Jump to content
IGNORED

Bad scientific arguments against evolution: Part 2


one.opinion

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

2 hours ago, Abdicate said:

You don't get it. Justifying evolution by saying we don't know what we're talking about, or properly asking the right question, it is a circular argument. 

That is not at all what I am doing. I am saying that if you adhere to a YEC viewpoint, there are common arguments I have heard and read that are poor arguments that should be avoided.

Maybe @Tristen will supply some good arguments, but there are certain ones that will just reflect badly on the arguers ability to think critically about what they are told.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

9 minutes ago, Abdicate said:

Well, I can't believe anything that's against the word of God, and what I don't understand is how any Christian can believe in evolution. I guess Lincoln was correct.

What do you think of my theological points? You never addressed them in the previous thread and you haven’t in this one, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  1
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  289
  • Content Per Day:  0.05
  • Reputation:   45
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  03/25/2008
  • Status:  Offline

On 9/8/2018 at 11:12 AM, one.opinion said:

I acknowledge this argument. When looking at past events, scientists are limited to tools available in the present. But just like forensic scientists use science to analyze clues at crime scenes that they did not witness first-hand, scientists today use science to analyze clues on the planet to piece together what has happened in the past. It is my belief that both can piece together past events with a high degree of accuracy.

 

It's almost apples and oranges. Crime scene evidence almost can't stand alone without depending on witnessing. That's why whenever there's a reliable witness testifying that you are absent from the scene, whatever so-called evidence can't be used against you. Court cases are usually attempts of logical deductions but inviting a majority vote from the juries. It only means that the same "logical deduction" may lead to different conclusions by different humans. A science shouldn't behave this way, alternatively speaking something behaves this way is not a science.

Edited by Hawkins
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

6 hours ago, Abdicate said:

If the word of God spoke of Adam and evolution says Adam didn't exist, then do you believe the word of God or evolution? So it doesn't matter what I think. You're in quite a pickle.

Since I do believe that Adam existed, then you and I must have two different working conceptions of what evolution does and does not mean. I believe it is a process of the order and flexibility that God put into living organisms from the very beginning, but it in no way rules out God's direct action, such as the special creation of Adam and Eve, imbued with the "image of God" (Genesis 1:26-27). I appreciate your warning, but I can assure you that it is not needed.

 

6 hours ago, Abdicate said:

If you listen to Christians scientists, you'll see how/why YEC is true, and why there's frozen woolly mammoths in Russia with food still in their mouth! Flash freeze because of the breaking up of the fountains of the deep and why the mid-Atlantic rift split North American from Europe and South America from Africa.

Here is a comment from the CMI page (Arguments we think creationists should NOT use) that Tristen shared earlier in this thread:

My brother, carefully analyze what you believe to be true. Don't just accept comments without support, even by individuals you trust.

6 hours ago, Abdicate said:

Study the speed of light - it's not constant as they claim. Every scientist who went to disprove that the speed of light is slowing down has not only proven it a fact but then Academia kicks them out. Why is that important? Because a slowing speed of light when measured against the vibration of atoms is constant, but when measured against distance and time, is slowing by ~1% every 100 years. Conclusion: all atoms are slowing down too!

I'm not a physicist, but I'd be interested in seeing what evidence you have available to support these strong claims.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  26
  • Topic Count:  61
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  9,602
  • Content Per Day:  4.02
  • Reputation:   7,795
  • Days Won:  21
  • Joined:  09/11/2017
  • Status:  Offline

In the north, there are palm trees under the tundra. Ice core samples have shown 300 foot trees still standing. There were no massive climate variances in the pre-flood earth. It was all pretty uniform probably due to an ice canopy.

Wooly Mamoth's epidermis was not created for 'cold weather' types of protection., say like a seal or a wolf.

Too many facts are distorted by unbelievers and that is why I rarely bother with such postings as this one.

Check the precession of the moon and ask why the moon lander's legs were 18 inches too long? Did NASA expect 65 million years of dust? See the footprint depth on the pictures. Mere millimeters!!

(Oh and do not discount this by saying the Moon Landings were a hoax and that the ISS is a stage-set)

 

Edited by Justin Adams
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

1 hour ago, Abdicate said:

Your belief in Adam is contrary to the very foundation and published evolutionary theories (all of them), therefore you don't believe in evolution or you don't believe in Adam with your heart in denial one way or the other.

Easy solution - I do not believe in the same version of the theory you present. I have outlined for you (twice now) exactly what I believe are the theological points given in the Bible from Genesis 1-3. I urge you to consider that I am telling the truth since I have no reason for not telling the absolute truth of what I believe.

1 hour ago, Abdicate said:

What amazes me, is that scientists even show a time difference between DNA of men and women, but they spread it out over hundreds of thousands of years. And yet, they even use Adam and Eve's names!

You seem to be referring to "mitochondrial Eve" and "Y-chromosome Adam". These names weren't used in primary literature, but became widely-used in popular scientific reporting. Sperm don't contribute mitochondria to a new zygote, so all of the mitochondria in every individual is from the mother, with nothing from the father. In contrast, the Y chromosome is only inherited from the father. By examining sequence divergence of mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome DNA and using rates of mutation, it is possible for scientists to estimate the time of the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) for all living men and all living women. These are usually called the mt-MRCA and the Y-MRCA to reflect accuracy. You can read more about it here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve). One important note, a paper in 2013 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4032117/) estimated overlapping time frames from the mt-MRCA (99,000 - 148,000 years ago) and Y-MRCA (120,000 - 156,000 years ago).

It is also important to recognize that the MRCA does not necessarily mean "first". It is entirely possible that the MRCA simply represent the oldest surviving lineage with other lineages existing at the time dying out between that time and the present.

image.png.d65a366e3961c68949f8ad3074a9adf3.png

 

1 hour ago, Abdicate said:

I believe your "Creation.com" people are sheep in wolf's cloathing.

As I have encouraged you before, please investigate. CMI is a highly conservative organization, devoted to a very literal reading of Genesis. They would probably consider my viewpoint heretical despite the consistency our shared core doctrinal beliefs, as well. You would probably like them :-P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,326
  • Content Per Day:  0.63
  • Reputation:   1,302
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/26/2014
  • Status:  Offline

On 9/10/2018 at 10:35 AM, one.opinion said:

That is not at all what I am doing. I am saying that if you adhere to a YEC viewpoint, there are common arguments I have heard and read that are poor arguments that should be avoided.

Maybe @Tristen will supply some good arguments, but there are certain ones that will just reflect badly on the arguers ability to think critically about what they are told.

Hi One,
When speaking to Christians, the strongest argument I have for young-earth creationism is that it is the most straight-forward teaching of scripture.
 
As someone who came to Christianity from a secular upbringing, I was/am unable to reconcile the Genesis account of history with what my secular education taught me about history - at least, not in a way that my conscience could tolerate. In order to conflate the secular model of history with Genesis, I would either have to;
a) Find a natural communication gap in Genesis and squeeze billions of years of history into the narrative that doesn't exist, or
b) Dismiss large portions of scriptural detail in order to adopt some broad impression of 'what God really means'.
In both instances, I feel as though I am making myself an authority over scripture; making it say what I think it should say, rather than seeking the Author's intent. I consider that to be a very dangerous approach to Biblical interpretation.
 
Upon examining the logic behind the secular claims I found, to my surprise, no objective reason to distrust the most straight forward reading of Genesis. The secular conclusions are all reached by assuming the absence of God's involvement in the progress of history (philosophical naturalism). But as a Christian, I am not obligated to that faith premise. I found (and have continued to find) that all of the available facts can be interpreted to be consistent with the young-earth interpretation of Genesis.
 
I also find that it is very difficult to maintain a consistent Christian world-view when Genesis is conformed to the secular narratives.
E.g.
- In referencing Genesis, the rest of scripture (including both Jesus' words and lineage) interprets Genesis as history. But if Genesis doesn't mean what it seems to say, that would suggest that the authors of scripture were all unaware of the correct meaning of Genesis (which, by extension, cast doubt on the reliability of scripture in general).
- Genesis provides the answer for how a corrupt world can stem from a good God (namely, with the corruption introduced by human sin; the misuse of our freewill). Whereas the secular account has corruption existing well before humans existed. In the secular account, life progressed through the amoral system of 'Survival of the Fittest'; whereby the strong dominate and survive at the expense of the weak (which is explicitly contrary to Godly morality).
- On a matter of justice, humans are held to account for the corruption due our sin - which would be unjust if the corruption was inherited from a condition prior to our existence. Romans 5 tells us;
 
"12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)

18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous."

So Genesis also provides the rational foundation for the doctrine of salvation through Christ (the effect of one [historical] man's righteousness juxtaposed against the impact of one [historical] man's sin).

- For those who dismiss the creation account as symbolic, I'm not sure where Genesis stops being symbolic and starts being history (and how such a change of interpretative approach is justified).

 

So ultimately, since there is no rational obligation to distrust Genesis as history, we can, without any intellectual compromise, choose to believe the straight forward reading of Genesis - all-the-while maintaining a readily consistent, Biblical world-view. Alternatively, we can unnecessarily try to work secular ideas into Genesis - utilising an inherently dangerous hermeneutical approach, and requiring a largely convoluted world-view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

When speaking to Christians, the strongest argument I have for young-earth creationism is that it is the most straight-forward teaching of scripture.

I agree that the Genesis 1-3 is the best reason to accept a young earth viewpoint, but I was wondering if you have particular pieces of scientific evidence that you find most compelling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

3 hours ago, Abdicate said:

@one.opinion As you can see, I meant it the other way around "wolves in sheep's clothing"... I have the flu but I am well meaning. :( 

 

I never even noticed the first time! I hope and pray for a quick recovery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,326
  • Content Per Day:  0.63
  • Reputation:   1,302
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/26/2014
  • Status:  Offline

21 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I agree that the Genesis 1-3 is the best reason to accept a young earth viewpoint, but I was wondering if you have particular pieces of scientific evidence that you find most compelling.

Strictly speaking, the Scientific Method cannot be applied to generate confidence about what happened in the distant past. All conclusions about the past suffer the same logical weaknesses (namely, that we cannot make direct observations of the past, nor set up experiments with experimental controls in the past). So no argument about a past claim can logically compel (or obligate) a person to a particular conclusion. So "compelling" is a subjective standard. People tend to be compelled by arguments that reinforce their existing belief structures. So I prefer to think in terms of rational vs irrational arguments.

If the facts (adding the "scientific" qualifier is redundant) can be logically reconciled to a claim, then the claim is rational. My claim is that all of the available facts can be logically reconciled with the Biblical young-earth creationist model of reality. As someone who considers the Bible to be God's Word, I find that personally very "compelling" (especially given the multiple human authors, cultures, copies and time-frames over which the Bible was compiled). Even if someone disagrees with me about how "compelling" the argument is, my argument qualifies as rational. Proponents of the secular models commonly claim that only their models are rational - and that young-earth creationists must therefore be anti-science, or ignore facts, or lack understanding, or in some other way be intellectually compromised. So I see my role as demonstrating the rational integrity of the young-earth model; usually by demonstrating a young-earth interpretation of the facts provided by proponents of secular models (in an attempt to justify their claim of exclusive validity). My goal is to demonstrate my claim; that there is no objective reason (from either logic or science) for a Christian to distrust the young-earth interpretation of Genesis.

I don't see much point in presenting some random fact, along with its creationist interpretation. I already know there is a secular interpretation of the same fact. In most cases, the fact was originally reported in a secular journal (along with its secular interpretation). I am aware that no matter what argument I provide for a young-earth, as a past claim, no argument can ever obligate a change of mind in the audience. But by challenging confidence in secular models, I can potentially open eyes to the fact that the young-earth creationist position is, by any rationally objective measure, equally valid to the secular position. In that, I hope to convince Christians that they can trust the Bible for what it says, and non-believers that they can consider the reliability of scripture without any fear of intellectual compromise.

Edited by Tristen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...