Stunning victory of Creation

[Charles Meadows]

DHK,

Yes you made a fine case using scripture; very cogent. I disagree with your insistence on a literal Genesis but that is just my opinion. Otherwise I have no critique of this.

Now if you appeal to scripture as the final authority then why do you need to support it with discussions of the science?

My point is that many of the SCIENTIFIC arguments advanced by YECers are just plain wrong, often being formed without adequate understanding of the underlying science. In my mind this tends to hurt the case for creationism. The desired end does not justify questionable means.

 

[DHK]

As a Christian Scripture is my final authority.
The Bible is not a science book, but I do not believe it is contradictary to science. I believe that just as a watch was designed and made by an intelligent maker, so the universe and all that is therein was made by an intelligent Creator with an intelligent design. I believe that within the first eleven chapters of Genesis holds the key to the origins of the universe, its age, the ice age, etc. Not only in the account of the creation, but also in the flood, do we have many of the answers to the present condition of our world. Creationism provides a viable scientific alternative to evolutionism. Evolutionism does not have all the answers, and cannot be sustained scientifically. There have been many disproven hoaxes, failed theories, unsubstantiated guesses, etc.
DHK

 

[Charles Meadows]

DHK,

Creationism provides a viable scientific alternative to evolutionism. Evolutionism does not have all the answers, and cannot be sustained scientifically. There have been many disproven hoaxes, failed theories, unsubstantiated guesses, etc.

These are largely true. "Modern science" is an imperfect scheme. It's conclusions are not PROVEN. But be that as it may we must maintain HONESTY and intellectual integrity when we report science's claims, whether or not we agree with the conclusions.

 

[HankD]

Now, when I look at the exploded star known as SN1987A, at what am I looking? If the light was created in transit, then the progenitor star never existed to explode. What did we see back in 1987?

I still insist that the creation model of the wine Jesus made is of the same order. The wine assumes grape vines, grapes, sunshine, rain and all the other things which lead up to wine, finally comes the drinking of it.

The wine is the evidence of these entities that are necessary to produce wine (which in the case at Cana did not exist), the drinking by the governor is the lab evidence of these non-existent things (such as the grapes themselves) just as your super-nova is “evidence” (perhaps).

I am not saying that this is the way it (SNA1987A) happened because I don’t know for sure and neither do you or anyone else.

I am simply offering you a possible micro-model of creation with Jesus making wine here on planet earth in an instant, which we both believe by faith (rather than empirical evidence), did indeed happen.

I think we can all agree:
NIV Ecclesiastes 3:11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end.

At very least His creation bears the marks of one of His attributes - eternality - or at least He has given His children the ability to perceive it (which tends to confuse us).

We will have this eternity in the by and by to discuss these things with Him, but I don’t think it will matter so much then anyway or who was right or who was wrong.

HankD.

 

[Michael52]

Originally posted by HankD:
At very least His creation bears the marks of one of His attributes - eternality - or at least He has given His children the ability to perceive it (which tends to confuse us).

Rather, His creation appears to bear the mark of being finite in a temporal sense and having been created Ex Nihilo (“big bang”). That is also what the Bible says. Of course, being perfectly objective, these scientific theories are still open to speculation and revision. However, we can trust what the Bible says, even if we don’t always understand it.

I tend to stay confused, but praise God that He has given us such a vast and magnificent creation to explore. Like my old boss always said, “we don’t have problems in our work, we have opportunities”.

We will have this eternity in the by and by to discuss these things with Him, but I don’t think it will matter so much then anyway or who was right or who was wrong.

...Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. Rev. 22:20

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
What most evolutionists and old earthers suggest is that Genesis 1 was written as theological epic, not intending to literally describe creation and notintending to be directly symbolic of anything. The point would be that Moses was showing that YHWH was THE creator God; and he was doing so using mythic type language with which the ancient Hebrews would identify.

And posted by Ichemist
His Word tell us what he did exactly as he wanted it, not for us to have "an account", but for every generation to understand his love and the message of salvation through Jesus Christ.

Good grief, after being away for just 3 days, the pages have gone from p. 5, my last post, to 11 pages! I've only read up to p. 8 but it's 1 a.m. and would like to go to bed, so I am responding to both of these posts at the same time as essentially they are saying the same thing: we should look at the Bible as mainly just a message about general things, like God being creator and Jesus being the Savior.

I must disagree vehemently. This kind of view just glosses over all the incredible details God gives us. These would be unnecessary if God was just giving general messages. I don't think Genesis is in mythic language, but putting that aside, there is so much detail and order throughout the Bible, that it just illogical to say it is giving general type messages, either in the OT or the NT.

Also, Jesus asked Nicodemus in Jn 3.12:

I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?

So why should we believe God's word in the "big" matters of creation and Jesus if the details are not true, or are in "mythic" language, with no indication when the mythic leaves off and the true begins? As shown on another thread, doubt about Genesis leads many to even state that Adam was not a real individual as described in the Bible. This is the result of this kind of thinking.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Marcia,

You have made quite clear that you disagree with that. But that is what many old earth adherents believe. It is much more conceivable than the "allegorical" view, which few academics hold.

 

[HankD]

Rather, His creation appears to bear the mark of being finite in a temporal sense and having been created Ex Nihilo (“big bang”). That is also what the Bible says. Of course, being perfectly objective, these scientific theories are still open to speculation and revision. However, we can trust what the Bible says, even if we don’t always understand it.

The "mark of being finite..." Well Michael, in that case, please give me the X,Y,Z coordinates of the end of the universe.

An infinite distance implies eternality, no?

HankD

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"We don't know what lies between us and the nearest, much less furtherest visible star..."

If you have a way to change the brightness of the star's light without altering the light in a discernable way then by all means present it.

Found this and thought it was interesting.

If nothing else, it demonstrates that there are forces that we do not understand with unknown, unexplained consequences.

http://www.setterfield.org/accelanom.htm

You don't have to buy this guy's explanation but you do have to explain what has changed and how

I believe it possible that normal rules governing our observations and classifications of light are largely dictated by the brightest, most influential source of energy to us- the sun. It is possible that celestial bodies/systems outside of our solar system effect light and energy in different ways.

These probes seem to be recording evidence for this conclusion as they mover further from the sun.

 

[Scott J]

"As is all those made in support of macroevolution."

Nope. Based on observation. Common descent happens to be the theory that best accounts for those observations.

Common descent? Possibly. Common ascent which evolution requires? No. Not observed and never accomplished experimentally.

 

[Scott J]

"I have pointed to facts that I know and have used logic."

Where? One fact to support your theory about a rich genome will suffice.

The fact that adaptation does currently occur by deletion of gene characteristics from a population.

 

[Scott J]

"No. It doesn't. You cannot make a rule for any population based on one statistically insignificant sample/observation."

Except that it is not ONE observation. There are over 100,000 stars measured this way!

Someone as smart as you should be able to immediately see the circular nature of your argument here.

We have one sample consisting only of what we have physically measured and verified.

 

[Scott J]

"My responses are every bit as "substantiated" in the "literal" sense of the word as biological macroevolution's supposed mechanisms."

Nope. The mechanisms are observed. Simply put, mutation and duplication, for one mechanism, has been observed to lead to novel genes which make novel proteins with novel functions.

Those observed mechanisms no more point to macroevolution than they do my contentions. Further, even if they did prove that macroevolution "could" occur it would not demonstrate that it is actually what occurred.

To say that it "did" occur, you must prove a zero starting point. You can't and the assumption of one is again... a philosophical, not scientific, choice.

BTW, the only examples you have ever cited to prove what you state above were conjectures, not observations, not experimental results. You state things as if they were proven fact when they actually are not.

 

[Johnv]

However, Scott, if it is shown that macroevolution could occur, and if past evidence is consistent with what would be expected in macroevolution, then it's reasonable to conclude that microevolution in the past likely did occur.

 

[Scott J]

That is two too many "if"s to declare something with the certainty that many do evolution.

It has not been shown that macroevolution could occur either by observation or experimentation... even after considerable effort and expense. It has not been shown nor ever could be shown that past evidence is only consistent with the expectations of macroevolution. In fact, just the contrary is true. Evolutionists on the one hand want to boast about evolutions certainty and on the other about its flexibility.

This is precisely why the only truly important discussion to be had about evolution is about its assumptions and premises.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Scott - your only reason for not accepting the strength of the evidence is denial of the strength of the evidence. We have strong evidence for macroevolution, including the presense of vestigal organs that can only be possible as left over from macro evolution; we show the patterns of inheritance present for defective vitamin c across multiple species lines, retroviral inserts across multiple species lines, all showing common ancestry for these multiple species; we show a pattern of ancient life forms arising and going extinct to be replaced by other ancient life forms that also arise and become extinct; we show the pattern of the life forms of the past becoming closer and closer to be like the life forms of today; and all the evidence that it is reasonable to be able to find is found.

I suspect that your reason for denying evolution is not based on the evidence; instead, it is based on your religious convictions, which I believe to be in error on this issue; I further suspect that it is highly unlikely that any evidence, no matter what it was, would be likely to be able to persuade you.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Scott - your only reason for not accepting the strength of the evidence is denial of the strength of the evidence.

My denial of the "strength of the evidence is based on the weakness of the evidence coupled with the Bible as strong evidence for the capabilities of God.

We have strong evidence for macroevolution, including the presense of vestigal organs that can only be possible as left over from macro evolution;

Vestigal organs are no more an evidence for macroevolution than gravel in my driveway is evidence for the natural development of granite there.

we show the patterns of inheritance present for defective vitamin c across multiple species lines, retroviral inserts across multiple species lines, all showing common ancestry for these multiple species;

No. Frankly they don't "show" that. They are interpretted that way in accordance with the premises of evolution. That makes it an example of circular reasoning to use it as a proof for evolution.

we show a pattern of ancient life forms arising and going extinct to be replaced by other ancient life forms that also arise and become extinct;

No. We show a record of extinct life forms some of which were similar to each other and that is all that the evidence actually shows. The rest is interpretation based on no process we actually see occurring in the natural world.

we show the pattern of the life forms of the past becoming closer and closer to be like the life forms of today;

No more so than the squirrel monkey and chimp (if extinct) would represent a line of evolution to man.

I suspect that your reason for denying evolution is not based on the evidence; instead, it is based on your religious convictions,

The two are not mutually exclusive. The evidence in no way precludes a supernaturally creative God and such a God most certainly stands as a strong means of explaining what we see in nature.

I further suspect that it is highly unlikely that any evidence, no matter what it was, would be likely to be able to persuade you.

First, that evidence would have to be consistent with the scripture. Evolution is not consistent with scripture even if Genesis is allegorical. Evolution is contradictory to Genesis.

Second, the premises for interpretting the evidence would have to be acknowledged and justified. IOW's, if you are going to demand a naturalistic causes you must validate that assumption by proving a prime cause or at least proposing a viable one.

Third, in the case of macroevolution, you would have to show a working model in nature that accomplished the transition from one species to another in a way that resulted in greater genetic complexity. In other words, change via genetic information not derived from ancestors that results not only in a genetic shift but one that creates a more genetically complex species. The upward evolution from non-organic materials to man involves an astronomical accumulation of information and order. If these changes cannot be observed as they naturally occur then it can only be considered a matter of faith that they ever occurred as proposed by evolution.

Fourth, you would have to demonstrate a "zero" starting point as a point of "fact". IOW's, you would have to show that God the Creator could not have started with a working, functioning universe a short period ago in the same manner that a scientist puts the elements and conditions in place for a working experiment.

 

[UTEOTW]

"It has not been shown that macroevolution could occur either by observation or experimentation..."

Let's go with a different kind of observation. It is possible to construct phylogenetic trees based on both morphology and based on genetic or molecular techniques. I assert that the heirarchy of these trees show evolutionary relationships and paths. You disagree.

Well look at this from a totally different perspective. You can look at how the fossils are located temporally. That is look in successive layers to see how the changes occur. That is we can use stratigraphy.

Now, an interesting thing happens. The cladograms you get from the phylogenic trees have been shown to match the order at which the fossils are found through stratigraphy to a very high degree.

Now, just how could this happen?

Again, the most parsimonious answer is that the cladograms match the stratigraphy so well because they really are evidence for evoltuionary transitions.

This can also be used to rule certain YE theories out. For example, some YEers assert that what appear to be transitional series are nothing more than separate creations. This cannot be possible because then the creatures would have lived at the same time and would not be sorted as we actually observe. If you apply this to such series as the whale and the horse, to use two of the more commonly referenced series, then you can eliminate the possibility that these were all seperate creations. They must have shared ancestors. When applied to eseries that show transitions among higher groups, such as the evolution of the mammals from the reptiles, this becomes quite problematic for the YE view of "kinds." (Whatever a "kind" is.)

The following is an excellent paper on the subject in which many, many transitional series were examined.

Benton, M. J., Hitchin, R., and Wills, M. A. (1999) Assessing congruence between cladistic and stratigraphic data. Systematic Biology, 48, 581-596.

More can be found at

Benton, M. J., Wills, M. A., and Hitchin, R. (2000) Quality of the fossil record through time. Nature, 403, 534-537.-2130.

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"No. It doesn't. You cannot make a rule for any population based on one statistically insignificant sample/observation."

Except that it is not ONE observation. There are over 100,000 stars measured this way!

Someone as smart as you should be able to immediately see the circular nature of your argument here.

We have one sample consisting only of what we have physically measured and verified. </font>[/QUOTE]I guess if we measured every star in the galaxy you would still just call it "one sample!"

Look, we have over 100,000 stars in the sample. They closely follow a particular pattern of how brightness relates to color (surface temperature). This follows theories of how stars actually operate.

Do you have a real objection or do you think that 100,00 stars really are too small of a sample from which to draw conclusions? How big would be big enough for you?

You yet have a way to fit the universe within 6000 light years? Doubting distance measurements leads me to believe this is where you are going? Is it? If not, then why the doubt? If so, then where is your theory? How are our parallax measurments off? How close are these stars? What could dim them without leaving a trace? Is our sun really that much of an oddball?

 

[UTEOTW]

"My denial of the "strength of the evidence is based on the weakness of the evidence coupled with the Bible as strong evidence for the capabilities of God. "

The evidence is not weak though the alternate explanations, if provided, are weak.

"Vestigal organs are no more an evidence for macroevolution than gravel in my driveway is evidence for the natural development of granite there."

Vestigal organs are a strong sign of ancestry. There really is no other way to explain vestiges. (Unless God was a very sloppy designer.) An important thing here is that vestiges are one way in which evolution becomes a falsifiable theory. Something your ideas are lacking. (Or give me an exampe of something reasonable that you think would falsify your ideas.) The vestiges we see always match the apparent evolutionary path. For example, whales have vestigal genes for a sense of smell. Pythons carry around vestigal pelvises free floating in the abdominal cavity.

But you never see something that does not match. Vestigal nipples on a bird would not fit evolutionary theory and would falsify current thinking.

"No. Frankly they don't "show" that. They are interpretted that way in accordance with the premises of evolution. That makes it an example of circular reasoning to use it as a proof for evolution."

You do not understand how science works.

The "defective vitamin c across multiple species lines, retroviral inserts across multiple species lines," etc., are the observations. Common descent is the most parsimonious explanation.

Do you have a better explanation for the retroviral inserts?