Creation vs. Evolution

[MichaelCadry]

I guessed you meant Fe57, but lately your posts have been so dismissive of things that I just explained to you that I am going to call you on it when you screw up. You aren’t paying enough attention to realize you are typing scientific doo-doo, and then you fault me for pointing it out?
Yup, balmy, cool starry night sky outside right now. Some things I understand, some I don’t, and you have to figure out if I am bluffing or not.
Zeus blesses me sometimes, but he thumps me kinda hard when I shortchange him on sacrificing rare exotic animals.

Dear DavisBJ,

Well, we used to put elements into test tubes and light them with a fire source and they reacted with an explosion. So I guess that stars or the sun could impact the ability for an atom combining with another atom, and element with element. Even a burning house.

Best of Blessings, BJ,

Michael

:guitar:

 

[Jonahdog]

Dear DavisBJ,

Well, we used to put elements into test tubes and light them with a fire source and they reacted with an explosion. So I guess that sars or the sun could impact the ability for an atom combining with another atom, and element with element. Even a burning house.

Best of Blessings, BJ,

Michael

:guitar:

Many elements are made in stars.

 

[DavisBJ]

Dear Davis, … In your browser, type: Problems with Carbon Dating - Chemistry - Answer.com

Check out "Rate of formation" there.

I probably wasn’t as clear in my prior posting as I should have been. So rephrasing – I used Google about a week ago and found the “Problems with Carbon Dating” at Chemistry - Answer.com site. No more info there than the unembellished article itself. Since your original link pointed to ScienceForums, I presume the article is buried somewhere in those discussions. When I can spare some time, I will make a more concerted effort to see if I can locate it in ScienceForums. But anyway, I appreciate your efforts in trying to help me find it.

Are you really a scientist? If so, I'm not going to argue about anything with you because it isn't fair to me, with limited knowledge of science compared to you.

Wow, this is both humbling and yet telling at the same time. It is humbling because maybe I should feel an inflated ego because you think I might be some kind of scientific guru. But let me disabuse you of your fear of my vaulted status as a scientist. I am a scientist, in the same sense that many hundreds of thousands of people are. From Wiki, under the term scientist it says: “a scientist may refer to an individual who uses the scientific method.” That’s all it takes to qualify to call yourself a scientist. No, I am not a Nobel contender, you will not find I have testified before congress, or discovered new foundational concepts (although I wish I had). But I do try religiously (I use that term in a non-theological way) to consistently apply the scientific method. Having done so for a number of decades has helped broaden both my depth and breadth in science. You could do the very same, were you so inclined. I am deserving of no hero worship, and I have seen many other TOL posters who far transcend my scientific expertise (some of them are good Christians).

But more telling than my (mediocre) scientific credentials is the attitude you just expressed. Let me, for a moment adopt your self-same approach. If your God decided to personally come down and verbally set me straight, I can now, in imitation of you, simply declare to Him: “I'm not going to argue about anything with You because it isn't fair to me, with limited knowledge of (heaven) compared to You.” Do you see just how farcical that is? Hey, send your God down, who (if He existed) far transcends anything I know. Boy have I got a battery of questions I want answers to.

If you honestly feel someone at TOL is somehow particularly well qualified scientifically, then you should jump at the chance to converse with them. To distance yourself from them is an a priori admission that you are scared of being shown wrong, and would prefer to hide in your comforting ignorance.

Don’t put me on a pedestal I don’t deserve, but don’t dismiss what I say just ‘cause it makes you uncomfortable, either. Notice a few posts back I momentarily “switched sides” and hit The Barbarian up with a question about sea fossils on mountaintops. I did that because I honestly wanted to know if there was a credible scientific explanation for those fossils. If there had not been an answer, that would have been as important to me as the answer that was given (and thanks for responding, The Barbarian).

How many years of college did you have to go through?

Doesn’t matter. If I were grandstanding as a scientific authority figure, then maybe that would be an issue.

I won't croak from cancer, most likely. It will be something else that is more recent and quick, and unexpected. Who knows? Maybe I'll get killed in a car accident.

You bring forth an interesting point that has some relevance to evolution. Prostate cancer is sometimes called an “old man’s” disease, because studies have shown that a surprisingly high percentage of recently deceased elderly men actually had undiagnosed prostate cancer. But if evolution is true, why wouldn’t those men who, for whatever genetic reason, have low chance of developing it, come to predominate in the world. IOW, why doesn’t evolution select more definitively against this form of cancer?

The answer is in understanding what evolution favors and what it doesn’t care about. Old men are past their reproductive years, and so diseases (like prostate cancer) that show up primarily in older men don’t affect the survival rate of the descendants very much. Evolution doesn’t give much of a squat whether you live or die once you have sent your kids off to live on their own. And if your God is real, it seems He is equally capricious about giving prostate cancer primarily to old men.

So you are a scientist? I am a fisher of men.

I don’t recall the “fishers of men” in the scriptures saying they wouldn't contend with someone of an opposing view just because the opponent knew more of the subject matter than they did.

 

[The Barbarian]

Meanwhile, the Bible says "six days,

As you know, it was "yom", which could mean all sorts of things. But as you also know, Christians long before Darwin pointed out that it couldn't be a literal history, because that would involve mornings and evenings with out a Sun.

You've just decided to re-interpret Genesis to fit your new doctrine. And it doesn't work.

When you drop your pride and accept it God's way, you can start to understand what He's telling you.

 

[6days]

But I think there is still a significant difference between how our two sides can respond to evidence that transcends worldviews. If I see that the evidence is pretty clearly against some of my most cherished beliefs, I may absolutely hate it, but I am obligated to follow where it leads. If the evidence solidly favors an old-earth, are you willing to do a 180 on your young-earth views?

Most people are firmly imbedded in their bunkers. I'm pretty sure you are familiar with quotes from evolutionists, that we creationists love to use..... such as the one about 'not allowing a divine foot in the door'? *Most evolutionists are very biased.*I'm very biased too.*

You may be more willing than I, to do a 180. *As a Christian, I accept that God's Word is absolute truth. There are some things that I think are absolutes with Christianity such as virgin birth and inerrant scripture. There are other things where there can be different interpretations. It's difficult to see how you can add vast ages into scripture without without corrupting the gospel - (death, pain suffering are a result of original sin...not an evolutionary process).

Re. Circular reasoning....yes, possibly in some cases. But the same argument can be made of atheists. We start from a biased worldview. We interpret evidence according to that biased starting point.

I seen an article recently in Talkorigins re. biased starting points in 'origins science'. (I think the article was several years old). Although, the author seemed to be an atheist, he admitted that creationist and atheist scientists have equally valid interpretations. ...He then continued to present why he thought the 'no creator' interpretation was the best explanation of the evidence. *If I recall correctly, the author used the terms of 'common ancestor' vs 'common designer'.

In my mind, ancestor and designer are very different animals.

Haha...yes of course very different. I obviously did not explain well. I found the quote that I mentioned...
"However, creationists have an alternative interpretation of the amino acid sequence similarities reflected in the evolutionists' trees. They say that such sequence similarities in "related" species simply reflect the creator's choice to design similar species to function similarly, not only at the level of bones, muscles and organs, but also at the level of protein function--hence the amino acid sequence similarities.
Thus the similarities between species in anatomy and protein structure can be interpreted in two entirely different ways. The evolutionists say that the similarity between features of, for example, humans and apes reflects the fact that these features were inherited from a common ancestor; that is, the similar features of humans and apes are determined by modern copies of genes that once existed in species that was ancestral to both apes and humans. The creationists say that apes and humans were created independently but were designed with similar features so that they would function similarly. Both the gene copying and the independent creation views seem consistent with the similarity data, but which view is correct?"

We all have the exact same evidence but interpret according to worldview.

Thanks, give me some time to read and carefully digest these before I respond.

Sure...I would be interested but the point is that evidence from geology, astronomy, physics etc are interpreted both to fit old earth or young earth views. *

Re Astronomy
Lack of stage 3 stars points to a young earth.

Do you have a link (or at least a specific chapter in a book or such for this? I don’t want to find I am responding to the wrong article or idea.

https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/stars/the-stars-of-heaven-confirm-biblical-creation/
Again... the point is we have the same evidence but different ways to interpret it.

Another simpler example would have been comets. They 'burn' up and don't last billions of years....supporting the young earth model. However stellar evolutionists propose models to solve that (rescue devices)

I say this because, crudely stated, scientific ignorance is the lifeblood of science. Almost every competent scientist knows a number of things that we cannot explain. And when a scientist accepts the task of finding one of the elusive answers, he almost always dredges up a half-dozen new mysteries on the way. Science is a localized encampment of explorers with unexplored wilderness on every side. We have mapped out what is really close to us, but the very act of reaching out and exploring new territories expands the length of the boundary into the still unknown territories around us.

Yes...
But evolutuonists have a long history of jumping to the wrong conclusion based on beliefs and not on science. (Vestigial organs, psuedogenes, junk DNA, Neandertals etc)

As a reminder I keep close to me a full 370 page text: “Unexplained Problems in Astrophysics”. I could carefully itemize every not-understood problem delineated in that text and send it to you, but does ignorance on the side of science default to correctness on the creationist side?

Sometimes yes. Evidence that one model is wrong MAY be evidence the other model is correct. ....

Sort of off topic but Dawkins(and others) often uses that type of argument. For example he (falsely) argues our eyes have a sloppy design, so says this is evidence for evolutionism against creationism.*

Remember, that is a two-edged sword, and leaves you guys vulnerable on issues like you having a grand total of zero (zip, null, none, nada) of the original Genesis manuscripts.

I think Christians should be extremely confident in the reliability of the ancient manuscripts. It might make for a great new thread.

And, it is really refreshing to have a polite and reasoned conversation in place of the emotional and empty rhetoric that is so prevalent in this thread. Thanks much.

Likewise

 

[DavisBJ]

… Well, we used to put elements into test tubes and light them with a fire source and they reacted with an explosion.

Yup, just like a simple version of any high-explosive. Remember, a couple days ago we learned that such things only involve orbital atoms, and do nothing to alter the nucleus of the involved atoms?

So I guess that sars(sic) or the sun could impact the ability for an atom combining with another atom, and element with element.

Yup, in the center of the sun where the pressures and temperatures are a thousand times higher than anyplace on the earth, and most assuredly nothing like radioactive elements sitting in rocks for a few million or billions of years.

Even a burning house.

A burning house is a relatively low pressure and temperature environment as compared to what many radioactive rocks are subjected to for eons at a time.

 

[DavisBJ]

That's nice.


What? :AMR:

A bit hard of reading, aren't you. :chuckle:

:AMR:

You're weird.

linky

I am sure you will understand, Stipe, that I prefer not to have to put up with your stream of mockery and childishness to conduct a conversation. In real life I would not accept something for examination from someone that was coated in manure, nor do I intend to from you.

 

[Stripe]

I've rejected the six days.

We know.

I am unable to engage in rational debate.

We know. :wave2:

As you know, it was "yom", which could mean all sorts of things. But as you also know, Christians long before Darwin pointed out that it couldn't be a literal history, because that would involve mornings and evenings with out a Sun. You've just decided to re-interpret Genesis to fit your new doctrine. And it doesn't work. When you drop your pride and accept it God's way, you can start to understand what He's telling you.

Meanwhile, the Bible says "six days." You say: "billions of years." When you've chosen one of those mutually exclusive positions, you might be able to join a rational discussion.

I am sure you will understand, Stipe, that I prefer not to have to put up with your stream of mockery and childishness to conduct a conversation. In real life I would not accept something for examination from someone that was coated in manure, nor do I intend to from you.

:wave2:

 

[patrick jane]

We know.

We know. :wave2:

Meanwhile, the Bible says "six days." You say: "billions of years." When you've chosen one of those mutually exclusive positions, you might be able to join a rational discussion.

:wave2:

billions of 6 Day increments - atrol:

 

[MichaelCadry]

Nope. Earthquakes can involve: very high pressures, moderately high temperatures (molten lava), and “mixing” of various chemicals. I already included those in my list of non-factors as far as influencing the nucleus. You got any additional physical factors you want to suggest that might alter the characteristics of the nucleus?

I''m sure there are other things besides an atom smasher. Like an explosion.

Michael

:guitar:

 

[MichaelCadry]

What method of treatment did your Dr. use to get your PSA level down?

It’s not nuts if you get sucked up to heaven in the rapture come Christmastime. Remember, you can’t take the house with you, and I’ll bet the reverse mortgage isn’t valid on Venus. If I up the offer to 50% of equity, just think – between now and the end of the year you would have unfettered rights to live in the house just as you do now, plus effectively another crisp hundred dollar bill laying on your doorstep every single day till the end of the year. Tempting, no?

My doctor didn't use any method. I used prayer and it worked. See what the future holds. Still no on the house. I have relatives.

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Hogwash. You don’t trust it because you don’t want to trust it. If many of the dates determined by C14 are accurate, then a recent creation cannot be a fact, and that is something you cannot countenance.

Yes, C-14 has its limits, as does every measurement system I know of, whether it be measuring time, distance, mass, charge, density, conductivity, IQ, or whatever. And, with equal justification, I could declare that I don’t trust any measurement system that I find gives answers I am uncomfortable with. But I, unlike you, actually follow the evidence, even if it means I have to relinquish some cherished beliefs.

If, as some Christians assert, the evidence from true science leads to their particular concept of God, then I will have no choice but to follow the evidence down that path. But in fact, science has been one of the major reasons a huge number of pre-eminent scientists have turned away from religion. It may be popular for Christians to cheer for their team, and even pretend that it is winning, sans looking at the actual score, but in science that is not a very honest approach.

But back to the limits of C14 for dating – since the half-life of C14 is just under 6,000 years (near the time of the Genesis creation), many good biological samples give highly repeatable dates back that far. In fact, samples with as little as 1/16 of the C-14 remaining are commonly found. But 1/16 of the C14 means the sample has been around for 4 half-lives (½ x ½ x ½ x ½ = 1/16), or about 23,000 years. Kinda hard to do that if creation was only 7,000 years or so ago. C14 dates beyond 50,000 years have been made, but these are often less reliable than younger dates, simply because the older dates involve working with microscopic amounts of residual C14, and any contamination can seriously skew the measurements.

To me it seems almost like a type of cognitive dissonance when (and this is frequently seen) Christians argue that diamonds (which should be millions of years old, with no C-14 left in them) have been C14 dated at 50,000 years old. Supposedly this shows that C14 dating is poppy-****. But notice, what they do is shine their accusatory light on those extreme cases where someone sneezing in the far end of a C14 dating laboratory would leave enough C-14 in the suspended moisture droplets to foul delicate measurements up for the next several hours. Why is it, if the diamond was actually the product of a 7,000 year ago creation, that it doesn’t show that it still has almost 1/2 of its original C-14, just like real 7000 year old wood and bone and tissue samples do?

As the articles I mentioned in my prior post show, many Christian archaeologists are savvy enough to know that C-14 is a great tool for dating old campfires, hides, wooden tools, and such, to prove those things were in use as expected in Old Testament times. But C14 dating seems, in the fundamentalist Christian mind, to suddenly become unreliable just at the point they need it to, about 7,000 years ago. Meanwhile, real scientists, not beholden to tribal creation stories, find that C14 dating shows dates of 15,000 and 20,000 years ago are easily in the range that can be cross-checked by alternate dating methods.

That's what I thought Davis.

Michael

:guitar:

atrol:

 

[MichaelCadry]

No, Michael. C14 dating is limited to under 100,000 years, and most fossils are much older than that.

Like I said, there must be a discrepancy. C14 dating works best for 10,000 years maybe, but not for 100,000 years. You would think we have more fossils that are 10,000 years old instead of 100,000 years old.

Michael

:cheers:

:rain:

 

[MichaelCadry]

I probably wasn’t as clear in my prior posting as I should have been. So rephrasing – I used Google about a week ago and found the “Problems with Carbon Dating” at Chemistry - Answer.com site. No more info there than the unembellished article itself. Since your original link pointed to ScienceForums, I presume the article is buried somewhere in those discussions. When I can spare some time, I will make a more concerted effort to see if I can locate it in ScienceForums. But anyway, I appreciate your efforts in trying to help me find it.

Wow, this is both humbling and yet telling at the same time. It is humbling because maybe I should feel an inflated ego because you think I might be some kind of scientific guru. But let me disabuse you of your fear of my vaulted status as a scientist. I am a scientist, in the same sense that many hundreds of thousands of people are. From Wiki, under the term scientist it says: “a scientist may refer to an individual who uses the scientific method.” That’s all it takes to qualify to call yourself a scientist. No, I am not a Nobel contender, you will not find I have testified before congress, or discovered new foundational concepts (although I wish I had). But I do try religiously (I use that term in a non-theological way) to consistently apply the scientific method. Having done so for a number of decades has helped broaden both my depth and breadth in science. You could do the very same, were you so inclined. I am deserving of no hero worship, and I have seen many other TOL posters who far transcend my scientific expertise (some of them are good Christians).

But more telling than my (mediocre) scientific credentials is the attitude you just expressed. Let me, for a moment adopt your self-same approach. If your God decided to personally come down and verbally set me straight, I can now, in imitation of you, simply declare to Him: “I'm not going to argue about anything with You because it isn't fair to me, with limited knowledge of (heaven) compared to You.” Do you see just how farcical that is? Hey, send your God down, who (if He existed) far transcends anything I know. Boy have I got a battery of questions I want answers to.

If you honestly feel someone at TOL is somehow particularly well qualified scientifically, then you should jump at the chance to converse with them. To distance yourself from them is an a priori admission that you are scared of being shown wrong, and would prefer to hide in your comforting ignorance.

Don’t put me on a pedestal I don’t deserve, but don’t dismiss what I say just ‘cause it makes you uncomfortable, either. Notice a few posts back I momentarily “switched sides” and hit The Barbarian up with a question about sea fossils on mountaintops. I did that because I honestly wanted to know if there was a credible scientific explanation for those fossils. If there had not been an answer, that would have been as important to me as the answer that was given (and thanks for responding, The Barbarian).

Doesn’t matter. If I were grandstanding as a scientific authority figure, then maybe that would be an issue.

You bring forth an interesting point that has some relevance to evolution. Prostate cancer is sometimes called an “old man’s” disease, because studies have shown that a surprisingly high percentage of recently deceased elderly men actually had undiagnosed prostate cancer. But if evolution is true, why wouldn’t those men who, for whatever genetic reason, have low chance of developing it, come to predominate in the world. IOW, why doesn’t evolution select more definitively against this form of cancer?

The answer is in understanding what evolution favors and what it doesn’t care about. Old men are past their reproductive years, and so diseases (like prostate cancer) that show up primarily in older men don’t affect the survival rate of the descendants very much. Evolution doesn’t give much of a squat whether you live or die once you have sent your kids off to live on their own. And if your God is real, it seems He is equally capricious about giving prostate cancer primarily to old men.


I don’t recall the “fishers of men” in the scriptures saying they wouldn't contend with someone of an opposing view just because the opponent knew more of the subject matter than they did.

Are you having fun rubbing it in, like I didn't do with you about your C14 error. No, I do not want to discuss science with a someone who has gone to college for 6 years ago, and has a PhD. I'd just soon pass. You think that is wrong of me. I don't. So say what you will. I have more to do than duke it out with a scientist about how old the Earth is, when I could instead teach others about how important Love is and God is, and Jesus is, and the Holy Ghost is. Do you see what I mean?? I haven't even gotten to the angels yet. I have plenty of irons in the fire. Don't need another. That's all, BJ.

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

:yawn:


And yet, your ideas require an assumption of the evolutionary model. :idunno:

Of course. :idunno:

The moon is receding at a decreasing rate today that a billion years ago would have had it causing kilometers-high tides.

And yet, geology is just a subset of physics. :idunno:

Dear Davis,

You know that Stripe is just saying that IF the moon were circling the earth billions of years ago, there would be mile-high tides. Not that the moon and earth are billions of years old. No, he still is claiming that the earth and moon are a young age.

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

I probably wasn’t as clear in my prior posting as I should have been. So rephrasing – I used Google about a week ago and found the “Problems with Carbon Dating” at Chemistry - Answer.com site. No more info there than the unembellished article itself. Since your original link pointed to ScienceForums, I presume the article is buried somewhere in those discussions. When I can spare some time, I will make a more concerted effort to see if I can locate it in ScienceForums. But anyway, I appreciate your efforts in trying to help me find it.

Wow, this is both humbling and yet telling at the same time. It is humbling because maybe I should feel an inflated ego because you think I might be some kind of scientific guru. But let me disabuse you of your fear of my vaulted status as a scientist. I am a scientist, in the same sense that many hundreds of thousands of people are. From Wiki, under the term scientist it says: “a scientist may refer to an individual who uses the scientific method.” That’s all it takes to qualify to call yourself a scientist. No, I am not a Nobel contender, you will not find I have testified before congress, or discovered new foundational concepts (although I wish I had). But I do try religiously (I use that term in a non-theological way) to consistently apply the scientific method. Having done so for a number of decades has helped broaden both my depth and breadth in science. You could do the very same, were you so inclined. I am deserving of no hero worship, and I have seen many other TOL posters who far transcend my scientific expertise (some of them are good Christians).

But more telling than my (mediocre) scientific credentials is the attitude you just expressed. Let me, for a moment adopt your self-same approach. If your God decided to personally come down and verbally set me straight, I can now, in imitation of you, simply declare to Him: “I'm not going to argue about anything with You because it isn't fair to me, with limited knowledge of (heaven) compared to You.” Do you see just how farcical that is? Hey, send your God down, who (if He existed) far transcends anything I know. Boy have I got a battery of questions I want answers to.

If you honestly feel someone at TOL is somehow particularly well qualified scientifically, then you should jump at the chance to converse with them. To distance yourself from them is an a priori admission that you are scared of being shown wrong, and would prefer to hide in your comforting ignorance.

Don’t put me on a pedestal I don’t deserve, but don’t dismiss what I say just ‘cause it makes you uncomfortable, either. Notice a few posts back I momentarily “switched sides” and hit The Barbarian up with a question about sea fossils on mountaintops. I did that because I honestly wanted to know if there was a credible scientific explanation for those fossils. If there had not been an answer, that would have been as important to me as the answer that was given (and thanks for responding, The Barbarian).

Doesn’t matter. If I were grandstanding as a scientific authority figure, then maybe that would be an issue.

You bring forth an interesting point that has some relevance to evolution. Prostate cancer is sometimes called an “old man’s” disease, because studies have shown that a surprisingly high percentage of recently deceased elderly men actually had undiagnosed prostate cancer. But if evolution is true, why wouldn’t those men who, for whatever genetic reason, have low chance of developing it, come to predominate in the world. IOW, why doesn’t evolution select more definitively against this form of cancer?

The answer is in understanding what evolution favors and what it doesn’t care about. Old men are past their reproductive years, and so diseases (like prostate cancer) that show up primarily in older men don’t affect the survival rate of the descendants very much. Evolution doesn’t give much of a squat whether you live or die once you have sent your kids off to live on their own. And if your God is real, it seems He is equally capricious about giving prostate cancer primarily to old men.


I don’t recall the “fishers of men” in the scriptures saying they wouldn't contend with someone of an opposing view just because the opponent knew more of the subject matter than they did.

So, in essence, you said you were a scientist for nothing. You are a novice scientist, I take it? Yes, any time you have questions for me that are above my understanding, I want you to just ask my God when He comes down to tell you the answers instead. Why should I pretend to know the answers. He knows all of the answers. All I've learned is that you inflate things.

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Most people are firmly imbedded in their bunkers. I'm pretty sure you are familiar with quotes from evolutionists, that we creationists love to use..... such as the one about 'not allowing a divine foot in the door'? *Most evolutionists are very biased.*I'm very biased too.*

You may be more willing than I, to do a 180. *As a Christian, I accept that God's Word is absolute truth. There are some things that I think are absolutes with Christianity such as virgin birth and inerrant scripture. There are other things where there can be different interpretations. It's difficult to see how you can add vast ages into scripture without without corrupting the gospel - (death, pain suffering are a result of original sin...not an evolutionary process).


Haha...yes of course very different. I obviously did not explain well. I found the quote that I mentioned...
"However, creationists have an alternative interpretation of the amino acid sequence similarities reflected in the evolutionists' trees. They say that such sequence similarities in "related" species simply reflect the creator's choice to design similar species to function similarly, not only at the level of bones, muscles and organs, but also at the level of protein function--hence the amino acid sequence similarities.
Thus the similarities between species in anatomy and protein structure can be interpreted in two entirely different ways. The evolutionists say that the similarity between features of, for example, humans and apes reflects the fact that these features were inherited from a common ancestor; that is, the similar features of humans and apes are determined by modern copies of genes that once existed in species that was ancestral to both apes and humans. The creationists say that apes and humans were created independently but were designed with similar features so that they would function similarly. Both the gene copying and the independent creation views seem consistent with the similarity data, but which view is correct?"

We all have the exact same evidence but interpret according to worldview.



Sure...I would be interested but the point is that evidence from geology, astronomy, physics etc are interpreted both to fit old earth or young earth views. *


https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/stars/the-stars-of-heaven-confirm-biblical-creation/
Again... the point is we have the same evidence but different ways to interpret it.

Another simpler example would have been comets. They 'burn' up and don't last billions of years....supporting the young earth model. However stellar evolutionists propose models to solve that (rescue devices)


Yes...
But evolutuonists have a long history of jumping to the wrong conclusion based on beliefs and not on science. (Vestigial organs, psuedogenes, junk DNA, Neandertals etc)


Sometimes yes. Evidence that one model is wrong MAY be evidence the other model is correct. ....

Sort of off topic but Dawkins(and others) often uses that type of argument. For example he (falsely) argues our eyes have a sloppy design, so says this is evidence for evolutionism against creationism.*


I think Christians should be extremely confident in the reliability of the ancient manuscripts. It might make for a great new thread.


Likewise

I've always thought that 6days is smarter and wiser than I. I call upon him for help also, when I need to. I do my best, but sometimes need a lot more help. Thanks 6days!!

Michael

:guitar:

:cheers:

 

[Jonahdog]

Dear Davis,

You know that Stripe is just saying that IF the moon were circling the earth billions of years ago, there would be mile-high tides. Not that the moon and earth are billions of years old. No, he still is claiming that the earth and moon are a young age.

Michael

He is incorrect.

 

[Jonahdog]

We know.

We know. :wave2:

Meanwhile, the Bible says "six days." You say: "billions of years." When you've chosen one of those mutually exclusive positions, you might be able to join a rational discussion.

:wave2:

Stripe, Stripe, Stripe. I am honored that you quoted me. But as often, you quotemined by putting in a period where there was none before, therefore changing the meaning of my little sentence. I am not surprised. You lie and misrepresent. I must assume that you believe your god thinks that is wonderful, that lying is OK when done for your deity. But it brings nothing but scorn on the both of you. You should be ashamed but you are not. Says something about your understanding of the real world and your god as well. Perhaps in your world misrepresenting is not the same as lying. Maybe there is a different Biblical definition for "lie" as you claim there is for "repentance".

 

[noguru]

Stripe, Stripe, Stripe. I am honored that you quoted me. But as often, you quotemined by putting in a period where there was none before, therefore changing the meaning of my little sentence. I am not surprised. You lie and misrepresent. I must assume that you believe your god thinks that is wonderful, that lying is OK when done for your deity. But it brings nothing but scorn on the both of you. You should be ashamed but you are not. Says something about your understanding of the real world and your god as well. Perhaps in your world misrepresenting is not the same as lying. Maybe there is a different Biblical definition for "lie" as you claim there is for "repentance".

In the fundamentalist Christian mind, lying for God is acceptable. Because for them the goal of converting people outweighs and therefore justifies the means by which they do it. If you will just speak their magical incantation with your lips you will be saved. It is as simple as that for them. And however they accomplish that is thought of as good.