Creation vs. Evolution

[redfern]

…the world doesn't look old to begin with.

This argument over whether the world looks old or young is silliness unless the people agree on what they are looking at to see how old it looks. I go to a volcano and on the slope I dig down through many alternating layers of ash and lava and such, I measure the fit of the continents and measure the rate of continental drift, I can study the magnetic striping on the floor of the Atlantic, I can measure the thermodynamics of heat from the earth being radiated into space, I can look at the factors considering in calibrating C-14 ages, I look at H-R diagrams from astronomy, ice-core dating, etc. etc. and I see “ancient earth” in each one.

That's very well said and written. Along those lines, if God is honest and truthful and forthcoming, that we would also expect that he would be correct about simple fact statements, such as "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is..." (Exodus 20:11) and "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female" (Mark 10:6.) If Jesus lies to us about this, how can he be trusted?

Except that Exodus was probably recorded long long after the story it tells, and even Mark is some person’s recollection recorded decades after the fact.

You're again operating on a flawed assumption. If God can create a star or a million stars with a single word (universe) and if he created them for the express purpose of decorating the night sky for his creation,

“The express purpose of decorating the night sky”? Are you serious? 99.99% of the stars are so far away that no human being before the 20th century when massive telescopes were developed could possibly see them. If God helped me decide on how to decorate a bedroom, I guess He would select 195,000 gallons of blue paint, 69,000 4-poster canopy beds, 900,000,000 Winnie-the Pooh Blankets, etc. etc.

… don't you think that he's also capable of creating the light at the same time? What type of all-powerful deity can create a sun but has to wait for it to emit light? Create both at the same time, since the stated purpose is so that they can be seen.

You have not answered the question I posed earlier. When we see a supernova in a far-away galaxy, then you think we are actually just watching some light that in fact never originated in that supernova? It’s no more real than a movie, and as far as we are concerned that far away galaxy maybe doesn’t even exist?

The half life of my created product does nothing to reflect on the age of my company.

How about when decay measurements on independent isotopes yield the same answer? And how about isochron dating?

 

[redfern]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzqTFNfeDnE

Amazing that someone could come up as many superlative ways of describing someone, yet be in abject denial of the real world around them. Maybe your psyche requires that kind of stimulation, mine doesn’t. I am content to live in reality sans being pumped up into a religious frenzy.

 

[Rosenritter]

I can't act as arrogant as you, so why don't you spell out the problem for me? You forgot to state your position in your earlier post.

See post 21253. In fact, it's the post directly above where your post was. Do you understand the problem yet? Or understand why your asking for "position" was irrelevant?

 

[gcthomas]

See post 21253. In fact, it's the post directly above where your post was. Do you understand the problem yet? Or understand why your asking for "position" was irrelevant?

Is that your only objection to sexual reproduction? As I mentioned, there are still some hermaphrodites that reproduce sexually without having to have evolved two sexes, while others can reproduce asexually as well as sexually, so why would the evolution of sexual reproduction leave organisms unable to reproduce?

 

[Rosenritter]

I realize some people desperately want to pretend they are of a different lineage than what their ancestry really is. Some people just have to imagine they are descendants of some royal line.

For me, when I look at something as different from me as a tree, I still know that at the cellular level, that apparent vast difference between the tree and me is mostly just a rearrangement of instructions in the DNA.



Let me restate what I think you are pointing out. If we postulate that the early evolutionary forms (mostly single-celled) reproduced by simply splitting, and then one came along that was, say, “male”, it could not reproduce unless at that same time and locale a “female” miraculously showed up at the same time?



Details of evolutionary theory is not a specialty of mine, but I know this problem has been pointed out almost since Darwin sold his first book. Your point rests on what you say is the need for a “massive evolutionary defect”. I’ll bet the separation into two sexes was not a huge instantaneous jump, but rather like Darwin said evolution operates, the result of a series of small incremental steps, where initially exchanging DNA with a partner was slightly advantageous, but not essential.

Without even looking, I am confident there are numerous studies looking at how the transition from asexual reproduction to full male-female reproduction could occur.

Points for recognizing the problem posed. Don't see how "male and female" can be done as "a series of small incremental steps" and in fact, such a suggestion really just dodged the problem. You didn't say anything more than that you are suggesting sex evolved... isn't that the meaning of "change from one diverse thing to another by small incremental steps?"

Male and female isn't a slow incremental step thing. When an organism produces 100 offspring; 99 of which are able to self-reproduce and 1 of which isn't able to reproduce, its progeny only descends from the set of 99, not the one that can't reproduce. Compound the odds of it producing two that can't reproduce, but in two totally different ways in such that they can only reproduce in combination with each other, and you're looking at astronomical odds squared. And then some. And then, for what reason would this pair produce an army that would overpower the race of its ancestors?

As I was reminiscing, it's funny (actually sort of sad) to see evolutionists attempt to field that question in a debate. I didn't expect someone here to be the first person to have an evolutionist answer.

 

[Rosenritter]

Another argument from ignorance, but this time with the assumption that everyone else is as ignorant. Why do you think that your high-school debating points haven't been thought about for over a century?

In the case of your 'massive evolutionary defect', the obvious solution is that the origin of sexual reproduction happened very early on, when organisms were substantially smaller and less complex. Have you noticed that some sexually reproducing organisms don't have two sexes at all, but are hermaphrodites?

Perhaps you should try typing your imaginary killer objections into Wikipedia before posting? It would stop you looking like you haven't even tried.

Au contraire, my little conceited one. I'm asking this question with the assumption that you'd want it placed somewhere on the tiny organisms level. So if there was an answer, so obvious that you claim, how come you didn't have one?

 

[6days]

Male and female isn't a slow incremental step thing.

You are trying to argue against 'just so stories'...things like ‘How the Whale got his Throat’, ‘How the Camel got his Hump’, ‘How the Rhinoceros got his Skin’.
Notice those you arguing with use phrases like "the obvious solution"...and "if we postulate".
Evolutionists postulate all types of solutions. Fortunately we have science...and God's Word.

 

[Rosenritter]

This argument over whether the world looks old or young is silliness unless the people agree on what they are looking at to see how old it looks. I go to a volcano and on the slope I dig down through many alternating layers of ash and lava and such, I measure the fit of the continents and measure the rate of continental drift, I can study the magnetic striping on the floor of the Atlantic, I can measure the thermodynamics of heat from the earth being radiated into space, I can look at the factors considering in calibrating C-14 ages, I look at H-R diagrams from astronomy, ice-core dating, etc. etc. and I see “ancient earth” in each one.

Very much silliness, most of it based on the presumption that the earth never had major disasters and upheaval all at once. In fact, your old earth theory (which your evolution theory depends on as prerequisite gospel) demands that the alternative cannot be considered.

Ice core dating? Seriously? You never did explain how that was useful for your cause. And I've asked before, I'm sure.

Except that Exodus was probably recorded long long after the story it tells, and even Mark is some person’s recollection recorded decades after the fact.

Irrelevant.

“The express purpose of decorating the night sky”? Are you serious? 99.99% of the stars are so far away that no human being before the 20th century when massive telescopes were developed could possibly see them. If God helped me decide on how to decorate a bedroom, I guess He would select 195,000 gallons of blue paint, 69,000 4-poster canopy beds, 900,000,000 Winnie-the Pooh Blankets, etc. etc.

Genesis states that it was for the express purpose of decorating the night sky. There could be other purposes as well, such as reminding man that he's small and tiny should he get the range to look out further. So what have you got against 900,000,000 Winnie-the-Pooh Blankets? God has no shortage of them. Just because the numbers are beyond your comprehension doesn't mean that God's short on resources.

As a reminder, the ability create matter from nothing also means you can repeat that near infinite times as necessary.

You have not answered the question I posed earlier. When we see a supernova in a far-away galaxy, then you think we are actually just watching some light that in fact never originated in that supernova? It’s no more real than a movie, and as far as we are concerned that far away galaxy maybe doesn’t even exist?

Can't remember you asking that question earlier. But if you were paying attention it's already answered. I said that it is possible that the light may be from the supernova (stretched out fast) but also possible that the light never originated from the supernova, but was created, in motion, when the star was placed. The end effect is the same.

Imagine playing with a map editor. You do know what a map editor is, don't you?

How about when decay measurements on independent isotopes yield the same answer? And how about isochron dating?

How are decay measurements on isotopes even relevant?

 

[Rosenritter]

Is that your only objection to sexual reproduction? As I mentioned, there are still some hermaphrodites that reproduce sexually without having to have evolved two sexes, while others can reproduce asexually as well as sexually, so why would the evolution of sexual reproduction leave organisms unable to reproduce?

You must be intentionally turning your mind "off" at certain points, or never actually thought through the whole theory step by step.

 

[6days]

Very much silliness, most of it based on the presumption that the earth never had major disasters and upheaval all at once. In fact, your old earth theory (which your evolution theory depends on as prerequisite gospel) demands that the alternative cannot be considered.

Yes... They start with the conclusion. They are arguing that the present is the key to the past. We know from scripture that their assumption is wrong. (BTW... evidence has moved many towards a catastrophism model in recent years)

Ice core dating? Seriously? You never did explain how that was useful for your cause. And I've asked before

The idea essentially is that each ice layer represents a year.
Here is a fascinating and related story. http://creation.com/the-lost-squadron

Genesis states that it was for the express purpose of decorating the night sky. There could be other purposes as well, such as reminding man that he's small and tiny should he get the range to look out further.

Yes correct... The argument that the universe is bigger than necessary if God created is one of the dumbest arguments out there...But, it must make sense to some evolutionists as it is not a new one.
I posted this a day or two ago in a different thread...
The universe declares the majesty of God. What a privileged time in history we live... science reveals how awesome our creator is as we discover the world around us. Science can help us worship Him.
Henry Schaefer, professor of chemistry and director of the center of computational quantum chemistry U. of Georgia wrote:
The significance and joy in my Science come in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself "so that's how God did it."

* The Hubble telescope has allowed us to realize that there are trillions of stars in the universe. There are perhaps more stars than there are grains of sand on all the beaches and the deserts in the world.

* Each star appears unique. One astronomer has said " literally every place the Hubble has looked, it has found something fantastic"
The Bible says " this sun has 1 kind of splendor, the moon and the other, and stars another; and star differs from star in splendor."

* Our sun is tiny compared to the largest stars, but the sun is huge. compared to our planet. If it were possible...... We are going on a journey to the very center of the Sun Our starting point will be on the surface of the Sun. We will be flying at 500 miles per hour. From the surface of the Sun to the core, we will be flying continuously for more than 1 month

We have an awesome God

 

[Rosenritter]

Yes... They start with the conclusion. They are arguing that the present is the key to the past. We know from scripture that their assumption is wrong. (BTW... evidence has moved many towards a catastrophism model in recent years)
The idea essentially is that each ice layer represents a year.
Here is a fascinating and related story. http://creation.com/the-lost-squadron
Yes correct... The argument that the universe is bigger than necessary if God created is one of the dumbest arguments out there...But, it must make sense to some evolutionists as it is not a new one.
I posted this a day or two ago in a different thread...
The universe declares the majesty of God. What a privileged time in history we live... science reveals how awesome our creator is as we discover the world around us. Science can help us worship Him.
Henry Schaefer, professor of chemistry and director of the center of computational quantum chemistry U. of Georgia wrote:
The significance and joy in my Science come in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself "so that's how God did it."

* The Hubble telescope has allowed us to realize that there are trillions of stars in the universe. There are perhaps more stars than there are grains of sand on all the beaches and the deserts in the world.

* Each star appears unique. One astronomer has said " literally every place the Hubble has looked, it has found something fantastic"
The Bible says " this sun has 1 kind of splendor, the moon and the other, and stars another; and star differs from star in splendor."

* Our sun is tiny compared to the largest stars, but the sun is huge. compared to our planet. If it were possible...... We are going on a journey to the very center of the Sun Our starting point will be on the surface of the Sun. We will be flying at 500 miles per hour. From the surface of the Sun to the core, we will be flying continuously for more than 1 month

We have an awesome God

I doubt he will bother to follow up any of those links, so there's still a chance that we can get him to explain why he thinks "Ice Core Dating" establishes an Old Earth.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Do you really read NONE of the answers given to you? How can you write such tripe as this 'million year old rock' comment without disappearing in a puff of inconsistencies?

You have been given plenty of independent ways in which age determinations can be done, from tree rings to redshift and multitudes in between. They consistently give great ages for the world, but you are too fixated on one specific, modern reading of one human written book that has been multiply translated to even listen to the arguments, let alone understand them.

Your loss, I suppose. Reality is a wonder to behold, and it is much better than a comforting old tale of a historic power play.

Dear gcthomas,

Rosenritter is correct in his assumptions! I could maybe try to believe in tree rings, but certainly not some of the dating methods you have offered otherwise. Certainly not redshifts or radioactive dating. Man is fallible and so are his ways of dating certain things. Do you know that there is a fourth dimension? Gcthomas, you're going to be wonderfully surprised by the discovery of it. I wish so much that you were going to enjoy it eternally, but you choose to not believe in God, your Maker. Of course things exist that are invisible. Heck, the oxygen you breathe is invisible, except in very cold weather. Also, the wind is invisible, except for the trees branches dancing. God is a Spirit that is invisible too! You've got to get it together!! You are a kind person! I wish nothing but the best for you, of course. Maybe your situation will change as time goes on. I'm counting on it!! When you see Jesus returning, get down on your knees and ask Him to forgive your sins and take your hand. You'll understand once it happens. It is written that all shall get upon their knees upon His arrival. Let's just say that we'll see what happens.

So Thankful To Have You Here!! And Hedshaker Too!!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear All,

So now, Israel has had her 'New Year's Day' and her years are 5777. I hope it's a good year for her. In the meantime, the U.S. should play a stronger role in her prosperity and protection. I suppose none of you know that Trump has a better policy for Israel by far tons better than Clinton. I wish it weren't true, but it is. Do some investigating and find out on your own. Type it in your browser. Maybe if you type in "Trump and Israel." I can't say. I haven't tried it yet. He wants Israel to have all she rightfully desires. It's too bad he is not more presidential material, but Hillary's laugh is hilarious and phony. She is phony and he is not, for the most part. Oh well, I don't plan these things and I'm not wanting to talk politics or delve into that. We are all discussing religion, so why not politics? I'm joking. I will be quiet for now. Thanks!!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Great post, well reasoned. But these aren't reasonable people.

Dear Caino,

Nice try, but I am not portraying God as some sort of charlatan or magician, or in ANY false light. That is your doing. God can do whatever He wants. If we, as His children, cannot believe that He created Adam and Eve as young adults rather than two 5-year-old children, then so be it. Heck, Eve may have been 15, but she sure wasn't 7 years old! Don't feed us bologna, Caino. You are just in the defense mode because of your belief in some Urantia book instead of the Holy Bible. That's all that this amounts to.

Michael

 

[gcthomas]

You must be intentionally turning your mind "off" at certain points, or never actually thought through the whole theory step by step.

You have continually avoided answering the challenge to engage, so I assume this is just embarrassed bluster.

Carry on!

 

[redfern]

I doubt he will bother to follow up any of those links, so there's still a chance that we can get him to explain why he thinks "Ice Core Dating" establishes an Old Earth.

Perhaps your creationist eyes see more than one link in what 6days posted, but my real-life eyes don’t.

If you are honestly interested in looking more in-depth at ice-core dating, I will agree to, as you say, “baby-step” through some relevant data with you. That way we can agree each step of the way that I am not thinking apples while you are seeing oranges.

If, however, you have a fanatical allegiance to your preferred religious dogma, and will not countenance any information that may run contrary to it, then there really isn’t much use. I propose, as a starting point, a more in-depth look at the claims made in 6days’ link about “The Lost Squadron”. You willing to participate? 6days, how about you?

 

[Tyrathca]

You must be intentionally turning your mind "off" at certain points, or never actually thought through the whole theory step by step.

Yet again Rosen you show your ego. Clearly you are just sooo much smarter than all the experts who've studied this and thus why the problems so obvious to you seem nonexistent tho them. Couldn't possibly be that you're ever mistaken.....

I'll inform textbook writers to stop looking to published research and just ask you for your opinion on all matters. No need for evidence when we have the mighty Rosen's opinions!

 

[6days]

I propose, as a starting point, a more in-depth look at the claims made in 6days’ link about “The Lost Squadron”. You willing to participate? 6days, how about you?

Lets finish our chat on genetics first. You made some obviously incorrect statements which you failed to address.

 

[Jose Fly]

We know from scripture that their assumption is wrong.

Again we see how you utilize the same framework as is described in AiG's Statement of Faith...

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record

....a framework you agreed was unscientific, yet you continue to apply it to scientific data, analyses, and conclusions, and then declare that the output of this non-scientific framework shows how "science agrees with God's word".

Plus, this process is entirely circular. You start off by committing to a framework that says all data, analyses, and conclusions must agree with Scripture, then you interpret all science through that framework, with the end result being.....surprise...."science always agrees with God's word".

And what's really funny? You seem to be completely oblivious to it all. :chuckle:

 

[6days]

....a framework you agreed was unscientific, yet you continue to apply it to scientific data, analyses, and conclusions, and then declare that the output of this non-scientific framework shows how "science agrees with God's word".

I think what I told you before is that we all have biased start positions. I start with the position that God's Word is absolute truth. You seem to start with the bias that everything can be explained by natural processes.
The best fit for the evidence,,,the most logical is that "In the beginning, God created"