Some Thing To Think About

[Freedom777]

First, this is not a debate of any kind this is somthing that,with an open mind may help Christian Evolutionists and Yecs understand the real nature of the Creation/Evolution issues at the very heart of the controversey.I'll leave it up to you to decide if you will like to read it.But i really encourge it.There needs to be no comments,as its just somthing to think about. Altough you can add your own thoughts about it. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4179.asp

Proverbs- 9:10 The Fear of the Lord is the begining of wisdom.
2Timothy- 3:16-17 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for Teaching, Rebuking, Correcting and Training in Righteousness,17 so that the man of god may be Thoroughly Equipped for every good work.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

I'm not even going to take the time to explain why the link you reference is flawed. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see why some of the opening statements are wrong.

Hint: It's not a question of interpretation!

 

[boughtwithaprice]

The link that you referenced assumes that the Bible and Evolution are mutually exclusive.
If creationists make that claim, on what is it based?

Unless that question is answered, my thinking on the AIG article stops there.

 

[Freedom777]

I'm not even going to take the time to explain why the link you reference is flawed. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see why some of the opening statements are wrong.

Hint: It's not a question of interpretation!

If your talking about Empirical ,observable, testable ,repeatable, Science than I,m inclined to agree with you for the most part.But if your adding into it theories that are not Testable, Obserable and Repeatable a.k.a Empirical or Real Science. In paticular theories about the past,where we came from, how did we get here, how did the universe get here,and did we evolve from lower life forms, and try to mold them into science. Well Than Interpetation has everything to do with it. The Fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom Proverbs

 

[Freedom777]

The link that you referenced assumes that the Bible and Evolution are mutually exclusive.
If creationists make that claim, on what is it based?

Unless that question is answered, my thinking on the AIG article stops there.

Thanks that a good question.
First, I'll try to be as brief as possible

On what is it based

It's based on the first 11 chapters of genesis, being literal history.Mainly
1.The 6 days of creation, 6- 24hr days
2.The fall of man
3.The world wide flood of noah's day.
4.The scattering of people at the tower of babel

Secondly, The word Evolution has many definitions. In science there are 6 definitions used for the word Evolution.
1.Cosmic Evolution (something from nothing,Big Bang)
2.Steller Evolution (stars and galaxies)
3.Chemical Evolution (the elements hydrogen ect..)
4.Organic Evolution (Life from nonlife)
5.Macro-Evolution (single cell on up the latter to man)
6.Micro-Evolution or Genetic remnet Variation
The first 5 are inherently un-scientific.The sixth one Micro-Evolution is the only one that is scientific.
I think i'll stop there for now boughtwithaprise, i hoped this has helped.Feel free to ask any more questions on the subject and i'll do my best to answer them.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

Secondly, The word Evolution has many definitions. In science there are 6 definitions used for the word Evolution.
1.Cosmic Evolution (something from nothing,Big Bang)
2.Steller Evolution (stars and galaxies)
3.Chemical Evolution (the elements hydrogen ect..)
4.Organic Evolution (Life from nonlife)
5.Macro-Evolution (single cell on up the latter to man)
6.Micro-Evolution or Genetic remnet Variation
The first 5 are inherently un-scientific.The sixth one Micro-Evolution is the only one that is scientific.

This is an excellent example of either lying or ignorance.


1) Technically 'Cosmic Evolution' is not the Big Bang Theory. Also another technicality is that the Big Bang is not a 'something from nothing'.

2) Stellar evolution is nothing more than the change of stars over their lifetime

3) Chemical evolution really refers to the change in elemental abundances over time

4) Organic evolution is NOT NOT NOT NOT life from non life. DO YOU GET IT?

5) Macroevolution - usually understood as speciation - biologically speaking there is no distinction - Oh wait - you're not a biologist so you'll redefine things

6) Microevolution - really the small steps towards macro - but of course you'll accept this occurs but deny the former.

Isn't it ironic that you'll accept #6 when for years creationsts refused even this but finally CAVED in when they had to.

HOW IS STELLAR evolution unscientific?
How is Chemical evolution unscientific?

Do you even know what scientific is?

Heck do you even know any science whatsoever?

All in all - pathetic!

 

[notto]

If your talking about Empirical ,observable, testable ,repeatable, Science than I,m inclined to agree with you for the most part.But if your adding into it theories that are not Testable, Obserable and Repeatable a.k.a Empirical or Real Science. In paticular theories about the past,where we came from, how did we get here, how did the universe get here,and did we evolve from lower life forms, and try to mold them into science. Well Than Interpetation has everything to do with it. The Fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom Proverbs

If your talking about Empirical ,observable, testable ,repeatable, Science than I,m inclined to agree with you for the most part.But if your adding into it theories that are not Testable, Obserable and Repeatable a.k.a Empirical or Real Science. In paticular theories about the past,where we came from, how did we get here, how did the universe get here,and did we evolve from lower life forms, and try to mold them into science. Well Than Interpetation has everything to do with it. The Fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom Proverbs

Emperical, observable, testable, repeatable relates to the methods used to accumulate evidence, study evidence, and create data. It does not relate to the actual physical process being described by a scientific theory whether that event happened in the past or not.

In this particular article, AIG sounds like Kent Hovind in their misunderstanding of science and the scientific method.

We can certainly falsify interpretations of our past. There are several independent lines of evidence that simply could not be found today if the world was young, if it was fully flooded in a world wide flood in the near past, and if special creation created each species or mankind.

 

[Freedom777]

Isn't it ironic that you'll accept #6 when for years creationsts refused even this but finally CAVED in when they had to.

Creationists never refused that there was variations among kinds that is the first lie. second you can manipulate them 5 to your own liking. but at the heart of all of the first 5 that i mentioned is indeed true. there are different theories for each of them, i only mentioned 1 or two of each, but you got it in a nutshell.

 

[notto]

Freedomo777,

Speciation has been observed to occur in the lab and in the wild. This confirms the theory of evolution as a valid scientific theory. Each of the physical mechanisms used in the theory of evolution have been observed. What has not been observed is some 'kind' barrier to the type of change that these mechansims can cause to a population over time.

It is only recently that creationists have not used 'kind' and 'species' interchangably. Augustine certainly would deny speciation and the types of changes that creationists would accept. At the time, creationists denied the speciation that Origin of a SPECIES addressed. If they did not, what problem would they have with Darwin's work? His work simply addressed the orgin of SPECIES.

Does you definition of 'kind' include the ability for things of the same 'kind' to speciate? If it does, then the term 'kind' is meaningless because it is arbitrary.

The fossil record shows us that things in the past were much different then they are today and even all of the 'kinds' that are alive today were not around in the past and came from somewhere. The evidence we find for this change in what used to be to what is today confirms evolution is what caused this change.

The YEC model cannot explain the evidence we find adequately and it has been falsified as a valid explaination. The theory of evolution and the observable mechanisms used to construct it is the best explaination for the evidence we find.

 

[Freedom777]

Freedomo777,

Speciation has been observed to occur in the lab and in the wild. This confirms the theory of evolution as a valid scientific theory. Each of the physical mechanisms used in the theory of evolution have been observed. What has not been observed is some 'kind' barrier to the type of change that these mechansims can cause to a population over time.

It is only recently that creationists have not used 'kind' and 'species' interchangably. Augustine certainly would deny speciation and the types of changes that creationists would accept. At the time, creationists denied the speciation that Origin of a SPECIES addressed. If they did not, what problem would they have with Darwin's work? His work simply addressed the orgin of SPECIES.

Does you definition of 'kind' include the ability for things of the same 'kind' to speciate? If it does, then the term 'kind' is meaningless because it is arbitrary.

The fossil record shows us that things in the past were much different then they are today and even all of the 'kinds' that are alive today were not around in the past and came from somewhere. The evidence we find for this change in what used to be to what is today confirms evolution is what caused this change.

The YEC model cannot explain the evidence we find adequately and it has been falsified as a valid explaination. The theory of evolution and the observable mechanisms used to construct it is the best explaination for the evidence we find.

In some areas, i would agree with you we need more people who are committed to Gods word over mans opinion, Then look out because although creation science is young your going to see many awesome advances in the future. Evolution and im not talking about Micro-Evolution is A dressed up fancy looking structure that is built on sand.Creation science although some of the doors or windows may not be in place yet Is built on a Rock and it will prevail.

Freedomo777,
Speciation has been observed to occur in the lab and in the wild. This confirms the theory of evolution as a valid scientific theory

Sure it does, as long as you are talking about Micro-Evolution or a better word Genetic Remnate Variation.which is basicly a reshuffling or loss of genetic information.

Speciation: is simply genetic variation among the different kinds.And true some kinds died out years possibly centuries after the flood.But as far as one kind evolving into some other kind, that is, i'll borrow Darwins words.Absurd to the highest degree.

And also the fossil record is evolutions enemy not its friend.If evolution were true there would have to be 1000s*1000s*1000s of transitional fossils and after 140 years of digging up bones and of the millions dug up we have only a few hand fulls of desputable ones.Now that should make anybody think hard on weather lower life evolved into high on life.There should be more transitional fossils than any thing else. Fossils bearing witness to evolution,Absurd to the highest degree,Fossils bearing witness to created kinds,Now that makes sense.

 

[notto]

Every fossil is potentially transitional. Several transitional series have been found.

Can you tell us what you would accept as a transitional fossil? What characteristics would you expect? Based on this definition, why would you expect thousands to be found? Can you tell us the circumstances that lead to fossilization and why we should expect more transitionals if evolution is the explaination? You just seem to be parroting stuff from others without really understanding or researching the issue itself.

Things alive in the past were very different than they are today.
Once you have speciation, and accept it, arguments against evolution are over.

Your definition of kinds is arbitrary and unscientific. You can't say that 'kinds' is a group that speciation can't create, which is basically what you are saying. This definition allows you to move the goalposts (similar to most Creationists definitions of transitional).

Essentially, the definitions of 'kinds' and 'transitional' used by creationists boil down to 'whatever can't be explained by evolution'. If something new comes up, you simply say 'its the same kind' or 'its not transitional'. You need to define kinds and 'transitional' in a way that is testable, repeatable, etc. Creationists can't seem to do that.

 

[Dust and Ashes]

This is an excellent example of either lying or ignorance.


1) Technically 'Cosmic Evolution' is not the Big Bang Theory. Also another technicality is that the Big Bang is not a 'something from nothing'.

2) Stellar evolution is nothing more than the change of stars over their lifetime

3) Chemical evolution really refers to the change in elemental abundances over time

4) Organic evolution is NOT NOT NOT NOT life from non life. DO YOU GET IT?

5) Macroevolution - usually understood as speciation - biologically speaking there is no distinction - Oh wait - you're not a biologist so you'll redefine things

6) Microevolution - really the small steps towards macro - but of course you'll accept this occurs but deny the former.

Isn't it ironic that you'll accept #6 when for years creationsts refused even this but finally CAVED in when they had to.

HOW IS STELLAR evolution unscientific?
How is Chemical evolution unscientific?

Do you even know what scientific is?

Heck do you even know any science whatsoever?

All in all - pathetic!

Wow, Cap, you must really hate creationists to be so caustic. Heck, when you lunge at someone that way, it is instinctive to go defensive. Might make a little more headway in winning people to your point if you were a little less abrasive and insulting. Anyway, lighten up and try to show some patience and love (this is a Christian forum after all). I thought that's what Christians were supposed to do.

Peace and Love to you all in the boundless name of Jesus Christ.

 

[sarahbug]

Anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see why some of the opening statements are wrong.

This is an excellent example of either lying or ignorance.


1) Technically 'Cosmic Evolution' is not the Big Bang Theory. Also another technicality is that the Big Bang is not a 'something from nothing'.

2) Stellar evolution is nothing more than the change of stars over their lifetime

3) Chemical evolution really refers to the change in elemental abundances over time

4) Organic evolution is NOT NOT NOT NOT life from non life. DO YOU GET IT?

5) Macroevolution - usually understood as speciation - biologically speaking there is no distinction - Oh wait - you're not a biologist so you'll redefine things

6) Microevolution - really the small steps towards macro - but of course you'll accept this occurs but deny the former.

Isn't it ironic that you'll accept #6 when for years creationsts refused even this but finally CAVED in when they had to.

HOW IS STELLAR evolution unscientific?
How is Chemical evolution unscientific?

Do you even know what scientific is?

Heck do you even know any science whatsoever?

All in all - pathetic!

Ouch...there's a lot of sarcasm and arrogance in all that...this is my first time coming to this particular forum, and I just finished reading the rules about being respectful and whatnot...hmm

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

I stand by the comments.

Freedom777 repeatedly posts the same nonsense over and over. It becomes tiresome after a while of explaining to him.

After time his posts of lies (or ignorance) are the insulting ones.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

Wow, Cap, you must really hate creationists to be so caustic. Heck, when you lunge at someone that way, it is instinctive to go defensive. Might make a little more headway in winning people to your point if you were a little less abrasive and insulting. Anyway, lighten up and try to show some patience and love (this is a Christian forum after all). I thought that's what Christians were supposed to do.

Peace and Love to you all in the boundless name of Jesus Christ.

Don't you have a problem with lying to support an opinion. This is what Freedom777 keeps doing.

I find that an insult and he needs to look at himself closely.

It is one thing to have a different opinion but it is another to state falsehoods to bolster your own.

 

[Dust and Ashes]

Don't you have a problem with lying to support an opinion. This is what Freedom777 keeps doing.

I find that an insult and he needs to look at himself closely.

It is one thing to have a different opinion but it is another to state falsehoods to bolster your own.

And so to correct him, you assume an arrogant, demeaning manner and attack him? Yeah, that will really make him consider your point of view.

This is the kind of attitude I'm accustomed to from atheistic evolutionists and was the attitude I expected when I came here but even though many believe in evolution, they were...shock...Christian and demonstrated patience and Love.

It shows a very distinct lack of respect for others. Man, they should have rules about stuff like that.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Mod hat on



Can't we quit the mutual flames and discuss Creation Science and Theistic Evolution?

Evolution is Science, not a religion. Theistic Evolutionists in this forum should attempt to show how evoluton is not hostile to God or religion.

Creationism is religion, not science. Creationists in this forum should attepmt to show how their theories are not hostile to science, but give evidence as to why an intantaneous creation model is superior to gradual development of species.

I challenge the creationists to show reasonable evidence for their theory, with out resorting to claims that evolution is evil or against God. I will issue warnings for flaming if I see this argument again. I have already seen it used to brink and report evolutionists. That behavior will stop.

I challenge the theistic evolutionist to describe why their theory is not hostile to a creator God. Why it makes scientific sense, and there is not some antichrist conspiracy promoting "evilution." I know that you are frustrated by religious arguments that ignore scientific facts, but we are christians here. Do not be rude to your brothers. If you think that a post violates the CF rules, then report it rather than taking the law into your own hands. Belittling your brothers will get a warning for flaming.

This thread has degenerated to bickering. Thread closed, try and open a new one with rational discussion. I have given you something to think about. Shall we move on?


Mod Hat off