Religion of Evolution

[Johnv]

UTEOTW, Hovind is a clarlatain. His "degree" is from a paper mill, and his credibility is right up there with Dr Doolittle or Dr Seuss. He is to YEC what Benny Hinn is to faith healing. No YEC supporter gains credibility by quoting this wolf in sheep's clothing.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Hovind's offer is not a serious one. He has the rules rigged such that it could never be proven. That no one has met his "challenge" is no slap against science. Here, read all about it.

Hovind's Offer

Now Paul's challenge is an interesting one. He is right, no one could come up with a YEC website that did not have serious errors. In contrast, Paul and I both posted mainstream sites for which no YECers could find any problems.

The site that you directed me is one that scoffs at what Hovind is doing. Look at one of the quotes here:

Initially, why should there be a requirement that the applicant "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" any part of evolution? That is a legal standard having nothing to do with the process of science. (As we will see later, there may be good reason for Hovind to insert legal terminology.) Not only that, the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" seems excessive. After all, why should science be put to that standard when most things in our day-to-day lives, including religious beliefs, are not? Still, it is not necessarily an insurmountable burden, though meeting it for the full range of the "general theory of evolution" would doubtless be difficult and certainly time-consuming.

You ask why there should be a requirement to prove evolution beyond a reasonable doubt? That answer is very obvious. It is taught in virtually every textbook as fact beyond any reasonable doubt--from pre-school to the end of college. In children's story books, the first line starts out with this indoctrinating line: Billions of years ago... It starts out with an unproven assumption, a lie, stated as a truth. How arrogant. In virtually every textbook we have the same thing repeated over and over again. "Millions of years ago.." "Billions of years ago..." This is nothing less than soviet-style indoctrination. And it is being perpetrated in the name of education in our public, tax-paid schools, when in fact it is a religion, not a science.

Job 38:3-4 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

Science is knowledge gained by observation. If there is no observer it isn't science. Answer God's question to Job. Where were you when God laid the foundations of the earth? If there was no observer it isn't science. Who observed the Big Bang? Who was there?
This is nothing but pure religion. There was no observation to take place. The only observation taking place at the time of creation was by God. That and that alone, puts it closer into the realm of science than the fairy-tale like story of the Big Bang relgion of evolution.
I will demand of thee, and answer thou me! (Job 38:3)
DHK

 

[Johnv]

DHK, that's science by analogy, whose practice explained to us that the four elements were earth, air, fire, and water. The YEC crowd should not resort to this when attempting to provide evidence supporting a YEC position.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Johnv:
DHK, that's science by analogy, whose practice explained to us that the four elements were earth, air, fire, and water. The YEC crowd should not resort to this when attempting to provide evidence supporting a YEC position.

Science:
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE
From the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Science is knowledge. It is gained through observation, particularly the scientific method. It is observed and then systemized or classified.
From the four elements: earth, air, fire, and water, we observe. We also observe all of God's creation. Are you implying that life comes from non-life, defying the law of bio-genesis, such as the evolutionists. Everything is not just earth, air, fire and water. Only God gives life. Life did not just appear from a Big Bang. Order does not arise from chaos. My great, great grandfather was not a rock--was yours?
If science cannot be observed, it isn't science, by its very definition. It is religion. Only religion can deal with origins. Science has no business sticking its nose in the metaphysical realm of the origin of the universe, which God alone can explain.
DHK

 

[gb93433]

After all how do you explain creation without God? Evolution.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by DHK:
Science is knowledge. It is gained through observation, particularly the scientific method.

Your prior assertion was that evolution is not science because it was not observed. One can make the same claim for YEC creation. Observation in science does not referr to an event. It referrs to results and evidence.

Are you implying that life comes from non-life, defying the law of bio-genesis, such as the evolutionists.

Since it is now an observed fact that the building blocks of life occur naturally, it is one step closer to supporting that theory. But it is a theory, and no one says otherwise.

Only God gives life.

Which has nothing to do with observation of HOW life may have arisen.

Life did not just appear from a Big Bang.

The Big Bang theory is not a theory of evolution. It's a theory of astronomy.

Order does not arise from chaos.

Chaotistitics would disagree with you. What we call "order" and "chaos" are quite relative. I've always found it odd that a Christian can accept that God can do anything EXCEPT create everything over a gradual (from our pov) period of time.

My great, great grandfather was not a rock--was yours?

No, but she's nothing but a few pounds of minerals now, having been dead for some 35 years.

If science cannot be observed, it isn't science, by its very definition.

Then by your own definition, YEC science is also not science.

Science has no business sticking its nose in the metaphysical realm of the origin of the universe, which God alone can explain.

This is a clear example of what I said earlier. In order for the YEC crowd to attempt to refute evolution, it must first attempt to elevate it to the status of religion. Without that strawman arguement, YEC falls apart.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Johnv:

Originally posted by DHK:
Science is knowledge. It is gained through observation, particularly the scientific method.

[QB]Your prior assertion was that evolution is not science because it was not observed. One can make the same claim for YEC creation. Observation in science does not referr to an event. It referrs to results and evidence.

I gave you three definitions from the Marriam-Webster Dictionary. Do you deny that the dictionary is wrong? Science must be observed. Knowledge is gained through observation. If it is not gained through observation, it is gained by divine revelation. That is religion. I never claimed that Creation was science. That is a false accusation on your part. I freely admit that it is divine revelation. I trust in the living God, the God of Creation. The evolutionist does not; in fact evoultion is simply a means to avoid God. The evoultionist believes in evolution because he does not want to beieve in God; it is a substitute for God. It is antithetical to God, and yet a religion in itself. The difference: We know what we believe, and freely admit that be faith we believe the Bible to be true and accurate, and that there is scientific evidence to back it up.
The evolutionist also believes his religion by faith (not by scientific fact) and cannot back it up by scientific fact, but only by guess work.
Neither I nor the evolutionist was there at the origin of the universe. That puts it in the realm of religion not science. The only observer there was God, which the evolutionist does not believe in. Thus score one for the Creationist. The evolutionist strikes out.

Are you implying that life comes from non-life, defying the law of bio-genesis, such as the evolutionists.

Since it is now an observed fact that the building blocks of life occur naturally, it is one step closer to supporting that theory. But it is a theory, and no one says otherwise.

This is a denial of the very laws of science itself. The law of biogenesis states that life can only come from life. Life can never come from non-life. No man has and never will observe life coming from non-life. It is an impossibilty. You infer it is an observed fact. I would like to say that you are "off your rocker" to imply such. To say that you are even close to contradicting the law of biogenesis is absurd. This is the leap of blind faith that the evolutionist must take; again those things which put into the realm of fairy tale unobservable religion with no scientic evidence whatsoever.
May I suggest to you that you stick to real science and not "scientism." Stick to the facts that you can observe, and take the Bible's advice: "avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:"

Only God gives life.

Which has nothing to do with observation of HOW life may have arisen.
It has every thing to do with HOW life DID arise.

May I suggest to you that you read the first chapter of Genesis, and see how God created all things and gave life to all things. To deny this is to deny the Creator, the giver of all life. The Creationist has his model, and the evolutionist has his. They both are religions, and they both start at the same starting points--FAITH.

Life did not just appear from a Big Bang.

The Big Bang theory is not a theory of evolution. It's a theory of astronomy.

Whether it is a theory of astronomy or not is irrelevant. That is totally irrelevant at this point. It is taught in school textbooks as fact. It is taught as the origin of the universe in context of the grand scheme of evolution. It is brought into textbooks from elementary to secondary textbooks. Your technical differentiation has nothing to do with the real world and how it is taught in the grand scheme of things to our children as part and parcel of evolution.

Order does not arise from chaos.

]

Chaotistitics would disagree with you. What we call "order" and "chaos" are quite relative. I've always found it odd that a Christian can accept that God can do anything EXCEPT create everything over a gradual (from our pov) period of time.

Let them disagree; they are wrong. Only a fool would deny the actual laws of science in order to believe in a religion that they have made up, and foolishly called "science" when it is not.
This belief is particularly bad. It denies the Second Law of Thermodynamics--that all things tend toward a state of degeneration. It is an increase in entropy. For example, if I throw my watch against the wall, and it breaks into a thousand pieces, how long will it take before all those thousand pieces will form (all by themselves) into a perfectly ordered watch again? If my car gets hit by a semi and is totalled, how long will it take for it to be restored to its former state without any help from anyone else? Will I be able just to stand there and watch evolution take its course and watch the "watch" come together; observe the car be restored; observe evoultion taking place; observe order coming out of chaos. These things, as you very well know, are impossible. They contradict the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Order never arises out of chaos, and that is precisely what the evolutionist would have us to believe.

"Once upon a time ago, billions of years ago, there was this big bang in the universe." From this big explosion came perfectly ordered solar systems, galaxies, planets set in motion with moons rotating about them, and yes, even the earth itself--a perfect world ready to be inhabited by man. What a marvellous fairy tale--how such order could arise out of disorder. Too bad it can't be reproduced via the scientific method. Too bad it can't be observed, and never was observed. It falls into the realm of religion, not science. It is a pipe dream. It flies contrary to the laws of true science, which the Bible agrees with:

Romans 8:22-23 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
24 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

The Bible, though not a book of science, is scientifically accurate--as is shown here. All things tend toward a state of degeneration. The whole creation groans and travails in pain together until now. Things are getting worse, not better, contrarty to what evolution teaches.
"Even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting...for the redemption of our bodies. Things are getting worse not better. All things tend toward a state of degeneration. Order does not arise out of chaos.

My great, great grandfather was not a rock--was yours?

No, but she's nothing but a few pounds of minerals now, having been dead for some 35 years.

You are confusing origins with consequence. The wages of sin is death. Only God gives life. At the end of life man returns to the dust of the earth, his body awaiting the resurrection of the dead.

If science cannot be observed, it isn't science, by its very definition.

Then by your own definition, YEC science is also not science.

I never said it was. Creation is divine revelation. The Bible is not a book of science, however, I contend that the facts contained therein are scientifically accurate. I contend that the evolutionary model is as much religion as creation is. I contend that the truth ought to be taught in schools and not lies. Evolution is not based on truth, but lies. There is no scientifice fact that upholds the fallacies of evolution. What is the point of teaching lies to our children? Is this ethical?

Science has no business sticking its nose in the metaphysical realm of the origin of the universe, which God alone can explain.

This is a clear example of what I said earlier. In order for the YEC crowd to attempt to refute evolution, it must first attempt to elevate it to the status of religion. Without that strawman arguement, YEC falls apart.

It is no strawman argument. It is a religion, with no scientific leg to stand upon, and you have done nothing to prove otherwise. Your belief is in a fairy tale story; not the God of the Bible. Evolution is simply a replacement for God. It was Julian Huxley who said:
I believe in evolution, not because it is credible, but because belief in God is far too incredible!
Evolution, for him, was a replacement for God. He would not, did not want to yield himself to God the Creator of the universe.
DHK

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by DHK:
I gave you three definitions from the Marriam-Webster Dictionary. Do you deny that the dictionary is wrong? Science must be observed. Knowledge is gained through observation.

But the evidence for evolution IS observed. Fossils are removed from the earth, and are observed. Their resemblences and families are noted. The ages of the layers above and below are determined through observation of what radioactive decay results are present; many other particulars are observed.

The genome in currently living animals is observed. Family relationships are again deduced from the genome. This independently derived family relationship agrees with the previously derived family relationships.

Vestiges are observed. You have a muscle on your tailbone precisely where animals that really have tails have the muscle to lift their tails. Yours doesn't move anything.

This idea that evolution is not based on observation is hogwash; because looking at fossils is an observation!

in fact evoultion is simply a means to avoid God. The evoultionist believes in evolution because he does not want to beieve in God; it is a substitute for God. It is antithetical to God, and yet a religion in itself.

Another falsehood. Evolutionists believe evolution to be true because the evidence is convincing. It is only not convincing to those who choose to deny it for religous reasons. It is not anthetical to GOd; it is only antithetical to a particular literal interpretation of Genesis.

The difference: We know what we believe, and freely admit that be faith we believe the Bible to be true and accurate, and that there is scientific evidence to back it up.

No real scientific evidence backs up the antievolution stance. However, claims that they do are frequently made, but are, upon investigation, found to be empty of any real science.

May I suggest to you that you read the first chapter of Genesis, and see how God created all things and gave life to all things. To deny this is to deny the Creator, the giver of all life. The Creationist has his model, and the evolutionist has his. They both are religions, and they both start at the same starting points--FAITH.

It is one way to interpret Genesis One that makes it appear evolution is impossible; other interpretations are possible. And no matter how many times you repeat that evolution is a religion, it will remain a science.

Whether it is a theory of astronomy or not is irrelevant. That is totally irrelevant at this point. It is taught in school textbooks as fact. It is taught as the origin of the universe in context of the grand scheme of evolution. It is brought into textbooks from elementary to secondary textbooks. Your technical differentiation has nothing to do with the real world and how it is taught in the grand scheme of things to our children as part and parcel of evolution.

Well, the big bang is observed.

Only a fool would deny the actual laws of science in order to believe in a religion that they have made up, and foolishly called "science" when it is not.
This belief is particularly bad. It denies the Second Law of Thermodynamics--that all things tend toward a state of degeneration. It is an increase in entropy. For example, if I throw my watch against the wall, and it breaks into a thousand pieces, how long will it take before all those thousand pieces will form (all by themselves) into a perfectly ordered watch again?

There is no law that says all things tend toward a state of degeneration. If that were the true law, then how did the watch get here? It is a form of organization of formerly simpler materials!

Let me tell you the true law of disorganization. It is this: The total amount of disorganization will increase. But it does allow that in some places organization will increase, as long as we realize organization is decreasing that much more somewhere else.

Thus, life can breed more life, causing elements to be organized from crude food into complicated life, but in the process, the total amount of entropy in the universe is increased more quickly than it would have otherwise increased. The extra entropy is shed from the earth in the form of infrared radiation, but we normally don't pay much attention to that.

Order never arises out of chaos

Another bad idea of laws of science. Snowflakes are a trivial example to the contrary that proves you have not correctly stated a true absolute law.

If order could never arrive through disorder, then how come a population can grow from just a few to many? Isn't that a reorganization of matter into living material of a more highly organized sort? A thing you just delared to be impossible!

Evolution is not based on truth, but lies. There is no scientifice fact that upholds the fallacies of evolution. What is the point of teaching lies to our children? Is this ethical?

There is a high degree of needless repititon in this post. Do you think that by saying the same thing over and over that will make it true?

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by DHK:
You infer it is an observed fact. I would like to say that you are "off your rocker" to imply such.

Sorry, but you're clearly in denial about something that is factual. The formation of the building blocks of life have been observed several times. (Note that I did not say that life was observed as being formed, but ratherm the building blocks of life were formed, under specific conditions which occur naturally).

To say that you are even close to contradicting the law of biogenesis...

Never said otherwise. However, it must be noted that Biogenesis and evolution are two different things. Evolution is a theory (or series of theories) which explain the reason for life forms changing over time. Evolutionary theories do not attempt to explain the origin of life prior to the existence of life. This is a YEC promoted fallacy.

...again those things which put into the realm of fairy tale unobservable religion with no scientic evidence whatsoever.

The observation of life forms changing over time is abundantly observable in the fossil record. At the same time, there is no evidence int eh fossil record whatsoever that all life forms in their present form existed at the same time anywhere in the past.

The Creationist has his model, and the evolutionist has his. They both are religions, and they both start at the same starting points--FAITH.

Science supports the gradual change of life forms over time. It does not support all life forms existing at the same time.

Whether it is a theory of astronomy or not is irrelevant.

It certainly is. The study of astronomy and the study of biology are two complete separate things. They are no more related that the laws of chemistry and the laws of music.

It is taught in school textbooks as fact.

Certain aspects of evolution are indeed fact. However, according to my daughter's science textbooks, the topic evolution is found only in one (biology), and it is clearly referred to as a theory. Again, YEC's must convince the rest of us that it's being pushed off as a "fact" in order to further their false agenda.

It is taught as the origin of the universe in context of the grand scheme of evolution.

That's not evolution. That's astronomy. Your ignrance knows no limits.

Your technical differentiation has nothing to do with the real world and how it is taught in the grand scheme of things to our children as part and parcel of evolution.

More YEC grandstanding.

It denies the Second Law of Thermodynamics--that all things tend toward a state of degeneration.

Interesting that you're clearly misunderstanding the second law of thermodynamics. This law referrs fo a closed system. It does not refer to the effect of outside forces, like, for instance, gravity. Last time I checked, gravity was a fact, though at one time, some Christians believed it to be heretical.

Order never arises out of chaos, and that is precisely what the evolutionist would have us to believe.

If order never arises out of Chaos, then God is a myth. You must be an atheist, then.

The Bible, though not a book of science, is scientifically accurate

Even though it describes a flat earth.

You are confusing origins with consequence.

Of course. Only YEC's are allowed that privilege, and get upset when called on it.

The Bible is not a book of science, however, I contend that the facts contained therein are scientifically accurate.

Perhaps it is your perception of the facts contained therein are in error. Christianity has been guilty of that countless times in scientific history. Just ask Columbus, Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler.

I contend that the evolutionary model is as much religion as creation is.

Then only that which is supportable by science should be allowed in the science classroom, and then only as theory. Oh wait, I just described the theories of evolution as currently instructed.

There is no scientifice fact that upholds the fallacies of evolution.

Except for all the data.

Science has no business sticking its nose in the metaphysical realm of the origin of the universe, which God alone can explain.

Science is in the business of looking at data and explaining how. It doesn't attempt to explain whodunnit. YEC's often falsely say that science denies the creator. Since science doesn't attempt to address the nature of the creator, that assertion is yet another YEC strawman.

 

[jcrawford]

Paul of E:

"Physically they are intermediate between humans and animals."
========================

That's what some Europeans used to say about other races.

Oh, I forgot. Species are races.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
A while back I issued a challenge: find one website dedicated to anti-evolution and young earth views of more than three pages that does not contain a plain scientific error. Several were suggested and none were found. This should tell you something.

Here's a greater challenge. Find one website dedicated to evolution and old earth views of more than three pages that does not contain multiple scientific errors. This should tell you something.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Johnv:

It is taught in school textbooks as fact.

Certain aspects of evolution are indeed fact. However, according to my daughter's science textbooks, the topic evolution is found only in one (biology), and it is clearly referred to as a theory. Again, YEC's must convince the rest of us that it's being pushed off as a "fact" in order to further their false agenda.

Here are some quotes from various text books and reference books used in school. The first is a grade five Canadian Social Studies text book.

The rocks in photograph 3-1 show a tiny sample of the Canadian Shield, which is a huge area of ancient worn-down mountains. Much of the Shield is rugged country less than 2,000 feet above sea level, but this was not always so. In its early youth our planet earth consisted of gases and molten rock. The first solid land masses slowly formed 3,000 million years ago and eventually became the central cores of the continents. The Canadian Shield at one time consisted of mountains higher than the Rocky Mountains of today. It was the only piece of what is North America rising above the waters of ancient seas. However, during the hundreds of millions of years that followed, the mountains were gradually worn down by water, ice, wind, and temperature changes (freezing and thawing). The loosened material was carried away by rivers and glaciers and deposited elsewhere. It thus helped to form the rest of our country. (This wearing down an carrying away is called erosion).
(Canada: This Land of Ours, Ed. Wiley, William, et. al. Ginn and Co., 1970, pp.24-26)

Every state in the Union, as well as every province in our Dominion, have existing laws that teachers teach the truth and not falsify information. They ought to be fired, and the school board taken to court for teaching such misinformation as fact. These are not truths. They are lies being taught as truths. What solid land mass rose 3 billion years ago, and what evidence do you have for making such a claim? It is simply assumed that this is true. This is brain-washing. What mountains took hundreds of millions of years to wear down? More unsubstantiated lies, and more brainwashing.
The sad thing about this all, is that every bit of it could be explained by the flood.
Remember the above is simply a grade five history book.

This next text book is a high school textbook for Biology.

professor Elso. S. Barghoorn of Harvard University discovered the fossil cell on page 68, 2 billion years old, and also the bacteriumlike fossil in Figure 4-3, more than 3 billion years old. Still older rocks are believed to have been recycled by natural processes. Therefore the fossil record on earth does not (or does no longer) go all the way back to what could have been the first life forms. (p.73)
Most photosynthesis today is carried on by plants that produce oxygen. Bacterial photosynthesis may have been the main photosynthetic form on earth several billion years ago, but today it is very minor in comparison with the photosynthesis of the oxygen producing type. The amount of oxygen produced by photosynthesis is enormous. Photosynthesis will have replaced all the oxygen that is now in the earth's atmosphere in a little over 2,000 years. This is a short period compared with the 4.7 billion years that is the estimated age of the earth. Such calculations convinced scientists that all the oxygen in the earth's atmosphere has come from photosynthesis. (p.133)
(Biological Science: A Molecular Approach, McCarthy, D.C. Heath and Co., 1980)

For a high schooler, there are a lot of assumptions here. These assumptions are taught as fact. In reality these so-called facts are lies. When lies are taught as truths who is liable?

To give an idea how long this has been permeating our society I will quote from a 1957 college text book, General Zoology.

It has been calculated that the earth was detached from the sun between 5 and 10 billion years ago. For a few billion years after its formation, the earth was presumably a glowing mass, far too hot to furnish an environment for any form of life. The historic record of the existence of organisms begins in terms of our present knowledge, possibly as long ago as 3 billion years. Sedimentary rocks dating from this age contain spores of simple plant-like organisms. The level of organization of these fossilized traces of early life reveals, however, that they were the product of immense evolutionary advance during long antecedent periods of time. (Page 618)
(General Zoology, Guthrie, Mary; John Wiley & Sons Inc., 1957)

This is really good isn't it? The "historic record…as long ago as 3 billion years." I really would like to see that history, wouldn't you? She says it is in terms of "our present knowledge." Doesn't that mean it is factual. Where does this factual historical knowledge of 3 billion year old organisms come from? Taught as fact—the reality is fiction.

From a Geology textbook on the college level.

At one time in the remote past, the constituents of the earth were part of a larger mass which was to become the solar system. The history of the planet as such began when its constituents were gathered into a region of space separate and apart from the materials which became the other members of the solar system. Since that time, it is generally believed, only relatively minor amounts of matter have been added to or subtracted from the earth. The earliest "proto-earth" has been compared to a cloud of smoke or dust, to a mass of cinders, or to the head of a comet. There is considerable reason to believe that the chief constituents were small pellets of stony material called chondrules. These bodies, which have been found in a large number of meteorites and are dated about 4 1/2 to 5 billion years old, contain the necessary solid or non-volatile molecules from which the earth could be formed. In the beginning they must have been mixed, frozen, or "glued" together by additional liquid and gaseous matter of unknown composition. Such a heterogeneous mass of loosely packed material would have had a strong resemblance to a comet but would, of course, have been much larger than ay now existing in this system. (Page 261)
(Introduction to Geology, William Lee Stokes, Prentice Hall Inc., 1968)

Five billion years old, eh? Another nice little story with no factual basis.

So from grade five history, high school biology, to college zoology and geology, we have evolution. It permeates our society in every facet of life. It is taught in every branch of science, as fact, when it cannot stand of fact. It stands on guess work at best; lies at worst.
DHK

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by jcrawford:
Here's a greater challenge. Find one website dedicated to evolution and old earth views of more than three pages that does not contain multiple scientific errors. This should tell you something.

http://www.eso.org/

Please point out the errors with documented references that it really is an error. That you do not agree doesn't count.

You got one for us to try on your side?

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by gb93433:
After all how do you explain creation without God? Evolution.

As Richard Dawkins notes..

Richard Dawkins is Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

He is the author of many books including the international best-sellers "The Selfish Gene", "The Blind Watchmaker", and "Climbing Mount Improbable."

FROM : http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/transcript/dawk-frame.html

Excerpt –
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
QUESTION: What is your response to the view that some Christians are putting forward that God is the designer of the whole evolutionary system itself?

MR. DAWKINS: In the 19th century people disagreed with the principle of evolution, because it seemed to undermine their faith in God. Now there is a new way of trying to reinstate God, which is to say, well, we can see that evolution is true. Anybody who is not ignorant or a fool can see that evolution is true. So we smuggle God back in by suggesting that he set up the conditions in which evolution might take place. I find this a rather pathetic argument. For one thing, if I were God wanting to make a human being, I would do it by a more direct way rather than by evolution. Why deliberately set it up in the one way which makes it look as though you don't exist? It seems remarkably roundabout not to say a deceptive way of doing things.
But the other point is it's a superfluous part of the explanation. The whole point -- the whole beauty of the Darwinian explanation for life is that it's self-sufficient. You start with essentially nothing -- you start with something very, very simple -- the origin of the Earth. And from that, by slow gradual degrees, as I put it "climbing mount improbable" -- by slow gradual degree you build up from simple beginnings and simple needs easy to understand, up to complicated endings like ourselves and kangaroos.
Now, the beauty of that is that it works. Every stage is explained, every stage is understood. Nothing extra, nothing extraneous needs to be smuggled in. It all works and it all -- it's a satisfying explanation. Now, smuggling in a God who sets it all up in the first place, or who supervises the details, is simply to smuggle in an entity of the very kind that we are trying to explain -- namely, a complicated and beautifully designed higher intelligence. That's what we are trying to explain. We have a good explanation. Why smuggle in a superfluous adjunct which is unnecessary? It doesn't add anything to the explanation.

QUESTION: What is your view of more liberal religious views that are held by people like your Oxford colleage Arthur Peacocke, who is both a biochemist and an Anglican minister?

MR. DAWKINS: More sophisticated theological views, people like Arthur Peacocke and John Polkinghorne – obviously they're not creationists in any simple sense -- they're not fundamentalists, they're not stupid. So do I respect them more? Well, in one respect obviously I do, because really you could have an intelligent conversation with them -- they're not ignorant. On the other hand, I can't understand what they're doing it for. I mean, I don't understand what it is that is being added, either to their lives or to the storehouse of human wisdom by bringing in this additional dimension of explanation. We have science. Science is by no means complete -- there's a lot that we don't know -- but we're working on it. Both of those two gentlemen are scientists, and they know what that means. They understand it and they respect it. We're working on building up a complete picture of the universe, which if we succeed will be a complete understanding of the universe and everything that is in it. So I don't understand why they waste their time going into this other stuff which never has added anything to the storehouse of human wisdom, and I don't see that it ever will.

QUESTION: Why do you think that in an age of science so many people, even in the West, and particularly in America, continue to believe in religion?

MR. DAWKINS: I don't understand why so many people who are sophisticated in science go on believing in God. I wish I did. You'd have to ask them.

</font>[/QUOTE]The Christian believer in evolutionism responds to Richard Dawkins and his observateions - by claiming that Evolutionists know nothing about the claims of evolutionism so who can believe Dawkins.

How "instructive".

What a fresh revelation into the religion that is evolutionism.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

DHK

Do you have anything other than personal incredulity to back up your claims? You assert that the earth is not billions of years old but I see no evidence to support your assertion. You claim problems with the Canadian Shield as taught in the textbooks. Then show us where the geologists' mistakes were.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
You got one for us to try on your side? [/QB]

http://www.halos.com/index.htm

Oh 'yes' and please use no atheist as "your sources". Also use 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.

(Just want to make this objective).

As Clarence Darrow observed - how awful it would be if only one side of the debate were allowed.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
DHK

Do you have anything other than personal incredulity to back up your claims? You assert that the earth is not billions of years old but I see no evidence to support your assertion. You claim problems with the Canadian Shield as taught in the textbooks. Then show us where the geologists' mistakes were.

I have given you many sources where supposedly objective school books would teach science using the scientific method and come to rational conclusions using valid science, science that uses observation. Evolution, as I have pointed out goes against many basic laws of science, so many so that it isn't even a science in and of itself. If it makes a claim that it believes is valid: i.e., the earth being 4.7 billion years old, then it is up to the evolutionist to bring forth the evidence of how the earth could possibly be so old. Their proof is taken entirely by faith, not by fact.
DHK

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
http://www.halos.com/index.htm

Oh 'yes' and please use no atheist as "your sources". Also use 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.

(Just want to make this objective).

Not a problem. From "Radiometric Dating A Christian Perspective" Dr. Roger C. Wiens

"Radiation halos" in rocks prove that the Earth was young.

This refers to tiny halos of crystal damage surrounding spots where radioactive elements are concentrated in certain rocks. Halos thought to be from polonium, a short-lived element produced from the decay of uranium, have been found in some rocks. A plausible explanation for a halo from such a short-lived element is that these were not produced by an initial concentration of the radioactive element. Rather, as water seeped through cracks in the minerals, a chemical change caused newly-formed polonium to drop out of solution at a certain place and almost immediately decay there. A halo would build up over a long period of time even though the center of the halo never contained more than a few atoms of polonium at one time. "Hydrothermal" effects can act in ways that at first seem strange, such as the well-known fact that gold--a chemically un-reactive metal with very low solubilities--is concentrated along quartz veins by the action of water over long periods of time. Other researchers have found halos produced by an indirect radioactive decay effect called hole diffusion, which is an electrical effect in a crystal. These results suggest that the halos in question are not from short-lived isotopes after all.

At any rate, halos from uranium inclusions are far more common. Because of uranium's long half-lives, these halos take at least several hundred million years to form. Because of this, most people agree that halos provide compelling evidence for a very old Earth.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

and

What about the Halos?
Polonium Halos found in certain rocks are commonly held up as evidence that those rocks were created in minutes, rather than by the slow cooling of magma over millions of years. Halos are radiation damaged areas in rock. It is suggested that there would have been no polonium halos if the rock had taken a long time to form.

The halos in question are similar to ones from polonium. Polonium was the first radioactive element to be isolated, by Marie and Pierre Curie. It is a very short-lived element produced from radon, which is produced by the decay of uranium. However, several very plausible natural explanations for these haloes have been offered. One of them is that these haloes are found in uranium-rich rocks, so there are already plenty of raw materials to produce polonium. Radon, since it is a gas, can move around slowly in porous rocks. Radon atoms can be trapped in small cracks in rocks, where they decay to polonium. Where larger numbers of polonium atoms collect, they then decay further leaving spherical damage marks such as haloes in the rock. There are also concerns that the examples shown are not from ancient rock, but infusions of younger rock into them. Another point is that there are halos from other longer lived elements that could be mistaken for Polonium halos.

http://www.reasons.org/chapters/spokane/newsletters/200403newsletter.shtml?main

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by DHK:
If it makes a claim that it believes is valid: i.e., the earth being 4.7 billion years old, then it is up to the evolutionist to bring forth the evidence of how the earth could possibly be so old. Their proof is taken entirely by faith, not by fact.
DHK

Faith? No, fact.

Isochron dating of meteorites consistently dates the formation of the solar system to 4.56 billion years ago.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:

Isochron dating of meteorites consistently dates the formation of the solar system to 4.56 billion years ago.

There is no reliable way of dating a hunk of rock from space. How does Isochron dating supposedly put a date of almost five billion years on a chunk of rock from space when you have no point of reference. You don't where the rock came from: moon, mars, saturn, comet, another galaxie, etc. You have no idea of what you are referencing. As far as a Creationist is concerned the rock is no more (at the very most) 6,000 to 10,000 years old, and has the appearance of an age much greater than that. God created this world, and all the universe, and all that is contained therein with an appearance of age. How old were the stars when God put them in the sky? One day old, but they looked a lot older than that. So Adam looked a lot older than a newborn when he was created also.
DHK