Creation vs. Evolution

[Jose Fly]

This creationist is moving between houses at the moment. I know you love me but we have to be apart for a little longer.

So you do have something new and it's just a matter of time before you post it?

 

[Rosenritter]

So you do have something new and it's just a matter of time before you post it?

I need to be able to tactfully explain to you why your logic is circular without offending you. I really need access to my proper keyboard while not at work for that.

 

[Jose Fly]

I need to be able to tactfully explain to you why your logic is circular without offending you. I really need access to my proper keyboard while not at work for that.

???? All I'm asking is if the creationists here have any new arguments. How can that be circular?

 

[gcthomas]

I need to be able to tactfully explain to you why your logic is circular without offending you.

He proposed no argument, so there was no logic relied upon. Hence no circular logic.

(Sorry if that offended you, or wasn't tactful enough to protect your delicate constitution. But you should look up what arguments and fallacies are before claiming to have spotted one.)

 

[Rosenritter]

He proposed no argument, so there was no logic relied upon. Hence no circular logic.

(Sorry if that offended you, or wasn't tactful enough to protect your delicate constitution. But you should look up what arguments and fallacies are before claiming to have spotted one.)

Roll back further. Like a couple days ago.

 

[gcthomas]

Roll back further. Like a couple days ago.

Is the precise subject of your comment a secret?

 

[Jose Fly]

Roll back further. Like a couple days ago.

So you replied to my question from yesterday (without actually answering, i.e., saying whether you had anything new) but were actually talking about a different post?

Ok then....

 

[radind]

Old earth geology compromises the gospel, destroying the purpose of Christ's physical death and resurrection. If physical death was not a result of sin, the gospel message becomes garbled.

We have a difference of opinion. One thing I like about the ASA approach is that widely different views are welcome in a Christian forum with many scientists participating.

 

[6days]

We have a difference of opinion. One thing I like about the ASA approach is that widely different views are welcome in a Christian forum with many scientists participating.

Different opinions and discussions are great. But what is the source of absolute truth? If you accept mans opinions as truth over God's Word...your theology is somewhere between compromised (eg. Hugh Ross) and heretical (Enns at Biologos).
BTW... your comment did not really address my comment that old earth geology compromises the gospel, destroying the purpose of Christ's physical death and resurrection. If physical death was not a result of sin, the gospel message becomes garbled.

 

[Stripe]

The moon recedes according to a differential equation that includes a term that depends on the configuration the continents, halve treating that term as a constant is unjustified, as Brown knows but is being dishonest about. Or incompetent.

Nope. It is fine to assume a constant there. We are not obliged to assume there truth of the Darwinist version of history, especially when tectonics has been shot down elsewhere.

And even when we do assume there truth of your save -- as I did -- there are additional factors that you ignored.

Truth wins out, you see.

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[6days]

..pretty much all the creationists arguments that have been posted here aren't all that new and many of them are quite old.

Depends what you mean. The argument that God created is not new. We agreeon that.

That's important because as anyone can tell just by looking around, none of those old creationist arguments have had any impact on science at all.

That's an old argument showing you don't understand science. Evolutionism and creationism are beliefs about the past. Evolutionism has at times actually hindered science and harmed society.

In fact, rather than even nudge science more towards creationism, the trend is, has been, and continues to be in the opposite direction.

Over the past 50 years, the number of scientists who say the evidence supports the Bible has grown from about 2 to tens of thousands.

It's like creationists are saying "I know this moon recession young-earth argument hasn't gone anywhere or accomplished anything in at least 50 years, but maybe if I repeat it here at ToL it will!!"

Uh....it is evolutionists who have a problem with the origin of the moon, and keep promoting different models.

 

[Stripe]

Consider yourself punched in the nose. I am fed up with being called an atheist because I don't agree with stupid fundamentalist notions.

:allsmile:

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Stripe]

It is evolutionists who have a problem with the origin of the moon, and keep promoting different models.

Yep. There are a multitude of features of the moon that they are divided on and ignorant about when it comes to origins.

For example:
The differences between the near and far sides (impact craters, mass difference, maria)
The recession.
Moonquakes.
Internal heat.
The Aitken Basin.

The best explanation Darwinists have for the moon is "observational error."

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[radind]

Different opinions and discussions are great. But what is the source of absolute truth? If you accept mans opinions as truth over God's Word...your theology is somewhere between compromised (eg. Hugh Ross) and heretical (Enns at Biologos).
BTW... your comment did not really address my comment that old earth geology compromises the gospel, destroying the purpose of Christ's physical death and resurrection. If physical death was not a result of sin, the gospel message becomes garbled.

I disagree with your assessment and support an old earth view.

 

[6days]

I disagree with your assessment and support an old earth view.

I disagree with your 'assessment' and support the Biblical model that in the beginning, God created everything in six days. Without that Biblical 'assessment, you believe that physical death, suffering and pain are not a result of the curse. With your 'assessment', Christ's physical death becomes meaningless. Jesus would not have had to defeat physical death, since you believe that pain, suffering and death were 'very good'.

 

[Jose Fly]

Depends what you mean.

I thought I was abundantly clear. I can't recall a creationist here posting any sort of new argument (one that I can't trace back at least over a decade, and in most cases much, much longer ago than that), and that, plus the obvious fact that not one creationist argument has had any impact at all on science in at least a century....it makes one wonder just what the creationists here think regurgitating these old scientifically irrelevant arguments will accomplish. It's as I characterized, "I know this argument didn't go anywhere 40 years ago, but now that I've posted it anonymously to a religious internet forum, it's gonna make real headway!"

That's an old argument showing you don't understand science.

Um....what? That creationism hasn't impacted science in at least a century is something you and I have been around on several times, and each time I ask you to name a single contribution creationism has made to our scientific understanding of the world in the last 100 years, you balk. As long as that remains the case, it's not an "argument", it's a fact.

Over the past 50 years, the number of scientists who say the evidence supports the Bible has grown from about 2 to tens of thousands.

Let's see the source for those numbers.

Uh....it is evolutionists who have a problem with the origin of the moon, and keep promoting different models.

First, I too am both baffled and amused at how you think evolution is the paradigm under which research into moon origins is conducted. Says a lot.

But if you're going to dispute the claim that the young-earth moon recession hasn't had an impact on science, then you need to show some contrary evidence. Anything short of that and the claim stands.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Tell you what. If you give a possible origin for God as you believe it, then I'll do the same for the universe.

Dear gcthomas,

I'm really glad you Finally started posting here more often. It's nice to have you here to discuss things with. I'll take you up on the aforementioned subject, though it leans more heavily on me than for you. Now, I can't say for certainty, but I'll give it my old college try. I believe the origin of God WAS the Universe. It was a Universe which was unadorned as yet, by all of it's celestial beings {angels, cherubs, servants, saints, etc}. What if God was derived from the element Hydrogen? I mean, in part, or all, Hydrogen. Like I said, I am not positive, of course. Perhaps God is the nucleus or electron in the Hydrogen atom. Oh well, I've nearly exhausted most of my premises. I think I've narrowed it down. I also could be wrong. Now, it's Your Turn!

With Much Love And Respect,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Wow. Now you are really getting original in saying things the article didn’t even intimate. Atheists now have their own years, and somehow humanists are involved, and both the atheists and humanists are just plain dumb about what years really are.

I’m not sure that I am interested in a discussion that degenerates into this level of silliness. My interest has been on the scientific question of the C-14 age of dinosaur bones. You know as well as I do that a huge number of faithful Christian scientists (does Christian mean they are not inherently dumb?) have no problems with long dinosaur ages (see above post from radind in which he mentions ASA). Same goes for the followers of a whole variety of religious traditions. For now I will attribute your need to stoop to this level of dialogue as an excusable mental lapse.

If you think you have the self-control, then let’s talk science. Then if the answers from science align with your literal Genesis, I will agree with that.



Point of clarification. Though dinosaurs fit within the evolutionary timeline, evolution is not dependent on the validity of dinosaur ages, and if evolution were falsified, that would not cause a mass adjustment to the dates dinosaurs are believed to have lived. We are talking C-14 dating, not evolution. Can we stick to that?



Since you seem anxious to engage this C-14 issue, I am going to assume that you know the counterarguments to what you just said. No?



Projecting again? “Fall(ing) down at its feet and offering it sacrifices” is far more descriptive of religion than of science. I am appreciative of science, and feel I have a moderate understanding of some aspects of it. Don’t you?



I thought that had already been covered. We touched on the Genesis timeline (< 7000 years) earlier. And repeating the opening claim from the article:

Carbon-14 (C-14) dating of 8 dinosaurs found in Texas, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana revealed that they are only 22,000 to 39,000 years old.​

Note they say they were dated using Carbon 14, but they explicitly say they are “22,000 to 39,000 years old”, not atheist years, or Carbon years or any other goofy type of years you want to claim. Any normal person reading that opening statement in that article would conclude they meant 22,000 regular, ordinary, earth-go-around-sun, fall-winter-spring-summer years. Maybe in your world 7000 lies somewhere between 22,000 and 39,000. Doesn’t look like the article jibes with you timeline.



Hey, if you want to call me stupid, then feel free, and put me on ignore. But if you dare, how about a (more polite, please) examination of these factors you mention?

You guys are the one that pointed to that article. If you have a better article, why didn’t you use it instead?

Knock yourself out, mock away, if that is the best you have. That says more about you than it does about me.

Dear Redfern,

Who is to say that C-14 dating can be used on something as old as 20,000 years, the number of years in question? Frankly, I don't think it can. And there are also other factors that need to be included. I don't believe C-14 does the trick. Most of the stuff that science says surely offers astounding limits in miles {distances, i,e, galaxy to galaxy to star, to black hole, etc.}, years {mankind's age, Earth's and the Universe's age, and also different star's ages, etc.}. Frankly, I don't trust ANY measuring devices for all that Science purports, except the easy things. The rest of it, I could flush. Who is there to guarantee that Science's tools are just another mistake waiting to happen. I'm not just talking about C-14 dating, but Uranium dating, etc., and light spectrum devising. It could all be proven false depending upon the next error-discovery. Right? And the Universe being billions of years old, and the Earth being millions of years old {even though God says in our Bible that it isn't}, the vast distances in 20,000 light years, and dinosaurs living millions of years ago. All of these astronomical amounts that could not be proven one way or the other, since no one was keeping score a million years ago. Lord, Help Us All!!

Thanks, redfern,

Michael

 

[Cross Reference]

Dear gcthomas,

I'm really glad you Finally started posting here more often. It's nice to have you here to discuss things with. I'll take you up on the aforementioned subject, though it leans more heavily on me than for you. Now, I can't say for certainty, but I'll give it my old college try. I believe the origin of God WAS the Universe. It was a Universe which was unadorned as yet, by all of it's celestial beings {angels, cherubs, servants, saints, etc}. What if God was derived from the element Hydrogen? I mean, in part, or all, Hydrogen. Like I said, I am not positive, of course. Perhaps God is the nucleus or electron in the Hydrogen atom. Oh well, I've nearly exhausted most of my premises. I think I've narrowed it down. Your turn!

With Much Love And Respect,

Michael

So eternal LOVE is in an oxygen bottle? Interesting.

 

[MichaelCadry]

According to general relativity, gravity is really a distortion of space-time. So what you are really asking is how space-time came to exist, and to be distortable. Once you can explain that, then everything else follows; the existence of all the matter and energy are entirely explained without reference to any magical friends.

Dear Stuart,

With reference to 'magical friends,' I would insert the word 'God' instead. That's who did it all and He still does. The way that I see it is that, according to God {instead of your term general relativity}, I don't buy gravity being a 'distortion of space and time.' I do agree with the space-time continuum. I just have a beef with it all being called 'a distortion of space and time.' If it makes someone happy calling it that, whatever. That eerily is Science's rendition. I will say that it is a 'continuum of space and time.' I also believe in a fourth dimension. I guess what I'm upset with is the choice of words: "distortion of" and "continuum." Gravity is a strong force which does work with electromagnetic force simultaneously or actually, to be honest. But it is a force put in order by God, not without Him. If anything, gravity, in this instance, is the force put on matter resulting from an iron core within the Earth and the way that God makes it interact with people and objects, and whatever is in space at the time. It would seem that black holes are a means of eating up the space and matter in the Universe. The gravity is just the right amount to hold humans, etc. onto the face of the Earth at the rate of speed the Earth flies around the Sun. Only an Incredibly Awesome Being could create such a thing. It did not happen perchance!! Why are there even Blind Guides out there tooting their horn that there is no God!! How utterly ridiculous.

The problem with the word cause, is that you imply a cause-and-effect relationship. But causes happen before effects, and the Big Bang marks the beginning of time. So there is no such thing as 'before' the Big Bang. We are now searching for an entirely different kind of concept from the relationship between the knocking of the milk jug off the table and the shattering of the milk jug. Exactly what we are looking for is beyond anyone at this point. I don't know, and you don't know.

Yes, Stuu, there was something before the 'Big Bang' and that was God, and quite possibly space in abundance. I know, in part, and you don't know.

What is a god? How do gods do whatever they do? You haven't explained anything yet.

Stuart

Stuart, a god is an actual being, but invisible most of the time, taking on an earthly body for the sake of humans at times. The remainder of the so-called gods are gods imagined by Satan. You asked. Now know it. No more searching is necessary. Satan is not a god. He is a devil, or the 'opposite' of the True God. Satan can make up all kinds of gods that he wants, namely Baal, with the shape of a calf of a cow. Satan also makes up different versions of the one True God. You will see those works with Islam, Buddhists, Confucianists, Urantia Book people, atheists, etc. There is only One God, and He is the God of Israelis/ Jews, and Christians, and sometimes the Islamic worshipers get it right also. There is a difference between killing in wars, and downright, plain old murder of some of those around you.

And lastly, our God can do Absolutely Anything that He sets His mind to do. He speaks it, and everything comes to be as He says it, whether it were living {yes, even plants or trees, etc.} or dead {matter, rocks, earth, etc.}. If I were you, I'd start picking the side you want to be on after all, Stuart.

Good Blessings For A Joyful Day!! It is the day you can make it be!!

Hope This Helps,

Michael