young creation?

[Bread_of_Life]

If birds are dinosaurs, or an evolved form of dinosaur, or evolved from dinosaurs, or however the wording is most suitable - how did they manage to survive the K-T extinction?

Well, how did *anything* manage to survive the K-T extinction?

The answer is, by being small. The K-T extinction didn't deliberately target dinosaurs, it just happened to get all of them. In fact, it managed to get about 80% of all life on earth. It got 100% of all life over 25kg.

Clearly, a few bird species survived, probably as a virtue of being under 25kg.

Trying to get me killed or something?

No, I promise that's not my intention, but I do suspect that you may not be in command of all the evidence for common ancestry (evolution).

I wan't trying to change your mind; I was hoping to find a way for you to understand why many so many Christians cannot even allow themselves to question, to make the effort to just understand what is actually being said about origins, to see why people like WSB are accusing me of siding with the Enemy.

Right, I getcha.

[Botz]

Scientific Atheist

An old earth does not necessitate evolution. I was arguing an epistemological point - that is science as a process of discovery is sound and to be trusted, then why accept one scientific fact and not another. If both facts were derived from the same process, and we know the process is sound, then why reject one as false, as accept one as true?

That is the conclusion I thought you aptly expressed to Shiloh...and was why I made the comment about having your cake and eating it...not very scientific I know..but work with me on this.

Since when did science become an atheistic pursuit? Have you ever visited a science laboratory, have you ever talked to scientists? If you do, you will find a wide variety of religious beliefs.

I have several friends who are Scientists my wife is directly descended from Sir Isaac Newton and my fathers best friend knew Carl Jung very well and wrote his biography...do these count? ... I have never visited a Science laboratory...and do not have a natural interest...but having listened to all things Scientific on Worthy for almost a year it has made me think around the subject and try to understand the importance of Science especially in regard to my faith in general and the Gospel in particular.

I was trying to make a distinction between Scientists that bring G-d into the equation and those that do not...for example if one Scientist is a creationist and the other is an evolutionist...the evidence before them is the same but the method of interpretaion and the pre-conceptions that they bring will be very different.

I was not suggesting that Science in itself is an Atheistic pursuit at all....it is neutral until it is utilised.

So, yes, we all come from the same gloop, as it were, but actually we and monkeys are much more closely related - we don't have to go all the way back to the gloop to find our common ancestor. There is a similar story with every lineage, if you go back from enough in the human and giraffe lineage, probably around 90-120 million years back, you'll find a common ancestor, a creature that we are both related to, and eventually both came from. If you take a lizard and a human, and trace their family trees back a couple of hundred million years, you'll find a therapsid reptile that we're both related to. If you take a frog and a human, and trace back further, perhaps even as far back as 350 million years, once again you'll find a common ancestor, some sort of early amphibian. For fish, you'd have to go back at least 450 million years, maybe more.

In other words, all lifeforms are really distant cousins. In the case of fish, very distant, abotu 450 million years of generations have gone by since we can point to our common great great great great etc etc etc grandmother.

Thanks for explaining that to me in an understandable fashion SA...as you know I am one of those-dyed in the wool fundamentalist types ... although I do not dismiss any reasonable hypothesis out of hand but weigh everything against my understanding of the Biblical evidence...and I certainly don't believe that Science per se is the enemy of the Gospel.

[nebula]

If birds are dinosaurs, or an evolved form of dinosaur, or evolved from dinosaurs, or however the wording is most suitable - how did they manage to survive the K-T extinction?

Well, how did *anything* manage to survive the K-T extinction?

The answer is, by being small. The K-T extinction didn't deliberately target dinosaurs, it just happened to get all of them. In fact, it managed to get about 80% of all life on earth. It got 100% of all life over 25kg.

Clearly, a few bird species survived, probably as a virtue of being under 25kg.

So, that's what has been figured?

OK - I need a visual to grasp the concept - what is "25 kg"?

Trying to get me killed or something?

No, I promise that's not my intention, but I do suspect that you may not be in command of all the evidence for common ancestry (evolution).

Who said I was referring to you?

Hey, I need to bounce this off of you.

Imagine you were reading a scientific journal, and the wording went like this:

"Birds were designed after dinosaurs."

or

"Birds were developed from dinosaurs."

How would you react to that?

Would that be considered a scientifically acurate statement by the general scientific community?

[Bread_of_Life]

Botz

I was trying to make a distinction between Scientists that bring G-d into the equation and those that do not...for example if one Scientist is a creationist and the other is an evolutionist...the evidence before them is the same but the method of interpretaion and the pre-conceptions that they bring will be very different.

There are no scientists who are creationists.

Actually, let me rephrase. There are people who practice science in their own fields, who have scientific degrees, who, in terms of origins, are creationists.

However, there are no scientific creationists. That is, there is noone currently existing in the world who, thinking scientifically and applying the scientific method, and in command of the evidence, has come to the conclusion of creationism.

People who call themselves creaitonists who hold genuine scientific degrees are either not acting or thinking scientifically in accuont of origins, or are not in command of the evidence. Of course, it's a bit of both - I am yet to come across a creationist scientist whose degree is in biology or evolutionary biology, and I am also yet to come across a creationist (full stop) who really understands and has scientifically thought through all the evidence.

In other words, it's possible to have a degree in science and be a creationist, but it's not possible to be a scientific creationist. That's because creationism is not just another valid interpretation of the evidence, in fact, most of the evidence is against it, the rest it can barely explain, the few predictions it makes have been proven false. It isn't a science, and scientists who assert it are neither experts in the field, nor are they acting scientifically when they do.

Thanks for explaining that to me in an understandable fashion SA...as you know I am one of those-dyed in the wool fundamentalist types ... although I do not dismiss any reasonable hypothesis out of hand but weigh everything against my understanding of the Biblical evidence...and I certainly don't believe that Science per se is the enemy of the Gospel.

It was my pleasure. The idea that we came from monkeys, or came from bacteria, is a common misunderstanding. I cannot count the number of times I have been asked "if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys" - of course, the answer is "we didn't come from monkeys".

Secondly, a hypothesis ought not be weighed against what the bible says, but rather against: a) the empirical evidence, and b) its predictions and how successful they have been. On this basis evolution will do extremely well.

Nebula

So, that's what has been figured?

Well, it's what's been observed. The fossils we find before the K-T boundary and the fossils we find after different. About 80% of all fossil lineages simply stop at the K-T, they are wiped out, and never leave another fossil. Not one. They also do not survive to this day.

Also, 100% of all fossils that would have weighed 25 kilograms (55 lbs) were wiped out, they do not leave any more fossils after the K-T transition. In other words, something happened 66 million years ago to wipe out all big lifeforms, and most others, including all dinosaurs.

There's a big crater in Mexico that gives us all a big clue as to why. Of course, in any catastrophic situation, it'll be the big things that die out first, they are the most vulnerable as the depend on everything else below them in the food chain. Large carnivores will fair badly in any global catastrophe of the scale of the K-T.

By the way, just in case you are interested, the K-T is not the only major extinction on record, it isn't even the biggest. There are 4 mass extinctions documented after the pre-cambrian period, the biggest of which, the "end-permian" extinction, wiped out about 97% of animal life on earth. Pretty impressive.

"Birds were designed after dinosaurs."

or

"Birds were developed from dinosaurs."

How would you react to that?

I would react by saying that the scientific journal is not being scientific, it is stating a matter of religious opinion rather than commenting on testable natural causes. Especially the former comment would be non-scientific in nature.

The entry should read "Birds developed after dinosaurs", or even "Birds developed from dinosaurs", or even better, "Birds evolved from dinosaurs". All of these statements are true, and refer only to natural causes. They leave room for God, but they are not about God.

[Budman]

However, there are no scientific creationists. That is, there is noone currently existing in the world who, thinking scientifically and applying the scientific method, and in command of the evidence, has come to the conclusion of creationism

Here are some:

Creation Scientists in the Biological Sciences

Creation Scientists in the Physical Sciences

And here's another good page:

Creation scientists and other biographies of interest

warm regards

-bud

[Lekcit]

SA,

Again you speak from a position of ignorance about that which you really do not understand. There are plenty of scientific creationists. Have you taken the time to do as I directed and check out Answers in Genesis and look at works by Dr Gary Parker, Dr Jonathan Sarfati, Dr Henry Morris, et al? I think not because if you had you would see that your statement is grossly illogical and incorrect.

Also your statement about creation not being able to explain most of the evidence, on this you are also wrong. In fact the reason Ken Ham, Dr Parker, and the others at AiG do what they do is because they have honestly examined the evidence and have determined that creation explains the evidence far better and far more competently than evolution would ever hope to.

In Him.

[nebula]

Nebula

So, that's what has been figured?

Also, 100% of all fossils that would have weighed 25 kilograms (55 lbs) were wiped out, ]/quote]

So, what size animal would be 25 kg (55 lbs)? That's what I'm trying to get a sense of.

There's a big crater in Mexico that gives us all a big clue as to why.

Yeah - I know about that. I've also heard some arguments contesting it and their reasons for it - to include a theory about the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere (I'm not sure I can re-iterate it though).

By the way, just in case you are interested, the K-T is not the only major extinction on record,

Yeah, I knew that!

it isn't even the biggest. There are 4 mass extinctions documented after the pre-cambrian period, the biggest of which, the "end-permian" extinction, wiped out about 97% of animal life on earth. Pretty impressive.

Familiar with that, but not the specifics. Good refresher!

"Birds were designed after dinosaurs."

or

"Birds were developed from dinosaurs."

How would you react to that?

I would react by saying that the scientific journal is not being scientific, it is stating a matter of religious opinion rather than commenting on testable natural causes. Especially the former comment would be non-scientific in nature.

The entry should read "Birds developed after dinosaurs", or even "Birds developed from dinosaurs", or even better, "Birds evolved from dinosaurs". All of these statements are true, and refer only to natural causes. They leave room for God, but they are not about God.

And therein lies the problem.

To say, "Birds developed..." or "Birds evolved" by the nature of the statement completely excludes the hand of God.

Can you not see that?

[Guest shiloh357]

Actually, let me rephrase. There are people who practice science in their own fields, who have scientific degrees, who, in terms of origins, are creationists.

However, there are no scientific creationists. That is, there is noone currently existing in the world who, thinking scientifically and applying the scientific method, and in command of the evidence, has come to the conclusion of creationism.

People who call themselves creaitonists who hold genuine scientific degrees are either not acting or thinking scientifically in accuont of origins, or are not in command of the evidence. Of course, it's a bit of both - I am yet to come across a creationist scientist whose degree is in biology or evolutionary biology, and I am also yet to come across a creationist (full stop) who really understands and has scientifically thought through all the evidence.

See, therein lies my problem. Creationists are those who believe that God is the originator. So are you saying that no one who is TRULY scientific can accept the biblical claim that God is the originator of the universe?

Quote from SA:

Why arbitrarily exclude evolution then? If the scientific method is useful and fruitful in determining truth in one instance, why not in another? Why not in every instance that conforms to the realm of science? Why should the method fail in evolutionary theory, but be successful for other theories?

The reason I cannot accept Evolutionary theory is on the basis of your remarks or those like them. To accept Evolution, I have to scrap the notion of the existence of God since according to you, no one who truly wants to call themselves a scientist can believe in the Divine Creator. No other scientific field demands that. I have never met a true Evolutionist who could accept the existence of God. In every case, the Evolutionists I have come into contact with are atheists. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM. All of them have the same opinion as you: You can't believe that God originated the universe and still approach it scientifically. It's either believe the Bible or believe science, you can't have both where Evolution is concerned. They leave me no choice. Evoutionists forced me out. They have told me that my belief in God will not peacefully coexist with their Evolution, and atheism. Then they want to know why can't I accept their theory?

You know SA, you started a thread called "Why is Abortion wrong." You won't find many Creationists who have to ask that question. Only people who reduce human life to a meaningless blob of flesh have a hard time understanding the moralitly of killing an unborn child. No one who sees each person created in the image of God, would even dream of such a question. The importance and sacredness of life is a foregone conclusion.

That is another reason I reject Evolution. Everyone I know, who is evolutionary in their thinking, does not have a moral problem with abortion. To them it is no different that removing an appendix. No offense, but if believing in evolution creates a lack of moral compunction regarding the sancitity of life, then I want no part in it. That is another area I will not compromise. I will never become like you, unable to understand a simple moral principle such as the sanctity of life.

[Bread_of_Life]

Lekcit

Again you speak from a position of ignorance about that which you really do not understand. There are plenty of scientific creationists. Have you taken the time to do as I directed and check out Answers in Genesis and look at works by Dr Gary Parker, Dr Jonathan Sarfati, Dr Henry Morris, et al? I think not because if you had you would see that your statement is grossly illogical and incorrect.

I think you should re-read what I said. I said that it was not possible to come to the creationist conclusion scientifically, and therefore it was impossible to be a scientific creationist.

However, it is possible to hold a degree in science and be a creationist. It's just not possible to be scientific about your creationism.

Also your statement about creation not being able to explain most of the evidence, on this you are also wrong. In fact the reason Ken Ham, Dr Parker, and the others at AiG do what they do is because they have honestly examined the evidence and have determined that creation explains the evidence far better and far more competently than evolution would ever hope to.

I'm afraid that simply isn't true in the vast majority of cases. Most creationists did not go from evidence to theory - they didn't look at the evidence and think "gosh, would this be best explained by six-day fiat creation". Rather, they already believed in biblical literalism before looking at any evidence - they went from theory to evidence. This is unscientific.

Secondly, I would happily have a discussion with you on the evidence that creationism cannot explain, and the predictions that it has gotten wrong. This would show that creationists have to disregard or use ad hoc explanations for the majority of the evidence.

Shiloh

See, therein lies my problem. Creationists are those who believe that God is the originator.

No, they're not, at least not the way I or most people use the work "creationist". Creationists are not just people who believe in a creator God. These people are more generally called "theists".

Creationists are people who believe that the literal reading of the Genesis scriptures is true. That's rather different.

To accept Evolution, I have to scrap the notion of the existence of God since according to you, no one who truly wants to call themselves a scientist can believe in the Divine Creator.

Shiloh, I think you have again misunderstood what I mean by "creationist". The term is widely used, it doesn't just mean someone who believes in a creator.

In every case, the Evolutionists I have come into contact with are atheists.

Then perhaps you ought to widen your circle of friends, I know many theists who are also evolutionists.

It's either believe the Bible or believe science, you can't have both where Evolution is concerned. They leave me no choice. Evoutionists forced me out.

Why do you assume that evolution forced you out?

I agree that you cannot believe the literal interpretation of the Genesis scriptures and believe in evolution. The two are mutually exclusive. That doesn't mean you can't be a theist and an evolutionist, it doesn't mean you can't believe in a creator God and be an evolutionist, it doesn't mean you can't believe in a non-literal version of Genesis and be an evolutionist.

However, why is it evolution that forced you out? After all, evolution isn't a theory that makes any religious claims, it makes purely scientific claims, like any other scientific theory. Why should it interfere with your religion then?

The answer is simple. Your religion makes scientific claims. Scientific claims are testable, and these particular claims have been proven false. So now you blame science, and say that it makes religious claims - but it doesn't - it's your religion that is making scientific claims, why couldn't it stick to just making religious claims that cannot be tested scientifically? But no, your religion had to say that life on earth is about 6000 years old, a testable scientific claim. Your religion had to stipulate an order to life's creation, a testable scientific claim. Your religion had to specify seperate creation, a scientific claim.

So is it really evolution that has pushed you out? Is it really evolution that is blurring the lines between religion and science? Or is it really your version of your religion that is blurring these lines? Is it really your reading of Genesis as a scientific texts making scientific claims that is blurring these lines?

Only people who reduce human life to a meaningless blob of flesh have a hard time understanding the moralitly of killing an unborn child.

Firstly, this is an ad hominem attack, it has no bearing on our discussion, or on the truth of evolution or creationism.

Secondly, I actually have no problem with understanding the moral implications of killing children - if you had read that thread carefully you would have found out that my difficulty was in finding out when an embryo becomes a child, when it becomes a lifeform with moral implications. In this sense, this argument is most dishonest - it misrepresents completely what I said in my thread on abortion. I think you ought to apologise here for misrepresenting me.

That is another reason I reject Evolution. Everyone I know, who is evolutionary in their thinking, does not have a moral problem with abortion. To them it is no different that removing an appendix. No offense, but if believing in evolution creates a lack of moral compunction regarding the sancitity of life, then I want no part in it.

The idea that the truth of evolution necessitates moral breakdown, even if true, which it is not, would not constitute an argument for why one should not believe in it. The fact that something may lead to conclusions that we don't like does not mean that something is not true.

It's sort of like me saying "I don't believe in the bible because if it's true then I'm a sinner, and I don't want any part in that". That would be a non-argument, the fact that I don't like the idea of being a sinner doesn't make the bible false. The fact that evolution makes you immoral, even if true (which I again stress it is not) would not make evolution false.

I will never become like you, unable to understand a simple moral principle such as the sanctity of life.

Once again Shiloh, I am expecting an apology for this. If you don't believe me, please go to the thread about abortion, read it through, and find that I never once questioned the sanctity of human life - rather I questioned exactly what human life was, and whether a zygote counted. This makes me out to be some sort of monster, which I am not - and also represents an almost deliberate disregard for what I have said. I am very disappointed in you for this.

nebula

So, what size animal would be 25 kg (55 lbs)? That's what I'm trying to get a sense of.

Oh, right. Well, a man of 6'2" would be about 75kg if healthy. So take that and scale it down 2 thirds, and you've got 25kg.

Yeah - I know about that. I've also heard some arguments contesting it and their reasons for it - to include a theory about the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere (I'm not sure I can re-iterate it though).

Well, I would like to see those arguments. The cratar as we know it dates back 66 million years. Shocked quartz is deposited all around the impact site, and microspherules are also found. We measure a worldwide iridium anomoly 65 million years ago (Iridium is not naturally occuring, and only has two sources, meteorites and volcanos). These are fairly conclusive evidences that a meteor did strike, and must have caused a lot of damage.

To say, "Birds developed..." or "Birds evolved" by the nature of the statement completely excludes the hand of God.

No, it doesn't. God can be involved in birds developing, and in birds evolving (evolution just means a change in the average genepool, it doesn't exclude God).

I'm afraid you're simply assuming that textbooks that only mention natural causes, and do not explicitely talk about God must be anti-God, or leaving no room for him. The opposite is in fact true, there is room for a divine being in every part of science I know - if there wern't, it wouldn't be science, because it would be commenting on the existence of a divine being.

[Guest shiloh357]

I agree that you cannot believe the literal interpretation of the Genesis scriptures and believe in evolution. The two are mutually exclusive. That doesn't mean you can't be a theist and an evolutionist, it doesn't mean you can't believe in a creator God and be an evolutionist, it doesn't mean you can't believe in a non-literal version of Genesis and be an evolutionist.

First of all I do apologize if I spoke out of turn concering the abortion issue. I should have not jumped on that as it is not germane to our conversation here. Again I am sorry for my misstatment towards you.

Now, as to your remarks I quoted above...

Again, I cannot reject the Word of God and still believe in God. It just doesn't work that way. God is not One who can lie. He can't be in error, so if I believe in Him, then it has to be on His terms. I cannot accept a non-literal reading of Genesis either. Which parts are non-literal? Reading something literally, means to read it as it was meant to be understood. To me, reading the book of Genesis as a six day event, where day means 24 hrs is the non literal approach.

The literal interpretation of Genesis absolutely calls for one to accept that God is the originator of the universe, and that He created all of it.

Science, as I understand it, is in a constant state of flux. Discoveries are always being made, and new things are being learned. Science does not remain static. So, with that in mind, could it not be that science simply has not caught up with the Bible? If there is still more to learn, then perhaps science still has more pieces of the puzzle to examine before deciding that God is not the author of creation.