Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You are welcome, hurry back.I just realized I haven't shown my face in here since @Oncedeceived posted.
Guys, I promise, tomorrow I will get back to the models presented. And thank you, Oncedeceived, for going into such great detail.
All these troubles are not needed. The only thing a creationist needs to do is to show that ANY and EVERY example of evolution has unanswered question. That is enough to show that creation is true.
Let me see if I understand it correctly... "Creationism is true because evolution has unanswered questions"? Is that what you were trying to say?
Exactly.
Evolution is a powerful model. If it were true, then it would be applied to anywhere, anytime in this universe or other universes.
If the evolution is wrong, then what else (except the creation) could explain the variation (or origin) of life? There is NONE!.
So, if evolution is wrong, then there is no other choice but creation.
It has. But ultimately, it has not. This is where the major advantage is.
Creation itself is a question which can not be answered by science.
In order to question creationism, you either reject the definition first (then there is no need to continue any reasoning), or you argue within the definition.
Life evolves. So we have life form variations
If life does not evolve, why do we have life form variation?
You do not know? That is not a good answer.
Life is created. That is the only good answer left.
2 things.
1. this is a false dichotomy, since you imply that "if not evolution, then my version of creation".
Here is mine:
It will be two posts.
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
This is like a heading or title rather than what many see as the first act in Creation. It is stating that there was a beginning to our universe and that God created both the heavens and the earth. This is supported later in Genesis. The Big Bang theory supports that the universe did have a beginning.
Now the earth was unformed and void,
This is stating that the earth was not formed yet. Which supports my viewpoint that the first verse is not the first act of Creation.
11 And God said: 'Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth.' And it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day. {P}
There are two points to consider in interpreting this verse. The first is that there is no evidence to support this verse. The second has two possible meanings which could be valid. The first of the two is that there is no evidence of this due to plate tectonics, it is a well known fact that the earliest surface of the earth is probably lost for all time due to movement. The second is that all plants and trees have their beginings from green algae which is the first life form on earth.
I concede that "evidence" to support my viewpoint on this is interpretive at best and so I will consider this verse somewhat of a gap in the conclusions I hold.
14 And God said: 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.' And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 19{P} and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
There are several conflicts in this verse that skeptics have in their understanding of this verse. The first is firmament being meant as a hard dome surface but we see in the following verses that birds fly in the firmament which would be impossible to do in a hard domed surface. The second is that the sun was formed first with the moon and earth thereafter.
My viewpoint is that the age of the earth is not conclusive due to plate tectonics, the oldest known rocks are probably lost to us and those that are in evidence show the earth much older than scientists first believed. 03 February, 1998. Astronomers have been able to date the Sun by applying the theory of stellar structure and evolution to data that describe the interior of the Sun found through the study of solar oscillations. The Sun is dated at 4.5 billion years old, satisfyingly close to the 4.56 billion year age of the Solar System as found from the study of meteorites.
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/FAQ/Qage.html
Dating the Sun is an indirect process. There are several independent ways of estimating the age and they all give nearly the same answer: about 5 billion years.
The age of the Sun can be estimated from the ages obtained from radioactive dating of the oldest meteorites. This may seem odd at first, but in fact it is extremely likely that the solar system (i.e. th Sun, planets, asteroids etc.) formed as one unit. Therefore the age of the Sun should be close to the age of the meteorites, which can be found using the method of radioactive dating.
G.J. Wasserburg obtained a meteoritic age of (4.57 +/- 0.01) x 10^9 years and D.B. Guenther (1989, Astrophysical Journal 339, 1156) estimated that hydrogen burning started shortly thereafer (40 million (0.04 +/- .01) x 10^9 years later).
Additional evidence comes from the Earth. The oldest Earth rocks are also about 4.6 billion years old. The oldest fossils, found in Australia, are about 3.5 bilion years old. The presence of fossils in rocks indicates that the Earth was a suitable place for life when the fossils formed. This implies that the Sun was luminous at that time. [Of course we can't say exactly how long before the fossil formed the Sun was like it is today, but it does give us a lower bound.]
What is meant by "luminous?" We mean that the Sun was at or near the stable part of its lifetime called the "main sequence" more than 3.6 billion years ago. Viewing the Sun as a star on the main sequence, is very useful and important for astronomers because they have a model called "The Standard Solar Model" that views the Sun at stages in its life while it is burning hydrogen and converting that to helium. The model can be run forward and backward in time, and the astronomers can check the observable quantities in the model like luminosity, solar radius, composition, solar p-mode frequencies, and so on with our real Sun. They can stop the model at any time during its main sequence. If what we see from our Sun matches the quantities in the model for a specific age, then we have one more piece of information of what we think that the age of the Sun is.
One complication of checking the Solar Model with our real Sun is the quantity of helium: the "helium abundance." That is rather difficult to obtain. According to the Dalsgaard article (see below), the solar spectrum is too complicated to accurately measure the helium abundance, so that one parameter has to be estimated (one infers the helium abundance by matching the observed solar radius and luminosity in the solar models). It turns out this affects the estimated age very little.
20 And God said: 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let fowl fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.'
This is stating what God wants done and the next verse says that is what he did.
21 And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after its kind, and every winged fowl after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
The Cambrian era was the time period which consisted of all phyla alive today and some that have gone extinct. The waters literally swarmed with life. This period which is called the Paleozoic period includes the Silurian era in which there were centipedes and millipedes, the Devonian with its sharks and amphibians. This also includes the next period which is the Mesozoic period which then includes dino's and of course within this period comes the first appearance of birds. This is a general overview of what was created during this period. So an overview of this is that the day includes first the Paleozoic and next the Mesozoic.
According to science the universe came into existence through a Big Bang proposed by a priest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Georges_Lemaître
Can you please explain to me how evolution explains the origin of the universe? Evolution isn't a theory used to predict the origins of the universe but a theory used to predict diversification of life. "Creationism" explains how life came into being and everything else. So when you are saying provide "scientific evidence" then you have to understand that the natural world is evidence. The fact that everything is defined and ordered, even down to the tiniest cells or microorganisms and seemingly all of this is just organic compounds "responding to their environment" that occurred by chance billions of years ago is actually impossible because it would go against the laws of physics that we now do know such as the laws of thermodynamics. Evolution fails to explain the origins of the universe and until it does you cannot argue with "creationism" because they are explaining two completely different things.
The evidence of creation is created things and this is also logical.
Whats more the creation is not chaotic but follows order that was set in the beginning of creation, this is simple and what the reality is. The fact that there requires an energy input or the fact that there had to be an original cause in order for this natural world to come into being when there was nothing originally points to the fact that there is a God. Again, there is no way that evolution can explain any of this. If you would like a scientific model of creation I suggest you have a kid. (the kid did not spontaneously generate, but follows the same principles that were set in the beginning by God that point to the fact that he is the original creator. )
Also if you want to learn more I also suggest you look up Dr. William Lane Craig who is a Christian philosopher and scientist who typically gives better answers then your average christian
And it does. Whenever you have competing systems that reproduce with variation and heredity.
Why are you so afraid of the words "don't know"?
When one doesn't know, isn't the only proper and honest thing to actually say that you ....don't know?
This is a textbook example of the argument of ignorance.
"don't know, therefor god"
I mean, seriously.........
That doesn't follow.....once you admit that creationism isn't science and admit that your worldview doesn't work without invoking forces that throw science out the window, you essentially admit that you have absolutely no mechanism to back your assertions...
The fact that man had a 5,000 year history of interaction with his Creator and that the lineage of the Israelites can be traced back to the first man who walked the earth does have bearing. The New Covenant offered salvation to anyone who has faith. Because faith is belief in the unproven, God no longer proves Himself to man. The spontaneous auto-creation of the universe is the new theory, and it is completely unprovable because it requires the violation of its own laws. Origination remains an impossibility. Only a Creator could bring the universe into existence.The fact that it came first has no bearing on whether or not it should be considered an acceptable model.
The problem with your theory of creation is that it is impossible.So at this point, what you're asking us to reject a model which makes numerous useful and accurate predictions and replace it with one that makes no testable predictions whatsoever.
When psychological need calls, just make an answer up.
So humble.
That is grossly simplified and nebulous. Thus, it is NOT true.
That doesn't follow.
Admitting that God is the mechanism for creation is not saying that there is no mechanism for creation.
What we have are two world views. One says there is not God; that everything that exists came about by natural forces; that all of life evolved from one cell that somehow got created by natural forces and that natural law is the controlling force in the universe.
If you are trying to represent my position or the position of various other scientists, you are seriously misrepresenting us. The position of secularists, atheists, rationalists, and scientists almost never starts with "there is not God". In fact, given everything I know, I would not make the claim that there is no god. I would not accept the claim that there is a god, and I do not believe that there is a god, but I would not make the claim that there is no god, because I know for a fact that I cannot support that claim.
The worldview you are strawmanning, at least from where I'm standing, starts with "the universe is real and we can understand it" and works from there, using the scientific method and what we've learned throughout the years to discover more and more of reality. When we are presented with claims that something exists, we ask for evidence, and for many, the evidence for the claim "God Exists" is severely lacking.
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.
I'm not sure I want to get involved in this thread, but this isn't a strawman. There's a quote about it from Richard Lewontin that's become rather famous among creationists:
Here's the source.
So Lewontin is saying that lack of belief of God is not something one concludes because there's a lack of evidence for God's existence, but rather that this is an a priori assumption for science.
Even though I'm not a creationist, I don't personally agree with this philosophy, but it's a very common one.
ou remember how in a previous thread I ceded the floor to you with regards to physics because you knew more? Yeah, I take it back, this is just hilariously wrong. Nothing in your post is actually worth discussing. It's just more of the same PRATT.
This thread is not about evolution. This seems to be something a lot of people have missed. This thread is not about evolution. It's not about the evidence for evolution, it's not about the standard scientific models of cosmology, abiogenesis, or evolution, it's not about any of that. It is purely about the models of reality creationists wish to put forward, and what evidence they can provide.
That is logical. Logical fallacy! (Man, that comeback sounded a lot cooler in my head.) Calling things "created" or "creation" and then saying "created things must have been created" is tautological question-begging. Yeah, created things were created. I don't accept that things were created, though, so we're kinda stuck. Where do we go from there? Can you demonstrate that things were created?
Is there a point to any of this? Because if so, I can't see it. It seems to be just one big fat argument from ignorance: "We don't have a good explanation, therefore god".
Don't know means no answer.
And we want and NEED an answer. NOW.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?