Religion of Evolution

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
DHK
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.

The geologists base their dating of strata according to the time-scale established by "evolutionary index fossils."

The Canadian Sheild is igneous rock.

No fossils - no sedimentary dating.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
I'll accept information from anyone with good facts and logic. I have yet to see that from YECers.

I had hoped that our OEC brethren could manage a good informed fact/logical argument etc in favor of their evolutionist beliefs - so far -- that has been missing.

But I appreciate the fact that there was a very modest attempt by some of our OEC brethren to show the same level of objectivity already demonstrated by the YEC group - still you would think they could succeed at least a little.

In the case of the subject of this thread - our OEC posts are seen to merely "assume their points" regarding the religion of evolutionism. They "claim fact" for every speculation they make.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[jcrawford]

Ute:

"Isochron dating" sounds like some esoteric religious rite.

 

[jcrawford]

Paul of E:

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

Do you expect me to believe all that "scientific" gobbleygook? That's your religion, not mine.

And don't tell me it's science because that's another religious belief of yours.

What use has your 'evolutionary science' other than refuting someone else's religious beliefs?

Moon rocks are rocks. Give me that old time religion.

Ain't nothing in space but empty space.

 

[UTEOTW]

"the fact that the crust of the earth once erupted convulsively in a volcanic catastrophe during a worldwide aquatic deluge which destroyed all evidence of evolution and proves that 99% of the fossils in the 'fossil record' were deposited in sedimentary layers of mud as the flood tides abated."

You got any evidence for this grand assertion? Such a recent volcanic catastophe would leave unmistakable formations. Where are they?

 

[UTEOTW]

"The geologists base their dating of strata according to the time-scale established by "evolutionary index fossils."

The Canadian Sheild is igneous rock.

No fossils - no sedimentary dating. "

I do not know if you are going after a strawman or if you just do not understand dating.

Dating sedimentary rocks by index fossils is an indirect way to date the layers. Somewhere you have to find those same index fossils in a layer (well, actually, I would think this is something you would in practice do several times, but I digress) that can be dated by other means, usually some form of radiometric dating. Once you establish a firm age for when those fossils lived, and then you assign that age to layers that cannot be be dated directly, but that hav those fossils in them. You usually supplement this by finding layers above and below that can be dated directly to bracket the age giving a bit more confidence to the measurement.

Now an igneous rock, you can just date it directly. None of those messy index fossils to deal with.

You know, when I was changing from YEC to my present views, things like this had a big impact on me. The biggest impact was stumbling onto the YEC "facts" and realizing how preposterous they were. That opened my mind. But then I would come across statement after statement like this. A YECer would throw out some ridiculous claim, like you cannot date an igneous rock or that dating is circular, an OEer would patiently correct him, and then the YECer would either ignore the correct and assert the same baseless things again, or would move on to other baseless things that could not be defended once someone else addressed them. Seeing the YECers constantly deny obvious things, present things that were obviously misunderstood, or worse present things where it was obvious that there source was playing deliberate games with the data, quoting good people out of context, and so on, showed me that they have no logical and factual argument to make. I hope we have lurkers reading this now who have not made up their minds or who are open to changing their views.

 

[UTEOTW]

"Isochron dating" sounds like some esoteric religious rite.

 

[UTEOTW]

"Do you expect me to believe all that "scientific" gobbleygook? That's your religion, not mine."

Let's just be clear. You cannot document any errors for us. In the grand tradition, anything that cannot be refuted can simply be denied. I hope it makes you feel good.

I am not trying to refure your religion. I believe we share the same religion, so why would I want to do that. I think that YECism brings great harm to the church and to the cause of Christ and I think we will all be better off when it goes the way of geocentrism. When you set your believes up as unreconcilable with the modern science, but you cannot show where the modern science is wrong you can only deny deny deny, then you are setting up unnecessary problems for your religion. And you are causing some people to lose their faith and others to never get it because of your denial.

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
I think that YECism brings great harm to the church and to the cause of Christ...

Your opinion is a pretty bold statement there UTEOTW, let’s take a look at the Fruits of Evolution vs. the Fruits of Creation.

Our Creator Jesus Christ in Matthew 7:18 stated that a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit and neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

The following is a list of harmful philosophies and evil practices of evolution that will shed some light on the evolution “TREE” which is certainly corrupt for its “FRUIT” has been uniformly evil. The leading advocates of these philosophies have in every case based their pseudoscientific rationale on evolutionism.

First lets examine the ‘FRUITS’ of evolution.

Harmful philosophies:
Communism, Nazism, Racism, Imperialism, Atheism, Humanism, Occultism, Social Darwinism, Scientism, etc…

Evil practices:
Abortion, drug culture, Promiscuity, Pornography, Genocide, Euthanasia, Chauvism, New-Agism, Bestiality, Homosexuality, Satanism, Witchcraft, etc…

Now lets examine the ‘FRUITS’ of creationists.

Wholesome Human Social Relations:
1. Monogamous Marriage established by God with the first literal human couple (Gen. 2:21-25 & Matt. 19:46).
2. Dominion mandated established human stewardship of man under God over the physical and animal creation, viewing every honorable occupation as a service to God (Gen. 1:26-28, Col. 3:23).
3. Human government ordained to maintain order in society as a service to the Creator (Gen. 9:1-7; Rom. 13:1-7).

True Science:
1. Founding fathers of modern science were creationists ‘thinking God’s thoughts after Him’. Newton, Kepler, Boyle, etc.
2. Uses scientific methods based on premise of orderly creation, capable of being understood and described rationally, because designed by an intelligent Creator.

True education:
1. Transmitting truth learned via obedience to dominion mandated from one generation to another, thereby ‘subduing’ the earth.
2. Centered and controlled in the home and family, stressing, first of all obedience to God and His Word (Gen. 18:18, 19; Eph. 28:19, 20).
3. Transmission of truth through God’s people (Matt. 28:19, 20; 1 Tim 3:16).

True Americanism:
1. Founding fathers of American system, though not all Bible-believing, were for the most part creationists.
2. The Declaration of Independence assumes American freedom required by obedience to our Creator (All men CREATED equal).
3. The Background of the US Constitution is based on English common law, which was derived mainly from scripture and efforts of many Bible-believing founding fathers of this country.

True Christianity:
1. Christology – Christ as Creator (Hohn 1:3; Col. 1:16; etc.).
2. Gospel founded “everlastingly” on God, first as CREATOR, then as incarnate saving the word (Rev. 14:6,7).
3. Saving faith centered first of all on God’s work as CREATOR (Hebrews 10:38 – 11:3).
4. Sound evangelism, see Johns Gospel
5. Sound Missionary efforts, see Paul’s examples in Acts.
6. Fellowship (Eph 3:8-12).
7. Christian Life (Col. 3:10; 2 Cor. 5:17).
8. Christian home and family (Matt. 19:3-6).
9. Biblical evelation and Inerrancy (Psalm 119:89,90; Hebrews 1:1-1,2).
10. Redemption (1 Peter 1:18-21; 2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 1:2)

 

[Brett]

Our Creator Jesus Christ in Matthew 7:18 stated that a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit and neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

A nice notion, but demonstrably false. In addition to the vast amount of good it does, Christianity, clearly a 'good tree', has also resulted in unspeakable atrocities. I don't know what Jesus really meant by this, but history clearly demonstrates that people acting in the name of our Lord have committed unimaginable crimes. Is Christianity then rendered worthless because of their crimes? Of course not.

I also cannot figure out what evolution could possibly have to do with "Abortion, drug culture, Promiscuity, Pornography, Genocide, Euthanasia, Chauvism, New-Agism, Bestiality, Homosexuality, Satanism, Witchcraft, etc…"
Seriously, I'd love to see a convincing argument detailing how evolution has resulted in a rise in htese practises.

Of course, even if it did (a laughable notion), it wouldn't mean that evolution didn't happen. A premise is true irrespective of any unpleasant philosophical implications one might attribute to it.

Finally, the "fruits" you listed are fruits of Christians, not fruits of Creationists.

 

[UTEOTW]

"Finally, the "fruits" you listed are fruits of Christians, not fruits of Creationists."

john6:63

I do not believe you can demonstrate from primary scientific sources how any of the things you mentioned come from TOE. Where you think something has its basis (I think most of the things you listed have absolutely nothing to do with TOE, even people's misapplication.) and where people misapply a theory has nothing to do with how valid it is.

People have done dispicable things in the name of Christianity through the years. A cop was killed not far from where I live a few years ago when one of these people tried to blow up an abortion clinic. But I am not giving up my Christianity over these misguided people. Just the same, if someone wants to try and twist a theory to give excuse to their perversion, it is their perversion that is at fault. It has no bearing on the validity of the theory.

Finally, you claimed that TOE is not science because of the lack of observations. Do you care to comment on the list of observations I posted a few days ago. Here let me give them to you again.

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.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by jcrawford:

Do you expect me to believe all that "scientific" gobbleygook? That's your religion, not mine.

To you it makes no sense. I fear that an alternative explanation comes to my mind for that besides the material being "gobbleygook".

And don't tell me it's science because that's another religious belief of yours.

I assure you I place no hope for my eternal salvation or spiritual welfare on anything in that page. Therefore you are wrong to call my interest in the facts about radioactive dating a religion.

What use has your 'evolutionary science' other than refuting someone else's religious beliefs?

I feel sorry for those starved souls who live without curiosity and ability to learn new things, who think everything we do must have a "use". I have a lifelong interest in learning things about science. Call it a hobby. Call it an interest in learning more about God's great creation.

I'm sorry that the facts disagree with your version of our common religion.

Ain't nothing in space but empty space.

see, with this remark you show everybody who reads these posts how completely out of touch you are with what people know about space and therefore why your particular opinions about science matters should be given less weight. Thanks for helping to make this clear for others.

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
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.

If I’m not mistaken all your points from archeology, geology, astronomy, biology and the fossil record have all been met with, IMO, creditable resources from well educated scientists from AiG to ICR and you blow it off.

The difference between you and I is that I’m gonna go with the scientist that’s out to prove that the Bible can be trusted from Genesis to Revelation. You go with the atheistic side of science that’s out to destroy the Bible.

Go to any communist country that is atheistic and see what’s being taught…evolution. They use evolution, b/c it doesn’t include God, it’s their way of proving ‘there is NO God’. You try and include God, but any die-hard evolutionist would laugh at your notion of even trying, he’d also laugh at how ridiculous believing in evolution makes the bible look.

Respected Creation Scientists don’t invent bogus concepts, take your astronomy analogy, Creationists such as Setterfield or Humphreys use the same terms as all cosmologists use; ‘gravitational time dilation, black and white holes, event horizons and so on, so they will not be accused of manipulating the data to solve a problem. The same can be said about all your points. You choose to turn a blind eye to it.

Do you not think that the same theories of evolution you believe are the exact same theories atheists use to justify there’s no God? Maybe you need to learn what the bible says about SEPERATION.

 

[CalvinG]

John,

Please show me a cogent argument from the theory of evolution...not some broad cosmology...just the basic theory that new species can be formed by the pressures of natural selection on existing organisms. Please if you are able, take the theory of evolution...as it is understood by those who believe it...not setting up some broad cosmologic straw man...and argue if you are able from the theory of evolution as assumed to be true to prove the nonexistence of God.

I submit to you that what I have asked you to do is not possible in any cogent way.

I ask you to do this solely because you make the claim that evolution is used to "prove" that there is no God.

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by CalvinG:
John,

Please show me a cogent argument from the theory of evolution...not some broad cosmology...just the basic theory that new species can be formed by the pressures of natural selection on existing organisms. Please if you are able, take the theory of evolution...as it is understood by those who believe it...not setting up some broad cosmologic straw man...and argue if you are able from the theory of evolution as assumed to be true to prove the nonexistence of God.

Hello…I don’t believe in evolution, therefore I don’t have to defend it. I’m an ‘strong atheist’ so to speak when it comes to my belief in evolution. So the burden of PROOF is own you, guy.

You may start by answering these really simple questions concerning the origins of life so that evolution could take over.

Is the origin of life testable and repeatable, like a chemical reaction? If so, has this been done in a lab? Is there a sustainable model for chemicals coming together and creating life? If so has the scientific community agreed upon this model? If not why?

Has it been demonstrated in a lab that a living cell can gradually evolve one part, but not another? Wouldn’t by evolutionary theory, evolving one part of a cell and not another, put a transitional form at a disadvantage? Isn’t it true that in order for a cell to exist all components that make up a cell must exist simultaneously?

How could something like DNA be created randomly? Have evolutionary science been able to adequately explain the design and purpose shown in the living cells and in structures that make-up these living cells, as DNA?

Originally posted by CalvinG:
I ask you to do this solely because you make the claim that evolution is used to "prove" that there is no God.

Glad you made this statment, b/c I've ALWAYS wondered were God was included in the theory of evolution. I just can't seem to find God in it. Maybe you can help. Show me from the bible were God used evolution. This should be quite a shock to the atheistic community.

 

[CalvinG]

There is no statement in the Bible that God used evolution. I think we both know this.

You appear to have answered my questions with questions. This is not an uncommon practice of those who do not have answers.

You claim that the absence of God in the Theory of Evolution is used to prove that God does not exist. How can this be? The absence of God from the First Law of Thermodynamics does not prove that God does not exist. Does it?

I have not asked you to defend evolution. I have asked you to criticize it by proving that from belief in evolution, there logically follows a belief that God does not exist. You appear to be unable to do this. Though you apparently claim that atheists, with whom both you and I disagree as to the existence of God, are able to use evolution to prove that God does not exist.

I don't think they can.

Your questions regard abiogenesis, about which I have also posted previously that I believe God was involved in creating the first cells because I didn't think the necessary components were likely to come together purely at random.

The theory of evolution as applied to living organisms can be separated from abiogenesis and is not universally understood to include abiogenesis...the formation of the first cell or cells.

You are asking me to explain things which the theory of evolution as I understand it...not as some broad cosmology...does not address.

 

[UTEOTW]

john6:63

Let me just address some of this randomly.

"If I’m not mistaken all your points from archeology, geology, astronomy, biology and the fossil record have all been met with, IMO, creditable resources from well educated scientists from AiG to ICR and you blow it off. ... Respected Creation Scientists don’t invent bogus concepts, take your astronomy analogy, Creationists such as Setterfield or Humphreys use the same terms as all cosmologists use; ‘gravitational time dilation, black and white holes, event horizons and so on, so they will not be accused of manipulating the data to solve a problem."

I, personally, would not say that I merely "blow it off" when it come to places like ICR and AIG. I believe that when presented with such evidence I have strongly challenged it on both factual and logical grounds. Now we may disagree on whether I have been successful or not. But I do not merely dismiss their claims, I mount strong challenges to them. And, personally, I find them severely lacking at the very least.

Where have the "Respected Creation Scientists" submitted their work to experts in their fields to see if they do worthwhile work? They have not. Why? Your average grad student could show the errors in just a few minutes. Much of what they have to say sounds real good on the surface. Very effective in convincing the lay masses. But once you probe, you find there is nothing underneath. It seems most of these guys hold only honorary doctorates, ones from diploma mills, or ones in unrelated subjects if they are even doctors. Take the example of Humphreys. He may use all the right terms. (Well, I may have to disagree wtih that. I don't thing astronomers speak of "white holes.") But he does not use them correctly. He tries to use relativity and cosmology. But he is not formally trained in these subjects and makes the kinds of mistakes you would expect of someone in that position. Those who are trained easily spot the problems. For the rest of us, well it does sound convincing when people start throwing around big words. I am not questioning his intelligence nor his motives. He just does not have the tools for the task.

"The difference between you and I is that I’m gonna go with the scientist that’s out to prove that the Bible can be trusted from Genesis to Revelation. You go with the atheistic side of science that’s out to destroy the Bible."

You insuate that I do not trust the Bible. A common bit of slander in this topic, but not true. I do not think that the fact of evolution causes error in the Bible any more than a spherical earth or the earth orbiting the sun. I think the evidence is what needs to be weighed. And the overwhelming majority indicates an old earth.

I have made it a habit to seek out what both sides have to say on topics in this general area. Talk.Origins is great for this because when you have a given topic, they will often link to creationist sites on the topic and will publish creationist's responses to what they have to say. It is also just as easy to go to ICR or AIG or even Google and find both sides and read. Whatever side you are own, I strongly encourage you to read in depth on both sides. It is the only way to become familiar with the topics and to learn enough to decide for yourself. If you only look at one side, the other side never has a chance.

I disagree that looking at the evidence from science is the equivalent of taking the atheist's side.

"Do you not think that the same theories of evolution you believe are the exact same theories atheists use to justify there’s no God?

You only add fuel to their fire by insisting that an old earth is incompatible with the Bible. The earth IS old. If you insist that this fact is irreconcilable with your beliefs, than you are the one arguing the side of the atheists. Not me. If you insist on that, you better have some very strong scientific arguments to back it up. Otherwise, you are proving my point above that YEC is damaging to our cause. And I have yet to see a worthwhile scientific case for a yound earth. Why don't you try addressing some of my points above. Research both sides. Decide what you think. Present it in your own words. We'll see what you come up with.

Good day.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
I am not trying to refure your religion. I believe we share the same religion, so why would I want to do that. I think that YECism brings great harm to the church and to the cause of Christ

Your statement is not made in support of the Gospel or the Word of God - it is clearly made "in spite of it".

It has been repeatedly shown that evolutionism is is directly opposed to the statements of both NT and OT Gospel writers. No real interest in following that discussion among evolutionists - since they adopt faith in evolutinism "in spite" of the Gospel and the Word of God -- not "because of it".

The tactic of evolutionists is merely to "assume facts not in evidence" in each discussion. Claiming that they have had success where in fact they have only had opportunities to tell stories of the form "possibly, maybe, could be -- if only we had enough centuries to produce the needed data experimentally ..."

UTEOTW
When you set your believes up as unreconcilable with the modern science, but you cannot show where the modern science is wrong

Circular reasoning - "assuming" that there is "good science" behind the doctrines of evolutionism though you have failed to show it. Then claiming any fault found in the myths of evolutionism is in fact finding fault with good science.

You are simply "claiming" to have demonstrated a fact that you only "assumed".

The mistake that you make there may be excused as a side effect of a devoted follower in the teachings of evolutionism - but why choose that belief system in the first place?

As Dawkings points out - it is a totally inconsistent position for evolutionism.


In Christ,

Bob

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
You got any evidence for this grand assertion? Such a recent volcanic catastophe would leave unmistakable formations. Where are they?

Creation scientists show that the present geological formation and structures of the whole earth are the result of seismic upheavals during the worldwide flood so the evidence is all around us.

Evolutionists start with religious premises too.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
I am not trying to refure your religion. I believe we share the same religion, so why would I want to do that. I think that YECism brings great harm to the church and to the cause of Christ and I think we will all be better off when it goes the way of geocentrism. When you set your believes up as unreconcilable with the modern science, but you cannot show where the modern science is wrong you can only deny deny deny, then you are setting up unnecessary problems for your religion. And you are causing some people to lose their faith and others to never get it because of your denial.

Most of 'modern science' deals with reality not evolutionary 'history.' If you don't believe in the Genesis Flood story then you don't share my religion. You have your own Christian version of 'evolution.'

If 'evolution' is science then why don't you leave religion out of it?