YECs Contradict themselves.

[Late_Cretaceous]

YECs contradict themselves when they ask the often asked question; "What use is half a wing or half a leg."


The ususal response by Evos is to refer to examples of creatures with "half wings" like Kiwis, Ostriches, Rheas or flightless bats, and creatures with "half legs" like glass lizards, congo eels (salamanders actually) or python.

To which the YEC will respond' "Oh, well all those examples have uses for muscle attachement, mating, etc."

And thereby not only answer their own question, but contractict the notion that half a wing or half a leg would be uselss or detrimental.

 

[lucaspa]

YECs contradict themselves when they ask the often asked question; "What use is half a wing or half a leg."


The ususal response by Evos is to refer to examples of creatures with "half wings" like Kiwis, Ostriches, Rheas or flightless bats, and creatures with "half legs" like glass lizards, congo eels (salamanders actually) or python.

To which the YEC will respond' "Oh, well all those examples have uses for muscle attachement, mating, etc."

And thereby not only answer their own question, but contractict the notion that half a wing or half a leg would be uselss or detrimental.

If YECs had actually read Darwin -- which they should if they are going to disagree with evolution -- they would have found this in the 6th edition of Origin in the Chapter "Difficulties with the Theory". Darwin proposed these same answers! Namely, that the half-wing or whatever was good for something else!

The irony meter pegs again!

 

[StephenHawking]

Yeah, but that little light-bulb never goes off over their heads though. They embrace the science method when it's consistent with their faith, but reject it when it differs. Kind of hypocritical huh?

 

[TheInformedOne]

You don't need to read Darwin if you are going to disagree with evolution. All you need to do is read Genesis, and believe that God did create everything, and that he didn't use evolution. If you believe the Bible, than it makes sense not to believe evolution, because I don't really think that the two theories have any place together, and theories such as God directed evolution are crazy, and were created by people who were afraid to stand up for what they believe, and would rather sit on a fence and support both sides than stand up and support truth. I believe the world is under 10,000 years old, and I have believed that all my life. If you want a solid defense of a young earth, than go check out movies by Kent Hovind, and if you don't think that a young earth viewpoint is credible(whether or not you agree with it), then you are simply ignorant. Please however notice the 'if' I placed in there, not all people who disagree with a young earth are ignorant, only those who think that the viewpoint has no credibility.
God Bless.

 

[Arikay]

are you a troll?

So far you have called the majority of christians ignorant non bible believers.

Care to try again?

 

[David Gould]

And you have pointed to Hovind as 'credible'. That immediately wipes out any credibility your post might have had.

Do you know anything about the guy?

As to dissing theist evolutionists, standard YEC tactic that adds nothing to their argument. Why do we expect anything more? (although I must admit it is a nice surprise when we do get YECs here that do not come in sputing Hovind and claiming that evolution equals atheism )

 

[Arikay]

Lets see,

Majority of christians accept evolution based on evidence.
Creationists say they are wrong and not "true christians"

Majority of creationists accept the sun as the center of the solar system, based on evidence.
Geocentrists say they are wrong and not "true christians"

Majority of Geocentrists accept the earth is round based on evidence.
Flat earthers say they are wrong and not "true christians"


seems like a common tactic.

 

[TheInformedOne]

So Arikay,you are saying that most christians think that the idea of a young earth has no credibility? I don'tknow that a majority would agree with that, since in the area where I live, I do not know of a single christian who believes anything except that the earth is young. It is a credible position, and even though a majority of people on this forum may believe the world is old,I don't believe this forum to be an accurate representation of christianity as a whole. Evolution has not been proven, will not be proven, and can not be proven. Scientists can not be sure that life can even come from non-life. There is no overwhelming evidence to support evolution,
so since their is no scientific evidence to show the young earth belief to be completely wrong, what is wrong with taking the Bible at face value,and believing God created everything without evolution? Put science aside for a minute, and answer this one question, why would God use evolution? What purpose would that serve? Since God is omnipotent, we know that he could have done it without evolution, so why should he do it? I am sorry for any offence I may have caused, but I do not see why you don't see my view as credible, seeing as it does not go against any established scientific fact. You are doing nothing more than attacking me for taking the Bible literally. Also, you don't have to believe in a young earth or old earth to be a christian. Christians can differ on points such as this. As long as we all execpt the core of our faith, things such as the Trinity and the death and Ressurection of Jesus, salvation, etc. Pentacostals and Baptists have different beliefs about if we can lose our salvation or not, but I believe both groups of believers are going to heaven. Rather than debating christians on forums about things that don't matter, and start putting all that energy into reaching a lost world for Christ. Let us not look on our differences, but rejoice in the fact that we are all one in the body of Christ, and that both Pentacostaland Baptist, YEC and OEC, and every person who believes in Jesus Christ as Lord, will one day be together in heaven, in the presence of our God. God Bless, and once again, I am sorry for any offence I have caused.

 

[Phred]

You don't need to read Darwin if you are going to disagree with evolution. All you need to do is read Genesis, and believe that God did create everything, and that he didn't use evolution.

In other words, deny the evidence and believe the literal interpreation of a 6,000 year-old fable instead. If, as you contend, God created EVERYTHING, then science is merely the study of His creation. Study of this creation shows that life evolved. Who are you to question the evidence of His creation???

If you believe the Bible, than it makes sense not to believe evolution, because I don't really think that the two theories have any place together, and theories such as God directed evolution are crazy, and were created by people who were afraid to stand up for what they believe, and would rather sit on a fence and support both sides than stand up and support truth.

All hinging on "If you believe the Bible". But believing it and believing it LITERALLY are two different things. If, in the face of evidence to the contrary you continue to assert that your belief is truth, then you're simply lying. What sort of belief insists that you lie to maintain it?

I believe the world is under 10,000 years old, and I have believed that all my life.

Then you haven't looked at the evidence. Instead, you've chosen to deny the evidence in favor of what you want to believe, not what really IS.

If you want a solid defense of a young earth, than go check out movies by Kent Hovind, and if you don't think that a young earth viewpoint is credible(whether or not you agree with it), then you are simply ignorant. Please however notice the 'if' I placed in there, not all people who disagree with a young earth are ignorant, only those who think that the viewpoint has no credibility.

And that says it all. Hovind is not credible. For so many reasons... not the least of which being his denial of evidence. Anyone who makes claims without even examining the evidence is the ignorant one. Not out of name-calling but by definition.

 

[Phred]

I do not know of a single christian who believes anything except that the earth is young. It is a credible position,

Your definition of "credible" is not the same one the rest of us are using. In order to be "credible" your position must be supported by evidence, facts, data. Not just desire to have it be so. Anyone who has actually examined the evidence cannot believe the Earth is young.

Evolution has not been proven, will not be proven, and can not be proven.

Evolution is a fact. Life evolved. As surely as objects fall. How life evolved, just as how objects fall, is a theory. But the phenomena they try to explain most surely is fact. Or will you simply continue to deny this without even considering anything beyond what someone tells you the Bible says?

Scientists can not be sure that life can even come from non-life. There is no overwhelming evidence to support evolution,
so since their is no scientific evidence to show the young earth belief to be completely wrong, what is wrong with taking the Bible at face value,and believing God created everything without evolution?

Do you ever make a claim based upon data instead of desire? There is indeed overwhelming evidence of evolution. If you'd even bothered to seek any of it out you'd be buried beneath it. Taking the Bible at face value means you also believe goats breed based upon what branches you put in front of them, rabbits chew cud, bats are birds and there are four-legged insects. Not to mention the myriad of errors and contradictions that you simply accept as true even though that's impossible. I'm sorry to be the one to tell you, but you can't accept the Bible literally AND still be credible.

Put science aside for a minute, and answer this one question, why would God use evolution? What purpose would that serve?

Why? I don't pretend to know the mind of God. I only know that's what He did... because that's what the evidence shows happened.

Since God is omnipotent, we know that he could have done it without evolution, so why should he do it? I am sorry for any offence I may have caused, but I do not see why you don't see my view as credible, seeing as it does not go against any established scientific fact
But it does, your belief does directly contradict known scientific data.

You are doing nothing more than attacking me for taking the Bible literally.

You're quite free to take the Bible literally. You're just not free to shove it in the face of known facts as a 'credible' scientific alternative. It's simply not.

There are Christians, you might have heard of their sect... Catholics? They believe that evolution is the manner in which God has acted upon this Earth. If it's not important to your core faith, why are you worried about it?

 

[Michali]

Put science aside for a minute, and answer this one question, why would God use evolution? What purpose would that serve? Since God is omnipotent, we know that he could have done it without evolution, so why should he do it?

Being that God is omni-potent, he may as well have made everything in an instant instead of a week here on Earth. The fact that He used time, and categorized it into "days" is obviously Biblical fact that God created through a process.

How can you accept these "days" of creation as earth days when there wasn't even an earth or a sun by which to measure time? These are specific divisions of time in which major events occured leading to the development of Adam and Eve.

There are loads of evidence for evolution. It does not contradict God or Jesus. But it is important for us not to force others to accept YECism. It is full of misinterpretted information, and it is basically a lie (not the truth). Besides, how could an atheistic scientist ever consider YEC? Its like telling someone they are an elephant and not a human.

 

[pureone]

Hey, back to vestigal "organs." what's wrong with having the remnants of something without use. thats the beauty of evolution. If it neither hinders nor helps your survival, then it may remain. Like an appendix.

 

[pureone]

Hey, back to vestigal "organs." what's wrong with having the remnants of something without use. thats the beauty of evolution. If it neither hinders nor helps your survival, then it may remain. Like an appendix.

there is nothing actually as a "Half-wing" All the bones are there, so it is then a wing. A small one in the case of the ostriches or moas. If something couldn't lift body weight off the ground, then it is advantagous to all the pre-moas who had small wings for running. run faster, not become lunch. smalller and smaller wings survived.

the problem is that everyone looks at evoulution as developing traits to fit the envrionment and not the other way around.

Oh, why then were we created with an organ that doesn't do anything (appendix)? seems like a waste of the creators time. he could have finished viruses a little better in that spare time.

 

[Arikay]

"So Arikay,you are saying that most christians think that the idea of a young earth has no credibility?""

yes I am.


"I don'tknow that a majority would agree with that, since in the area where I live, I do not know of a single christian who believes anything except that the earth is young."

Maybe in your area, however in the world, the majority of christians accept evolution, many people in places like the UK dont even know there are still creationists around.


"It is a credible position, and even though a majority of people on this forum may believe the world is old,I don't believe this forum to be an accurate representation of christianity as a whole."

Unfortunatly its only a credible position in philosophy (although it creates some interesting problems), however, in science it is not a credible position, and has not been for almost 200 years.


"Evolution has not been proven, will not be proven, and can not be proven."

Yes you are right, Evolution has not be "proven" 100% and can never be proven 100%. However, it has been "proven" at least as much as Germ theory. Tell me, do you ascribe to germ theory? Have you ever taken antibiotics for a cold?


"Scientists can not be sure that life can even come from non-life."

Sorry to tell you, but this is not even part of evolution. The theory of Evolution starts off after life has formed.

This would be abiogenesis, and allthough they have advanced in it, it has no where near the evidence as Evolution.

Unfortunatly some creationist organizations know this, and so they lump abiogenesis with evolution and then attack abiogenesis to try and take down evolution. This is whats called a strawman. And of course is false.

"so since their is no scientific evidence to show the young earth belief to be completely wrong,"

actually there is quite a bit. Stick around in the forum and you will probably see it. As was mentioned earlier, some of the first falsifacations of YEC believe happend almost 200 years ago, before Darwin.


"what is wrong with taking the Bible at face value,and believing God created everything without evolution?"

The problem I see is that taking the bible at face value makes the bible contradict science. Many anti christians love it when people do this as it makes it so easy to try and falsify the bible and destroy christianity.

Wether you believe god did or didn't, it doesn't change the facts that it happens. Even creationists admit that there was quite a bit of creation through evolution.


"Put science aside for a minute, and answer this one question, why would God use evolution?"

I dont know.
here is a question,
If god did not use evolution and did not create an old earth, how come All the evidence in gods creation points that way?


"I am sorry for any offence I may have caused, but I do not see why you don't see my view as credible, seeing as it does not go against any established scientific fact."

No offense to me. Creationism does go against quite a bit of established scientific fact.

"Also, you don't have to believe in a young earth or old earth to be a christian."

Glad to hear that.

[snip]

 

[David Gould]

To back up what Arikay said, most people in Australia do not even know that people still exist who believe that the Earth is young.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

To back up what Arikay said, most people in Australia do not even know that people still exist who believe that the Earth is young.

Ditto with Canada. Before taking an interest in theology, I would never have imagined that people could believe the world is only 6000 years old. Then I find out that a whole lot of Americans believe that.

(It's practically culture shock, I tell you.)

 

[ObbiQuiet]

Ditto with Canada. Before taking an interest in theology, I would never have imagined that could believe the world is only 6000 years old. Then I find out that almost a whole lot of Americans believe that.

(It's practically culture shock, I tell you.)

It is. It's like people who believe the earth is flat - you'd think that possibly in some 3rd world country with no educational system, MAYBE - but not in america.

 

[pureone]

It is. It's like people who believe the earth is flat - you'd think that possibly in some 3rd world country with no educational system, MAYBE - but not in america.

precisely because it is the US. our grassroots system of checking what is taught in schools (i.e namely looking for offensive material) then allows pockets of religios groups to determine what the "truth" in schools in their areashould be... not everyone in the nation.

Story: Last spring semester I had a Physics professor (he hastwo kids betwwen 20-25, tells you approx his age) who was very intersting. He told us that he learned to read from the bible in the hills of tennessee.

there are still pockets where the schooling is minimal, and to add to that, often people send their children to private christian schools for kid school and teen school. in this fashion the schools themselves can determine what is taught. Our "Standards" (if you could call them that)that kids must pass are very low and only in english, math and history (modern euro and american) foreign languages (besides english and spanish) do not exist for the most part. Even the catholic schools quit teaching latin. Students cannot name and find all 50 states, much less tell where the Phillipines are. Some don't even know where Canada is or what languages are spoken there. how can you ask these kids to make an informed decision about science or evidence when they have rarely come across it?
It is our freedon of choice and democracy at the base level which has led to this situation..ugh..

I even found a modern reprint of a book describing the "Hollow Earth theory", which I prefer to flat earth theory. we still get to have a "round" earth, but its empty in the middle.