Jump to content
IGNORED

Intelligent Design, Science & Religion


bcbsr

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

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

Evolutionists do not invite criticism, in fact, when one comes up with scientific evidence that contradicts evolution, a Smoking gun such as irreducible complexity

The idea of irreducible complexity is not the solid refutation of evolution you have been told to believe. First, in the hypothetical scenario of God-guided evolution, there is nothing in nature that could not be a product of His intention. Second, just because a current macromolecular machine (like the bacterial flagellum) may be irreducibly complex in its current state, it does not show that such a machine could not have developed through naturalistic evolution. Michael Behe, the current champion of the irreducible complexity argument, had this to say about the topic:

Quote

Demonstration that a system is irreducibly complex is not a proof that there is absolutely no gradual route to its production. Although an irreducibly complex system can't be produced directly, one can't definitively rule out the possibility of an indirect, circuitous route.

Essentially, there is no way to prove that an irreducibly complex structure could not have evolved, and significant amounts of evidence indicating that portions of the structures had previous roles in cells and were co-opted into the irreducibly complex structures. There is no way to test the hypothesis that irreducible complexity proves that evolution did not occur. If a hypothesis is not testable, then it is not truly scientific (rather, philosophical) in the way that modern science is performed.

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

Evolution is anti- peer review, unlike any science before.

This is not true. The concept of evolution has been significantly altered since Darwin's day exactly because new peer-reviewed data altered the initial hypothesis. Things like punctuated equilibrium, modern synthesis, and neutral theory have significantly changed our understanding of how evolution works.

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

They ignore the peer review of creation scientists altogether, as I have said.

Do you have examples of peer-reviewed data that have been dismissed or ignored? Again, the scientific community will indeed reject untestable hypotheses, so a lot of the work by ICR scientists etc will be dismissed due to that fact.

 

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

I Have a lot of experience with cults, and I know what they look like, and what they "smell" like, and evolutionary science is a cult, nothing more. Read the following link to understand how cults operate and you will see the exact means used by evolutionary scientists to silence creationist opposition.

I find it quite ironic that you consider "evolutionary science" as a cult, yet seem to not have considered the cult-like characteristics of young-earth creationism. Here is a portion of a longer article exploring this idea (http://www.oldearth.org/cult.htm)

 

Quote

 

The International Cultic Studies Association (ICSA) lists characteristics associated with cultic groups.  YEC's do not fit every characteristic, but here are the ones they do fit:

  • The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the truth, as law (i.e. Ken Ham and others are idolized...for example, the proposed Creation Hall of Fame)

  • Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged

  • The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members

  • The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality

  • The leader is not accountable to any authorities (which is why Ken Ham broke with the Australian branch of Answers in Genesis in 2006)

  • The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt in order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.

  • ...(members) often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group (I occasionally post emails sent to the ministry.  In some emails I receive, the YEC's asks that I keep our conversation private, for fear of their friends finding out)

 

  •  

Personally, I see Young Earth Creationism as much more of a difference of opinion than a cult, but it is difficult to deny some of these listed features associated with Young Earth Creationism.

I would like to see a day when YEC and TE can agree to disagree on the specifics of the creation process and focus more on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  53
  • Content Per Day:  0.03
  • Reputation:   30
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  08/15/2019
  • Status:  Offline

13 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Actually, his teaching on the pre-existence of souls comes from his allegorical reading of Genesis.

Actually Origen quoted Romans 8 and Jeremiah 1 in his writings as support for his position. Genesis was not mentioned regarding his argument for the pre-existence of souls. See his commentaries on the Gospels and De Principiis for more. I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that this is from his writings on Genesis. Additionally, it's interesting that although the council you cited goes rather into some detail as to fifteen points of Origen's teachings deemed to be incorrect, the allegorical interpretation of Genesis does not come up. Something to think about. 

13 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Did You not read the Quote?

 I did read the quote from Augustine. Moreover, I have read the majority of his work in full. Note that he says God spoke and creation was formed. Augustine actually believed in an instantaneous creation (something both you and I disagree with). However, in the broader context of his writings, Augustine espoused the idea that Genesis should not be read in a hyper-literalistic manner. Again, he is much more explicit in this quote: 

"When we reflect upon the first establishment of creatures in the works of God from which he rested on the seventh day, we should not think either of those days as being like these ones governed by the sun, nor of that working as resembling the way God now works in time..."

Here, it is impossible to mistake Augustine's thinking for that of a YEC 6-day literalistic account. I'm not saying that he and I would have agreed on everything. Rather, I am pointing out that the idea that a non-literalistic approach is consistent with Christian orthodoxy is not at all new. It has a rich tradition among some of the most influential Church Fathers. 

3 hours ago, dhchristian said:

You are ignoring the Option I chose, and that is the Truth of the Word of God. When one does science from this assumption, the science points to a creator God, when One begins science with assumption there is no God, whether that denial is in the form of atheism, or deism the science that results is going to point to the lack of a creator God or his hand in creation. Now, Knowing God is the problem here, IMO. The deism you espouse, right or wrong ultimately comes from a lack of a personal relationship with a living God, One that acts within his creation in supernatural ways, even today. I say this not to belittle you, but to tell you that he is alive, and at Work creating in this world as we speak. We who are redeemed by his Blood are a "new creation" in Christ Jesus, and this is evidence of His creation in our lives. The reason why evolution seems factual is because of this lack of understanding of How God is creating even as we speak. The first Adam gave us the natural, the Second Adam (Jesus) Gave us the Spiritual. We are no longer fleshly beings looking at fleshly evidences, but we have been reborn of the Spirit and become a Spiritual creation in Christ Jesus. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. (1 Cor 15:45)

One part of your statement appears correct to me. If you start with the a priori assumption that YEC literalism is correct, you will always interpret evidence to support that viewpoint. This is just a psychological truth. 

However, I do not start with the assumption that YEC literalism is correct. Nor does science start with the assumption there is no God. Science only concerns itself with the material and finite. God is immaterial and infinite and thus outside the scope of science. You may be thinking of the philosophy of materialism which holds that only the physical world is the only thing that exists. This is (in my view) self-refuting but it is a philosophy that is out there.

I don't see how believing that theistic evolution is correct somehow lessens my relationship with Christ. I wasn't aware you had access to my relationship with Christ or my inner thoughts. I would find that assertion somewhat offensive if it weren't so bemusing. Why do you think that is the case? 

3 hours ago, dhchristian said:

A cult has nothing to do with size of the following. Evolutionists do not invite criticism, in fact, when one comes up with scientific evidence that contradicts evolution, a Smoking gun such as irreducible complexity, They immediately ostracize that person by claiming he/she is not a "real scientist. This is what has happened to most creation scientists, and why they are maligned despite their academic credentials. The fact that creationism is excluded from the curriculum of Public schools, and Universities now also shows an intent to manipulate one's conclusions, which is a marker of a cult. If evolution were not a cult they would want and allow for all theories to be taught, that the individual can make an informed decision on what they want to believe... Because that is what both options boil down to is belief. Evolution is anti- peer review, unlike any science before. They ignore the peer review of creation scientists altogether, as I have said. If they were so sure of their theory, why is it that they have to berate creationism as bad science, so as to ignore their science altogether? this universal rejection of the creationist science is also a proof of the cultic nature of evolutionary science.

 As I mentioned before, evolutionary biologists are having their findings constantly reviewed by their peers. It's interesting how you describe irreducible complexity as a smoking gun. I thought I addressed that in a previous post. After I posted, you just didn't respond to any of the points I made so I assumed that part of the argument had been dropped. The reason creationism and ID are derided in public schools is because the evidence weights and scientific consensus (especially among SMEs) is heavily towards evolution as being an accurate model. Creationism and ID are very broad in their approaches and don't seem to have a unified coherent model. Honestly, creationism is ignored by the mainstream scientific community. I don't ever recall one of my friends in academia in biology or physics ever discussing creationist models. And two of them are Christians and one is Jewish. Rejection of a poorly formulated idea not backed up by evidence does not a cult make.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  136
  • Topics Per Day:  0.08
  • Content Count:  2,488
  • Content Per Day:  1.43
  • Reputation:   1,325
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/29/2019
  • Status:  Offline

18 minutes ago, ChessPlayer said:

One part of your statement appears correct to me. If you start with the a priori assumption that YEC literalism is correct, you will always interpret evidence to support that viewpoint. This is just a psychological truth. 

Both parts are correct. If you start with the assumption God did not have a hand in creation and only natural forces are at work, You will rule out God. It is one thing to be honest about your assumptions and another to say that only looking at natural forces is Good science. To those who assume God exists, the evidence points to creation. To those who do not the evidence points to evolution. Which is Truth? Is there a science that neither denies nor affirms God in its assumptions? Is there such a thing? I do not think so, however you may disagree. I see what you believe as a compromise, you see it as an attempt to synthesize science and faith. This is the heart of this Debate. To come on here and try to nullify creationism is a mistake, And neither am I trying to say so of evolution, I am saying both must be examined as science and be viewed as scientifically viable, Just like Light is both a particle and wave. IMO Evolution is a dying theory, mainly because of this. And should you open your mind to doing science from creationist perspective, you too will come to this conclusion. Then you will see how the compromise is shallow and hollow, that you are making. I am not promoting a religion of creationism, nor a religion of "hyper literalism" whatever that is? I am promoting the free and Competitive battle field of Knowledge, In which I know creationism wins.     

19 minutes ago, ChessPlayer said:

However, I do not start with the assumption that YEC literalism is correct. Nor does science start with the assumption there is no God. Science only concerns itself with the material and finite. God is immaterial and infinite and thus outside the scope of science. You may be thinking of the philosophy of materialism which holds that only the physical world is the only thing that exists. This is (in my view) self-refuting but it is a philosophy that is out there.

Again, here is your error in compromise. God is not immaterial, he is both Spiritual and can appear as material, This was the Son of Man, Jesus. Jesus is Both God (Spirit) and Man (Material). This not only is the basis of our faith, But the very basis of His act of creation, and His re-creation. God Is eternal, yet he can act in the bounds of time he created for us, which he did as the Son of Man, and the six original days of creation. Now John tells us to test the Spirits based on this notion of Christ Jesus being both fully God and fully man, and this is the same thing the Gnostics could not understand, and thereby denied the Humanity of Christ Jesus. Much of what is the Modern/Post modern church is unwittingly falling into this Gnostic error, and it is the direct result of this forced separation of Material and Immaterial that this compromise demands. As a Christian this alone should give you Pause to re-evaluate what you are teaching. realizing this was what made me step aside from the theistic evolution camp.  

19 minutes ago, ChessPlayer said:

I don't see how believing that theistic evolution is correct somehow lessens my relationship with Christ. I wasn't aware you had access to my relationship with Christ or my inner thoughts. I would find that assertion somewhat offensive if it weren't so bemusing. Why do you think that is the case? 

Read above... It is not that I know your heart, it is that I have been where you are, and know how easy it was to compromise. But in that compromise,You deny Jesus Christ and believe as do the Gnostics. At the very least, you should see this now, whether this makes you reconsider your view or not is between you and God.

19 minutes ago, ChessPlayer said:

As I mentioned before, evolutionary biologists are having their findings constantly reviewed by their peers. It's interesting how you describe irreducible complexity as a smoking gun. I thought I addressed that in a previous post. After I posted, you just didn't respond to any of the points I made so I assumed that part of the argument had been dropped. The reason creationism and ID are derided in public schools is because the evidence weights and scientific consensus (especially among SMEs) is heavily towards evolution as being an accurate model. Creationism and ID are very broad in their approaches and don't seem to have a unified coherent model. Honestly, creationism is ignored by the mainstream scientific community. I don't ever recall one of my friends in academia in biology or physics ever discussing creationist models. And two of them are Christians and one is Jewish. Rejection of a poorly formulated idea not backed up by evidence does not a cult make.  

Consensus based science is not good science. It was a consensus that the earth was the center of the universe, and they burned people at the stake for stating otherwise. Now the consensus is evolution... and soon they will be burning books, and making laws to silence the creationist.... Actually they already have.

https://eclj.org/COE/council-of-europe-passes-resolution-to-ban-creationism-from-classroom

Does this sound like freedom to you? or does this sound like a Vatican declaring the Pope infallible? 

God Bless 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  136
  • Topics Per Day:  0.08
  • Content Count:  2,488
  • Content Per Day:  1.43
  • Reputation:   1,325
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/29/2019
  • Status:  Offline


  • 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

45 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

IMO Evolution is a dying theory

I'm glad that you recognize that this is only your opinion, because it is far from true. This is what Young Earth Creation scientist Todd Wood has to say about evolution:

Quote

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

Evolution is a dying theory only to propagandists and those that listen to them.

2 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Consensus based science is not good science.

No, but evidence-based science is good science. That's where YEC and ID fall short of scientific standard and why they are not taught in science class. 

2 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Let's take a look at the statement the signatories are agreeing to:

Quote

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.

If the statement was not loaded with baggage, I would sign it myself. Genetic drift, gene flow, recombination, horizontal gene transfer, etc. all play important roles in evolution. Of course we should be skeptical of scientific claims. And of course careful examination of evidence should be encouraged. I would even say that careful examination of evidence should be required! I know for a fact that James Tour, one of the scientists that signed the dissent, felt that his signing was misrepresented as support for the "intelligent design" school of thought. The list is just another propaganda tool.

For a little comedic relief, you could check out "Project Steve" https://ncse.com/project-steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  53
  • Content Per Day:  0.03
  • Reputation:   30
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  08/15/2019
  • Status:  Offline

2 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Both parts are correct. If you start with the assumption God did not have a hand in creation and only natural forces are at work, You will rule out God. It is one thing to be honest about your assumptions and another to say that only looking at natural forces is Good science. To those who assume God exists, the evidence points to creation. To those who do not the evidence points to evolution. Which is Truth? Is there a science that neither denies nor affirms God in its assumptions? Is there such a thing? I do not think so, however you may disagree. I see what you believe as a compromise, you see it as an attempt to synthesize science and faith. This is the heart of this Debate. To come on here and try to nullify creationism is a mistake, And neither am I trying to say so of evolution, I am saying both must be examined as science and be viewed as scientifically viable, Just like Light is both a particle and wave. IMO Evolution is a dying theory, mainly because of this. And should you open your mind to doing science from creationist perspective, you too will come to this conclusion. Then you will see how the compromise is shallow and hollow, that you are making. I am not promoting a religion of creationism, nor a religion of "hyper literalism" whatever that is? I am promoting the free and Competitive battle field of Knowledge, In which I know creationism wins.     

Again, you are motioning towards the idea that evolution somehow excludes God. I believe God exists and yet I still think the evidence points towards evolution. It seems like, in your view, these ideas are mutually exclusive. Or perhaps, that it somehow compromising to a Christian perspective as you seem to indicate later on. Is that is correct interpretation of your statements? 

I think science can be used as evidence when combined with philosophical arguments but as I mentioned before, I don't think science is concerned with proving or disproving a God that exists outside the finite. I agree with you that we should examine both creationism and evolution in terms of the science. However, we are coming to vastly different conclusions. I would be happy to discuss your scientific based objections to evolution. In fact, I addressed some of those concerns earlier to which it appeared you had no response unless I missed a post. If you want to promote the "free and competitive battlefield of knowledge" as you put it, it may be good to address these responses or at least acknowledge that some of the previous argumentation you laid out may have been flawed.  

2 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Again, here is your error in compromise. God is not immaterial, he is both Spiritual and can appear as material, This was the Son of Man, Jesus. Jesus is Both God (Spirit) and Man (Material). This not only is the basis of our faith, But the very basis of His act of creation, and His re-creation. God Is eternal, yet he can act in the bounds of time he created for us, which he did as the Son of Man, and the six original days of creation. Now John tells us to test the Spirits based on this notion of Christ Jesus being both fully God and fully man, and this is the same thing the Gnostics could not understand, and thereby denied the Humanity of Christ Jesus. Much of what is the Modern/Post modern church is unwittingly falling into this Gnostic error, and it is the direct result of this forced separation of Material and Immaterial that this compromise demands. As a Christian this alone should give you Pause to re-evaluate what you are teaching. realizing this was what made me step aside from the theistic evolution camp.  

You are quite correct. I somewhat misphrased my last statement. Of course God was both God and man in the form of Christ (hypostatic union in theological terms). I do not deny this and as you rightly said, this is fundamental, orthodox Christian doctrine. What I meant by saying God is immaterial, is that, when creating the universe, he was not part of it. In other words God created ex nihilo (out of nothing). This is also fundamental, orthodox Christian doctrine. As such, scientists have no ability to really study such a creative process. What we can do is use science as evidence for supporting certain philosophical and logical arguments. For example, I think the Big Bang provides good evidence for a post-finite universe which is useful in supporting arguments for theism. Please pardon my slight misphrasing earlier. I hope that my above statements better elucidated the idea I was driving at. 

2 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Read above... It is not that I know your heart, it is that I have been where you are, and know how easy it was to compromise. But in that compromise,You deny Jesus Christ and believe as do the Gnostics. At the very least, you should see this now, whether this makes you reconsider your view or not is between you and God.

Now that I have clarified my above intentions by what I was saying earlier, would you care to further elucidate on how I deny Christ? That is a rather serious accusation, especially from one I would consider a brother in Christ despite our differences.

2 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Consensus based science is not good science. It was a consensus that the earth was the center of the universe, and they burned people at the stake for stating otherwise. Now the consensus is evolution... and soon they will be burning books, and making laws to silence the creationist.... Actually they already have.

https://eclj.org/COE/council-of-europe-passes-resolution-to-ban-creationism-from-classroom

Does this sound like freedom to you? or does this sound like a Vatican declaring the Pope infallible? 

God Bless 

Regarding the link, it does not seem like that bill was passed but that it was put up for debate. I don't necessarily agree with the law either. However, the only thing I will say is that we should teach science in science class. At this point, I see no reason why creationism has reached the level of being treated as a science when better models exist that have evidence to support their claims (in this case evolution). In philosophy or religion classes, creationism certainly has a place. 

Funnily enough, the idea that the Earth is the center of the universe isn't entirely incorrect. Modern cosmology indicates that every observer would be at the center of their section of the observable universe. This is due to the expanding nature of space-time. However, of course no one should be put to death for espousing a different view on the subject. I can't think of someone accused by burnt for espousing such beliefs. The closest maybe Giordano Bruno but he wasn't executed for that belief but rather for a host of other problematic positions he held. From the few things I have read, modern scholars view his cosmology as pandeistic or pantheistic in nature.  

Not sure what the Pope or freedom has to do with anything. I thought we were discussing the merits of theistic evolution. 

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  136
  • Topics Per Day:  0.08
  • Content Count:  2,488
  • Content Per Day:  1.43
  • Reputation:   1,325
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/29/2019
  • Status:  Offline

2 minutes ago, ChessPlayer said:

I would be happy to discuss your scientific based objections to evolution. In fact, I addressed some of those concerns earlier to which it appeared you had no response unless I missed a post. If you want to promote the "free and competitive battlefield of knowledge" as you put it, it may be good to address these responses or at least acknowledge that some of the previous argumentation you laid out may have been flawed.  

I Am going to cheat a little...

 

Fossils disprove evolution

One of the most powerful pieces of evidence against evolution is the fossil record. If evolution occurred by slow, minute changes in living creatures, there would be thousands of times more transitional forms of these creatures in the fossil beds than complete forms. Since the billions of fossils that have been found are all complete forms, the obvious conclusion is: Evolution never occurred! Though evolutionists have stated that there are many transitional forms, this is simply not true. What evolutionists claim to be transitional forms all have fully functional parts. A true transitional form would have non-functioning parts or appendages, such as the nub of a leg or wing.

Where are the trillions of fossils of such true transitional forms? Critics often say that creationism is simply religion, whereas evolutionism is based on science. The Bible states in Genesis I that all creatures reproduce “after their kind” (no change to another kind, i.e., no transitional forms). So the complete absence of transitional forms in the fossil record supports creationism. Is this scientific evidence for creationism, or isn’t it?

Spontaneous reproduction

What are the odds that, of the millions of species of animals, birds, fish and insects, a male of each species developed at the same time and in the same place as a female of the same species, so that the species could propagate? Why are there two sexes anyhow? This is not foreordained in the evolutionary framework. Is there some sort of plan here? If the first generation of mating species didn’t have parents, how did the mating pair get to that point? Isn’t evolution supposed to progress when an offspring of a mating pair has a beneficial mutation?

Conclusion: No parents, no evolution. A species would have to jump from a primitive form to a fully developed male and female, each with the ability and instinct to mate.

This was point about the chicken and the egg...

Organ development

  • How did the heart, lungs, stomach, veins, blood, kidneys, etc. develop in the first animal by slow, minute steps and the animal survive while these changes were occurring? For example, did the first animal develop 10 percent of complete veins, then 20 percent, and on up to 100 percent, with veins throughout its entire body and brain? Then how did the heart slowly develop in the animal and get attached to the veins in the right spot? How did the blood enter the system? The blood could not enter before the veins were complete or it would spill out. Where did the blood come from? Did the blood have red corpuscles, white corpuscles, platelets and plasma? At what point in this process of development did the heart start beating?
  • Did the animal develop a partial stomach, then a complete stomach? After the stomach was formed, how did the digestive juices enter the stomach? Where did the hydrochloric acid as part of the digestive juices come from? What about its kidney and bladder? The animal better not eat anything prior to this.
  • How did the animal survive during these changes (and over thousands of years)? Of course, at the same time, the animal’s eyes must be fully developed so it can see its food, and its brain must be fully developed so the animal can control its body to get to the food. Like the heart, brain, veins and stomach, all of the organs and systems in the first animal’s body must be fully functional in the first moments of life.
  • The preceding points indicate that evolution couldn’t occur, and the fossil record indicates that it didn’t occur! In other words, if you cannot come up with a detailed, feasible scenario of how the first animal developed, the whole evolutionary theory goes out the window, because it never even could have gotten started. Or is your attitude going to be: Don’t bother me with such details; my mind is made up.

Misleading textbooks

  • Why do books on evolution, including biology textbooks, always start with a fully developed animal when attempting to explain how one species developed into another species? Why don’t evolutionists first explain how the first animal developed (an animal with a heart, lungs, brain, stomach, etc.)?
  • What are the odds that the evolutionary process, proceeding by random changes, would produce a system in human reproduction whereby exactly 50 percent of offspring are male and 50 percent are female (based on 50 percent X-chromosomes and 50 percent Y-chromosomes)? Again, is there some sort of plan here?

To a creationist, the incredible complexity of human life, plant life and the universe is absolutely overwhelming evidence that there must have been a designer. Additional evidence for a designer: The law of gravity is basic to an understanding of the universe.

Evolution—A solution by default

Why do evolutionists summarily dismiss the evidence of design without any serious consideration? Professor D.M.S. Watson, zoologist and Chair of Evolution at University College London, has given us some insight as to why this is so. He said, “Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” This, of course, is an admission that the foundation of evolution is not science, but a rejection of the supernatural. Evolution then is simply the best alternative anyone has been able to come up with. This also means that evolution is the only field in science where one decides on the answer first, and then looks for evidence to support that predetermined answer.

Other than rejection of the supernatural, how else can one explain the steadfast adherence of evolutionists to this theory even though they do not know the origin of the three main bases of evolution: the origin of matter, the origin of energy and the origin of life?

I Know, these are mundane questions, But one's you need to answer if you are a proponent of evolution. In The next post I will give you another list that I posted here of my own questions, minus the one where I got my math wrong...

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  136
  • Topics Per Day:  0.08
  • Content Count:  2,488
  • Content Per Day:  1.43
  • Reputation:   1,325
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/29/2019
  • Status:  Offline

The astronomical evidence against Billions of years.

There is a theory out there postulated by Einstein himself before his theory of relativity that stated that light speed in a vacuum is not a constant. This  Theory is known as the variable speed of light theory (VSL). 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light

Whenever science has come up with a more accurate way to measure the speed of light, every time that speed has been adjusted down. Is there enough evidence to emphatically say the Light speed is slowing down, Probably not, But there is increasing work being done on this theory, that is beginning to verify this claim.

The definition of the speed of light has some broader implications for fields such as cosmology and astronomy, which assume a stable velocity for light over time. For instance, the speed of light comes up when measuring the fine structure constant (alpha), which defines the strength of the electromagnetic force. And a varying light speed would change the strengths of molecular bonds and the density of nuclear matter itself.

A non-constant speed of light could mean that estimates of the size of the universe might be off. 

https://www.livescience.com/29111-speed-of-light-not-constant.html

So here we have a Quandry, if light speed is not a constant what was it in history, can we use this to measure the age of the universe? In the genesis account of creation there is a the act of creation of light being spoken into existence "Let there be light, and there was light" Instantaneously. What this is saying is that Light speed at the moment of creation was instantaneous, and later when God created the stars the light from them shone instantly when he spoke them into existence. So by the Biblical account we have an infinite light speed, to where we are now where the speed of light is near to a constant, yet slowing down slightly. Think of this as a curve on a graph, where at creation the speed is instantaneous, and now today, 6000 years later it has flattened out to nearly a constant. Well, What does this sort of curve do to the dating of the universe using Light years and distance of Stars? You mentioned how science is leading to the conclusion that the earth is the center of the universe according to some scientific studies, Well, How come we see fully formed galaxies at the outer reaches of this universe, as opposed to proto-galaxies? I mean, we can see with our telescopes up to 13 billion light years away, and the age of the universe based on this is 13+ billion years old, But we are not seeing elementary galaxy and star formations, but are seeing fully formed galaxies at distance.

Do you see how this is a theory that no one wants to touch, because they are afraid of the results? If what I am saying is right, the age of the earth/universe using light years as proof is virtually eliminated. There is good quantifiable and reproducible science to be done here. Some of these finding could even change Einstein's theory of General relativity, in significant ways, and with significant technological consequences.

Of course, I am no physicist, so I am not the one to do this, but it makes plenty of sense to me from a common sense and creationist viewpoint. A Challenge to any physicist out there who is a creationist. 

  

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

18 hours ago, dhchristian said:

I Am going to cheat a little...

This is really too much to address at one time. If you truly wish to discuss the science, could you pick a single topic for us to focus on?

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

16 hours ago, Abdicate said:

the odds of a small protein of 150 amino acids forming into a functioning molecule the odds are 1 x 10^77 power since the chain of amino acids has to be in the correct sequence

There are 2 different ways that this argument of improbability can be countered. First, if my beliefs are correct, then God set up the physical reality of living things and allowed them to evolve. As God is omnipotent, He could set the development of living things on a trajectory that would eventually develop hemoglobin genes despite the odds. Second, from a purely naturalistic standpoint, the odds really don't mean a lot. Hypothetically, a gene existed that made a protein with a certain affinity for oxygen. The gene for oxygen-binding protein would alter over time by natural selection into a form that made proteins with higher and higher oxygen affinity. That end product would not necessarily be what we now observe today in hemoglobin genes. Personally, I prefer the first scenario, but either way, the argument of probability isn't as strong as it first sounds. It certainly isn't proof against evolution.

16 hours ago, Abdicate said:

But the biggest reason against evolution is information. Information requires a mind which is exactly what DNA is - a storage system, something Darwin could not have grasped, and we're over 100 years since his theories.

This argument could be used against an atheistic view of evolution, but does not apply if we assume God initiated the process of evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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