Creation vs. Evolution

[The Barbarian]

I get your point, but I think I would have put a length of weather stripping down to fill the gap between the toolbench and the wall.

 

[Stripe]

In what way does it fail to meet your criteria for showing design?

Because you chose it to meet an end.

It is the same as with any "model" of evolution; they always fail because a designed element can always be found.

And a design requires a designer.

 

[DavisBJ]

I get your point, but I think I would have put a length of weather stripping down to fill the gap between the toolbench and the wall.

Wow, Barbarian, I do like that suggestion. Just think, that would make my life even easier, and I could donate my tool to the creationist museum of “Things that Meet all the Criteria for Design” (as design has been specified several times by 6days).

But instead of weather stripping, which was clearly designed for cutting down on drafts around doors and windows, and would never be perverted into other uses, I found some strips of rubberized material that I can easily stick along the back of my workbench and do the job. (My silly neighbor said it looks a whole lot like standard weather stripping to him, but he is not a believer, so I pay him no heed.) So now we are blessed with what is clearly yet another example of something that had a designer. Why, just look at how perfectly it fits in that bothersome gap, notice it comes with a sticky backing to allow it to be attached easily, it is noiseless, odorless, it even adds a pleasing strip of color to the edge of my workbench. Yes, all is well in heaven, we are given so many wonderful examples of things that are so obviously designed for the very purposes for which we see them used. Blessings be on you.

 

[The Barbarian]

Stipe mutters:

When you've chosen a stance, you might be able to join a rational discussion.

Everyone knows what my stance is. But you're still hiding from us on your C-14 beliefs. When are you going to be up to telling us what they are?

I asked you a few specific questions, and you dodged every one of them. What's the matter?

 

[6days]

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..... You misrepresent science.
Science is knowledge...the search for truth, using the scientific method. Advances in medicine and new technologies are developed by people who have opposing a priori belief systems about origins. In the lab they observe the same evidence, and perform the same repeatable experiments. When experiments prove either side wrong, they move on to the next hypothesis. However, rarely does their a priori belief system about origins change.
There are many examples such as "Junk DNA", and the false conclusions evolutionists made about it. As science discredits those evolutionary beliefs... the evolutionists form new hypothesis, but still cling to their same beliefs about origins.

 

[MichaelCadry]

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:

Yes, you can interject here. We are close friends who disagree about this. I understood the point about BJs being able to rise by flying in a plane instead, but the more reverent rising is that of the Christians during the Rapture. Instead of the holiness of it, BJ makes a joke about it that I don't find funny in the slightest. I know you both don't believe in the Rapture and if you find it funny, then keep laughing.

Al, my evidence-free ideas will be vindicated in a few more months. Are you ready, Al? You know how hard it is for my to be writing this disagreement with you. I do care for you much.

Cheerio!

Michael

 

[Kdall]

Nope..... You misrepresent science.
Science is knowledge...the search for truth, using the scientific method. Advances in medicine and new technologies are developed by people who have opposing a priori belief systems about origins. In the lab they observe the same evidence, and perform the same repeatable experiments. When experiments prove either side wrong, they move on to the next hypothesis. However, rarely does their a priori belief system about origins change.
There are many examples such as "Junk DNA", and the false conclusions evolutionists made about it. As science discredits those evolutionary beliefs... the evolutionists form new hypothesis, but still cling to their same beliefs about origins.

The difference between YEC origin beliefs and "evolutionist" beliefs are that the first is based entirely on a 3000+ year old book, and the latter is based on more than a century of gathered and scrutinized evidence. I'll take the latter

 

[Kdall]

Yes, you can interject here. We are close friends who disagree about this. I understood the point about BJs being able to rise by flying in a plane instead, but the more reverent rising is that of the Christians during the Rapture. Instead of the holiness of it, BJ makes a joke about it that I don't find funny in the slightest. I know you both don't believe in the Rapture and if you find it funny, then keep laughing.

Al, my evidence-free ideas will be vindicated in a few more months. Are you ready, Al? You know how hard it is for my to be writing this disagreement with you. I do care for you much.

Cheerio!

Michael

Michael I have a question:

If the year passes and your ideas are not vindicated, what then?

 

[alwight]

Al, my evidence-free ideas will be vindicated in a few more months. Are you ready, Al? You know how hard it is for my to be writing this disagreement with you. I do care for you much.

Cheerio!

Michael

No I'm not ready Michael but I do worry about what will happen to you when you realise that the world is still pretty much as it is now on Jan 1st. lain:

 

[Yorzhik]

The difference between YEC origin beliefs and "evolutionist" beliefs are that the first is based entirely on a 3000+ year old book, and the latter is based on more than a century of gathered and scrutinized evidence. I'll take the latter

Sure, the Christian position is that the bible is our primary source. However, epistemology must come before a search for truth by necessity.

So, moving beyond epistemology, science says the century of gathered and scrutinized evidence shows common descent is wrong. Flat wrong. But you believe it, which in turn shows your epistemology is based on your common descent religion.

 

[The Barbarian]

So, moving beyond epistemology, science says the century of gathered and scrutinized evidence shows common descent is wrong.

Funny that belief is mostly found in people who don't have a clue about science. Many creationists who are educated, freely admit that there is evidence for evolution.

Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
Kurt Wise, YE creationist

Kurt Patrick Wise is an American young earth creationist who serves as the Director of Creation Research Center at Truett-McConnell College. He has a PhD in geology from Harvard University. He's known for his writings in support for creationism as well as his work for the Creation Museum.
Wikipedia

Flat wrong. But you believe it, which in turn shows your epistemology is based on your common descent religion.

Surprise. Even honest creationists know better than that. Honest ones, that is.

 

[everready]

Funny that belief is mostly found in people who don't have a clue about science. Many creationists who are educated, freely admit that there is evidence for evolution.

Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
Kurt Wise, YE creationist

Kurt Patrick Wise is an American young earth creationist who serves as the Director of Creation Research Center at Truett-McConnell College. He has a PhD in geology from Harvard University. He's known for his writings in support for creationism as well as his work for the Creation Museum.
Wikipedia



Surprise. Even honest creationists know better than that. Honest ones, that is.

Funny you should say that most creationists that are educated accept evolution because that's not true, if they have an education they reject evolution, you've got it backwards.


everready

 

[everready]

The difference between YEC origin beliefs and "evolutionist" beliefs are that the first is based entirely on a 3000+ year old book, and the latter is based on more than a century of gathered and scrutinized evidence. I'll take the latter

You have an unbelievers view of Gods word, its his living word Kdall, not a 3000 year old book, and you call yourself a Christian?


everready

 

[6days]

The difference between YEC origin beliefs and "evolutionist" beliefs are that the first is based entirely on a 3000+ year old book, and the latter is based on more than a century of gathered and scrutinized evidence. I'll take the latter

Yes, we know you reject God's Word...I don't.

I accept God's Word as ultimate and inerrant truth.

 

[6days]

Funny you should say that most creationists that are educated accept evolution because that's not true, if they have an education they reject evolution, you've got it backwards.


everready

He uses the fallacy of equivocation all the time.
All educated Christians accept 'evolution' meaning observable science. (mutation rates, natural selection, adaptation, genetic drift etc).
But all Biblical creationists reject non observable 'evolution' (chemical evolution / life from non life, and common ancestry beliefs)

 

[DavisBJ]

Nope..... You misrepresent science.
Science is knowledge...the search for truth, using the scientific method. Advances in medicine and new technologies are developed by people who have opposing a priori belief systems about origins. In the lab they observe the same evidence, and perform the same repeatable experiments. When experiments prove either side wrong, they move on to the next hypothesis. However, rarely does their a priori belief system about origins change.
There are many examples such as "Junk DNA", and the false conclusions evolutionists made about it. As science discredits those evolutionary beliefs... the evolutionists form new hypothesis, but still cling to their same beliefs about origins.

Surprisingly, I agree with most of what you say above.

To illustrate a bit more using the C-14 in coal issue, I envision a person coming on the scene who is smart, but a total novice to much of science. He wants to know how old the earth is. Someone explains the fundamentals of C-14 dating to him, and presents him with the 40,000 year C-14 age on coal. They then explain that there was a great flood that formed coal relatively recently, and how that ultimately shows coal to be about 5,000 years old, and the world not much older.

With this info under his belt, Mr. Smart visits a number of geology laboratories, and at each one he asks how old they think the world is, and why. Almost unanimously they tell him why the geological and geophysical evidence shows billions of years. He asks if those conclusions are just so they will not be seen in conflict with the time spans evolution claims to need. In response, they load him down with several thousand studies they used to come to their conclusions, and he finds that evolution is rarely even mentioned in any of them.

A similar scenario plays out when he visits many of the premier astronomy and astrophysics facilities in the world. They all have concluded billions of years, and disavow any need to doctor data to please evolutionists.

And he finds that more time-limited studies, such as dendrochronology and varves also date the earth well more than 7,000 years of age.

What is he to do, if he is to remain faithful to the scientific method? Well, when there is a consensus from several disparate branches of science, and each came to their conclusions based on independent lines of evidence, then it would be a bit foolish to do a wholesale dismissal of their ideas for no reason other than to maintain the original belief in 5,000 year old coal without at least examining it in more depth.

So, he goes back to the coal dating and asks what possible weaknesses there might have been in those measurements. He soon learns that there is an inherent uncertainty in C-14 measurements, due to factors that cannot be completely eliminated. This uncertainty is expressed in standard deviations. If the uncertainty on a sample ranges from, say, 2000 years on the low end to 2200 years on the high end, then statistically there is about a 70% chance that the true age is somewhere in that range. But a measurement error that causes a 100 year (plus or minus) uncertainly on a 2000 year old sample (2000 is about 1/3 of a C-14 half-life) may cause many thousands of years uncertainly on a piece of coal that is dated at 40,000 C-14 years (40,000 is about seven C-14 half lives. Each half-life may double the influence of errors). In effect, the mathematics shows that the lowest C-14 age of the coal may be only 30,000 years, and the greatest C-14 age of the coal is beyond the limits of C-14 testing to measure.

So, Mr. Smart asks, what factors might cause the coal to have a measurable C-14 age at all, if coal is ancient, as the geologists contended it was. The late Harry Gove (died just a few years ago) was one of the world authorities in developing and refining AMS (accelerator mass spectroscopy). A few years before his death, he authored an article which said this about natural gas and petroleum (organic cousins of coal):

Some C14 must be present in natural gas and petroleum due to the very low levels of muons and natural radioactivity in many locations deep in the earth. Estimates of the ratio C14/C are near 10^-20 from such sources and will vary greatly due to the presence or absence of nearby uranium or thorium deposits. RADIOCARBON, Vol 42, Nr 1, 2000, p 133

​

Notice the presence of the C-14 he speaks of had nothing to do with C-14 buildup due to high-altitude nuclear chemistry (which is a primary source for the C-14 that is found in living things).

The evidence that Stipe so often claims real scientists refuse to confront is starting to show pretty conclusively that there is good reason to suspect that C-14 dating of coal has little to do with the real age of the coal at all. So Mr. Smart now has thousands of detailed papers from the world of geology, and thousands of detailed papers from astrophysics, and then adds to those numerous studies from other branches of science that concur in an old earth. He realizes that for him to continue to support a recent creation date for coal is nothing more than mindless subservience to a belief that is unsupported by all but a small fringe group of scientists with a fervent allegiance to the particular way they interpret an ancient creation account.

Mr. Smart concludes that giving unwavering credence to a recent creation is no more than abandoning any pretense of following where science really is leading.

 

[6days]

No....I don't need to drag Mr. Smart to church. This discussion is not science against religion. …

I wish it were so. But in response –...

I wish you were correct too.
But in response ....

The divide between mainstream science and creationists over C-14 dating reaches back well over 2 decades.

Its a good thing that the great scientists of the past didn't go with the mainstream. *Dead fish go with the flow.

*Not surprisingly, the creationists continue to attack it, because radiological*dating*has proven to be so valuable in putting dates on things from the distant past.

That is misrepresenting things a wee bit. Creationists will tell you that C14 dating is often relevant in dating historical artifacts. C14 is helpful in archaeology.... but there are instances even in archaeology where the C14 date disagrees with the historically derived age.*

However....if by "distant past" you are referring to dates beyond a few thousand years ...then C14 dates are interpreted according to our beliefs about the past.*

For example...if we C14 unfossilized wood found in basalt, will we accept the age as accurate? If we C14 soft dino tissue, will we accept the date as accurate? Does C14 give us reliable dates on coal seams? Diamonds?

Neither of us agree that the dates provided are accurate ...we both interpret the results according to our beliefs about the past.

In that article from late last year John Hartnett,*scientist with respectable academic credentials, goes after Kirk Bertshe (a favorite target of the YEC crowd).

Yes...two scientists with two opposing beliefs about the past. They both interpret the data according to their belief.*

C14 dating is actually a strong ally of the Biblical account of recent creation and flood model.

 

[The Barbarian]

As you learned, your beliefs about C-14 and the flood are completely wrong. Since most of the photosynthesis on Earth happens in the ocean, a worldwide flood wouldn't disrupt it at all.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Michael I have a question:

If the year passes and your ideas are not vindicated, what then?

Dear Kdall,

I don't think things that way. If by some great chance my 'ideas' are not vindicated, which I know better, then I will just have to not come on this website anymore. I don't expect that though. You asked.

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear 6days,

I am leaning towards being an OEC quite quickly. I prayed about it. I'm not dying to be changing my stance, but I won't go into it. Anyway, a lot of it has to do with the post after this one. Check it out, buddy. And no, I still do not believe in evolution. I believe that God and His angels oversee any gene, genome, DNA, RNA, molecular, nucleic, or electrons in all of the things He does. It is also written, God knew you while you were still in the womb, and He knew the number of hairs on your head, for this is what is written in the Scriptures. I've still got a bit to work out.

Much Love In Jesus Christ!!

Michael