Religion of Evolution

Here's a link to a web site that will explain how isochron dating can put a date of almost five billion years on a chunk of rock without an outside point of reference.

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/radiodte.htm

You say we "have no idea what you are referencing". Well, we know it was SOME rock floating around in space, and we have a lot of them rocks. Surely most of them would be from the material that made up our own solar system in the first place, tho it is possible one of them came over from outside our solar system.

And of course we know the moon rocks came from the moon because we fetched them ourselves.

Go ahead - find a scientific error on that page, should you feel inclined.

 

#1. Is it your position that Roger Wiens is a YEC - and not an old-earth evolutionist?? In fact this is an OEC evolutionist site not a YEC site, not even a literal YEC for biology and old earth geology.

#2. Notice that in Wiens statement he is looking for "any other explanation" other then the well researched well documented conclusion that Genty gives and he does not include the "details" of the "problem" of trying to spin it any other way - and Gentry does address it.

Does that seem like "science" to you? "Good science"?

Remember - I asked for some level of "objectivity" with the data -- (Unless of course you are going to accept YEC sources debunking your references as "proof").

In Christ,

Bob

[ April 07, 2004, 08:12 AM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

When I asked for no "Evolutionists" as "your sources" if you do not accept "Creationists" as sources debunking the bad science methods on your web site that promotes evolutionism's doctrines.

The response was to quote an evolutionist site that was run by "Christians".

Is this your way of saying that you accept YEC references for debunking your proposed Web sites?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob

I do not think that Wiens nor Ross constitute "atheists." I do not know about Wiens, but I am pretty sure that Ross does not accept evolution. Whatever atheist agenda you may think there is, these guys are not involved. You might as well have asked me to prove the world is round using only flat earth references.

The fact is that you cannot find YEC information that is factually accurate because they have to deny all the facts to make their claims. I repeatedly show you were they make specific mistakes and you accuse me of using any old story as an excuse. But then you repeatedly past a link that says angiosperms (all flowering trees and plants, you know, like oak trees) are buried only in higher layers because organisms that are more intelligent and more mobile escaped there.

Do you have any YECers who will submit their work to peer review? No! Why not? Because any undergrad could show them their errors in five minutes? If someone is going to say that all of modern science is wrong, then he better have a better way of explaining ALL the data that has been collected. The supposed proofs for a young earth have more holes in them than a sieve.

Editted to add: I'll accept any information that is factual.

 

DHK

Let's skip a few step here and go straight to the part where I ask what your specific objections are to radiometric dating.

 

Please check the web site you gave it uses DAC (day age) and death-before-Adam to get to billions of years of biological evilution. And yet hopes that the internally conflicted logic this poses for the Bible can be ignored.

Also check my statement - I did not say that all evolutionists are atheists. I specifically identified TWO restrictions - that the sources not be atheist AND that they not be evolutionist. (Obviously you are an example of the "Reasons to Believe" group that are believers in evolutionism while holding to some of the views of the Bible).

My point is that IF you promote people with the strong bias towards belief in evolutionism as "your sources" then to be objective - when your sources are debunked - you have to accept sources with a strong bias towards belief in the "Creator's account" as it is stated in YEC terms in both Exodus 20 and in Genesis 1-2:4.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I'll accept information from anyone with good facts and logic. I have yet to see that from YECers.

 

UTEOTW hasn’t seen, b/c he’s willingly ignorant. These Christian Evolutionists want to make this into a ‘religion vs. science’ issue, when it’s a ‘religion vs. religion issue’. The funny part is that they call evolution (and I’m using evolution in a BROAD TERM, which includes Abiogenesis, so not to 'offend' anybody) ‘science’. Every time I look up the word ‘science’ I see the terms: observation, experimentation, verifiable, testable and repeatable. In other words, if it can’t be observed, repeated, verified or subject to experimentation, then it is NOT scientific. Evolution has NEVER been observed, repeated, verified nor has an experiment EVER been preformed successfully regarding it. Therefore evolution is NOT scientific. Period.

Any concept regarding origins is NOT scientific, in that origins were not and cannot be observed, repeated or verified. The scientists can only deal with present evidence. The choice of which theory to accept becomes a matter of FAITH. According to Hebrews 11:1-3, to accept something without evidence requires FAITH. Since evolution has never been observed, repeated or verified, it is no more ‘scientific’ and no less ‘religious’ than Creation.

The Christian believes that God created the universe, life and man, while evolutionists believes that the universe, life and man SOMEHOW evolved without any supernatural direction. Therefore evolution cannot be proved or tested, it can only be believed by FAITH. To actually believe that dead matter could create life, and have ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE, requires a tremendous amount of FAITH. Some even believe and have FAITH that life was transported from an unknown civilization from space or some meteor. How ridiculous is that!

I was asked just the other day why I didn’t believe in evolution. My response was that I didn’t have enough FAITH to believe that random particles arranged themselves into ordered life.

I’m putting my Faith in Christian Scientists who know how to apply present evidences and to apply the proper corrections (The Flood) to these experiments, which done properly, reveals a young earth.

UTEOTW you have a zeal for God, but let me say this, Satan could careless if you have a zeal for God, as long as he can keep you ignorant of Gods Word, he can use you to keep others ignorant just the same and maybe even covert a few along the way to reject God as our Creator and Savior.

I’d rather take the WHOLE Word of God by FAITH and stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ than to have a LUKEWARM faith and have give an account as to why my faith was as such. Since we’ll have an eternity, the Lord may put you in a remedial faith course for a few hundred thousand years.

 

I wonder who gave you the authority to redefine scientific terms. Find me ANY definition of evolution which includes life coming from non-life. I'm sure nearly all Christians who recognize we evolved will agree that abiogenesis is bunk. Linking it with evolution makes for a nice strawman though!

Simply wrong. Speciation has been observed.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

If the evidence favors your position, why not argue it? Every single post of yours is just arguing the definition of science. If evolution is false, then it should be easy to present evidence against it. Why not do that?

Also, since when is faith equated with religion? I have faith in my family, and I have faith in God. Are both of those religion? No.

 

RTB (Ross) is not evolutionist, but debunks it as much as any YE Creationist. He is just an OE Creationist, and while I may not agree with the Day-Age theory, still we should be truthful in categorizing people.
Also, I saw the argument earlier on "death before Adam". We had earlier discussed this somewhere in a thread pertaining to alien life in the universe. In either case, still, once again, Adam's sin only affected man's death, not the rest of life or the decay in the universe. Man was not given authority over those things, but there is evidence that Satan and the angels were. Their fall might disrput the universe like that. Then there was an argument that the fall of Satan was in the time of Eden, but obviously it was before he appeared as a serpent to tempt Adam, and just because he may have guarded Eden doesn't mean he didn't affect anythign else in the universe. In fact, his involvement in the corrupting of man would simply be apart of the rest of his works n the universe.

As for "creation with the appearance of age"; still, "age" is apart of decay, so to say God created things like that is further proven unlikely. Any appearance of age must have accompanied the Fall of Satan. Now how that corresponds to how old things different things would look on earth, or as the light from them reaches the earth, I do not pretend to know. One interesting point from string theory is that different combinations of tiny additional spatial dimensions (called "orbifolds") can change, instantly changing the laws of the universe (such as our current "standard Model"). This can explain many anomalies, and why ultimately, the dating methods can be wrong or misleading.

 

I do not understand the sudden change in tactics to claim that you cannot do any observations or testing in the fields that establish an old universe, an old earth, and common descent to be facts.

Let's first take a discipline that is not directly germane, but that has parallels. What do you think of archeology? Do you think it qualifies as a science? I ask, because this is a bit less controversial. In fact, most of us probably find our interests peaked a little bit when we come across something on Biblical archeology. But there are certain parallels to paleontology, especially when dealing with cultures which had no writing system or whose writing system we do not understand. But we are still able to make observations about the past and learn things about the way they lived from what we find. Going through the trash can be quite enlightening, you can find out all sorts of things about the way they lived and what they ate. Finding tools made of non-local material might indicate that they were a trading culture. Art may let you know about their religion and their gender roles. There is much than can be learned without having ever observed the culture and without any writings of people who were there. Do you not accept this as good science?

Now, let's move a little closer to our target. Let's discuss astronomy. Now we are making observations in the present. Other researchers can repeat the experiments and observations. Yet astronomy shows our universe to be ancient. Due to the finite speed of light, we are actually looking back in time when we observe space. We can actually see what was happening long ago. Think merely of the travel times involved. We can measure the speed of light and we can measure distances to astronomical objects. Simple division of distance and speed tells you of billions of years of travel for some of the light. And it is not just static light sources. We see action at these distances, we see a history unfolding before our eyes. Supernova, gamma ray bursts, forming stars, dying stars, forming planetary systems, colliding galaxies, stars orbiting one another, rotating galaxies. We see the effects of the travel on the light. Clouds of gas and dust in between absorb certain wavelengths from the light. Massive objects bend and distort the light through gravitational lensing. The expansion of the universe stretches the wavelengths of the light. Many of the objects we see show evidence of taking many years to form. Colliding galaxies require hundreds of millions even billions of years of interaction to attain their intricate shapes. The process is slow and cannot be sped up.

Look at geology. In the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, the seafloor is spreading apart. We can measure how quickly this takes place. Observations in the present. We can look at the seafloor and see that the same process has been happening in this general way since the Americas began splitting apart from Africa and Europe. If has taken roughly 100 million years. (I'd have to it up if you want a better number.) Recorded in the rocks are many reversals of the magnetic field of the earth. Since we have never seen a field reversal, it is safe to say that they are not frequent occurances. More interesting, you can pull up rocks at different distances from the middle and date them. The dates agree with the date you would estimate by the rate of spreading and the distance from the fissure. If both the measures of age are so flawed, why do they agree? Take a look at the Hawaiian Island chain. There is ample evidence that an area has been passing over a hot spot, causing a succession of volcanic islands. The only currently active volcanoes are at the far south east of the chain. These are also the youngest "looking" islands. They are rocky and sharp. There has been little softening due to erosion. They also date the youngest. As you move towards the west, the islands begin to show signs of erosion. They become softer and more lush. As you continue to move west, they also become smaller as erosion has had more time to wear the islands back into the sea. These date as older. I have seen this with my own eyes. Does this count as an observation? Perhaps some of you have been there and can repeat the observation. Look at rocks formed from magma. It is quite possible to calculate how long it took the rocks to cool. Heat transfer calculations are not that hard. It can be in the millions of years. We have a way to check this. As magma cools, it chemistry is such that different minerals form at different temperatures. The crystals from these minerals also grow at a given rate. So we can verify our cooling curve from the chemistry of the rock. They both agree that these rocks take many more years to form than 6000 years. If fact, 6000 years is so short in geology that such rocks do not form any crystals at all! The magma also makes changes in the surrounding rocks due to the heat it gives off. This let's us know for sure that these rocks were formed after the other. All these things show considerable evidence of having taken more than a few thousand years. Much more. How do you explain them? These are observations in the present.

Look at biology. We have observed speciation events. We have observed new metabolic pathways and new traits forming. We can test the genomes of different organisms and trace specific copying errors and viral DNA insertions between the species. Is this not all done in the present? Are these not observations? Can other scientists not repeat the work?

Ah, now your intended target. The fossil record. No one was there to see, so how can we learn anything you ask. Are you saying that we can learn absolutely nothing about a fossil? Can we even determine if these really are the remains of a once living creature? Can we determine what type of creatue it is? Uh oh, now we are making observations in the past. And other scientists can look at see if they come to the same conclusions. The observations are repeatable and verifiable. But there is more. Can we look at the details of the skeleton and learn some details of how the creature lived? Can we look at teeth and jaws and know what types of food it ate? Can we determine something about function from form? Can we sometimes tell what killed the animal? Can we tell under what conditions the organism was fossilized, such as turbulent or still water? Can we tell if it was scavenged before being fossilized? Can we look at other fossils found with it a get an idea of the ecology in which it lived? Wow, we are still making observations. And no one was there.

So see, science does make observations that indicate an old earth.

 

Brett, any John Doe will speak of evolution in its broadest terms. This isn’t a Message Board for politically correct scientists.

So Brett, how did life start? Don’t say ‘God started it’, that’s a BIG NO, NO, in science.

LOL…This FAQ you supplied, which btw, the site and it’s papers aren’t Peer Reviewed, contains not one single observed instances of speciation under any controlled experimental conditions! Not one of the many lists of scientific observations can be described as ‘speciation’ in a Darwinian sense.

The author picked a definition of species to suit his attempt to prove that Darwinism is a scientific reality in his paper. This is quite obvious in the topic marked 4.1, with his ‘advantage’ comment, by picking the weaker of the definitions he gave concerning species, it was to his ‘advantage’. Good smokescreen.

Boxhorn’s example of the plant kingdom in 5.1 – 5.1.1.9 is called ‘polyploidy’, and no Darwinist would ever suggest that polyploid plus natural selection would be evolution. Polyploid is a freak mutation in the plant world where the copying of chromosomes doubles the same information. There’s NO new information, just a repetitious doubling of the same information and it’s NOT evolution. It’s not the small, gradual genetic change envisioned by Darwin. Nice try though!

5.2.1 Boxhorn claims that different species may be defined simply by counting their seeds or pollen, what an ad hoc measure to suit his examples.

5.2.2: the term ‘almost’ ain’t good enough for me here, maybe for you it is, but I thought the author was going to produce ‘instances of speciation’ not almost complete reproductive isolation.

5.2.3: Boxhorn is now defining a new definition of species, by variation in tolerance to poison by saying that a low tolerance variety is a different species from a high tolerance variety. He uses the term 'hybrid' to assert speciation without the troublesome need for proof, but even so says merely that "many of the hybrids were unviable". Boxhorn has conveniently forgotten that the real test is not whether some of the offspring are unviable, but whether the two populations are "reproductively isolated". By Boxhorn's own admission, they are not.

5.3.1: Here Boxhorn is saying that two fruit flies which he asserts are different species, successfully mated and produced offspring, but the experiment proved that they were the same species! Once again he uses the term ‘hybrid’ in an attempt to confuse the reader that they were different species. He goes on to say that the offspring exhibit 'behavioral isolation' kinda like my pet Pomeranian and our neighbors German Shepard, but this is irrelevant as a sign of species status. So where, in all this, is there an instance of speciation or one species turning into another?

I got sick of reading the rest of it I was getting bored. observed instances of speciation

 

That doesn't make sense on several levels.

"any John Doe" - just because you and your friends don't know any better, doesn't make it correct or acceptable outside of your little circle.

"its broadest terms" - that's precisely the point! Broad or narrow, evolution does not include abiogenesis. The origin of the world, whether you like it or not, is outside the concept of evolution.

Speaking of concepts, what's the difference between being "willingly ignorant" and "willfully ignorant"?

It's not a matter of being politically correct, but of being scientifically correct.

 

I'll give you a hint. It is called uniformitarianism. It is defined here if verse 4--that all things continue as they were from the beginning. This is the basic premise of radiometric dating, as it is of all other methods of dating--that all the conditions have to be exactly the same throughout the centuries, millenia, etc. Nothing can change or interfere to make it work. The fact is, that things do change and interfere, as God says they do. Only scoffers believe in such a theory. They don't believe that a flood could have an effect in the age of a rock, or a fossil, or the age of the earth. No, because to the evoulutionist all things have continued as they were from the beginning--a false premise.
DHK

 

That doesn't make sense on several levels.

"any John Doe" - just because you and your friends don't know any better, doesn't make it correct or acceptable outside of your little circle.

"its broadest terms" - that's precisely the point! Broad or narrow, evolution does not include abiogenesis. The origin of the world, whether you like it or not, is outside the concept of evolution.

Speaking of concepts, what's the difference between being "willingly ignorant" and "willfully ignorant"?</font>[/QUOTE]Is it my fault that you can’t determine from my posts, what I’m talking about when I use the term ‘evolution’ or are you just being ‘willing ignorant’ and want to nick-pick the term and how it’s used, b/c your tired of having to defend your religion?

Again, last time I logged in this was a Baptist Message Board. If you wanna debate your religion of evolution in a more formal scientific setting, then look for a more suitable board that may be more accommodating to you.

It's not a matter of being politically correct, but of being scientifically correct. </font>[/QUOTE]scientifically correct.

Now that’s a ironic statement. I hope you’re not referring to EVOLUTION, when you say, scientifically correct.

 

DHK

I believe you are taking the verse out of context. This is about people not believing the end prophecies because they have yet to be fulfilled. This does not apply to the issue at hand.

You made the comment above about old earth science not being based on your version of the scientific method. I gave a long post just above on observations we can make today that show an old universe, an old earth, and common descent. Could you address the issues I raised?

I would also like to know what your problem is with uniformitarianism. Do you think that the same cause has a different effect today? Would an earthquake in the past leave different evidence than one would today? Would a landslide leave different evidence? A flood? Erosion? Building of river deltas? Tectonics? What is different?

What things do you think have changed to affect radiometric dating? Do you have any evidence for these changes? What do you think a flood would do to the insides of a rock to change its date? The dates of all rocks in a consistent manner for that matter? I gave you the example earlier of isochron dating. With this you do not even have to know the initial conditions. If any relevent material has leaked in or out, you don't get an isochron you get garbage, so the method checks for that. We can also check decay rates in the past. When a star explodes as a supernova, it makes a lot of short lived isotopes. As they decay, they give the supernova a characteristic light curve, a plot of brightness with time. Since light takes a finite time to reach earth, when we look at a supernova we are looking back in time. And as far back as we can see, the radioactive isotopes decay at exactly the same rate.

 

I have yet to anything that indicates that TOE is not correct.

 

I am not trying to categorize Ross as believing in evolutionism (as far as I know he only accepts the old earth geology but believes in a literal 7 day creation week).

However the web site posted - has Ross as one of the contributors (seems to be just in the old earth geology section). The Web site itself promotes DAC (Day - Age - Creation) with billions of years inserted in the biological evolution section to get to a full 6 days and rest on the seventh-day.

Because evilution "needs" death before Adam - it argues for that.

Because it needs "billions of years" of biological evolution - it argues for that as well.

But Ross is not quoted in those arguments - at least from what I saw of them.

That proposal was clearly debunked in the review we did of Romans 8 - where Paul clearly says that the death decay and corruption of nature itself was imposed on it due to the sin of Adam.

Actually man was given dominion over the earth and the animals on the earth according to scripture.

No such commands regarding total and absolute dominin were given to angels.

Neither do we have any indication of "starvation, extinction, battles for survival, disease, carnage" in the genesis pre-fall account.

Neither do we see Adam and Eve finding implements to kill, to defend themselves to "Survive" in the world of "man-eating beasts".

Correct.

Wrong.

The age vs non-age argument assumes "too much knowledge for man".

#1. Man does not know how to make a living planet - man has no idea how much daughter product in the classic decay sequences is "needed in the earths crust" to make it viable.

#2. Mankind was "obviously" not created as a "zygote" nor as a 1 day old infant.

#3. The plants were "obviously" not just seeds laying on the ground. All animal life would have died.

#4 A host of other mammals could not "survive" if created as "zygotes" or "1 day old cubs".

So the existence of earth with what "we call age" was obvious and necessary from the very start.

No. The process of going from zygote to adult does not require that the zygote "decay".

The assumptions here for the "no age at the start" argument are flawed from the very start.

Speculating about "entirely new laws of science" does not really "Solve" any real science problem here. Under that vast non-specific umbrella can come a host of alternatives.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Back to the point.

Pure empirical Biology does not "constitute" an "alternative for God" - but Dawkins shows clearly that evolutionism DOES constitue such an alternate -- its doctrines are indeed "religion".

Pure empirical Chemistry, physics, life sciences, etc do not "constitute arguments for an alternative to God" - but Dawkins shows clearly that evolutionism DOES constitue such an alternate -- its doctrines are indeed "religion".

This is "not just a problem with Dawkins" all atheist evolutionist "see the deal instantly" as do all scientists that are faithful Bible believing Christians accepting the Creators "account" in Genesis 1-2:3 and Exodus 20:8-11.

Dawkins does not have the presence of mind to see his alternative to God as "its own humanist religion" but - its faithful adherents are "seen to be clerically minded" even by fellow atheists.

So the Christian that clings to humanism's formula for "creation" and tries to marry this to the Creator's "account" of the origins of life and mankind - finds the loss of support from all atheist evolutionist science groups as well as Bible believing Christian groups that accept the Creator's "Account" of the Genesis of life on earth.

In Christ,

Bob