What Makes Creationism a Valid Scientific Alternative?

[jpcedotal]

Yes it is. But you should say SCIENTISTS, not "evolutionists".

Refusing to believe it is not evidence. And actually, evolution at this point is much better understood that gravity. (So it is rather comical that you compare it with gravity, one of the most mysterious forces in the universe! But it DOES point out why the criticisms of science-deniers simply do not count. Science doesn't care what slogans and deniers have to say. EVIDENCE and attempts at falsification are what counts.)

I was a young earth creationist speaker/debater long ago so don't assume that I don't know the facts. I know the scriptural evidence and the scientific evidence. Young Earth Creationism is about ignoring evidence. Period. It is poor biblical scholarship and non-existent science competence.

u do understand that is being as closed minded as u claim I am

 

[verysincere]

To me teaching evolution in grade school is very Hitler-like...one of those "believe this or get a bad grade" brain-washing techniques.

Rubbish. But you have proven the old "mention Hitler!" tactic.

And grades are assigned by KNOWLEDGE, not "belief". Rubbish again. (And before you talk about tenure or academic promotion, you're talking to a retired academic who has taught in universities in the USA and UK. Those who copy-and-paste from nonsense they find at ID and creationist websites have no idea of the facts of how academia works. I was still a young earth creationist and was well known for that on the campus---but never had a problem with advancement or new faculty posts.

Evolution is taught because it is solid science. If you think it isn't, don't post slogans. Post EVIDENCE. Start with nested trees and how "common descent" does NOT look anything like "common design". Ignorance does NOT get a vote in science.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

take it out of public schools...people who do not want to biologists (for the sake of argument) do not need it, so why teach it to the masses?

Believing or not believing has zero bearing on my worldly life and really the majority of people in general...just like rocket science has no bearing...so why the push for evolution to young kids?

Because it's a basic concept about the world. Most of us aren't going to be astronomers; does this mean that geocentrism should be taught as a valid theory? Few of us are going to be geologists or meteorologists; does this mean that we should teach the controversy about the flat Earth?

again, that's just pushing an idea by calling those who question ignorant...that's politics not science.

No, it's pushing an idea and calling those who disregard the evidence as ignorant. That's science, not politics.

 

[Trogool]

it is a worldview and should be taught in Philosophy or Religion in college.

No, it's basic biology, and Americans are stupid and underperforming enough without literally cutting science from the curriculum. We are trying to PROMOTE STEM fields, not kill them. Jeez...

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

 

[mathetes123]

'
Nothing to reconcile. All of the PRESUMED contradictions are based on English Bible translation TRADITIONS, not the Hebrew text.

For example, it is not at all clear that Genesis 1 is a chronological account. And NOTHING in the text denies evolution. Christians regularly confuse ULTIMATE causation (GOD) with PROXIMATE causation (evolution). Christians once claimed the planets were pushed around by angels. Newton explained it with gravity. Christians abandoned that "angel propulsion" tradition and adopted gravity. Evolution is similar.

Genesis 2:7 where God made Adam from the dust of the ground (i.e. the chemical elements of the earth's crust) doesn't say whether it took a nanosecond or millions of years. Indeed, abiogenesis is simply a way to refer to the natural processes: biological life from non-living ingredients. The idea of God being involved is THEOLOGY, not science. The science is life from non-life: abiogenesis.

I've written copiously on this topic. So don't assume that some trivial English Bible tradition is going to impress me over what the Hebrew text clearly states. I am not impressed by the cherished traditions of arm-chair devotees of the Schofield Study Bible, etc.

The following is why evolution is not compatible with scripture:

1) Evolution would imply that the account of Adam & Eve was merely allegory and that they were not historical figures. If this were the case, it would not make sense to include Adam in Jesus' geneology.
2) If the first Adam was not a historical figure, how can you say the last Adam was.
3) Biblical creation says death followed the creation of man and resulted from original sin. Evolution says that death preceded the creation of man and was in fact the vehicle for his creation. In this case, sin would have had no consequences. This undermines the gospel.
4) Evolution says that the birds evolved from the reptiles. Creationism says that the birds were created before the reptiles.
5) The genesis account of creation brackets each day of the six days of creation with a morning and and evening, making it clear that they were literal days.
6) God set aside the sabbath every 7th literal day to commemorate the day He rested from creation.
7) Jesus spoke of Adam as a literal historical figure.
8) Creation was finished after the 6th day.

 

[Trogool]

The following is why evolution is not compatible with scripture:

Irrelevant. Had nothing to do with science

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

 

[mathetes123]

Irrelevant. Had nothing to do with science

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

Your response is irrelevant as the question was about how one reconciles evolution with the creation account in genesis.

 

[Trogool]

Your response is irrelevant as the question was about how one reconciles evolution with the creation account in genesis.

Yeah, which has nothing to do with science. Go to Origins Theology if you want to talk theology.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

 

[mathetes123]

Yeah, which has nothing to do with science. Go to Origins Theology if you want to talk theology.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

Go to an atheist website if you want to Argue against scripture.

 

[Trogool]

Go to an atheist website if you want to Argue against scripture.

I don't. I'd rather we actually talk about SCIENCE in the science forum and theology in the theology forum. I realize the off topic rule is never enforced, but even so it'd be awesome if we could at least TRY to follow the rules.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

 

[Tomk80]

take it out of public schools...people who do not want to biologists (for the sake of argument) do not need it, so why teach it to the masses?

Believing or not believing has zero bearing on my worldly life and really the majority of people in general...just like rocket science has no bearing...so why the push for evolution to young kids?

Biologists don't need it can only be said by someone who is completely and utterly ignorant about biology.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I agree. When they treat it as an established fact with a monopoly, no allowance being made for legitimate objections to the theory, it is no longer science, but indoctrination.

Ah, such sweet hyperbole. Don't kid yourself - no legitimate objections are taught because there are no legitimate objections. At least, none which haven't been resoundingly debunked since the first publication of Origins.

 

[CabVet]

take it out of public schools...people who do not want to biologists (for the sake of argument) do not need it, so why teach it to the masses?

Believing or not believing has zero bearing on my worldly life and really the majority of people in general...just like rocket science has no bearing...so why the push for evolution to young kids?

Yeah, most people don't need to learn literature, advanced math, history, geology, geography, grammar, spelling, why the push for those to young kids? I mean, education is evil.

 

[Loudmouth]

False. I can do it too.

You forgot to actually describe the evidence that makes it false.

How do you rapidly lay down 500 feet of chalk that is made up of coccolithophores?

"Coccolithophores (also called coccolithophorids) are single-celled algae, protists, and phytoplankton belonging to the division of haptophytes. They are distinguished by special calcium carbonate plates (or scales) of uncertain function called coccoliths (calcareous nanoplankton), which are important microfossils. Coccolithophores are almost exclusively marine and are found in large numbers throughout the surface euphotic zone of the ocean. They are extremely abundant as microfossils."
Coccolithophore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can't produce 500 feet of chalk in a year. It just doesn't happen.

 

[Loudmouth]

Your response is irrelevant as the question was about how one reconciles evolution with the creation account in genesis.

Read the title of the thread.

 

[Loudmouth]

The following is why evolution is not compatible with scripture:

1) Evolution would imply that the account of Adam & Eve was merely allegory and that they were not historical figures. If this were the case, it would not make sense to include Adam in Jesus' geneology.
2) If the first Adam was not a historical figure, how can you say the last Adam was.
3) Biblical creation says death followed the creation of man and resulted from original sin. Evolution says that death preceded the creation of man and was in fact the vehicle for his creation. In this case, sin would have had no consequences. This undermines the gospel.
4) Evolution says that the birds evolved from the reptiles. Creationism says that the birds were created before the reptiles.
5) The genesis account of creation brackets each day of the six days of creation with a morning and and evening, making it clear that they were literal days.
6) God set aside the sabbath every 7th literal day to commemorate the day He rested from creation.
7) Jesus spoke of Adam as a literal historical figure.
8) Creation was finished after the 6th day.

Eight great reasons for why creationism is not taken seriously by scientists.

 

[mathetes123]

Eight great reasons for why creationism is not taken seriously by scientists.

Eight great reasons why evolution should not be taken seriously by Christians.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

False. I can do it too.

I'll direct you to my post if you're interested in more detailed responses.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7700298-30/#post61779794

 

[Loudmouth]

Eight great reasons why evolution should not be taken seriously by Christians.

Those who argue that evolution is not compatible with christian theology never stop to ask if it is compatible with the evidence. Wonder why that is?

 

[RickG]

Nice try. Anyone can try to discredit sources. How about refuting the claims of the article.

Mathetes, AIG is a horrible source for science. If you wish to believe Noah's flood was global that is perfectly fine. However, the science AIG presents does not follow any realistic legitimate science.