being sought, as it relates to the topic of origins, is not scientific proof, but rather the truth. Scientific proof can arrive at truth, but it is apparent from the word of God and the evidence available, that not all truth is arrived at solely from natural law and uniformitarian principles. If you have a problem with that brother then you problem is not with me, but with God. Grace and peace to you friend.

I am discrediting your words, because you aren't educated in the topic you are attempting to discuss. And it clearly shows in a negative way. You just cant argue with geologists when you are unable to read geologic maps.

 

[NobleMouse]

Attempts that produce hypotheses, which you then test.

Tests cannot be performed without assumptions and unfalsifiable axioms to make the assertions of billions of years and macro evolution.

In my experience, that is simply not true. Believers in a young earth know the truth and do not want to be bothered by having to explain data. Honestly, I have never seen a young earth creationist offer any explanation for the genetic data.

Have you ever looked at genetic data?

I don't know what your experience has been, but have you looked at the research of Todd Wood, John Sanford, Kevin Anderson, or Robert Carter? Just picking out John Sanford, a plant geneticist (and prior adherent to evolution), Creation.com has a short article on why he rejects evolution (though he understands genetics):
Geneticist Evolution Impossible - creation.com

It can't be a logical fallacy since it was an analogy, not an argument.

Ok, analogical fallacy.

[1] Mass measurements are not available for objects supposedly millions or hundreds millions of miles away. [2] Where mass is measured with small objects, orbiting is not transpiring, and [3] elliptical orbits is not isolated to one possibility (universal gravitation), but equally possible given a common creator. See?

Mass of objects is not analogous to evolution. God created objects with mass and is observable. God did not create life through billions-of-years-evolution, and is not observed (only inferred in the minds of those who extrapolate adaptation to also assume this is how a protozoa becomes a human).

Your point [3] is wrong, by the way. No creationist has ever offered an actual explanation for why genetics should appear the way it does if a common creator (without common descent) were responsible.

Subjectivity. I can also say no secular scientist has offered an actual explanation for why they believe all life evolved from a common ancestor. What would be ideal here, would be if the Bible gave a hint of long periods of time or a hint that God created just one life form and then transitioned that life into greater diversity and complexity through long periods of time by way of random mutations/natural selection. Instead; however, aside from the desperate attempts to infer these ideas from the Bible by OE adherents, the Bible has entire verses, chapters, quotes from the OT by NT authors and Jesus Himself all affirming God created distinct kinds, in the beginning, both male and female, etc...

You appear to have invented what you think the genetic evidence is and then refuted your own imaginary version. Why not learn what the real evidence is instead?

What I have "just invented" lines up with what others (like Dr. John Sanford, Geneticist) indicate. That aside, I can appreciate the sarcasm. Hey, I'm not calling your baby "ugly" here brother, I'm just trying to show that the evolution paradigm has numerous and fundamental issues that are solved when approached under the belief that God created life with distinct kinds. Whether we look at fossils or DNA, the evidence lines up with the truth that God created complex life from the beginning.

 

[NobleMouse]

I am discrediting your words, because you aren't educated in the topic you are attempting to discuss. And it clearly shows in a negative way. You just cant argue with geologists when you are unable to read geologic maps.

All of which has nothing to do at discerning truth. I'll await the list of degrees you believe Jesus may have possessed and from what universities. Knowledge of the truth has nothing to do one's knowledge of a given field of science. To believe otherwise is biased discrimination, and yes it does clearly show, in a negative way.

 

[Job 33:6]

All of which has nothing to do at discerning truth. I'll await the list of degrees you believe Jesus may have possessed and from what universities. Knowledge of the truth has nothing to do one's knowledge of a given field of science. To believe otherwise is biased discrimination, and yes it does clearly show, in a negative way.

Last I checked, you are not God incarnate on earth. So, drawing an analogy to Jesus is irrelevant.

The point is, you keep trying to argue science against scientists, but you yourself are not familiar with your own words.

You sincerely have no idea what you are talking about. Yet you press your ideas, as if you do.

 

[sfs]

Tests cannot be performed without assumptions and unfalsifiable axioms to make the assertions of billions of years and macro evolution.

Sure they can. Exactly how much scientific research have you actually done? Sure, you make assumptions when you formulate a hypothesis. But when you're testing with empirical data, you're really testing both the hypothesis and the assumptions. If you keep making predictions and getting the expected answer, there has to be a reason for that, doesn't there?

I don't know what your experience has been, but have you looked at the research of Todd Wood, John Sanford, Kevin Anderson, or Robert Carter? Just picking out John Sanford, a plant geneticist (and prior adherent to evolution), Creation.com has a short article on why he rejects evolution (though he understands genetics):

The only research I've familiar with from Todd Wood on creationism is his efforts on baraminology, which don't seem to be falsifiable. Note, too, that Wood states quite clearly that there is strong evidence for evolution, and that he rejects it because of his Christian faith. Do you disagree with him about the evidence for evolution or not? I'm familiar with Sanford's work, especially his ideas about genetic entropy, and have exchanged emails with him in the past. He is neither a population geneticist nor an evolutionary biologist (in fact has not been actively involved in genetics research for a very long time), and it shows. His arguments about genetic entropy were just deeply confused about what we should expect from evolution. And no, I've never seen either explain the genetic data in creationist terms (although I have seen Wood correct other creationists' mistaken claims about genetics).

I'm less familiar with Carter and Anderson, although I've run into writing by both. Looking at Carter's paper on the genetic effects of the Genesis Flood, I will concede that he does indeed attempt to explain some (a small part) of the genetic data in creationist terms. Unfortunately, he badly misunderstands the data, and thus makes a hash of it. (Specifically, he thinks that the allele frequencies produced by the International HapMap Project are an accurate representation of the overall allele frequency distribution in the population. This grossly wrong -- something I know quite well, since I was part of that project. Had he compared his Flood model predictions to actual allele frequency data, e.g. from the 1000 Genomes Project, he would have found that his model was in gross conflict with the data.)

So I will rephrase my statement: creationists either ignore genetic data or fail to address it with any competence.

Mass of objects is not analogous to evolution. God created objects with mass and is observable.

Says you -- that's just an assumption. Why should we think that objects in heaven have mass anything like we see on Earth?

Subjectivity. I can also say no secular scientist has offered an actual explanation for why they believe all life evolved from a common ancestor.

Yeah, you can say that -- but I've actually read creationists trying to explain genetics, and you haven't read secular scientists explaining genetics through common descent.

Hey, I'm not calling your baby "ugly" here brother, I'm just trying to show that the evolution paradigm has numerous and fundamental issues that are solved when approached under the belief that God created life with distinct kinds.

There was no sarcasm. I'm just telling you, based on decades of reading creationists as well as decades as a practicing geneticist, that there is no comparison. You can believe what you want, but until you look at the evidence yourself, you have no grounds for your confidence in people like Sanford.

 

[sfs]

By the way, here's what Todd Wood actually wrote about evolution:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution.

So, do you agree with Wood or not?

 

[Speedwell]

I never specified percentages, I stated that there are people in all walks of life, backgrounds, education levels, etc... that reject evolution.

If there is any political agenda going on, it is to marginalize biblical creationism as a mystical belief and that it is for the ignorant, and any scientist who accepts the word of God on creation cannot be a "real" scientist. It is observed; however, that there are real scientists that do real scientific research, have real degrees from prestigious universities, that believe the account of creation is true, which dispels this agenda is being nothing more than a form of discrimination.

No, it's just that we don't want biblical creationism taught in public school science classes instead of science, and we don't want the fundamentalist Protestant prayer and Bible study that goes with it imposed on children of other faiths, nor the revisionist US history of hacks like David Barton. You can view that as religious discrimination if you want to.

 

[NobleMouse]

Last I checked, you are not God incarnate on earth. So, drawing an analogy to Jesus is irrelevant.

The point is, you keep trying to argue science against scientists, but you yourself are not familiar with your own words.

You sincerely have no idea what you are talking about. Yet you press your ideas, as if you do.

Right, which is why I quote His word often, because it is not my word, I just believe His word. You wrote (and this is verbatim):

"I am discrediting your words, because you aren't educated in the topic you are attempting to discuss."

I'm not trying to have an in-depth geological discussion, rather, a discussion around discerning what is true. Clearly, Jesus knows the truth though He was not a geologist and He has given us the truth. When I looked through your Old Earth Geology part 1 and 2 posts, I actually did a search for the word "God" and found it scarcely used... showing me you're more naturalistically minded, which I understand given your background, education, and how your comments trend here in the forum. You play the part of the professor and you're here to try to 'educate' us 'victimized' Christians here who have been 'fooled' into believing what God's word states. You speak as if your diagrams and ideas have greater authority than scripture.

Putting it as simply as I can: If we believe God is truth, and the Bible is His word inspired through the work of the Holy Spirit, then the Bible is true as well (keeping in mind, I do recognize that the gospel accounts of Jesus (Matthew, Mark, Luke & John) are written based upon direct observation of events or second-hand information passed down). When we're not talking about eye-witness accounts in the Bible (events not observed by the author) the information had to come from the Holy Spirit (God). God's word indicates He created diverse and complex life, in the beginning (this is not describing a billions-of-years process of a protozoa becoming a man).

For the above paragraph, I don't believe you would agree with it. I feel like we may be experiencing deja vu here... this is an old argument you have raised before and have possibly forgotten my response. I have never claimed to be a scientist, so I read the results of research of those who are well-qualified scientists to back up what I state (what I 'repeat' here). As I told sfs, I'm not here to call your baby "ugly", I'm just trying to show that the evolution paradigm has numerous and fundamental issues that are solved when approached under the belief that God created life with distinct kinds. Whether we look at fossils, DNA, or even rock layers, the evidence lines up with the truth that God created complex life from the beginning.

 

[Job 33:6]

@NobleMouse

You said, and I quote

"The "overwhelming evidential support" is fossils and there are no fossils that take us from man back to protozoa - even at the lowest rock layers where supposedly the oldest life is, the life is already extremely complex - hence why it is called the Cambrian explosion."

But anyone who actually knows anything about geology or paleontology, knows that this is just false. The lowest layers where supposedly the oldest life is, is not in the cambrian and has nothing to do with the cambrian explosion. Shelled predicessors, molluscs, brachiopods, sponges, arthropods, burrows and traces, things like this, all predated the cambrian explosion, some by up to 10 million years. Other smaller microscopic shelled sea animals predated the explosion by up to 35 million years, and of course other forms of complex life of the ediacaran, as well, predated the cambrian explosion and predated the cambrian all together. All of this, not including microbial life. All of this, also isn't taking into account geologic changes between the cambrian and precambrian.





The point I am making here is, you repeatedly just make false statments about science. And, It is as if you are unaware. And it is just wrong of you to do this. Exodus 20:16, You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.

Yet this is precisely what you are doing. Possibly unintentionally.

It demonstrates ignorance, but it also demonstrates some form of deception.

 

[NobleMouse]

By the way, here's what Todd Wood actually wrote about evolution:

So, do you agree with Wood or not?

I agree that the observable aspects of (and I'll loosely use the term) "evolution" are not in crisis - it is observed that life does change over time (evolution means change over time) - but like Todd Wood, a study of baraminology shows that created kinds do not morph into other kinds, there are distinct "barriers" that are not crossed. Your quote from Wood is actually his opinion, not research results. I can also quote that Wood believes the earth is 6,000 years old as a matter of faith (as do I), but I'm more interested in results of research than personal opinions. His research and the research of others demonstrates that there is evidence that supports a biblical view of creation.

 

[NobleMouse]

@NobleMouse

You said, and I quote

"The "overwhelming evidential support" is fossils and there are no fossils that take us from man back to protozoa - even at the lowest rock layers where supposedly the oldest life is, the life is already extremely complex - hence why it is called the Cambrian explosion."

But anyone who actually knows anything about geology or paleontology, knows that this is just false. The lowest layers where supposedly the oldest life is, is not in the cambrian and has nothing to do with the cambrian explosion. Shelled predicessors, molluscs, brachiopods, sponges, arthropods, burrows and traces, things like this, all predated the cambrian explosion, some by up to 10 million years. Other smaller microscopic shelled sea animals predated the explosion by up to 35 million years, and of course other forms of complex life of the ediacaran, as well, predated the cambrian explosion and predated the cambrian all together. All of this, not including microbial life. All of this, also isn't taking into account geologic changes between the cambrian and precambrian.

You are assuming the conventional system of dating is correct. Not every geologist or paleontologist would agree with the conventional dating system. Robert Jastrow also believed that the fossil record contained no trace of these preliminary stages in the development of many-celled organisms. So you continue to point fault on very narrow particulars of my arguments while never responding to the broad truths therein as supported by evidence and God's word, and you continue to reject scripture.

The point I am making here is, you repeatedly just make false statments about science. And, It is as if you are unaware. And it is just wrong of you to do this. Exodus 20:16, You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.

Yet this is precisely what you are doing. Possibly unintentionally.

I'm not bearing false witness about the character of others or that they didn't do/say something they did or did do/say something they didn't (what Exodus 20:16 is actually about), just that the conclusions of their research is incorrect. If that is in violation of Exodus 20:16, then science does this to science every time a theory is dispelled or modified (ie "darwinism" --> now "neo darwinism"). That aside - still is good and refreshing to see a scriptural reference to back up your argument!

It demonstrates ignorance, but it also demonstrates some form of deception.

Depends on your perspective. For the ~5 billion people on the planet that reject Christianity, they would say trying to share the gospel with others and that the Bible is true is a form of "deception"... but you would see it as evangelism, as trying to reach people who are "lost" as we say. The ~5 billion would also say Christians are 'ignorant', but we see that as just not bothering to fill our heads up with the lies of false religions (no religion altogether). I could learn the minutia of details behind believing billions of years and evolution, but why bother filling up my head with nonsense that God's word clearly dispels?

 

[Job 33:6]

All im saying is, you should stop bearing false witness. Either you can accept this, or you can plug your ears and keep making stuff up. Making false statements about science, in an attempt to refute it, is just wrong. You have repeatedly made blatantly false statements, yet you do not own up to them. Either this is deliberate deception, or it is ignorance. Either way, it is problematic.

I am sorry that you were wrong about paleontology, I know it hurts to be wrong, but part of life, is owning up to mistakes that you have made. All I ask is that you either become familiar with science so that you quite making false statements, or perhaps you should simply not speak on topics that you are not familiar with.

If you do not know anything about the cambrian explosion, then you shouldn't bring it up in an attempt to dispute evolution, as you did earlier in this discussion.