An emotional argument

An emotional argument (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

falcnjet -> An emotional argument (7/20/2008 10:49:52 AM)
This is my first post, and as a Christian interested in this topic I have to say that this forum is no different than most on this subject. People, especially Christians, have strong feelings on matters related to origins. So much so that the discussion gets disrespectful very quickly. I would encourage everyone to be respectful of other Christians in their comments. The world has sold us very hard on a lie for a long time, and from every quarter. The secular rallying cry seems to be, “Creationism is not science, it’s religion.” We hear this constantly from media, academia and science sources. You may be surprised that I don't think that’s far off the mark. The doctrine of creation is not science, I'll just concede that. But the idea of creation, in itself, isn’t really religion, either. Creation is a paradigm, or a philosophical belief that all things must have a beginning, that complexity comes only from intelligence, so since the earth abounds with complex life and complex laws and systems, there must have originally been an intelligent Creator. Not science; a philosophical explanation of how the things we see today got to be the way they are. But these same sources also say, “Evolution is science”. But is it? When you think it through with an open mind, evolution is just like Creation in that it’s also a philosophical belief system. It is based on the paradigm, or philosophical belief, that there is not, and cannot be a God, so all things must have a natural explanation. Whether or not you believe that the two philosophies can be integrated, evolution is a philosophy based on this assumption, and all explanations of origins that it generates come from a materialist point of view, never for a moment allowing for the possibility of a supernatural explanation (or even a natural one that's consistent with scripture). So because of its philosophical commitment to a paradigm, evolution is not science either. It is an effort to explain the past without God. This is true whether or not one believes it is consistent with being a bible-believing Christian. Neither paradigm is "science" as such. Science is the tool with which we try to explain our world. It's not a term properly applied to a philosophy about the past. If you hold the tenets of evolution and the tenets of creation up against logic, or up against any given scientific evidence, you will always find that creation’s tenets are consistent with the evidence. You will often find that the tenets of evolution are illogical and don’t really fit. Every single piece of evidence ever found on God’s Earth, when properly understood, speaks at least as loudly in support of the narrative Creation account in the Bible, as it does of the hypothesis of evolution. Most fit the Creation/Flood scenario much better. So which philosophy requires more faith? The reason the world doesn’t seem to know this, is that unlike evolutionists, believers in Creation aren’t out there publicizing everything they find as “proof” of creation. No evidence found in the present can ever actually prove either paradigm. This is because scientific evidence can only support the possibility that one or the other of the explanations of the past is true. In order to prove that your explanation of the past is correct, you would have to have historical evidence of that fact -- like an eyewitness, or a written account (sound familiar?). In other words, if you look at a fossil, or a geological stratum, you may be able to justifiably say, “This very well could have come about in this way.” But no matter how convinced of the probability of that you may be, you can never say you have proved it because it happened in the past, and it is unrepeatable. The truth is that even if you could repeat it in the present, you would not have proved that it happened that way in the past. While God has made his world discoverable, and I believe delights in our discovery of it, he also values faith. We can’t prove creation. But we can use observational science to show that what we see today is much more consistent with our faith than it is with the faith-based theory of evolution. I'd be happy to discuss these ideas with anyone who is honestly seeking the truth in this forum. There is much exciting evidence in the present that God's word can be trusted. I find it exhilarating to be a Christian in a time when science is revealing time and time again that the inspired writers of God's word never erred, and never misled, even about things they could not possibly have known anything about. With love in Christ, Don Wilson

theo_book -> RE: An emotional argument (7/20/2008 11:57:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: falcnjet This is my first post, and as a Christian interested in this topic I have to say that this forum is no different than most on this subject. People, especially Christians, have strong feelings on matters related to origins. So much so that the discussion gets disrespectful very quickly. I would encourage everyone to be respectful of other Christians in their comments. (theo-book) Welcome to the board. Very stimulating post. Couple of questions though. quote: (falcnjet) The world has sold us very hard on a lie for a long time, and from every quarter. The secular rallying cry seems to be, “Creationism is not science, it’s religion.” We hear this constantly from media, academia and science sources. You may be surprised that I don't think that’s far off the mark. The doctrine of creation is not science, I'll just concede that. But the idea of creation, in itself, isn’t really religion, either. (theo) O.K. first question: "Creation in itself isn't really religion." Agreed, but isn't "belief in a creator" religion? Can you make the distinction between "belief in a creator" WITHOUT "belief in a creation?" quote: (falcnjet) Creation is a paradigm, or a philosophical belief that all things must have a beginning, that complexity comes only from intelligence, so since the earth abounds with complex life and complex laws and systems, there must have originally been an intelligent Creator. (theo) 2nd question: "Complexity comes only from intelligence" requires intelligent creator. Could it be that the paradigm is misstated? Perhaps the intelligence is to be found within the parameter of the understanding, instead of the production. IOW, complex evolution would require intelligence to comprehend what it is that is under consideration. quote: (falcnjet) But these same sources also say, “Evolution is science”. But is it? When you think it through with an open mind, evolution is just like Creation in that it’s also a philosophical belief system. (theo) Is it possible science itself IS religion? Science (Geometry: a math science) expects us to believe that what I can see does not exist; i.,e., "a line has no width, a point has no dimension." And at the same time, another branch of science insists that I believe that what I cannot see is really there; i,.e., atoms, quarks, mesons, and all the little no-see-ums of the scientific community. Both science and religion have a deity; i.e., Jehovah and Darwin. Both have prophets; i.e, Moses and The Professors. Both have elements of heresy; i,.e., Christianity, and students who dare to question in class. Both have temples; i.e., glorious places of worship, grand centers of academia. And the list of similarities goes on ad infinitum. quote: (falcnjet) It is based on the paradigm, or philosophical belief, that there is not, and cannot be a God, so all things must have a natural explanation. (theo) But are the two mutually exclusive? I have known some who practice the religion of science who believe also in God. quote: (falcnjet) Whether or not you believe that the two philosophies can be integrated, evolution is a philosophy based on this assumption, and all explanations of origins that it generates come from a materialist point of view, never for a moment allowing for the possibility of a supernatural explanation (or even a natural one that's consistent with scripture). (theo) Why would ANYTHING natural be expected to be consistent with scripture. Is not scripture itself from beyond the natural? quote: (falcnjet) So because of its philosophical commitment to a paradigm, evolution is not science either. It is an effort to explain the past without God. This is true whether or not one believes it is consistent with being a bible-believing Christian. Neither paradigm is "science" as such. Science is the tool with which we try to explain our world. It's not a term properly applied to a philosophy about the past. If you hold the tenets of evolution and the tenets of creation up against logic, or up against any given scientific evidence, you will always find that creation’s tenets are consistent with the evidence. You will often find that the tenets of evolution are illogical and don’t really fit. Every single piece of evidence ever found on God’s Earth, when properly understood, speaks at least as loudly in support of the narrative Creation account in the Bible, as it does of the hypothesis of evolution. Most fit the Creation/Flood scenario much better. So which philosophy requires more faith? (theo) Isn't the phrase" when properly understood" usable by both camps? quote: (falcnjet) The reason the world doesn’t seem to know this, is that unlike evolutionists, believers in Creation aren’t out there publicizing everything they find as “proof” of creation. No evidence found in the present can ever actually prove either paradigm. This is because scientific evidence can only support the possibility that one or the other of the explanations of the past is true. In order to prove that your explanation of the past is correct, you would have to have historical evidence of that fact -- like an eyewitness, or a written account (sound familiar?). In other words, if you look at a fossil, or a geological stratum, you may be able to justifiably say, “This very well could have come about in this way.” But no matter how convinced of the probability of that you may be, you can never say you have proved it because it happened in the past, and it is unrepeatable. The truth is that even if you could repeat it in the present, you would not have proved that it happened that way in the past. (theo) Isn't it also true that if you CANNOT repeat it in the present, you would not have proved that it DID NOT happen that way in the past? quote: (falcnjet) While God has made his world discoverable, and I believe delights in our discovery of it, he also values faith. We can’t prove creation. But we can use observational science to show that what we see today is much more consistent with our faith than it is with the faith-based theory of evolution. I'd be happy to discuss these ideas with anyone who is honestly seeking the truth in this forum. There is much exciting evidence in the present that God's word can be trusted. I find it exhilarating to be a Christian in a time when science is revealing time and time again that the inspired writers of God's word never erred, and never misled, even about things they could not possibly have known anything about. With love in Christ, Don Wilson (theo) I think your post demonstrates a point I attempted to establish on another thread; i.e., testimony is the best evidence. The testimony of scripture is better than the experiments of science, because the experiment still requires testimony to share the experiment with others. And the testimony of scripture does not have anyone with equal qualifications with the author, to contradict what he has to say.

essentialsaltes -> RE: An emotional argument (7/20/2008 12:49:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: falcnjet But these same sources also say, “Evolution is science”. But is it? When you think it through with an open mind, evolution is just like Creation in that it’s also a philosophical belief system. No, it is science. quote: It is based on the paradigm, or philosophical belief, that there is not, and cannot be a God, so all things must have a natural explanation. This is false. Evolution makes no claims about the existence or non-existence of gods. Evolution is not based on any assumption about gods. Evolution is based on evidence & the scientific method. quote: Science is the tool with which we try to explain our world. It's not a term properly applied to a philosophy about the past. Although I agree science is not a philosophy, it can and does make statements about the past. quote: If you hold the tenets of evolution and the tenets of creation up against logic, or up against any given scientific evidence, you will always find that creation’s tenets are consistent with the evidence. Are creation's tenets consistent with the evidence of radiometric dating, which demonstrates that the earth is billions of years old? You may choose to disregard the evidence for radiometric dating, claiming that it is unreliable for some reason or other, but this is not the same as young earth creationism being consistent with the evidence. quote: The reason the world doesn’t seem to know this, is that unlike evolutionists, believers in Creation aren’t out there publicizing everything they find as “proof” of creation. On the contrary, the Discovery Institute, the Creation Museum, ICR, and many individual creationists take their results directly to the people, through press releases, popular books, and talks. Conspicuously, they do not present their results in peer-reviewed science journals. Conversely, legions of evolutionary scientists will never have their work presented in so much as a newspaper article in the popular press, though they may have made contributions to the field through scholarly journals. quote: No evidence found in the present can ever actually prove either paradigm. This much is true - there is no proof in science. However, evolution has a great deal of evidence on its side, while naive young-earth creationism has been falsified. It is in direct conflict with the evidence. The only way to save YEC is to ignore (rather than explain) the contrary evidence. quote: I'd be happy to discuss these ideas with anyone who is honestly seeking the truth in this forum. There is much exciting evidence in the present that God's word can be trusted. I find it exhilarating to be a Christian in a time when science is revealing time and time again that the inspired writers of God's word never erred, and never misled, even about things they could not possibly have known anything about. We would all be interested to hear of the scientific results of which you speak. New voices are always welcome.

gluadys -> RE: An emotional argument (7/20/2008 1:25:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: falcnjet This is my first post, and as a Christian interested in this topic I have to say that this forum is no different than most on this subject. People, especially Christians, have strong feelings on matters related to origins. So much so that the discussion gets disrespectful very quickly. I would encourage everyone to be respectful of other Christians in their comments. I concur. One can deal with the real issues so much more forthrightly when conversing respectfully. quote: The world has sold us very hard on a lie for a long time, and from every quarter. The secular rallying cry seems to be, “Creationism is not science, it’s religion.” We hear this constantly from media, academia and science sources. You may be surprised that I don't think that’s far off the mark. The doctrine of creation is not science, I'll just concede that. But the idea of creation, in itself, isn’t really religion, either. Creation is a paradigm, or a philosophical belief that all things must have a beginning, that complexity comes only from intelligence, so since the earth abounds with complex life and complex laws and systems, there must have originally been an intelligent Creator. So I am going to respectfully disagree with you here. I don't think creation is a philosophy. It is a doctrine revealed by God and accepted by faith. Indeed the idea that all things must have a beginning is a declaration of faith, not of philosophy (reason). One cannot get to this conclusion by reason alone. It has to be revealed and since it must be revealed, the only way to receive it is by faith. Philosophy offers the option that matter and energy are eternal in themselves. And this is not a new idea either. Ancient pagan beliefs often reversed the biblical scenario in which an eternal God creates a universe. In those beliefs, primordial matter is eternal, and this eternal primordial stuff begets the gods--who may be immortal, but not eternal, for the gods had their beginning in this universe which preceded them. The great Christian theologian Aquinas also agreed, following Aristotle, that by reason alone, we can conclude that the universe was always here without a beginning. It is God who has revealed to us that the world of sense and matter is not eternal--that it is a creation. Reason does not and cannot tell us this. It is revealed truth accepted by faith. quote: But these same sources also say, “Evolution is science”. But is it? When you think it through with an open mind, evolution is just like Creation in that it’s also a philosophical belief system. It is based on the paradigm, or philosophical belief, that there is not, and cannot be a God, so all things must have a natural explanation. Evolution is science, not philosophy. Every attempt to assert that evolution is a philosophy is based on a falsehood. You repeat that falsehood here, but I will accord you the benefit of the doubt that you did so unintentionally, not knowing that it is a falsehood. What is the falsehood? It is the last sentence in the segment above. "[Evolution] is based on the paradigm or philosophical belief that there is not and cannot be a God." This statement--I must repeat this emphatically--this statement is entirely false. The theory of evolution is based, like all scientific theories, on evidence in the natural world. The theory of evolution does not depend on a denial of the existence of God. The theory of evolution does not depend on a denial of the doctrine of creation. The theory of evolution does not depend on a denial of miracles. The theory of evolution does not depend on a belief that all things must have a natural explanation. How do we know this? We know it because thousands of people who believe in God and creation accept the theory of evolution and some of them are even biologists who work with evolution every day of their lives. I am not a biologist or even a scientist, but I am a Christian and I do find the scientific evidence supportive of evolution. I do not find that this necessitates any denial of God, creation, miracles or scripture. Nor do I find myself unique among Christians. Most of the Christians I know personally accept evolution for the well-established scientific theory it is without any compromise to their faith. quote: If you hold the tenets of evolution and the tenets of creation up against logic, or up against any given scientific evidence, you will always find that creation’s tenets are consistent with the evidence. This would depend on what you consider to be "creation's tenets". Are there any tenets of creation that can be studied via physical evidence? quote: You will often find that the tenets of evolution are illogical and don’t really fit. Again, this would depend on what you consider to be the "tenets of evolution" (btw, you have my undying gratitude for spelling 'tenets" correctly. It is very aggravating to see it so often confused with 'tenants'.) In this respect, one needs to be sure that an alleged tenet of evolution is really a tenet of evolution. The tenet that "all things must have a natural explanation" for example is NOT a tenet of evolution. quote: Every single piece of evidence ever found on God’s Earth, when properly understood, speaks at least as loudly in support of the narrative Creation account in the Bible, as it does of the hypothesis of evolution. Most fit the Creation/Flood scenario much better. Two comments here: First, what do you understand by "narrative" and what conclusions do you draw from the fact that the Genesis accounts are narratives. (Warning: my field of expertise is literature and "narrative" is a category of literature. I find many students of scripture are weak in their understanding of literature generally and of the literature of the bible.) Second, as far as the rest of your statements go, these are broad claims that can only be supported by examination of specific details. Are you prepared to consider such an examination? Do you have the relevant background to do so? Otherwise, these claims are meaningless. quote: The reason the world doesn’t seem to know this, is that unlike evolutionists, believers in Creation aren’t out there publicizing everything they find as “proof” of creation. If they want their views accepted as science, that is exactly what they ought to be doing: publicizing everything they find as evidence (not proof) of creation without evolution. quote: This is because scientific evidence can only support the possibility that one or the other of the explanations of the past is true. In order to prove that your explanation of the past is correct, you would have to have historical evidence of that fact -- like an eyewitness, or a written account (sound familiar?). In other words, if you look at a fossil, or a geological stratum, you may be able to justifiably say, “This very well could have come about in this way.” But no matter how convinced of the probability of that you may be, you can never say you have proved it because it happened in the past, and it is unrepeatable. The truth is that even if you could repeat it in the present, you would not have proved that it happened that way in the past. Science can also show that one possibility is false. Or there can be massive evidence for one possibility and none for the other. Furthermore, a fossil is historical evidence, just as much as a diary is. We can go deeper into what fossils can and cannot tell us if you are interested. quote: While God has made his world discoverable, and I believe delights in our discovery of it, he also values faith. We can’t prove creation. But we can use observational science to show that what we see today is much more consistent with our faith than it is with the faith-based theory of evolution. Best of all, once we recognize that evolution is not anti-God or anti-creation, we can have both evolution and creation as two sides of the same coin. We can see "creation" as a theological truth about evolution and "evolution" as a scientific description of creation. quote: I'd be happy to discuss these ideas with anyone who is honestly seeking the truth in this forum. There is much exciting evidence in the present that God's word can be trusted. I find it exhilarating to be a Christian in a time when science is revealing time and time again that the inspired writers of God's word never erred, and never misled, even about things they could not possibly have known anything about. If we treat their writings as scientific treatises, they certainly erred. But if we treat their writings in terms of their own purposes and God's purposes, then they do not err or mislead.

falcnjet -> RE: An emotional argument (7/20/2008 2:49:51 PM)
Thanks for the thoughtful and interesting replies. quote: isn't "belief in a creator" religion? Can you make the distinction between "belief in a creator" WITHOUT "belief in a creation? Religion can be defined a lot of ways. Let’s say belief in a Creator is a faith-based belief system, just as is belief in a random, accidental collision of molecules bringing about all we see. quote: "Complexity comes only from intelligence" requires intelligent creator. Could it be that the paradigm is misstated? Perhaps the intelligence is to be found within the parameter of the understanding, instead of the production. IOW, complex evolution would require intelligence to comprehend what it is that is under consideration. I confess and apologize that it’s hard for me to fully grasp your meaning here. But if I do understand, it sounds like you’re equating the intelligence necessary to understand the processes of evolution with the intelligence necessary to create. If so, these are vastly different. Firstly, one comes after the fact, and one before. Second, the intelligence necessary to create matter from nothing (let alone staggeringly complex matter that obeys staggeringly complex laws) is an intelligence that by simple logic, must be greater than what it has created. The level of intelligence required to understand, to some degree, how this creation works doesn’t compare in the slightest. I hope I understood you correctly. quote: Is it possible science itself IS religion? Science (Geometry: a math science) expects us to believe that what I can see does not exist; i.,e., "a line has no width, a point has no dimension." And at the same time, another branch of science insists that I believe that what I cannot see is really there; i,.e., atoms, quarks, mesons, and all the little no-see-ums of the scientific community. Well, as I said, there are a lot of ways to define religion. But there are a lot of concepts in life that are not tangible, yet completely believable. And we also know that our senses sometimes fool us, so we often disregard our senses in favor of what we know to be true. I should point out that this is an ability unique to humans, who are made in God’s image. I wouldn’t think that all such things could be called religion. quote: Both science and religion have a deity; i.e., Jehovah and Darwin. Both have prophets; i.e, Moses and The Professors. Both have elements of heresy; i,.e., Christianity, and students who dare to question in class. Both have temples; i.e., glorious places of worship, grand centers of academia. And the list of similarities goes on ad infinitum. I don’t think anyone on either side of the argument sees Darwin as a deity, or academic evolutionists as prophets. Regarding heresy and temples: hmm, interesting concept. But truly I think it’s off point. quote: But are the two mutually exclusive? I have known some who practice the religion of science who believe also in God. In no way do I mean to imply that science and a belief in God are mutually exclusive. One would have to have his head deep in the sand to not believe in science. But this is an important point: Operational science deals with repeatable processes in the present. We discover new information about our world in this way every day. And as I said, these new discoveries are always consistent with what God has said in His word. When it comes to applying science to ancient history, science is capable only of hypothesizing about how evidence seen today got to be the way it is. Every scientist, just like every other person, has belief systems in place before analyzing the evidence. If evolution is believed to be the driving force behind everything, then the hypothesis will be based on that belief. If a scientist begins with a firm belief that the plain meaning of scripture is true, then he will base his hypothesis on that. The idea that scientists go wherever the evidence leads is only true within the framework of their presuppositions. To think anything else is naive. quote: Why would ANYTHING natural be expected to be consistent with scripture. Is not scripture itself from beyond the natural? This may just be a little communication problem. In other words, I may not understand you properly, so forgive me if that’s the case. EVERYTHING natural is consistent with scripture. If scripture is the word of the Creator, then it would be consistent with everything He created. Just to be sure we’re talking about the same thing, let me give an example: We see in nature lots of layers of sedimentary rock under our surface environment. Evolutionists claim that this is due to millions of years of slow sedimentation occurring at mostly the same rate it does today. Creation scientists, who begin by believing God’s word, have shown that such sedimentation can occur, and has occurred, in mere hours, and that in a massive water event, sediments of different density sort themselves out into layers of similar density. So, knowing this, it’s not hard to see that a worldwide flood would result in vast areas of sedimentation over all the continents of the earth. This is a NATURAL event, consistent with and supporting what scripture has to say. quote: Isn't the phrase" when properly understood" usable by both camps? Certainly both camps can use any phrase they wish, but the difference is that evolutionists, as they begin to “properly understand” evidence, change and modify their beliefs about the evidence to align it with their improved understanding. Now there is nothing wrong with this from a human perspective. Because we are limited beings, we must be ready to change our minds as our understanding improves. But God’s understanding does not improve. As the Creator, He knows everything. So what He has told us has never had to be modified, and it never will have to be. The more we understand, the more we see how God’s word is true. quote: Isn't it also true that if you CANNOT repeat it in the present, you would not have proved that it DID NOT happen that way in the past? Completely true. No one can prove, in an operational science sense of the word, that anything did or did not happen in the past (except for some basic things). The more complex the historical process would have to be, the less likely any explanation of it can be trusted. As Christians though, we don’t have to fully understand something to know that it’s true if it is dealt with in scripture. The bible claims inerrancy, and we either believe it or we don’t. You said it yourself, “The testimony of scripture is better than the experiments of science.” Thanks again for the discussion!

falcnjet -> RE: An emotional argument (7/20/2008 3:34:17 PM)
Hello there, essentialsaltes. Thanks for your reply. quote: No, it is science. Well, a statement without supporting evidence is just a statement. But what I mean to say when I say that evolution is not a science per se, is that science is used in an effort to support evolution, but evolution itself is a historical hypothesis about how things came to be the way they are today. In that sense, it is on equal footing with any other such hypothesis. Where science comes in, is in the attempt to convince others that the hypothesis is an accurate representation of truth. quote: This is false. Evolution makes no claims about the existence or non-existence of gods. Evolution is not based on any assumption about gods. Evolution is based on evidence & the scientific method. With respect, this indicates a misunderstanding of the scientific method. The scientific method applies only to operational science; the testing of repeatable processes in the present. It cannot be applied to historical science because the processes that are being explained cannot be repeated in the present. It may be technically true that evolution makes no claims regarding God, but its also true that Creation makes no claims regarding Buddha. It's clear from what the bible says that Buddha's beliefs are not consistent with it. It's also clear from evolutionist claims, that there is no room for the account of Creation, or the God of the bible in it. It is also clear from the fact that virtually every atheist supports it. This is a straw man argument forcing the opposing camp to defend the obvious. quote: On the contrary, the Discovery Institute, the Creation Museum, ICR, and many individual creationists take their results directly to the people, through press releases, popular books, and talks. Conspicuously, they do not present their results in peer-reviewed science journals. Conversely, legions of evolutionary scientists will never have their work presented in so much as a newspaper article in the popular press, though they may have made contributions to the field through scholarly journals. Well, I don't know where to begin here. Firstly, many who read this forum will never have heard of the Discovery Institue or Answers In Genesis (the ministry behind the Creation Museum), or ICR (Institute for Creation Research), or at least they will not have a good familiarity with them. Everyone has been exposed to The Discovery Channel, The History Channel, daily newspapers, TV news shows, National Geographic, Time, Newsweek, and so on. This doesn't count the many so-called peer reviewed journals that you mention. Evolution is everywhere, and it seems every new discovery fully supports it and gets reported on. You don't see people picking up Answers Magazine in the doctor's office, but you can bet some of these others are there. Now regarding peer reviewed journals: In order to have an article pass peer review, it must agree with the paradigm of the reviewers. Creation scientists have been rebuffed at every turn since peer review was instituted. Professors are fired from colleges for having Creationist ideas. Not long ago, one was fired from the Smithsonian simply for allowing an article sympathetic to intelligent design to be published. Lack of peer review is not a justification for disregarding Creation science literature. (Note for those readers that are truly interested in these matters: the Creation science community, made up of thousands of Ph.D. scientists and others, are now developing a peer review system of their own to insure scientific accuracy in their published articles.) I don't know about these "legions" of evolutionary scientists who can't get published, but if their material is at all scientifically supportable (or even plausible), they are not trying very hard. quote: evolution has a great deal of evidence on its side, while naive young-earth creationism has been falsified. It is in direct conflict with the evidence. The only way to save YEC is to ignore (rather than explain) the contrary evidence. Falsified by whom? In direct conflict with what evidence? In what way do young-earth creationists ignore evidence? You've opened the door; give me some examples. quote: We would all be interested to hear of the scientific results of which you speak. New voices are always welcome. Thanks for the encouragement. God bless you as you seek answers.

Veritas -> RE: An emotional argument (7/20/2008 4:23:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: falcnjet quote: Why would ANYTHING natural be expected to be consistent with scripture. Is not scripture itself from beyond the natural? This may just be a little communication problem. In other words, I may not understand you properly, so forgive me if that’s the case. EVERYTHING natural is consistent with scripture. If scripture is the word of the Creator, then it would be consistent with everything He created. Just to be sure we’re talking about the same thing, let me give an example: We see in nature lots of layers of sedimentary rock under our surface environment. Evolutionists claim that this is due to millions of years of slow sedimentation occurring at mostly the same rate it does today. Creation scientists, who begin by believing God’s word, have shown that such sedimentation can occur, and has occurred, in mere hours, and that in a massive water event, sediments of different density sort themselves out into layers of similar density. So, knowing this, it’s not hard to see that a worldwide flood would result in vast areas of sedimentation over all the continents of the earth. This is a NATURAL event, consistent with and supporting what scripture has to say. If the sediments were sorted by density, that would support a global flood. However, since the sediments are NOT sorted by density, the evidence is not consistent with a global flood.

theo_book -> RE: An emotional argument (7/20/2008 5:11:41 PM)
quote: (theo) isn't "belief in a creator" religion? Can you make the distinction between "belief in a creator" WITHOUT "belief in a creation? (falcnjet) Religion can be defined a lot of ways. Let’s say belief in a Creator is a faith-based belief system, just as is belief in a random, accidental collision of molecules bringing about all we see. (theo) But your original statement was "But the idea of creation, in itself, isn’t really religion, either." How do you differentiate between a "faith-based belief system" and "religion?" It was my conclusion that a "faith-based belief system" IS religion. quote: (theo) "Complexity comes only from intelligence" requires intelligent creator. Could it be that the paradigm is misstated? Perhaps the intelligence is to be found within the parameter of the understanding, instead of the production. IOW, complex evolution would require intelligence to comprehend what it is that is under consideration. (falcnjet) I confess and apologize that it’s hard for me to fully grasp your meaning here. But if I do understand, it sounds like you’re equating the intelligence necessary to understand the processes of evolution with the intelligence necessary to create. If so, these are vastly different. Firstly, one comes after the fact, and one before. (theo) So if I understand YOU correctly, you are saying the timing of the "fact" (the difference between "before" and "after" the fact) has a vast effect upon the degree of intelligence involved? quote: (falcnjet) Second, the intelligence necessary to create matter from nothing (let alone staggeringly complex matter that obeys staggeringly complex laws) is an intelligence that by simple logic, must be greater than what it has created. The level of intelligence required to understand, to some degree, how this creation works doesn’t compare in the slightest. I hope I understood you correctly. (theo) Is there such a category of complexity as "Staggeringly?" How does it differ from "complexity?" Are the laws of understanding the same for both? quote: (theo) Is it possible science itself IS religion? Science (Geometry: a math science) expects us to believe that what I can see does not exist; i.,e., "a line has no width, a point has no dimension." And at the same time, another branch of science insists that I believe that what I cannot see is really there; i,.e., atoms, quarks, mesons, and all the little no-see-ums of the scientific community. (falcnjet) Well, as I said, there are a lot of ways to define religion. But there are a lot of concepts in life that are not tangible, yet completely believable. And we also know that our senses sometimes fool us, so we often disregard our senses in favor of what we know to be true. I should point out that this is an ability unique to humans, who are made in God’s image. I wouldn’t think that all such things could be called religion. (theo) So if I understand you correctly, you would make a difference between a fact of believing something, and an organized system of belief in something. quote: (theo) Both science and religion have a deity; i.e., Jehovah and Darwin. Both have prophets; i.e, Moses and The Professors. Both have elements of heresy; i,.e., Christianity, and students who dare to question in class. Both have temples; i.e., glorious places of worship, grand centers of academia. And the list of similarities goes on ad infinitum. (falcnjet) I don’t think anyone on either side of the argument sees Darwin as a deity, or academic evolutionists as prophets. Regarding heresy and temples: hmm, interesting concept. But truly I think it’s off point. (theo) Hmmm??? When I see people disagreeing with Jehovah's account, and quoting Darwin as their authority, I either have to assume they think Darwin is equated with a deity, or the quoter has lost his/her everlovin' mind. quote: (theo) But are the two mutually exclusive? I have known some who practice the religion of science who believe also in God. (falcnjet) In no way do I mean to imply that science and a belief in God are mutually exclusive. One would have to have his head deep in the sand to not believe in science. But this is an important point: Operational science deals with repeatable processes in the present. We discover new information about our world in this way every day. And as I said, these new discoveries are always consistent with what God has said in His word. When it comes to applying science to ancient history, science is capable only of hypothesizing about how evidence seen today got to be the way it is. Every scientist, just like every other person, has belief systems in place before analyzing the evidence. If evolution is believed to be the driving force behind everything, then the hypothesis will be based on that belief. If a scientist begins with a firm belief that the plain meaning of scripture is true, then he will base his hypothesis on that. The idea that scientists go wherever the evidence leads is only true within the framework of their presuppositions. To think anything else is naive. (theo) So the reality is that presupposition goes both ways. Presupposition favouring a Jehovah deity brings one response; presupposition favouring a Darwin deity brings another response? quote: (theo) Why would ANYTHING natural be expected to be consistent with scripture. Is not scripture itself from beyond the natural? (falcnjet) This may just be a little communication problem. In other words, I may not understand you properly, so forgive me if that’s the case. EVERYTHING natural is consistent with scripture. If scripture is the word of the Creator, then it would be consistent with everything He created. (theo) But my question was "Is not scripture itself "BEYOND THE NATURAL?" In other words, how can ANY communication from beyond nature, to nature, be considered natural? quote: (falcnjet) Just to be sure we’re talking about the same thing, let me give an example: We see in nature lots of layers of sedimentary rock under our surface environment. Evolutionists claim that this is due to millions of years of slow sedimentation occurring at mostly the same rate it does today. Creation scientists, who begin by believing God’s word, have shown that such sedimentation can occur, and has occurred, in mere hours, and that in a massive water event, sediments of different density sort themselves out into layers of similar density. So, knowing this, it’s not hard to see that a worldwide flood would result in vast areas of sedimentation over all the continents of the earth. This is a NATURAL event, consistent with and supporting what scripture has to say. (theo) Well, I agree wtih that analysis, but then is it because it is true, or because I presupposed it? quote: (theo) Isn't the phrase" when properly understood" usable by both camps? Certainly both camps can use any phrase they wish, but the difference is that evolutionists, as they begin to “properly understand” evidence, change and modify their beliefs about the evidence to align it with their improved understanding. Now there is nothing wrong with this from a human perspective. Because we are limited beings, we must be ready to change our minds as our understanding improves. But God’s understanding does not improve. As the Creator, He knows everything. So what He has told us has never had to be modified, and it never will have to be. The more we understand, the more we see how God’s word is true. (theo) But "God's understanding" is not the issue, is it? Isn't OUR understanding of God the issue?" And while I cannot speak for others, my understanding of God's communication changes all the time. This is not a change with every wind of doctrine, but simply a deeper understanding of some principles as I consider some of the revelations from God. quote: (theo) Isn't it also true that if you CANNOT repeat it in the present, you would not have proved that it DID NOT happen that way in the past? (falcnjet) Completely true. No one can prove, in an operational science sense of the word, that anything did or did not happen in the past (except for some basic things). The more complex the historical process would have to be, the less likely any explanation of it can be trusted. As Christians though, we don’t have to fully understand something to know that it’s true if it is dealt with in scripture. The bible claims inerrancy, and we either believe it or we don’t. You said it yourself, “The testimony of scripture is better than the experiments of science.” (theo) But you are not saying we don't have to understand the scriptures to take a position based therein, are you? Thank you for taking the time to respond.

drj11 -> RE: An emotional argument (7/20/2008 5:15:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: falcnjet Professors are fired from colleges for having Creationist ideas. Not long ago, one was fired from the Smithsonian simply for allowing an article sympathetic to intelligent design to be published. Sounds like you watched expelled. It would be putting it in the gentlest of terms to say they simply misrepresented those alleged 'firings'. Read this for the real stories

gluadys -> RE: An emotional argument (7/20/2008 5:17:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: falcnjet ... but evolution itself is a historical hypothesis about how things came to be the way they are today. To the extent this is true, this doesn't make evolution different from any other science. However, it is also not quite accurate that evolution is a historical hypothesis--at least not primarily. I am not sure that I am using exactly his terminology, but Michael Ruse has suggested that we really need to look at evolution in three ways: as a fact, as a theory and as a history. The fact is that species change over time. Evolution happens. This has been so widely observed andso well documented that the fact can no longer be denied except by denying reality itself. The theory deals with how species change over time. It deals with mechanisms like natural selection, generation of new alleles, what helps and hinders gene flow, conditions of speciation and the like. For scientists, this is the core meaning of "the theory of evolution". It is a matter of process. And this process is ongoing everywhere in the present and has also been studied over and over again. Any process which continues over time will have a history and its effects will be evident in historical remnants of the process. So we can also consider the actual historical pathways taken by evolving species through time. However, it is important to note that this is a consequence of the fact that evolution is a process. It is not a premise of the theory. In fact, when looking at the history of species, one begins with the process--the heart of the theory--and asks: what should we expect in terms of a historical record if this process has been continuing through time? So the process-focused theory has to be in place before one can begin investigating the history. One has to understand the process in order to visualize what kind of history would be consistent with it and what kind of history would be inconsistent with it. So, important as the historical factor is, it is secondary to the process. One does not begin with a history and say "hey, look, evolution!" One begins by establishing how evolution happens and then says "Ok, what does this mean for natural history?" The history of evolution comes from exploring that question, and looking for/finding evidence that helps establish the actual historical course of the evolutionary process. So the history of evolution is more a conclusion than a hypothesis.

falcnjet -> RE: An emotional argument (7/20/2008 5:31:25 PM)
Explain.

falcnjet -> RE: An emotional argument (7/20/2008 5:46:00 PM)
quote: The fact is that species change over time. Evolution happens. This has been so widely observed andso well documented that the fact can no longer be denied except by denying reality itself. Thank you for hitting on the point exactly. SPECIES DO INDEED CHANGE OVER TIME. I have no argument with that at all. But this is not evolution. It is one of the four elements required for evolution; natural selection (the others are spontaneous generation, mutation, and enormous time). Natural Selection is a proven, undisputed fact. No one in the Creationist community would deny that. God created rich genetic diversity in the "kinds" that he reported creating in Genesis. They have changed, sometimes greatly, over time. But the problem is that in order for one created kind to change into another, new information must be added to the genome of the living thing in question. It takes a lot of added DNA information to get from an amoeba to an antelope. Evolution provides no mechanism for adding information to cells. No mutation has ever been shown to increase useful information in the DNA. Sometimes mutations can accidentally be helpful to the creature's survival, but they have never been found to be helpful in changing the creature from one kind to another.

essentialsaltes -> RE: An emotional argument (7/20/2008 6:07:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: falcnjet But what I mean to say when I say that evolution is not a science per se, is that science is used in an effort to support evolution, but evolution itself is a historical hypothesis about how things came to be the way they are today. In that sense, it is on equal footing with any other such hypothesis. Where science comes in, is in the attempt to convince others that the hypothesis is an accurate representation of truth. I dispute that evolution is 'on equal footing' with other hypotheses. Evolution has moved far beyond a hypothesis - it is a rich and fruitful theory based on evidence. quote: quote: This is false. Evolution makes no claims about the existence or non-existence of gods. Evolution is not based on any assumption about gods. Evolution is based on evidence & the scientific method. With respect, this indicates a misunderstanding of the scientific method. The scientific method applies only to operational science; the testing of repeatable processes in the present. It cannot be applied to historical science because the processes that are being explained cannot be repeated in the present. This undue fear of historical science is unwarranted. It is as though we cannot say that Pluto has orbited the sun, since it was only discovered 78 years ago, and it has not yet completed an observed orbit. quote: It may be technically true that evolution makes no claims regarding God That is all I require. No assumption has been made that conflicts with theism. If the scientific conclusions of evolutionary theory conflict with your brand of theism, so much the worse for your brand of theism. You cannot complain that biologists started with an assumption that ruled out your brand of theism, for that is not true. quote: Well, I don't know where to begin here. Firstly, many who read this forum will never have heard of the Discovery Institue or Answers In Genesis (the ministry behind the Creation Museum), or ICR (Institute for Creation Research), or at least they will not have a good familiarity with them. I assure you that everyone who participates in the Science & Origins folder is extremely familiar with DI and AIG. They are quoted and linked frequently. ICR may be a bit too old school for the new face of creationism, but in my school days they were the face of creationism. quote: Everyone has been exposed to The Discovery Channel, The History Channel, daily newspapers, TV news shows, National Geographic, Time, Newsweek, and so on. I won't dispute that, fortunately, when scientific topics come up in the mass media, the scientific viewpoint (i.e. an evolutionary viewpoint) is usually presented. But seldom are these stories presented as 'proof' of evolution. Mainly because that battle was won a hundred years ago. quote: Not long ago, one was fired from the Smithsonian simply for allowing an article sympathetic to intelligent design to be published. This is not true, if we're speaking of Sternberg. He was not an employee of the Smithsonian, so he could not be fired. Furthermore, he was not denied access to the Smithsonian's collections. The worst that can be said is that his colleagues said nasty things about him. quote: quote: evolution has a great deal of evidence on its side, while naive young-earth creationism has been falsified. It is in direct conflict with the evidence. The only way to save YEC is to ignore (rather than explain) the contrary evidence. Falsified by whom? In direct conflict with what evidence? In what way do young-earth creationists ignore evidence? You've opened the door; give me some examples. I already gave you one. Radiometric dating provides consistent ages for the solar system (from samples from the moon, the earth, and meteorites) at about 4.5 billion years. Astrophysics provides models of stellar formation that again produce an age for the sun in the billions of years. Cosmology provides models of the large-scale structure of the universe that yields an age of the universe in the billions of years. Geological processes like lake varves and botanical processes like dendrochronology provide ages of samples in excess of 10,000 years, falsifying naive YEC. Climatological processes like ice layers lead to minimum ages of the earth greater than 100,000 years, falsifying naive YEC. Measured velocities of continental drift show that the Atlantic ocean is millions of years old. Typically, these dating methods are attacked by YEC as useless. They are not "interpreted properly" to produce ages consistent with YEC; they are simply ignored. In other cases, clock-speeding is hypothesized in the absence of any evidence.

swan42 -> RE: An emotional argument (7/20/2008 6:46:27 PM)
quote: (theo) Science (Geometry: a math science) expects us to believe that what I can see does not exist; i.,e., "a line has no width, a point has no dimension." I must catch you on this sentence theo_book and help clarify your perception with the following response. The "line" you are observing is in fact, not a line. It is a very small rectangle (with an apparent width) that represents a line with no width. Similarly, the "point" you see with your very own eyes is not a point, but rather a very small circle that represents a point with no dimension. The ability to understand the distinction is provided by a mental tool of abstraction that man has to a high degree of sophistication.

swan42 -> RE: An emotional argument (7/20/2008 6:48:40 PM)
quote: I have no argument with that at all. But this is not evolution. It is one of the four elements required for evolution; natural selection (the others are spontaneous generation, mutation, and enormous time). Spontaneous generation is not a required element of evolution.

swan42 -> RE: An emotional argument (7/20/2008 6:54:57 PM)
quote: Evolution provides no mechanism for adding information to cells. No mutation has ever been shown to increase useful information in the DNA. Completely false on both counts. Even JHud can back me up on this one. When you apply Information Theory to an endogenous retro-virus it is easily proven that many mutations have been shown to increase the useful information in DNA.

swan42 -> RE: An emotional argument (7/20/2008 7:00:39 PM)
quote: In other cases, clock-speeding is hypothesized in the absence of any evidence. There is some evidence radioactive decay rates can vary, but not enough to account for the degree of disagreement of results arrived at between science and YEC.

theo_book -> RE: An emotional argument (7/20/2008 7:59:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: swan42 quote: (theo) Science (Geometry: a math science) expects us to believe that what I can see does not exist; i.,e., "a line has no width, a point has no dimension." I must catch you on this sentence theo_book and help clarify your perception with the following response. The "line" you are observing is in fact, not a line. It is a very small rectangle (with an apparent width) that represents a line with no width. Similarly, the "point" you see with your very own eyes is not a point, but rather a very small circle that represents a point with no dimension. The ability to understand the distinction is provided by a mental tool of abstraction that man has to a high degree of sophistication. I really do appreciate your help and concern toward my understanding this, however, I was being sarcastic. I very well know the elements of geometry and their applications. Just having fun. I do question your representation of a line as a rectangle as a rectangle is a parrallogram having four right angles, while a line represents only one side having no right angles.. And there is no rectangle having no dimension.

gluadys -> RE: An emotional argument (7/20/2008 8:12:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: falcnjet quote: The fact is that species change over time. Evolution happens. This has been so widely observed andso well documented that the fact can no longer be denied except by denying reality itself. Thank you for hitting on the point exactly. SPECIES DO INDEED CHANGE OVER TIME. I have no argument with that at all. But this is not evolution. Yes, it is evolution. Evolution is absolutely nothing else than species changing over time. Of the three perspectives I mentioned above, this is the fact of evolution. Without this fact, evolution does not exist, no matter what else you bring to the table. If there is one single datum to get clear in your head before any further conversation about evolution, it is to understand that this is what evolution IS. Species change over time. That is the most basic core meaning of "evolution" in biology and to say this is not evolution is like saying that hearing is not the sensory perception of sound waves. quote: It is one of the four elements required for evolution; natural selection (the others are spontaneous generation, mutation, and enormous time). Now you are trying to speak about the mechanisms of evolution. And that is natural. Given that evolution happens, the first scientific question one would pose is "How does evolution happen?" "By what mechanism do species change?" But remember that the mechanism is not the process. The mechanism is what makes the process happen. Two of the mechanisms you name are correct: natural selection and mutation. Two are not. Spontaneous generation was falsified by Louis Pasteur. The theory of evolution, in fact, also requires that there be no spontaneous generation of adult organisms. If one came up with an undisputed example of spontaneous generation, the one thing you could say for sure about it is that it was NOT a product of evolution. Nor is enormous time necessary. Evolution is a continuous process that is occurring all the time. An excellent book that illustrates this point is The Beak of the Finch by Jonathan Weiner. It presents in layman's terms the observations made of the Galapagos finches over a 30-year period by Peter and Rosemary Grant as well as many other observations of evolutionary change in the space of one or a few breeding seasons. But to get back to the main point. The mechanism is not evolution. Natural selection is a mechanism that makes evolution possible, but that doesn't mean that natural selection IS evolution. Evolution is a change in species. Natural selection is a mechanism which is often a factor in producing the change. As noted above, the theory of evolution is basically an explanation of the various mechanisms of evolution and how they work to produce evolution i.e. changes in a species. IOW evolution IS the process of species change (fact) and the theory describes how the process happens in terms of the necessary mechanisms. quote: Natural Selection is a proven, undisputed fact. No one in the Creationist community would deny that. God created rich genetic diversity in the "kinds" that he reported creating in Genesis. They have changed, sometimes greatly, over time. This is a topic we should get into. I expect you don't actually know what genetic diversity is and that you are unaware of the limits on genetic diversity. Genetic diversity is often confused with independent assortment of inherited traits. But more on that another time. quote: But the problem is that in order for one created kind to change into another, new information must be added to the genome of the living thing in question. In the first place, as you have noted, modern creationists readily accept that evolution occurs within the "created kind". (This was a change in creationist teaching that took hold in the 1940s. One should remember that the "creationism" that Darwin and his contemporaries faced was one that asserted the fixity of species and the independent creation of every Linnean species.) While creationists accept evolution within the created kind they do have an aversion to calling it "evolution". Nevertheless, that is exactly what they are describing when they speak of diversity and adaptation and the emergence of multiple species within the kind. Now, here is another thing you need to know about evolution. Accepting for the sake of argument that "frog" is a created kind, the theory of evolution does not propose that it will ever change into a different created kind. That is not a contradiction to the theory of evolution. It is a logical consequence of the theory of evolution. Given the way evolution works--given the mechanisms of evolution that we mentioned--it is quite impossible for the descendants of an original frog population to ever be anything other than frogs. That original population can diversify (there are over 3,000 species of frogs catalogued), but all of diverse descendants will still be frogs--not in spite of evolution, but because of evolution. As for the other part of your statement, part of that requires a clear definition of "information" including a definition of the unit of information and the means of measuring information. Not until you can provide those can you really talk about whether or not information increases in the genome. By any definition related to DNA nucleotides or genes, genetic information can and does increase and there are well understood mechanisms that allow for the increase. In his recent book Only a Theory Kenneth Miller provides several examples of information increase and an experiment which points to the crucial role of natural selection in increasing complex information. I'd like to go into more detail on evolution and kinds, but another time. Also evolution and time. Evolution does have a history. That history is not long because evolution needs a lot of time, but because evolution has been going on for a long time. And again, the history of evolution should not be confused with what evolution is. Evolution is a change in species over time (the time can be as short as one generation). But anything that happens over time has a history and the history will be as long the time the process has been continuing.

theo_book -> RE: An emotional argument (7/20/2008 9:08:48 PM)
quote: (gluadys) Of the three perspectives I mentioned above, this is the fact of evolution. Without this fact, evolution does not exist... (theo) THAT is why it is the "theory" of evolution. The alleged "fact of evolution" could just as well be "the design of creation." Both are theories.

gluadys -> RE: An emotional argument (7/20/2008 10:35:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book quote: (gluadys) Of the three perspectives I mentioned above, this is the fact of evolution. Without this fact, evolution does not exist... (theo) THAT is why it is the "theory" of evolution. The alleged "fact of evolution" could just as well be "the design of creation." Both are theories. Creation is a doctrine, not a theory. But yes, we can certainly hold that the creator designed species to change over time i.e. to evolve. There is no conflict between belief in creation and the fact of evolution. The theory of evolution is not about whether species change over time. That is a directly observed fact. The theory is an explanation of how species change over time.

falcnjet -> RE: An emotional argument (7/21/2008 12:05:39 AM)
Wow, you guys are into this. That's great! You are thinkers, and you spend a significant amount of time researching what you believe. That's very impressive. I know it's hard to really "discuss" these matters because, as I indicated in the subject of my first post, people get really emotional about these issues. As is so often the case, I see that on this forum the defenders of evolution are much more active than those who don't buy it. I'm afraid y'all have run so far ahead of me with a litany of what I believe are misconceptions that it will be hard to respond to them all. I do have a job[:)] Further, I wonder if it's productive to do so. It's already apparent that we each are pretty content with what we believe on the subject. But on the chance that there are those reading this forum that are still searching and open to answers, I'll go on defense here and try to address some of the things that have been brought up. GLUADYS, I understood you to say that you believe evolution is defined as a change within species. Certainly, by the definition of the word, I agree this is evolution. But Darwinian evolution posits that evolution is responsible for the rise of all life forms, beginning with simple and over enormous time, reaching the complex life forms we have today. Some call this macro-evolution, while change within species due to natural selection is called micro-evolution. I'm sure you know this. I'm not trying to imply that you need a primer, I'm just constructing an argument. "Species" is a word invented and defined by modern man. God never used the word. It is true that one species changes into another by the Linnean definition, but I think you'll agree Linneus came a while after God! If there are 3,000 species of frog as you say, I believe it is probable that God placed within the frog kind enough genetic information for it to adapt to the various environments it would encounter over the centuries. As a result, frogs got big, frogs got small, some got green, some got yellow and some developed a skin poisonous to some creatures. But the point is, they are all frogs. The information required for them to become snakes or lizards, let alone whales or people, is simply not there. And evolutionary science has found no mechanism for them to get that information (information being the DNA coding for the traits of another unique created kind). As someone who obviously understands the operation of cell information, you know the law of Bounded Variation. This law works against the idea of cell traits varying beyond the boundaries of their existing DNA. Appealing to changes in beak sizes and shapes and to mutating viruses doesn't help the argument. The finches are still finches and the viruses are still viruses. This is only one of the many insurmountable problems with this theory. To answer ESSENTIALSALTES, you have made sweeping statements about theories and models based on uniformitarian and other evolutionary assumptions. Stating that something is true based on ideas that are required in order to make it true is circular reasoning. There are many serious problems with radiometric dating. Examples occur routinely of different dating methods yielding dates millions of years apart, samples of known age (i.e. taken from a lava field from a known eruption) are often dated at millions of years old. There are problems with mineral migration, and unjustified assumptions about the beginning levels of parent and daughter elements. Recent evidence has shown that decay is often accelerated locally within a given sample. If evolutionary science makes no naturalist assumptions, as you seem to think, why do they not publicize the "problem" of excess helium in samples, or the dozens of other evidences of an earth that cannot be billions of years old. The system is a mess, and until scientists are willing to ignore their presuppositions and include all evidence, it will remain so. With regard to cosmology and stellar formation, the heavens really do declare the glory of God. The big bang theory has been changed, massaged, added to, and revised over and over again, because it fails to explain the evidence. The very existence of the moon in the orbit it is in is inexplicable in the light of evidence. Just so you know, I'm fully aware of the Mars-sized impactor theory (the fouth major theory about moon formation in my lifetime). The moon simply cannot be what it is and where it is given a 4 1/2 bn year old earth. Unless, as a Christian, you choose to believe God when He says that He put it there. Stellar formation theories are again based on uniformitarian assumptions derived from observing our sun for a couple of hundred years. There are many problems with accretion models. Many believe it cannot happen in space. If we had honest and open science on Discovery and History channels, we might learn about problems with missing antimatter, angular momentum in our solar system, the lack of variation in cosmic background radiation (the horizon problem), the illogic of rocky planets close to the sun and gas giants far from it, retrograde orbits and rotation, and on and on. Honest inquiry would require that these very real problems be addressed. But all we ever hear is "billions of years ago this happened and that happened". It's dishonest and deceitful. As I said before, it's been shown in laboratory research that layers such as varves can be laid down in minutes, and I've never heard anyone dispute that layers are formed according to particle density and size in moving water. To dismiss all these issues, and there are many more, as YEC naivete is an argument from ridicule. Such arguments usually stem from the arguer's frustration over the weakness of his stance. Constructing a substantive argument takes effort and time. Claims and accusations don't cut it. Having said that I want to return to my opening statement. Most of what you folks say shows deep interest and a level of understanding of the issues that most people don't have. I've enjoyed "talking" with you.

swan42 -> RE: An emotional argument (7/21/2008 1:52:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book I really do appreciate your help and concern toward my understanding this, however, I was being sarcastic. I very well know the elements of geometry and their applications. Just having fun. I do question your representation of a line as a rectangle as a rectangle is a parrallogram having four right angles, while a line represents only one side having no right angles.. And there is no rectangle having no dimension. Sorry, sarcasm is difficult to "read" unless it is blatantly obvious.

gluadys -> RE: An emotional argument (7/21/2008 4:22:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: falcnjet I'm afraid y'all have run so far ahead of me with a litany of what I believe are misconceptions that it will be hard to respond to them all. It is pretty easy to check out that these are misconceptions. Go to a standard undergrad text on evolutionary biology and see whether what it says agrees better with your version of evolution or mine. Ditto on other scientific misconceptions. Just check a textbook in the relevant field. Many anti-evolution assertions about what science says are not found in science books. They are sometimes distortions or misunderstandings, and sometimes made up whole. If it is not in a standard science text, it is not a claim or prediction made by a scientific theory. It is that simple. quote: GLUADYS, I understood you to say that you believe evolution is defined as a change within species. Certainly, by the definition of the word, I agree this is evolution. Not limited to change within species. Speciation is part of evolution too. What is important to note is that speciation is only a part of evolution. Change in a species prior to speciation is also evolution. In fact, speciation happens because evolution within a species happens under certain conditions which promote speciation. There is actually no change in process when one moves from evolution within species to evolution leading to speciation. Speciation is simply a consequence of the same evolutionary process as change in a species when certain conditions affecting gene flow occur. We can go into more detail on that if you wish. quote: "Species" is a word invented and defined by modern man. God never used the word. "species" is not a modern word, though the current meaning is modern. It is one of two words (the other being "genus") chosen by Jerome to translate the Hebrew term "min" when he translated the Old Testament into Latin in the version that became known as the Vulgate. At the time it did not have the strict meaning of the smallest biological unit but was used more or less synonymously with genus. Linneaeus was the one who gave these terms a fixed ranked order. And no, Linnaeus is not God. However, "species" is the only biological division that occurs naturally. All other divisions, whether within the species (variety, form, breed, etc.) or above the species (genus, family, order, etc.) are human mental constructs. So whether or not God used the word, "species" is the only biological unit we can attribute to God as it is the only one that exists objectively in nature. quote: It is true that one species changes into another by the Linnean definition, I am going to be a little bit picky here and say this is not the case. No species changes into another existing species. Rather one species diversifies into several species through speciation. That may be what you meant, but your wording suggests otherwise. quote: If there are 3,000 species of frog as you say, I believe it is probable that God placed within the frog kind enough genetic information for it to adapt to the various environments it would encounter over the centuries. I am going to come back to this in a minute because it is the second time you have mentioned this concept and it needs to be addressed. But first: quote: As a result, frogs got big, frogs got small, some got green, some got yellow and some developed a skin poisonous to some creatures. But the point is, they are all frogs. The information required for them to become snakes or lizards, let alone whales or people, is simply not there. And evolutionary science has found no mechanism for them to get that information (information being the DNA coding for the traits of another unique created kind). As someone who obviously understands the operation of cell information, you know the law of Bounded Variation. This law works against the idea of cell traits varying beyond the boundaries of their existing DNA. Appealing to changes in beak sizes and shapes and to mutating viruses doesn't help the argument. The finches are still finches and the viruses are still viruses. This is only one of the many insurmountable problems with this theory. No, it is not at all an insurmountable problem for the theory of evolution, because this is what the theory predicts: all descendants of frogs will be frogs. This is really a major problem in the understanding of evolution by anti-evolutionists. You expect the evolutionary process to do what it will not do---change frogs into non-frogs. Then when you see that frogs do not change into non-frogs, you think you have a case against evolution. But all you really had was a false expectation of evolution. quote: Examples occur routinely of different dating methods yielding dates millions of years apart, samples of known age (i.e. taken from a lava field from a known eruption) are often dated at millions of years old. There are problems with mineral migration, and unjustified assumptions about the beginning levels of parent and daughter elements. Recent evidence has shown that decay is often accelerated locally within a given sample. quote: If evolutionary science makes no naturalist assumptions, as you seem to think, why do they not publicize the "problem" of excess helium in samples, or the dozens of other evidences of an earth that cannot be billions of years old. The system is a mess, and until scientists are willing to ignore their presuppositions and include all evidence, it will remain so. quote: With regard to cosmology and stellar formation, the heavens really do declare the glory of God. The big bang theory has been changed, massaged, added to, and revised over and over again, because it fails to explain the evidence. quote: The very existence of the moon in the orbit it is in is inexplicable in the light of evidence. Just so you know, I'm fully aware of the Mars-sized impactor theory (the fouth major theory about moon formation in my lifetime). The moon simply cannot be what it is and where it is given a 4 1/2 bn year old earth. quote: Unless, as a Christian, you choose to believe God when He says that He put it there. Stellar formation theories are again based on uniformitarian assumptions derived from observing our sun for a couple of hundred years. There are many problems with accretion models. Many believe it cannot happen in space. If we had honest and open science on Discovery and History channels, we might learn about problems with missing antimatter, angular momentum in our solar system, the lack of variation in cosmic background radiation (the horizon problem), the illogic of rocky planets close to the sun and gas giants far from it, retrograde orbits and rotation, and on and on. Honest inquiry would require that these very real problems be addressed. But all we ever hear is "billions of years ago this happened and that happened". It's dishonest and deceitful. quote: As I said before, it's been shown in laboratory research that layers such as varves can be laid down in minutes, and I've never heard anyone dispute that layers are formed according to particle density and size in moving water. I have separated each of these out so we can see the various assertions distinctly. I don't intend to respond to them in detail because each of them is what have become known in this sort of discussion as PRATTS (points refuted a thousand times). Some of them are even in Answers in Genesis' list of arguments creationists should not use. There is a handy list of commentary on these claims at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html which you can check out. One or two comments, however. On the helium issue: this has nothing to do with "evolutionary science". Dumping everything in science under the umbrella of "evolution" is a misuse of the term. The theory of evolution is about change in species, not about physical processes in non-living matter. Second, on big bang theory being adjusted to fit the evidence---I should hope so. This is what ought to happen. In science, evidence always has the first and the last word. If there is a mismatch between evidence and theory, it is a requirement of science that the theory be changed. Why creationists present this as a problem is beyond me. Are we supposed to cling to theories that do not fit the evidence?*** Anyway, I promised something on kinds and genetic information. Your statement was: quote: If there are 3,000 species of frog as you say, I believe it is probable that God placed within the frog kind enough genetic information for it to adapt to the various environments it would encounter over the centuries. To begin with, I would like to ask you how large you think the original population of frogs was. Secondly, I would like to ask you how many copies of the frog genome exist in the cell of each frog. Then I would like to ask how many copies of the frog genome exist in each gamete produced by the germ-line cells of each frog. How much variety can one pair of frogs pass on to their offspring? With the answers to these questions we can then deal with how much genetic information can exist in the original frog kind. I would have you remember that if the original frog kind has speciated into 3,000+ distinct species, then according to you, every variation found in all those species was front-loaded into the original kind. One consequence of this is that the original genome must have contained all the genetic information that is now divided among 3,000+ species. Whether or not this is possible is something we can figure out. ***Sorry, I forgot. That is the essence of creationism isn't it? No wonder creationists think scientists ought to do the same. I suppose this illustrates the fundamental difference between science and its opponents. Scientists respect evidence and change theories to agree with it. Their opponents refuse to change their theories no matter what the evidence says.

theo_book -> RE: An emotional argument (7/21/2008 8:32:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gluadys I suppose this illustrates the fundamental difference between science and its opponents. Scientists respect evidence and change theories to agree with it. Their opponents refuse to change their theories no matter what the evidence says. Oh? And how many denominations of science do you count?

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI