Wild claims about only SDAs being young Earth Creationists in the 1800's and early 1900's.

[BobRyan]

Bob, you are on the right path in this. The fool says in his heart there is no God.

Indeed - "atheism bad"

But more specifically when it comes to those here arguing that Augustine's argument somehow helps the doctrine on origins found in evolutionism's statements on that teaching...

1. Augustine argued for instantaneous creation of all life not "long plodding years" - as the reference I posted - shows.
2. Augustine argued that life on earth was not yet 6000 years old - as the reference I posted shows.

In other words - diametrically opposed to the baseline assumptions in evolutionism.

When one critically reviews the scientific literature we find that there is virtually no evidence for evolution and the 13.8 billion year hypothesis.

Well we do see a fair amount of guesswork in favor of it -- I would certainly affirm that point.

That is only believed because most of the world is as sheep, and they believe what they are told.

OK that's something to look into

===================================

Collin Patterson (atheist and diehard evolutionist to the day he died in 1998) - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history speaking at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 - said:


Patterson - quotes Gillespie's arguing that Christians

"'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'"​

​

Patterson countered, "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact (saying): 'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"​

​

"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...​

​

"...,Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."​

--======================= second quote


Colin Patterson (Senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum and author of the Museum’s general text on evolution) in a talk given at the American Museum of Natural History 1981

Colln Patterson:“Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing…that is true?

​

I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural history and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said “I know one thing – it ought not to be taught in high school”​

​

"...I'm speaking on two subjects, evolution and creationism, and I believe it's true to say that I know nothing whatever about either...One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, well, let's call it non-evolutionary , was last year I had a sudden realization. ​

​

"For over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. "That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long...​

​

"It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and perhaps that's all we know about it...​

​

"about eighteen months ago...I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolution as revealed truth in some way."​

=========================================
You will not find "True confessions" such as that by its own diehard adherents in any real branch of science .. because in the real sciences - the theories are tested "to see if" they are true.

Patterson was not an evolutionist that turned into a Christian, or turned into a creationist Christian. Rather he was dead set on evolutionism's doctrines and atheism -- until the day he passed on into the next world of shocking reality.

I’ll keep praying for you, stay the course

So kind of you - thanks my friend.

Perhaps we should also spare some time pray for those who like Dr Patterson -- pass on without ever knowing the full truth of reality and are confused and saddened by the potholes and tatters in the cloth of evolutionism , though it be their only hope.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

One of the recent avowed atheists admitted his error by examining the findings of modern science. He has since passed into eternity, whether he had saving faith at his death is not known

“I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an Infinite intelligence. I believe that this universe’s intricate laws manifest what scientists have called The Mind of God. I believe that life and reproduction originate in a divine Source. Why do I believe this, given that I have expounded and defended atheism for more than half a century? The short answer is this: this is the world picture, as I see it, that has emerged from modern science.”

Anthony Flew

 

[The Barbarian]

1. Augustine argued for instantaneous creation of all life not "long plodding years" - as the reference I posted - shows.

After which the world changed to meet the potential God placed in creation. Which is what Darwin thought.

2. Augustine argued that life on earth was not yet 6000 years old - as the reference I posted shows.

He just thought that the world evolved faster than it actually did. We didn't yet have evidence for the age of the Earth. But keep in mind, Augustine noted that we should change our opinions, if new facts show the old ones to be incorrect.

In other words - diametrically opposed to the baseline assumptions in evolutionism.

As I pointed out before, you often are held back in these discussions because you don't know what biological evolution is, or what the theory of evolution says. Here, you've tripped yourself up yet again.

IT will fail to work just as it does in the "Long running evolution experiment"

Actually, speciation has been repeatedly observed in nature. No point in denial.

 

[The Barbarian]

Biological evolution is purported to be genetic variation in a species by means of mutation resulting in a higher order organism over time as a result of natural selection

And yet again, you've hit a wall because you don't know what evolutionary theory says. Why not spend a little time on learning about it? You'd be much more effective fighting it, if you could find it.

If you can't figure out what's wrong with your confusion on this, ask, and I'll show you.

 

[BNR32FAN]

for context:
From Science and Faith - Young-Earth Creationism

"The Bible clearly teaches the young-earth creationist view of Genesis 1–11. That was the almost universal belief of the church for 1800 years. Progressive Creationism and Theistic Evolutionism in all their various forms (day-age view, gap theory, framework hypothesis, analogical days view, local flood view, etc.) are recent and novel interpretations that will not stand up to scrutiny with an open Bible. A growing body of overwhelming scientific evidence also shows that evolution and millions of years are religiously motivated myths masquerading as scientific fact."

====================== now for the claims in the video below

The following video makes some pretty wild claims -- about there being few to no young Earth Creationists - before the 1960's -- other than Seventh-day Adventists.

by contrast:
From: Old-Earth (Progressive) Creationism: History and Beliefs - Article - BioLogos
"The literal creation week and the instantaneous creation were the two major alternatives for most of Christian history, "

Yes I am SDA and yes I do believe Ellen White was a real Bible prophet - but even I would not make such a wild non-historic claim about limiting the origin of acceptance of the young earth creation doctrine to "those who read and accept what Ellen White wrote". How in the world does such an idea even come about?

The video appears to debunk it's own self-conflicted claim that the creationist movement was not based on Ex 20:11 and Gen 2:1-3 but rather was based on Seventh-day Adventist doctrine and not Christians studying the Bible and observations in nature etc that do not fit blind faith evolutionism's doctrines on origins and ages.

At 16:29 the video introduces an author of a number of books on Geology "George McReady Price". The video says "He wrote several papers and books arguing that the geological column was a result of Noah's flood" ( an observation that comes as no surprise to Christians today - familiar with Gen 2:1-3 and Ex 20:11). The video claims that the "arguments" that creationists use today - date back to Price when it comes to geology and what he called "flood geology". The video does not claim that anyone is/was claiming that they got their ideas from Ellen White. (Sadly for the wild claim in your post).

Price (as do many Christians today) noted that the so-called geological-column was based on circular reasoning where fossils date the rocks and rocks date the fossils. (A complaint that many observers make about the whole thing).

At 17:30 in the video Price is said to have quoted Ex 20:11 (which is a direct quote of Gen 2:1-3) for the 7 day week of creation being the same as the 7 day week at Sinai. And scripture of course is something for which at least some Christians have a I value. Instead of claiming Price was appealing to Ellen White - your own video claims he was affirming Ex 20:11. (I am guessing you do not consider Ellen White to be the author of Ex 20:11 or Gen 2:1-3).

At 18:20 the video correctly states that Price did not claim the entire universe is only 6000 years old --- he only claims that life on Earth is no more than 6000 years old.

At 20:09 the video says that after not getting much popular story-telling support behind Price's findings about the flood - Dr. Henry Morris (a scientist with a Ph.D in hydraulic engineering) published a book for literal 7 day creationism. This is how the whole thing gained more popular acceptance and the video admits Morris was definitely not a follower of Ellen White (as if anyone had been using that claim for Ex 20:11 or Gen 2:1-3 regarding the literal week -- in the first place for creationism). 1961 the book 'the Genesis Flood" by Morris and Whitcomb was published and became very popular.

At 21:53 about 200,000 copies of that book were sold and so Morris and Whitcomb became 'celebrities' - neither of which followed Ellen White and neither of which were SDA - sadly for the wild claims made in the post above. At 22:20 we see a lot of Creationist scientific groups forming due to support from Dr. Morris. At 22:45 the wild claim was made that in the 1920 there were only a TINY number of folks in the "anti-evolutionist community" and they were almost all SDA. (Note that Ellen White was not still alive in 1920). This is shocking since a lot of the evangelical churches today that reject blind faith evolutionism today - were also opposed to it in the 1920's.

The video keeps saying that "SOME believed that the Earth was older than 10,000 years old" when referencing ancient groups. But the problem with "SOME" or "A FEW exceptions" etc - is that is far from saying "nobody believed the actual text stating that it is a literal 7 day creation week on Ex 20:11 and in Gen 2:1-3" --

The video even admits that most people accept that this is what everyone believed (except for SOME) about the 7 day creation week of Gen 2:1-3 and Ex 20:11

Near the end of the video we have this Mea Culpa - 23:14 "I am not saying there were NO young Earth creationists before the Seventh-day Adventists" He adds "in centuries past MANY believed that the Earth was relatively young"

I’ve never heard that claim before. I guess in any group of any significant size there will always be a few crack pots out there.

 

[The Barbarian]

Evolutionary theory makes no claims about how life began.

Indeed it does.

Nope. Remember, one of the reasons you fail so often, is you have no idea what evolution is, or even what evolutionary theory says. Show us which of Darwin's four points of evolutionary theory are about the origin of life. You can't do this, because you have no idea what Darwin's points are. And that's a shame. BTW, Darwin just assumed that God created the first living things:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species

1. It assumes God did not create species from the dust of the Earth in a single evening and morning.

No. The theory makes no assumptions at all about how life began. Darwin didn't put that in the theory, although he suggested that God just did it miraculously. But evolution works the same way no matter how life began. Again, what you don't know, is what's holding you back here.

2. It assumes that instead of a few thousand years of life on Earth - there must be millions of years of it -

It merely accepts the evidence, as did most Christians of Darwin's time, and today. YE creationism is a very modern revision of Christian belief. It was invented by the Second-Day Adventists in the 1900s.

 

[The Barbarian]

Biological evolution is purported to be genetic variation in a species by means of mutation resulting in a higher order organism over time as a result of natural selection.

No. "Higher order" is a creationist invention. Often evolution can simplify organisms. And it only tends to make populations more fit. It can also reduce fitness. It only looks efficient because the fit survive.

Moreover, mutation is not the only way that this happens. The proper definition of biological evolution is "change in allele frequency in a population over time."

We have the mutation argument

That's one way. Every new mutation in a population increases the information in that population. Would you like to see the math on a simple example?

the vestigial organ argument

Creationists generally hit a wall on vestigial organs, because they mistakenly confuse "vestigial" with "useless." That's not the case. As Darwin pointed out, vestigial organs (which don't function in their original function) often evolve new functions. What about the evolution of vestigial organs do you think rules out a change in allele frequencies in a population?

and the embryonic argument.

What about embryos do you think rules out biological evolution?

All have failed due to lack of evidence.

I know you want to believe this, but you have offered no evidence for your assumption.

 

[The Barbarian]

When you study genetics and trace mitochondria, which only come from the mother, we see that mitochondrial Eve lived about 6000 years ago, but they ignore that evidence and force it to fit the narrative

They lied to you about that:
200,000 years...

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.3116666

The people who told you 6,000 years ignored the evidence and tried to force it to fit the narrative. Be careful. Those guys often lie to convince people.

 

[BobRyan]

Remember, one of the reasons you fail so often, is you have no idea what evolution is, or even what evolutionary theory says.

believers in evolutionism love to make that false claim about others if they point to a flaw in the belief system of evolutionism.

That is pretty much "old news".

Show us which of Darwin's four points of evolutionary theory are about the origin of life. You can't do this, because you have no idea what Darwin's points are. And that's a shame. BTW, Darwin just assumed that God created the first living things:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species

Both statements he makes above speak to the origin not only of one form, not only of "a few forms" but of "endless forms".

Ok so that is just "English skill". The ability "to read", it is not yet "science" anything to read it, or for Darwin to speculate it.

There is "more" to science than just speculation.

 

[BobRyan]

No. "Higher order" is a creationist invention.

Sadly false.

How could one claim to be a believer in evolutionism and yet know so little about Darwin's so-called "Evolutionary-tree"?. How could one know so little of systematics , evolutionism's taxonomy charts etc as to imagine that there is no such thing as simpler vs more complex higher orders of species?? How does that even happen??

I am amazed.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

And yet again, you've hit a wall because you don't know what evolutionary theory says. Why not spend a little time on learning about it? You'd be much more effective fighting it, if you could find it.

If you can't figure out what's wrong with your confusion on this, ask, and I'll show you.

I asked for you to provide an alternative model, and you declined. Are you now willing?

 

[trophy33]

Sadly false.

How could one claim to be a believer in evolutionism and yet know so little about Darwin's so-called "Evolutionary-tree"?. How could one know so little of systematics , evolutionism's taxonomy charts etc as to imagine that there is no such thing as simpler vs more complex higher orders of species?? How does that even happen??

I am amazed.

The evolutionary tree pictures you mention are an illustration of relationships (descendants) between species. It does not need to mean "from simpler to more complex one". For example, birds are not more complex or a "higher order" from dinosaurs.

Indeed, if you compare the earliest organisms to the most current, you will find many that grew in complexity significantly. But not always, its not a rule. Today's bacteria are not so different from bacteria millions of years old.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

They lied to you about that:
200,000 years...

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.3116666

The people who told you 6,000 years ignored the evidence and tried to force it to fit the narrative. Be careful. Those guys often lie to convince people.

We will have to check the evidence. I know that is reported to be 200,000 years which does not fit the data, but is required because it must be believed that evolution is true
The complexity of the human species Homo sapiens is too complex to have evolved over allele frequency. There is no connection to lower organisms. It is only imagined by naturalists

The data has been extensively examined and I advise you to view the series foundations restored for your explanation. It does a thorough examination of the scientific literature. You may learn something

 

[BobRyan]

The evolutionary tree pictures you mention are an illustration of relationships (descendants) between species. It does not need to mean "from simpler to more complex one". For example, birds are not more complex or a "higher order" from dinosaurs.

Given that "not every" new species is a step "up " vs a step "sideways" in the imaginative charts they provide:

If that were true, then now and then we should expect to find such a tree where it begins with a human brain and ends with an amoeba or bacteria after a few million years have elapsed since the dawn of time where we start off with a human brain.

Are you thinking it is 'just a fluke' that not one such example is out there like that?

Is it really your claim that evolutionists don't know that their own charts show progression from simpler to more complex life forms? really?

 

[trophy33]

If that were true, then now and then we should expect to find such a tree where it begins with a human brain and ends with an amoeba or bacteria after a few million years have elapsed since the dawn of time where we start off with a human brain.

Are you thinking it is 'just a fluke' that not one such example is out there like that?

Is it really your claim that evolutionists don't know that their own charts show progression from simpler to more complex life forms? really?

What? Your post does not make any sense.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

They lied to you about that:
200,000 years...

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.3116666

The people who told you 6,000 years ignored the evidence and tried to force it to fit the narrative. Be careful. Those guys often lie to convince people.

We will have to check the evidence. I know that is reported to be 200,000 years which does not fit the data, but is required because it must be believed that evolution is true
The complexity of the human species Homo sapiens is too complex to have evolved over allele frequency. There is no connection to lower organisms. It is only imagined by naturalists

The data has been extensively examined and I advise you to view the series foundations restored for your explanation. It does a thorough examination of the scientific literature. You may learn something

They lied to you about that:
200,000 years...

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.3116666

The people who told you 6,000 years ignored the evidence and tried to force it to fit the narrative. Be careful. Those guys often lie to convince people.

your article is from 1987. Another article in Science from 1998 by Ann Gibbons states that mitochondrial DNA mutates at a much faster rate than originally thought. When recalculated with the new data, Eve is only 6000 years old.

Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock, Science
Vol 279 p 28

 

[The Barbarian]

We will have to check the evidence. I know that is reported to be 200,000 years which does not fit the data, but is required because it must be believed that evolution is true

That's what the data says. Someone just made up the story about 6,000 years. Interestingly, there is also a "Y-chomosome Adam", who lived pretty close to the same time. But keep in mind, these are likely just our last common female and male ancestors, not the first woman and first man.

Learn about it here:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1714-1.epdf?sharing_token=LWxlvgC81-F5xF81qL2rBNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Ow72lSjAIzdDOJcHUPoWIRGEOjMmthCa5BpP_dciaujEZU3nm1oRgky05sMJNDDysrmKNnSkDQX_CAZB5v7ggx_b0czuJrIpJihpKWRr0HlrAAjQjk7B9sn10i1RG5tRDOtT543SRKAYR5qKYdsHKZK0nSPMVd37po-aIwANhrzE6blcy3Ks7C1UwG1qYymXo%3D&tracking_referrer=www.livescience.com

We will have to check the evidence. I know that is reported to be 200,000 years which does not fit the data, but is required because it must be believed that evolution is true

I think that Nature is a more reliable source than some creationist storyteller. Sorry.

The complexity of the human species Homo sapiens is too complex to have evolved over allele frequency.

Sounds like a testable claim. What about human bodies do you think impossible to have evolved, and what is your evidence for that assumption?

The data has been extensively examined and I advise you to view the series foundations restored for your explanation. It does a thorough examination of the scientific literature. You may learn something

Let's start with complexity. Let's see your math. I've got a degree in biological systems, so I won't have a problem understanding it. You're on.

Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock, Science
Vol 279 p 28
When recalculated with the new data, Eve is only 6000 years old.

Hmm... the article doesn't say that. Can you show us how you calculated it?

 

[The Barbarian]

No. "Higher order" is a creationist invention.

Sadly false.

Well, show us. Which of the four points of Darwin's theory is "higher order" predicted? This is the second time you've declined to tell us. Maybe you should look up his points so you know what the theory is.

How could one claim to be a believer in evolutionism and yet know so little about Darwin's so-called "Evolutionary-tree"?

"Evolutionism" seems to be creationist misunderstandings of evolutionary theory. Darwin's point was that the "tree" so beloved by creationists, is a bush, and "higher order" is not part of it. Again, because you don't understand the theory, you keep making mistakes like this. You've confused the creationist "scala natura" with what actually happens in evolution.

How could one know so little of systematics , evolutionism's taxonomy charts etc as to imagine that there is no such thing as simpler vs more complex higher orders of species??

Well, let's test that belief. Show me whether a bumble bee is more or less complex than a squid. Show your math. I'm guessing you don't even know how to measure or calculate complexity, much less compare two different phyla, but maybe I'm wrong. What do you have?

 

[The Barbarian]

boughtwithaprice said:

Biological evolution is purported to be genetic variation in a species by means of mutation resulting in a higher order organism over time as a result of natural selection

And yet again, you've hit a wall because you don't know what evolutionary theory says. Why not spend a little time on learning about it? You'd be much more effective fighting it, if you could find it.

If you can't figure out what's wrong with your confusion on this, ask, and I'll show you.

I asked for you to provide an alternative model, and you declined. Are you now willing?

I think you misunderstand what a "model" is in science. You likely mean "theory." But we don't need an alternative theory. It's just that "higher order" isn't part of evolutionary theory. And it's been that way since Darwin. Why not learn what Darwin's theory is actually about, and explain to us, using his points, how you think "higher order" fits into it?

 

[The Barbarian]

Maybe you're interested in some verification of the theory via mathematical analysis?

"In science, the term model can mean several different things (e.g., an idea about how something works or a physical model of a system that can be used for testing or demonstrative purposes). However, as a research method, modeling often means creating a mathematical model — a set of equations that indirectly represents a real system. These equations are based on relevant information about the system and on sets of hypotheses about how the system works. Given a set of parameters, a model can generate expectations about how the system will behave in a particular situation. A model and the hypotheses it is based upon are supported when the model generates expectations that match the behavior of its real-world counterpart. Modeling often involves idealizing the system in some way — leaving some aspects of the real system out of the model in order to isolate particular factors or to make the model easier to work with computationally."

model - Understanding Science

In science, the term model can mean several different things (e.g., an idea about how something works or a physical model of a system that can be used for testing or demonstrative purposes). However, as a research method, modeling often means creating a mathematical model — a set of equations...

undsci.berkeley.edu

In evolutionary theory, there are quite a number of mathematical models used to predict evolutionary trends, to detect selective pressure, etc. Perhaps you're thinking of how we could mathematically show that mutation could increase information in a population. If that's your question, would you like to see a math for a simple case?