Uses of Creationist Science

[MrGoodBytes]

Sure --- here they are again --- my 4 axioms against evolution:

• Evolution hasn't had enough time to operate.

Evolution requires millions of years with which to work. In view of the fact that this universe has only been in operation for 6000 years, evolution is impossible.

Great. All you have to do now is to show us that the universe is not older than 6000 years. Good luck with that.

Jesus believes in creation.

As followers of Jesus, we should too. Paul also believed in creation:

Romans 1:20, Romans 8:22

As did Peter:

2 Peter 3:4

"I gave 4 axioms why evolution can't be true. Every response was from the perspective of science. Not one was from the perspective of Scripture."

• Natural selection is immoral.

Operating on the principle of survival of the fittest, natural selection takes the best, and leaves the rest. It is a brutal dog-eat-dog, last-man-standing, may-the-best-man-survive principle that God never would have set in motion.

Today, I let go of a box and it fell on my toe. It hurt a lot. Since it is immoral to hurt people, gravity does not exist.

• God pronounced His creation "very good".

Six times in Genesis 1, God says His creation is good. After that, He steps back and pronounces the whole thing "very good". This means the whole is greater than the sum of its parts --- meaning everything is "perfect".

Why then, the need for evolution, when God's creation is already "very good"?

"I gave 4 axioms why evolution can't be true. Every response was from the perspective of science. Not one was from the perspective of Scripture."

 

[rmwilliamsll]

* Natural selection is immoral.

Operating on the principle of survival of the fittest, natural selection takes the best, and leaves the rest. It is a brutal dog-eat-dog, last-man-standing, may-the-best-man-survive principle that God never would have set in motion.

This is a mischaracterization of natural selection as well as the naturalist's fallacy.

Natural selection predicts a change in allele relative percentages based on the fitness of the allele in furthering reproductive success of the organism. It doesn't say anything about who or what is "best". Best is a moral and ethical term, this is the naturalists fallacy, to impose ought to be on top of is, to derive ethics from a description of reality.

Is leaving more descendents a good thing? not in a moral sense, only in the descriptive sense that your genes will be greater represented in the next generation then they were in yours.

If you can avoid the projection of ethics onto NS, you will see that it describes a process of change, this process is, over time, directed towards fitting organisms to their environment. If survival is a good thing, then this increasing fitness ought to be seen overall as a good thing, i guess it depends on your POV, the survival of the smallpox virus appears to me to be an ethically bad thing, i don't think that the virus itself really cares.

science is descriptive not perscriptive. you can not derive oughts from what is. NS is not the survival of the fittest, it is a sieve that enriches each generation with the alleles that help leave more viable and reproductively success offspring.

* God pronounced His creation "very good".

Six times in Genesis 1, God says His creation is good. After that, He steps back and pronounces the whole thing "very good". This means the whole is greater than the sum of its parts --- meaning everything is "perfect".

Why then, the need for evolution, when God's creation is already "very good"?

for people who pride themselves on taking the Scripture at face value, there sure seems to be a lot of manipulating words. good is not perfect. good is suitable, complete, well adjusted etc. it is not without flaw, without need for growth or change, without opportunity for error, etc.
you would think that the Fall would be enough to disabuse people of this nonsense that the creation was perfect. or the statement that "God alone is perfect" would. but we continually hear this canard and it desires to be rebuttaled everytime.

good is not perfect.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

• Evolution hasn't had enough time to operate.

Evolution requires millions of years with which to work. In view of the fact that this universe has only been in operation for 6000 years, evolution is impossible.

Well, the sciences of astronomy and cosmology indicate that the universe is 14.5 billion years old. Earth science indicates that our planet is 4.55 billion years old. Pleny 'o time for the biological theory of evolution to be plausible.

• Jesus believes in creation.

That seems to imply that anyone who accepts evolutionary theory is an athiest. We all know that's not true.

• Natural selection is immoral.

Operating on the principle of survival of the fittest, natural selection takes the best, and leaves the rest. It is a brutal dog-eat-dog, last-man-standing, may-the-best-man-survive principle that God never would have set in motion.

Natural selection is neither moral nor immoral, it is simply a fact of life. If a cat gives birth to a litter of kittens, does not the "runt of the litter" stand little chance of survival when competing for milk with it's stronger brothers and sisters? Natural selection is not about survival of the individual either. It is about reproductive success. In order to have reproductive success one needs to be able to cooperate with others.

• God pronounced His creation "very good".

Six times in Genesis 1, God says His creation is good. After that, He steps back and pronounces the whole thing "very good". This means the whole is greater than the sum of its parts --- meaning everything is "perfect".

Why then, the need for evolution, when God's creation is already "very good"?

Good and perfect are not the same.

Why have evolution? Ok, then why have seasons? Why have droughts?

 

[Abongil]

Sure --- here they are again --- my 4 axioms against evolution:

• Evolution hasn't had enough time to operate.

Evolution requires millions of years with which to work. In view of the fact that this universe has only been in operation for 6000 years, evolution is impossible.

Fallacy of ignorance.

We simply do not know how old the universe is, not me, not you, not anyone. That 6000 year old estimate is purely SCRIPTURAL!

• Jesus believes in creation.

[bible]Mark 10:6[/bible][bible]Mark 13:19[/bible]

As followers of Jesus, we should too. Paul also believed in creation:

[bible]Romans 1:20[/bible][bible]Romans 8:22[/bible]

As did Peter:

[bible]2 Peter 3:4[/bible]

Bandwagon Fallacy. Just because someone believes it, doesnt make it right. Plus, evolution theory did not exist when they were around, how do you suggest they know about it?

• Natural selection is immoral.

Operating on the principle of survival of the fittest, natural selection takes the best, and leaves the rest. It is a brutal dog-eat-dog, last-man-standing, may-the-best-man-survive principle that God never would have set in motion.

[bible]Mark 10:31[/bible][bible]2 Corinthians 12:10[/bible]

You are subjugative YOUR morals onto the universe. What you believe is good and righteous, may not be in the grand scheme of things. You are using scripture again, AV...

• God pronounced His creation "very good".

Six times in Genesis 1, God says His creation is good. After that, He steps back and pronounces the whole thing "very good". This means the whole is greater than the sum of its parts --- meaning everything is "perfect".

Why then, the need for evolution, when God's creation is already "very good"?

God has not been proven to exist yet, therefore this statement holds no logical basis as you first have to establish the existance of God, and you have to establish that the Bible is indeed the word of this God.

 

[Herman Hedning]

Sure --- here they are again --- my 4 axioms against evolution:

• Evolution hasn't had enough time to operate.

Evolution requires millions of years with which to work. In view of the fact that this universe has only been in operation for 6000 years, evolution is impossible.

But, but ... You keep saying that the world is millions years old, i.e. it was created old. So evolution has had plenty of time to operate, don't you agree?

 

[MrGoodBytes]

But, but ... You keep saying that the world is millions years old, i.e. it was created old. So evolution has had plenty of time to operate, don't you agree?

No, that's imbedded age. That's a difference, you know.

 

[Herman Hedning]

No, that's imbedded age. That's a difference, you know.

Right, embedded age, but without embedded evolution. Silly of me to not see this right away.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Right, embedded age, but without embedded evolution. Silly of me to not see this right away.

Already forgiven.

 

[nvxplorer]

Sure --- here they are again --- my 4 axioms against evolution:

• Evolution hasn't had enough time to operate.

Evolution requires millions of years with which to work. In view of the fact that this universe has only been in operation for 6000 years, evolution is impossible.

• 
  Evolution is a continuous process. It doesn't "switch on" after a set period of time.
  
  As I recall, you claim the earth was created with the appearance of age so that it could function. Included within that appearance of age is evidence (of a history) of evolution. This, according to you, is necessary for proper function. Therefore, evolution is necessary, and the last 6000 years is simply the tail end of a process that began (historically embedded) billions of years ago.
  
  The above paragraph is just a bonus. Please correct me if my understanding of your position is incorrect. Regardless, even if the earth was created as described in Genesis, evolution occurs - whether we're talking about millions, thousands or hundreds of years.

 

[ReverendDG]

The first list was preceded by the author's comment that some of these scientists held pretty unorthodox beliefs, yet all were creationists.

Here's the comment:

• Furthermore, many - probably most - of the greatest scientists of all times, the founding fathers of science in fact, believed in a personal Creator God, the inspiration of the Bible, and special creation. They also professed faith in Christ and the gospel. Whether all were truly "born-again", as we would understand that term in a Bible-believing church today, we cannot know. Some were unorthodox in their specific doctrinal beliefs, but all were creationists.

The Defender's Study Bible, by Dr. Henry M. Morris, Appendix 7, p. 1518.

that doesn't mean anything at all, other than this guy wants to claim they where
believing in jesus or a personal creator, doesn't equal creationists at all i doubt they believed anything i've read creationists claim as true

 

[AV1611VET]

Perhaps you'd like to show this is possible?

Here's my footnote to Genesis 30:38, which says it better than I could:

• These striped rods were not for the purpose of inducing some "pre-natal influence" on the animals. With his seventy years or more of practical experience with large flocks, Jacob knew better than that. Either the chemicals from the wood or the sight of the streaked rods must have served as an aphrodisiac for the animals, inducing them to mate as they came to the troughs. Jacob only used the rods with the stronger animals, so that the progeny would also be strong. Under usual conditions, this stratagem should have greatly benefited Laban's flocks.

 

[Abongil]

Here's my footnote to Genesis 30:38, which says it better than I could:

• These striped rods were not for the purpose of inducing some "pre-natal influence" on the animals. With his seventy years or more of practical experience with large flocks, Jacob knew better than that. Either the chemicals from the wood or the sight of the streaked rods must have served as an aphrodisiac for the animals, inducing them to mate as they came to the troughs. Jacob only used the rods with the stronger animals, so that the progeny would also be strong. Under usual conditions, this stratagem should have greatly benefited Laban's flocks.

There arent really conclusive results on to whether aphrodisiacs work, or if it is purely psychological.

 

[AV1611VET]

Also, if God exists and created everything then he also created NS, which according to you is immoral.

Natural Selection is a process that didn't come about until after the Fall. It was not meant to be in operation prior to the Fall and, in fact, is due to be cancelled, I believe, during the Millennial Kingdom - (but don't quote me on that one).

 

[AV1611VET]

Great. All you have to do now is to show us that the universe is not older than 6000 years. Good luck with that.

No, I don't. The universe is 13.7 billion years old.

Today, I let go of a box and it fell on my toe. It hurt a lot. Since it is immoral to hurt people, gravity does not exist.

The key word in that sentence is "today". Since we're talking about Genesis 1 --- the Creation Week --- you cannot judge anything prior to the Fall, with examples from after the Fall.

 

[AV1611VET]

Natural selection predicts a change...

And that's another point: nothing was meant to change. God pronounced His creation "very good", and that was that. Why the need for improvement? If Adam and Eve already existed, how is it they came from a branch of hominids billions of years later?

good is not perfect. good is suitable, complete, well adjusted etc.

If good is "suitable, complete, well-adjusted, etc.", what is very good?

good is not perfect.

I didn't say it was.

 

[nvxplorer]

Natural Selection is a process that didn't come about until after the Fall. It was not meant to be in operation prior to the Fall and, in fact, is due to be cancelled, I believe, during the Millennial Kingdom - (but don't quote me on that one).

The only way NS would not operate is if God directly intervened in all aspects of nature: Hunger, reproduction, weather, geology, etc.

The problem with such a scenario is that God would also have to intervene in all aspects of human thought and action. That would negate free will, thus you have a theological problem. Since A&E possessed the ability to disobey God (free will), they also had the ability to change their environment, putting NS to work. The Fall is irrelevant. (Unless you claim that every action on the environment by A&E would have been balanced by God.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Fallacy of ignorance.

Ya --- there's a lot of that going around these days.

We simply do not know how old the universe is, not me, not you, not anyone.

I heard it was something like 13.7 billion.

That 6000 year old estimate is purely SCRIPTURAL!

No it's not --- the Scriptures do not say how old the universe is.

Bandwagon Fallacy. Just because someone believes it, doesnt make it right. Plus, evolution theory did not exist when they were around, how do you suggest they know about it?

By the context. Always, always, always study a doctrine in its context, or you'll mess up. In both of those verses I quoted from Mark, it was Jesus talking. You know --- Jesus --- the One Who created the earth in the first place. So I would highly suspect He knew about it.

You are using scripture again, AV...

Ya --- I get accused of that every now and then. I don't know how they assume that, but they do.

God has not been proven to exist yet...

Then get crackin' --- we Christians are already light-years ahead of you --- and patiently waiting for you to catch up.

 

[AV1611VET]

So evolution has had plenty of time to operate, don't you agree?

Yes --- 6000 years --- and it's done a lousy job.

 

[Abongil]

Here's my footnote to Genesis 30:38, which says it better than I could:

• These striped rods were not for the purpose of inducing some "pre-natal influence" on the animals. With his seventy years or more of practical experience with large flocks, Jacob knew better than that. Either the chemicals from the wood or the sight of the streaked rods must have served as an aphrodisiac for the animals, inducing them to mate as they came to the troughs. Jacob only used the rods with the stronger animals, so that the progeny would also be strong. Under usual conditions, this stratagem should have greatly benefited Laban's flocks.

Ya --- there's a lot of that going around these days.



I heard it was something like 13.7 billion.



No it's not --- the Scriptures do not say how old the universe is.



By the context. Always, always, always study a doctrine in its context, or you'll mess up. In both of those verses I quoted from Mark, it was Jesus talking. You know --- Jesus --- the One Who created the earth in the first place. So I would highly suspect He knew about it.



Ya --- I get accused of that every now and then. I don't know how they assume that, but they do.



Then get crackin' --- we Christians are already light-years ahead of you --- and patiently waiting for you to catch up.

You dont even WANT to learn anything, you want to sit in here and spread your propaganda without anyone calling you on it.

 

[Abongil]

Yes --- 6000 years --- and it's done a lousy job.

WAIT. You said the universe is 13.7 billion years old. Which is it? 6000 or 13.7.