Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
No it doesn't, at all. The theory of evolution or 'common ancestry' came about through the scientific methodological process. It's ridiculous to suggest otherwise frankly, unless you're a conspiracy theorist to the max.
What about the Christian scientists who have no issues with the earth being older than ten thousand years et al? It seems to me that you have an unhealthy hang up on the topic.
I think Barb is a bit more up to date than 40 years ago on this stuff. You're right that science employs methodological processes but wrong that an old earth was any sort of pre-set conclusion.
While we're on that matter just how old is the age of the earth in YEC terms? Is 11,000 years out of the question? There doesn't seem to be any particular figure of any accuracy, just so long as it's between 6 and 10,000.
Dear Arthur,
There doesn't seem to be any particular figure of any accuracy on evolution's deduction of WHAT the Earth's Age is. Why should we have to know how old we put the age of the Earth at. At least it is not within one or a 3 million different ages! I think that creation's assumption of the Earth's Age is pretty apt in giving a 6,000 to 10,000 {I think more like 7,000} year range. Does your Earth have 3 million-year-old coal and carbon-14, and diamonds that are just as old?? God did not tell Moses or us men and women that our Earth was created a few days before us some 3 million years ago. I don't think so. I'm not getting caught up in your time warp, only to have God say "you didn't believe me, eh?"
Arthur, I still care for you plenty, so I'm not trying to cause you any grief. I'm doing my best to serve God, which is what I always try to do.
Michael
:cloud9: :angel: :angel: :guitar:
Dear BJ,
They just don't know one way or the other what to believe. Have you asked each one personally to get a better perspective? Are we supposed to do that to satisfy your need to know? Those who do know their God shall rise and be caught up to meet Jesus in the air. For He shall separate the chaff from the wheat! He'll keep the wheat so we can eat. The chaff He'll burn, for it is a waste byproduct. Are you going to rise up in the air Davis? What have you done?!!
Michael
I asked about 6day’s silence regarding the numerous faithful Christians that have no issue with the earth being very old.
Cadry responded:
<The obligatory preaching from Michael was here>
Cadry responded:
I am not aware that most of them have any issue with the age that science has come up with. Can you show me evidence that that is a significant point of contention among those who accept an old earth?
Getting right silly now, are we?
Try reading and actually understanding what I said for once, Michael. I asked 6days why he does not mention those faithful who believe in an old earth. I said nothing about asking anyone else.
<The obligatory preaching from Michael was here>
Well, it has been a few years since I last flew an airplane, but I am pretty sure I could still get one to “rise up in the air” and then land it safely You a licensed pilot too, Michael?
Your novelty is showing. You are just what-can-I-say? You know very well how you twist words around to suit yourself. And I wasn't talking about airplanes, and you know that very well, or you are lacking real simple wisdom. Your airplane joke hardly trumps my talking about the rapture of Christ. You have some nerve to dishonor Christ in that way. No matter what someone says to you, you try to manipulate it to help you somehow not to look like an idiot. Well, the mask and the words do not work anymore.
Michael
You're getting testy again Michael. Want me to have Kusper come see you?
Dear BJ,
I always get testy with fair-weather friends!! The only thing on your agenda is always just YOU!! Do you know there are people out there whom you could love instead of playing games with them? I don't suppose you fathom that.
Michael
I always get testy with fair-weather friends!! The only thing on your agenda is always just YOU!! Do you know there are people out there whom you could love instead of playing games with them? I don't suppose you fathom that.
Michael
alwight
New member
If I can interject here Michael, the point being made here even by BJ was not about airplanes at all, the point being made was that people don't normally just rise up in the air. You seem to want us to take that seriously, as no joke, but why should we?
Nobody dishonoured Christ by being somewhat sceptical of your particular vision of him, it's your evidence free ideas that are being put to the question here and frankly your ideas alone are fair game whether you like it or not.
lain:
You already know that isn't true. Be honest. You learned that the evidence for common descent was found before Darwin's theory. Linnaeus (a creationist) discovered the family tree for living things long before evolutionary theory. Such trees only happen in cases of common descent, and this was later verified by genetic data. Which we know works, because we can test it on organisms of known descent.
Prior to the invention of YE creationism by the Seventh Day Adventists in the early 1900s, most creationists were OE. Would you like me to show you that, again?
And now, you've dodged out of evolution. It's not about the way life began. Darwin merely suggested that God just created the first living things. But of course, science is beginning to understand what God meant when He said that life originated from non-living matter. Creationists are convinced that God is wrong about that.
Arthur writes:
6Days writes:
That was settled in the Dover trial. It's a religion. In fact, when they think no one is listening, they admit it's a religion. Would you like me to show you that, again?
Longer than that. Darwin pointed out that vestigial organs would not necessarily be useless, and often develop a different function.
An organ, serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose, and remain perfectly efficient for the other. Thus in plants, the office of the pistil is to allow the pollen-tubes to reach the ovules within the ovarium. The pistil consists of a stigma supported on a style; but in some Compositae, the male florets, which of course cannot be fecundated, have a rudimentary pistil, for it is not crowned with a stigma; but the style remains well developed and is clothed in the usual manner with hairs, which serve to brush the pollen out of the surrounding and conjoined anthers. Again, an organ may become rudimentary for its proper purpose, and be used for a distinct one: in certain fishes the swimbladder seems to be rudimentary for its proper function of giving buoyancy, but has become converted into a nascent breathing organ or lung. Many similar instances could be given.
Charles Darwin; The Origin of Species Chapter XIV: Mutual Affinities of Organic Beings: Morphology: Embryology: Rudimentary Organs
The appendix is a good case. It no longer serves as a digestive organ, but has some lymphoid tissue, and also serves as a refuge for useful bacteria in case of severe illness or other disruptions of the digestive system. So, as Darwin wrote, it retained a secondary function and evolved a new one as well. You were just fooled into thinking that "vestigial" means "useless." This is why it's a major mistake to get your information about science from people who hate science. As in the above case, they will lie to you, not caring what embarrassment you will experience when you innocently tell that foolish lie to others. However, even if you're very forgetful, this is far from the first time you learned the truth. It's time to pack that dishonesty away.
See above. And this isn't the first time you've been reminded. Do you think no one notices? Arthur just noticed. And other people do also, even if they don't call you out on it.
When you've chosen a stance, you might be able to join a rational discussion.
https://answersingenesis.org/geolog...ngdisprovethebible-2849&utm_campaign=20150516
alwight
New member
Also from AiG:
"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."
https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/When you've figured out "rational" from blind faith in an ancient scripture Stripe then you can tell others all about it. :up:
When you're interested in talking evidence, let us know. :thumb:
6days
New member
And you keep trying to convince others that your butter knife was not designed. :yawn:
When something appears designed..... a logical conclusion is that there may be a designer.
When something appears designed which contains specified and complex information, the only logical conclusion is that there has to be a designer.
AIG then likewise refuses to see if science, devoid of outside biases, will support YEC views. That aberrant approach to "YEC science" is openly admitted more often than I was previously aware of - now including the CRS, AIG, ICR, and more locally - 6days and Stipe.
6days
New member
And??? Many if not all evolutionists have the same abherrant approach to "origins science"...correct? Many even admit their bias...not all.
I don’t know if you are aware of it, Michael, but the more you fail to control your anger (or get “testy”), the more you give control to your opponent. I saw that happen dramatically decades ago in a military situation when a young Second Lieutenant in the Air Force, in front of a class, deliberately insulted and provoked a senior military officer. When the high-ranking officer lost his cool and started dressing down the young upstart, the young fellow smiled and said, “Good, you’re angry, and now I’ve got control.” One hour later, at the end of class, the senior officer humbly and quietly left the room as a much wiser man, having been openly drawn, quartered, and hung up to dry by the young upstart. (The young fellow was a graduate in psychology, with an emphasis on inter-personal relationships.)
The part that makes the YEC approach particularly farcical (and I have mentioned this several times) is that no matter have wrong a scientist is in his first assumptions, he knows that nature will not change to accommodate his erroneous beliefs. Either he recognizes and admits he was wrong, and corrects his error, or he will be left scientifically barren as other scientists pass him by and take the path he wandered off of. You, on the other hand, a priori declare what the answers must be, and then rig the inputs to guarantee those answers. Can’t you see the difference between science asking nature how the world works, and religious zealots declaring the way it must work?
Nope.
Science is about putting forward your assumptions and testing them against the evidence; not pretending that you have no assumptions and using ad hoc explanations to cover the failure of your predictions.
Front and center is this discussion. Numerous times you have been presented with the YEC assumption of what happened in the past with the C12-C14 ratio and the evidence surrounding the issue, but you prefer to talk about philosophical nonsense and cry about being mocked.
That is exactly what I did not say. I am saying, that in my ignorance of knowing about butter knives at all (which were most assuredly designed, functional, and have a clear purpose – spreading butter), my washer retrieval tool itself appeared to be designed. It meets the criteria just like the butter knife. In my work environment it was well made, the size is right, it is robust, it is rust-resistant, if has a handle that fits perfectly in my hand, it is highly functional, easy to store, easy to use, and I keep it specifically because it absolutely serves a purpose, as evidenced by my using it regularly to rescue coins and washers. In what way does it fail to meet your criteria for showing design?
- Status