Why Young Earthers should be more honest

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 06:04 AM Micaiah said this in Post #22

Those who promote this notion should recognise there are no cases where random changes in DNA (mutations) have resulted in the increased complexity required to achieve the scale of evolution proposed. It hasn't been observed to occur on either a large sale or small scale. 

Remember Micaiah that we are not talking about single leaps from single celled to humans.  There are no mutations that would result in that leap of complexity.  However, there are mutations that have been observed that do increase complexity. The thread "Evolution of feathers -- evolution of novelty" has some of them. Below is a paper detailing out mutations of one gene -- Manx -- results in the formation of a tail.  That qualifies as some increased complexity, right?

"Tracing a Backbone's Evolution Through a Tunicate's Lost Tail"  Science vol. 274, pp 1082-1083, Nov. 15, 1996'  Primary article is "Requirement of the Manx Gene for Expression of Chordat Freatures in a Tailless Ascidian Larvae"  pp 1205-1208.

This article looks at the evolution of the increased complexity of a placenta:

Independent Origins and Rapid Evolution of the Placenta in the
Fish Genus Poeciliopsis David N.Reznick, Mariana Mateos, Mark S.Springer 1 Science, NOVEMBER 2002 VOL 298

The data is there, Micaiah, you just have to open your eyes and see it.

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 01:29 AM Arikay said this in Post #12

You belief that the bible is true, but it doesnt make it a fact.

...
Evolution is judged on a much higher criteria than creationism. In evolution, a belief doesnt cut it, but in creationism it does.

Until the two are judged on an equal ground, no one will win.

Arikay, let's make sure we have separated creationism from creation and from belief in God.

Creationism, since it is a scientific theory, is judged on equal ground with evolution and has been falsified.

Creation and belief in God are not scientific theories.  Science consciously limits itself to 1) evidence that is the same for anyone under approximately the same circumstances (intersubjective) and 2) evidence in the physical universe (objective).  This makes science highly reliable within its domain. 

However, objective intersubjective evidence is only a small subset of all evidence,. Most of our lives are lived in the full set of evidence which includes personal, subjective experience.  What religion does is accept personal, subjective experience that science won't. Thus people like Thomas Aquinas and CS Lewis that have personal experience of deity are convinced by that experience.  Others trust that their experience and the experiences written in the Bible are accurate.

Now, creationists such as Micaiah and JohnR7 constantly confuse creationism with belief in God.  But that is their logical error and there is no reason to accept it and every reason to reject it.

This is not about "winning" or "losing".  Unless you are engaged in the clash of beliefs known as the atheism vs theism debate.  Until people recognize that religion and science work with different types of evidence, there will not be tolerance for religion or recognition by believers where facts end and beliefs begin. 

 

[Arikay]

I agree. Creationism isnt belief in god, its belief in the literal translation of a book.

What I ment by "win" is that until both are judged on an equal plane, the debate will continue to go around in circles.

 

[webboffin]

People forget that even scientists themselves are biased. Though I am not slandering science as it has brought some wonderful things and knowledge to this world. But even scientist believe in different things. Some say the evidence for BBT is positive some say they are not so sure. But that is the human being in us all. Creationist or evolutionist or whatever all have their own personal bias and we will only want to see what we wish to believe in. An atheist cannot disprove God no more than a Christian can prove God but we each go by our heart felt beliefs through our own personal desires. If an atheist becomes to believe in God or a Christian becomes an atheist is is normally due to his/her own personal issues not neccesarily to what supposed facts are laid down. The Bible to many is just as compelling as any science book and vice versa.

 

[Arikay]

The difference is, thats comparing evolution to religion. Which its not.

 

[Cantuar]

People forget that even scientists themselves are biased. Though I am not slandering science as it has brought some wonderful things and knowledge to this world. But even scientist believe in different things. Some say the evidence for BBT is positive some say they are not so sure. But that is the human being in us all.

With things like the big bang theory it's more a case that the study of cosmology is still in rather a state of flux, with major new pieces of data coming in all the time. Scientists tend to favour some theories over others, but when data show up that rule out theories, even the strongest supporters of those theories will usually (and reluctantly) back down. In science it's the evidence that counts, since the theories are there to explain the evidence.

Creationist or evolutionist or whatever all have their own personal bias and we will only want to see what we wish to believe in.

What particular personal bias are you referring to? I hope this isn't one of these "evolution equals atheism" things. The people who accept evolution do so because it's the best scientific explanation we have for the observed lifeforms out there. They don't (with maybe a very small handful of exceptions) accept evolution because of its perceived theistic implications. Creationists are so fixated on the Bible and their religion that they make the mistake of thinking that everybody else is driven by religious motivations too. That isn't the case.

An atheist cannot disprove God no more than a Christian can prove God but we each go by our heart felt beliefs through our own personal desires.

What does this have to do with evolution?

If an atheist becomes to believe in God or a Christian becomes an atheist is is normally due to his/her own personal issues not neccesarily to what supposed facts are laid down. The Bible to many is just as compelling as any science book and vice versa.

The Bible and science books are different things. A lot of Christians accept what they read in science books while knowing that it has nothing to do with their faith.

 

[Micaiah]

Today at 05:07 AM lucaspa said this in Post #42 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=677741#post677741)

Now, creationists such as Micaiah and JohnR7 constantly confuse creationism with belief in God.  But that is their logical error and there is no reason to accept it and every reason to reject it.

This is not about "winning" or "losing".  Unless you are engaged in the clash of beliefs known as the atheism vs theism debate.  Until people recognize that religion and science work with different types of evidence, there will not be tolerance for religion or recognition by believers where facts end and beliefs begin. 

The only confusion that occurs is when people seek to make Scripture conform to the popular notions of man, instead of believing its truth. This is called compromise. The Christian faith is founded on certain historical events. To question the truth of the historical accounts of Scripture is to undermine its message. The view promoted by Lucaspa is not Scriptural.

 

[webboffin]

Today at 04:44 AM Cantuar said this in Post #46



What particular personal bias are you referring to? I hope this isn't one of these "evolution equals atheism" things. The people who accept evolution do so because it's the best scientific explanation we have for the observed lifeforms out there.

What does this have to do with evolution?

You brought it up you tell me.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 06:18 AM Micaiah said this in Post #47 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=678976#post678976)

The only confusion that occurs is when people seek to make Scripture conform to the popular notions of man, instead of believing its truth. This is called compromise. The Christian faith is founded on certain historical events. To question the truth of the historical accounts of Scripture is to undermine its message. The view promoted by Lucaspa is not Scriptural.

Why? Why does it matter if God created in 6 days or 4.5 billion years? Why does it matter if God created every creature independently or created via the process of evolution? I thought the whole point was that God created. And evolution or an old Earth doesn't dispute that.

 

[Eddie]

If you deal 7 cards, the odds of getting those cards in that specific order is 1 in 6.7 times 10 to the eleventh power.  Yet you have dealt them.  No mystery, no cheating.   You are engageing in developing a post-hoc probability and it is intellectually dishonest. 

 

25th February 2003 at 05:51 AM Micaiah said this in Post #20

If I played a game of cards and someone came up with a hand with those sort of odds, my conclusion would be that someone had tampered with the cards. These examples demonstrate that evolution is not simply highly improbable, it is impossible.

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 06:06 PM webboffin said this in Post #44

People forget that even scientists themselves are biased.

The key here is scientists.  Yes, as a person a scientist can become as dogmatic about a theory as a Baptist is about baptism by total immersion.  They can refuse to accept that their pet theory is falsified. But this is why it is so important to separate the idea from the people who advocate it.  Ideas are falsified whether the person advocating the idea agrees or not. After all, we don't need the defendent's agreement to declare that his declaration of his innocence is false during a criminal trial.

Some say the evidence for BBT is positive some say they are not so sure.

Theories are not about belief. They are about accepting that the theory is (provisionally) true.  There comes a point where the evidence is so overwhelming that it is perverse to withold that provisional acceptance.  But exactly where is that line of "overwhelming"?  There obviously isn't a hard and fast line.  There is a huge gray area. What you are saying above is that there is some debate on some subjects.  However, this particular instance is a bad one since BBT is as accepted in cosmology as evolution is in biology.

Creationist or evolutionist or whatever all have their own personal bias and we will only want to see what we wish to believe in.

That's not true as long as you are speaking of the scientific theories of evolution and creationism.  However, your next sentence indicates that you are not speaking of the theories, but of worldviews and equating the theories with the worldview:

An atheist cannot disprove God no more than a Christian can prove God but we each go by our heart felt beliefs through our own personal desires.

EVOLUTION IS NOT ATHEISM.  CREATIONISM IS NOT BELIEF IN GOD OR CHRISTIANITY!  It is extremely important that you separate the worldview -- belief about whether deity exists or not -- and the scientific theories.  While creationists must be theists or deists, it is very clear that accepting evolution does not mean you are an atheist.

The Bible to many is just as compelling as any science book and vice versa.

No one on this board is claiming that the Bible is cannot be compelling as a theological document.  Some people here are obviously not convinced, but there is agreement that people can be convinced by the theology in it to believe in Yahweh.  It is when the Bible is claimed to be accurate in areas that are within the domain of science and the data contradict that claim that the trouble arises.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 06:18 AM Micaiah said this in Post #47

The only confusion that occurs is when people seek to make Scripture conform to the popular notions of man, instead of believing its truth. This is called compromise. The Christian faith is founded on certain historical events. To question the truth of the historical accounts of Scripture is to undermine its message. The view promoted by Lucaspa is not Scriptural.

Judeo-Christianity is founded on a couple of historical events: the Exodus and the life, death, and particularly resurrection of Yeshu ben Joseph.  Science can't address these because they have left no evidence we can study today.  If, however, it were ever possible through historical research to falsify either event, I think that Judeo-Christianity would go the way of the Greek, Norse, Egyptian pantheons and Mithraism.

To question whether the details of the creation accounts are literal and to declare they are not literal has been declared Scriptural by all major Christian theologians: from Augustine of Hippo thru John Calvin to modern day.  What Micaiah forgets is that of the 26 plaintiffs against creationism in the 1982 MacLean vs Arkansas trial, 23 of them were ministers or rabbis! The other 3 were educators and Christians. Micaiah also ignores Scripture and is not Scriptural because he doesn't take it seriously that God really did create.  He consistently ignores that Creation is the second book of God.  That all the evidence in Creation that says creationism is wrong must have been put there by God.  Micaiah has placed his interpretation of Genesis above God.  MIcaiah is being apostate because he is putting himself above God. 

What Micaiah is engaged in is a civil war with the rest of Christianity, declaring that his interpretation of the Genesis stories is the only correct one.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 07:32 AM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #49

Why? Why does it matter if God created in 6 days or 4.5 billion years? Why does it matter if God created every creature independently or created via the process of evolution? I thought the whole point was that God created. And evolution or an old Earth doesn't dispute that.

Thank you, Pete.  I've asked Micaiah this twice and he's ignored it both times. Perhaps he'll answer you.

Yes, Micaiah, what difference does it make to Christianity if God created by evolution or by YEC?  If the literal interpretation of Genesis 1-8 is wrong, what effect does that have on Christianity?  On Salvation?

  If you don't think it has any, and by your silence that seems to be the case, then why insist on the literal interpretation in the face of all the internal documental evidence against a literal interpretation? Why risk being an apostate? We are genuinely puzzled.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 08:39 AM lucaspa said this in Post #52 
Science can't address these because they have left no evidence we can study today.  

There is evidence. A God who leaves evidence of a leaf He made in the fossels can leave evidence that He had a discussion with Moses at the burning bush.

http://www.geographia.com/egypt/sinai/burningbush.htm

There is physical evidence for everything in the Bible.

http://www.readinggroupguides.com/guides3/walking_the_bible1.asp

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 08:43 AM lucaspa said this in Post #53

what difference does it make to Christianity if God created by evolution or by YEC? 

There would be no christianity if God created Adam & Eve by evolution. They were not a part of creation. God formed Adam out of the ground (Adamah) and breathed life into him.

Genesis 2:7
    And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.





 

 

[Arikay]

Why not john? An evolved adam could still eat an apple. Jesus, (christ) would still come around, and people would still be trying to be "christ like" So how does evolution hurt things?

Today at 07:26 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #55 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=679221#post679221)

There would be no christianity if God created Adam & Eve by evolution. They were not a part of creation. God formed Adam out of the ground (Adamah) and breathed life into him.

Genesis 2:7
    And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.





 

 

[gentu]

Today at 11:18 AM Micaiah said this in Post #47 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=678976#post678976)

The only confusion that occurs is when people seek to make Scripture conform to the popular notions of man, instead of believing its truth. This is called compromise. The Christian faith is founded on certain historical events. To question the truth of the historical accounts of Scripture is to undermine its message. The view promoted by Lucaspa is not Scriptural.

Micaiah, this is what I mean when I talk about spiritual and intellectual dishonesty. There are some things that the Bible cannot explain and have no bearing on spirituality. Those who try to use the Bible to predict things it does not describe end up doing everyone a spiritual disservice, as was the case with Galileo Galilee and the Roman Catholic Church. Much of science has nothing to do with the Bible. As I said before, there is no conspiracy. There is no doubt that the earth is around 4,500,000,000 years old, and as a creationist I have no problem with that. I am awed by the beauty of Creation and the seeds of life that God instilled it with. As I said before, I am more impressed by a Creation that can grow on its own than one which works perfectly from the beginning. Focus on issues of love and spirituality, and do not try to use Scripture to explain things that it cannot.

 

[gentu]

Today at 03:26 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #55 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=679221#post679221)

There would be no christianity if God created Adam & Eve by evolution. They were not a part of creation. God formed Adam out of the ground (Adamah) and breathed life into him.

Genesis 2:7
    And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
 

Giving the dust of the ground a breath of life and then allowing them to grow on their own is not at odds with God's creation evolving.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 02:09 PM Arikay said this in Post #56

Why not john? An evolved adam could still eat an apple. Jesus, (christ) would still come around, and people would still be trying to be "christ like" So how does evolution hurt things?

Evolution totally denys the perfection of Adam before he fell from the grace of God. Adam was created in perfection. He was JUST like Jesus. He walked with God, he talked with God in the cool of the day. He had the same divine attitude, and thoughts that God has. Evolution denys all of that. It denys the divine nature that Adam was created with.

I just do not believe that cultivated flowers & plants evolved from wild flowers. I do not beleive that domesticated animals evolved from wild animals. They were created special by God just as Adam and Eve were created special. We do not hear about God talking with stone age man. They are refered to as a male and a female. Adam and Eve became husband and wife.

I just do not believe that "uncivilized" man evolved into a civilized man, over time as the theory of evolution suggests. Evolution denys God, and it denys man's need to be restored. God's desire is to lift man back up to where He is at. Darwin wants to lower man down to the level of animals.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 03:34 PM gentu said this in Post #57
There is no doubt that the earth is around 4,500,000,000 years old, 

Oh, are we going to have a birthday party? If the Universe is 13.7 billion years old, then how can the earth only be 4.5 billion years?