Creation vs. Evolution

[6days]

My position is that the Bible is true....there was a global flood which wiped out all vegetation on earth....and that has drastically affected the ratio of C14 to C12, giving us exaggerated dates. That explanation, or that interpretation, better fits the evidence than the old earth explanations. Finding C14 in coal, dino soft tissue and diamonds is expected in the young earth model.

And that is R. H. Brown’s view as well. But that is not science. You don’t get to define the conditions that are guaranteed to give the answers you want at the end. If you want to do science, you take what nature shows, and see where it leads. If it doesn’t fit with your dogma, tough, then abandon the claim that science proves the Bible.

Your statement applies equally well to the vast majority of evolutionists.

As Richard Leowontin explained "“It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” - See more at: http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/a_divine_foot_in_the_door#sthash.qIHrSfaP.dpuf

In origins science evolutionists are committed to "material explanations".

Laughing... not at you...but how we both look at evidence from our own biased worldviews. Let me ask...If "in the world of real science this C-14 age is close to the real honest-to-gosh valid truthful on-the-spot correct age" then is coal really just 40,000 years old?

You should be laughing at me, because I am laughing at myself. I was focused on the C-14 date in the coal to the exclusion of remembering why science thinks that C-14 dating of coal is pretty much silly.

Evolutionists think its silly to do C-14 dating on anything where the result might contradict their beliefs.

Well.... I think you have been reasonably fair in summing up how C14 dating is consistent with the Bible. He starts with the 'assumption' that God's Word is absolute truth. He then shows how C14 dating of preflood organic matter is consistent with what the preflood world may have been like.

So then we agree that in R. H. Brown’s paper at GRI, and likely his paper that you mentioned at CRS, he starts with a set of assumptions favored by YEC folks, and then goes on to do nothing more meaningful than show that the mathematics supports YEC conclusions. And you honestly view that as science?

Evolutionism and creationism (origins science) starts with the conclusion and interprets the data to fit.
EX. Mary Schweitzer's statement upon discovering soft dino tissue.
EX. Leowontins quote above.

There are MANY examples of evolutionists coming to faulty conclusions because they interpret data to fit their beliefs.

As you said..."And you honestly view that as science?"

If you are right, science can’t be depended on to be truly impartial much at all, since every conclusion must be made by someone with an agenda.

False..... Progress in science is made independent of our beliefs about the past. Biblical creationists and atheist evolutionists can work side by side in the lab. (Mutation rates, selection, 'evolution' of pathogens etc is observable science that fits the two opposing models)

 

[MichaelCadry]

From an earlier quote:

I'm with Tambora, 6days, and Stripe, among the rest of you. You know that God made man instead of boy, woman instead of girl, the chicken instead of the egg, etc. He makes things that are already grown some. So for Him to make a grown earth and Universe, why do you think it is unusual. Same with turtles, snakes, alligators, instead of eggs, etc. Can you understand this?

Michael

 

[DavisBJ]

Your statement applies equally well to the vast majority of evolutionists.

As Richard Leowontin explained "“It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” - See more at: http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/a_divine_foot_in_the_door#sthash.qIHrSfaP.dpuf

In origins science evolutionists are committed to "material explanations".



Evolutionists think its silly to do C-14 dating on anything where the result might contradict their beliefs.



Evolutionism and creationism (origins science) starts with the conclusion and interprets the data to fit.
EX. Mary Schweitzer's statement upon discovering soft dino tissue.
EX. Leowontins quote above.

There are MANY examples of evolutionists coming to faulty conclusions because they interpret data to fit their beliefs.

As you said..."And you honestly view that as science?"


False..... Progress in science is made independent of our beliefs about the past. Biblical creationists and atheist evolutionists can work side by side in the lab. (Mutation rates, selection, 'evolution' of pathogens etc is observable science that fits the two opposing models)

Dear 6days,

Ok, as I see your answer in brief, it boils down to: “Evolutionists do it too”. I guess that is a start, admitting that R. H. Brown’s article is a just a rigged deck, and not letting science impartially lead to the answer at all. I appreciate that admission.

Nor will I for a moment deny that there are cases, some rather famous, where scientists have made assumptions that turned out to be fallacious. Piltdown man is a pretty famous example of where some scientists had to eat humble pie. When the evidence was examined in greater detail, and more impartially, they had to drop their misconceptions and get back in line with the evidence nature provided. You YECers willing to do the same? You willing to, if the evidence falls against you, support millions of years for coal? If not, then again you are unabashedly wearing your dogma hat, and science is just a very thin veneer you used when you think it can fool the flock.

 

[DavisBJ]

Dear Davis,

I find myself agreeing with Stripe's posts more and more. He and 6days, share my opinion the best, to be honest. He says it like it is!! You only want him to agree with everything you have to say!

Michael

:argue:

I admire your appreciation of Stipe. It is clear that for someone to curry your favor, simply declaring a belief in Jesus is almost an automatic ticket to your friendship. Stipe certainly qualifies there. My admiration is even more in light of several cases where Stipe has expressed strongly worded feelings disparaging your character. But inasmuch as you have had a pretty regular cycle of love-hate relationships with a number of posters, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

Anyway, you are way off base in your saying I want Stipe to be in full agreement with me. What I do want, and what I seldom find, is for Stipe to present his ideas free of the incessant mockery that permeates many of his posts. I have seen Stipe present nothing that required mockery, and his arguments can be brought forth and defended just as well by others, and so I see no reason to feed his aberration by responding directly to him. You think that requiring courtesy in conversations is a bad thing? As you can see in the last couple of exchanges between 6days and I, we are wildly divergent in some of our ideas, yet neither of us has resorted to anything close to the mockery that typifies Stipe’s participation.

 

[MichaelCadry]

I admire your appreciation of Stipe. It is clear that for someone to curry your favor, simply declaring a belief in Jesus is almost an automatic ticket to your friendship. Stipe certainly qualifies there. My admiration is even more in light of several cases where Stipe has expressed strongly worded feelings disparaging your character. But inasmuch as you have had a pretty regular cycle of love-hate relationships with a number of posters, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

Anyway, you are way off base in your saying I want Stipe to be in full agreement with me. What I do want, and what I seldom find, is for Stipe to present his ideas free of the incessant mockery that permeates many of his posts. I have seen Stipe present nothing that required mockery, and his arguments can be brought forth and defended just as well by others, and so I see no reason to feed his aberration by responding directly to him. You think that requiring courtesy in conversations is a bad thing? As you can see in the last couple of exchanges between 6days and I, we are wildly divergent in some of our ideas, yet neither of us has resorted to anything close to the mockery that typifies Stipe’s participation.

Dear Davis,

It's quite simple really. Stripe holds certain beliefs that I hold also. Quite a few, as a matter of fact. I don't care if he is wary of me or my personality. He barely knows me. C'mon, Davis. I haven't quit talking with you even though we disagree on certain issues.

Stripe is just the way he is. He's not like you, or me, but is like he!! Not everyone is the same. You know that, so I'm not telling you anything new. He can be how he wants to be. It's his prerogative. He will probably say to me, 'don't defend me.' But I am how I want to be also. I have a lot of love, understanding and forgiveness in me.

Michael

 

[patrick jane]

I admire your appreciation of Stipe. It is clear that for someone to curry your favor, simply declaring a belief in Jesus is almost an automatic ticket to your friendship. Stipe certainly qualifies there. My admiration is even more in light of several cases where Stipe has expressed strongly worded feelings disparaging your character. But inasmuch as you have had a pretty regular cycle of love-hate relationships with a number of posters, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

Anyway, you are way off base in your saying I want Stipe to be in full agreement with me. What I do want, and what I seldom find, is for Stipe to present his ideas free of the incessant mockery that permeates many of his posts. I have seen Stipe present nothing that required mockery, and his arguments can be brought forth and defended just as well by others, and so I see no reason to feed his aberration by responding directly to him. You think that requiring courtesy in conversations is a bad thing? As you can see in the last couple of exchanges between 6days and I, we are wildly divergent in some of our ideas, yet neither of us has resorted to anything close to the mockery that typifies Stipe’s participation.

you tell it like it is. i like that. i will be your friend if you believe Jesus Christ died for your sins, was buried, and rose the 3rd day, according to scripture 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 and Ephesians 1:13 KJV - John 3:16-17 KJV and stuff like that - just kiddin', i'll be your friend if you don't believe, i see honesty and thought in your posts - atrol:

 

[DavisBJ]

you tell it like it is. i like that. i will be your friend if you believe Jesus Christ died for your sins, was buried, and rose the 3rd day, according to scripture 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 and Ephesians 1:13 KJV - John 3:16-17 KJV and stuff like that - just kiddin', i'll be your friend if you don't believe, i see honesty and thought in your posts - atrol:

Patrick Jane, glad to cross paths with you. Courtesy will get you a long ways into my good graces, and accepting real science is a big plus too. You are OK on both counts. But the 1% you are short – well, if you look probably on the left and right ends of your keyboard, there is a key on each end labelled “Shift”. When you hold one of them down and press another key, magic – the letter shows as a CAPITAL letter. Caps look kinda neat on the front of sentences, and a few other places.

But hey, a 99% approval rating with me is not so bad, either. It's the message that counts, not the caps.

 

[patrick jane]

Patrick Jane, glad to cross paths with you. Courtesy will get you a long ways into my good graces, and accepting real science is a big plus too. You are OK on both counts. But the 1% you are short – well, if you look probably on the left and right ends of your keyboard, there is a key on each end labelled “Shift”. When you hold one of them down and press another key, magic – the letter shows as a CAPITAL letter. Caps look kinda neat on the front of sentences, and a few other places.

But hey, a 99% approval rating with me is not so bad, either. It's the message that counts, not the caps.

LOL. my cousin Simon was here (banned) and he loved caps. A few folks complained because he capitalized every word. I generally only cap words that i either hold reverence for, respect on a higher level, importance, silliness, anger, sarcasm, whim, humor and many other reasons. " i " isn't one of them, i understand your point and did well in college writing, including grammar and punctuation, starting sentences, proper nouns etc. -

i'm also lazy and a slow typist plus, i'm so used to texting and typing things in short blurbs - i respect science and i've been down that road slightly - there was a fork - i took it - lol thanks again, i enjoy your posts -:thumb:

 

[MichaelCadry]

Just a thought:

Pagans actively worship creation and reject The Creator, not realizing it was God who set all life in motion. Here are seven things pagans get wrong about The One True God.

That's gonna have to do it.

Michael

 

[Stripe]

I have seen Stipe present nothing that required mockery.

My name has an "r" in it. :thumb:

 

[The Barbarian]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
Barbarian observes:
And this nicely illustrates the damage Stipe and his fellows do to Christianity. And it's not something new. Such people have always been a problem:
(Augustine describes Stipe-like behavior among foolish people in his day)

We should examine their new doctrines, discuss them, and expose them for what they are. Sunlight is a great disinfectant.

(everready assumes that if scientists disagree with people, they would want to "do something" about them)

You guys always reach for coercion to settle things. But it's a big mistake.

In the long run, that always happens. God isn't neutral on this, remember. He made it.

Just today i heard Richard Dawkins say it was Darwinism that converted him to atheism as he explained it to Ben Stein.

Dawkins is a fundy atheist, a man who let his irrational anger at religion drive his opinions. He's really the mirror image of a creationist.

But as you see, the real damage creationists do is to people like Dawkins, who assumed Christianity had to include creationism.

 

[Stripe]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian iew PostBarbarian observes:And this nicely illustrates the damage Stipe and his fellows do to Christianity. And it's not something new. Such people have always been a problem:(Augustine describes Stipe-like behavior among foolish people in his day)We should examine their new doctrines, discuss them, and expose them for what they are. Sunlight is a great disinfectant.(everready assumes that if scientists disagree with people, they would want to "do something" about them)You guys always reach for coercion to settle things. But it's a big mistake.In the long run, that always happens. God isn't neutral on this, remember. He made it.Dawkins is a fundy atheist, a man who let his irrational anger at religion drive his opinions. He's really the mirror image of a creationist.But as you see, the real damage creationists do is to people like Dawkins, who assumed Christianity had to include creationism.

Meanwhile, you reject the plain teaching of scripture. When you've given up either the Bible or your evolutionism, you might be able to join a rational discussion.

 

[Jose Fly]

1. There is no such thing as a "genuine" Christian. You either are, or you aren't.
2. The only test of a Christian is his confession of Jesus Christ as risen Lord and savior. Nothing else applies.

Oh, well then Barbarian and Alate One aren't so bad off as you YECs make it seem. As you say, you can be an old-earth evolutionist, and a Christian.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Stripe]

Oh, well then Barbarian and Alate One aren't so bad off as you YECs make it seem.Thanks for clearing that up.

Nope.

Most everything that gets said about them is accurate. Barbarian is the most dishonest poster on this site and Alate will continue arguing points she knows are worthless because they keep the evidence away.

And you're in the same boat; only interested in nonsense instead of a discussion that might be worthwhile.

 

[Jose Fly]

Nope.

Most everything that gets said about them is accurate. Barbarian is the most dishonest poster on this site and Alate will continue arguing points she knows are worthless because they keep the evidence away.

But they're still Christians.

 

[DavisBJ]

My name has an "r" in it. :thumb:

Now it does indeed, but such was not always so. I recall when Stipe was your screen name, and I presume you selected it, so it must not have been objectionable to you. Is there now something nefarious associated with that name, and you no longer want it used?

But anyway, I will try to remember the “r” in your newly evolved name, on condition you try to curtail your use of mockery. Deal?

 

[Stripe]

But anyway, I will try to remember the “r” in your newly evolved name, on condition you try to curtail your use of mockery. Deal?

I already curtail my mockery. :idunno:

And my name evolved years ago.

 

[DavisBJ]

I already curtail my mockery. :idunno:

And my name evolved years ago.

I am not going to quibble over just when you ceased using mockery. I am satisfied knowing it is no longer part of your MO, and that indeed it was something that you have now acknowledged using in the past.

Now that we have a workable mutual understanding that seems to improve our relationship on both sides, I will deign to reopening the door to discussions with you (as long as the agreement is honored.)

 

[Stripe]

You're weird.

 

[DavisBJ]

You're weird.

Thanks. Coming from someone with whom I have significant differences on important aspects of science and religion, I take that as a complement. If I were in lock-step with your beliefs, then you would not view me as weird.