|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Would Evolutionists accept evidence for Creation? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4042 Joined: Member Rating: 8.0 |
I feel quite odd making this thread...but since no Creationists have yet made it, and it runs in the same vein as our recent "what would convince a Creationist" threads...
LucytheApe posted this in one of those threads:
I'll try to make it a simple as I can. If the bible proves to be historically correct, through observation, all the way back to Noah, would you then consider looking for evidence of a flood? I'm not saying that because it's in the book it's true, I'm saying that it says so in the book. That's all, no observations or realities yet. If evidence of a global flood poked you in the eye, would you then consider the implications this has on our understanding of the geology of the earth. Even to the extent of throwing out old long and hard held beliefs of an old earth, radiodating and the like, if need be. Or would you reject the concept of a flood and it's implications only because its written in the bible? I don't think it's a hard question to understand or answer. If It seems that I'm having a shot a evolutionists, that is not my intention. But I've just watched a show that concluded by saying dinosaurs didn't go extinct, they turned into birds. I had to sit down and have a glass of water. Let's run with this. For those of us who are evolutionists, would any of us accept evidence of the "biblical model" if it were presented? hypothetically speaking, if evidence along the lines of a universal, cross-species genetic bottleneck just a few thousand years ago, combined with a global sedimentary layer, or if it were somehow proven incontrovertibly that humans were created and did not evolve, or other such evidence was discovered that completely blew the current models and understanding of history, geology, physics, and biology out of the water...what would be the reaction of Evolutionists? I'll provide my answer to Lucy right now:
If the bible proves to be historically correct, through observation, all the way back to Noah, would you then consider looking for evidence of a flood? I'm not saying that because it's in the book it's true, I'm saying that it says so in the book. That's all, no observations or realities yet. I'm willing to listen to real evidence of a global flood right now. I don't care if the Bible is historically accurate from that standpoint - if you have evidence that current models are wrong and that the Great Flood happened as described int he Bible, present it. Please. If that evidence is studied and verified as accurate, I will recant all of my previous statements regarding the falsehood of the Biblical Flood account. See, I don't care about any sort of "presupposition" or "agenda." My only agenda is the desire for accuracy. I want to know and understand the truth, as closely as we are able to verifiably determine.
If evidence of a global flood poked you in the eye, would you then consider the implications this has on our understanding of the geology of the earth. Even to the extent of throwing out old long and hard held beliefs of an old earth, radiodating and the like, if need be. Or would you reject the concept of a flood and it's implications only because its written in the bible? Give me incontrovertible evidence of any event, Noachian Flood included, and I will believe it. I follow the evidence. Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNWR Inactive Member |
Any thoughts on a forum for this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4042 Joined: Member Rating: 8.0 |
Faith and belief, I suppose.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNWR Inactive Member |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6410 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Thanks for opening this, Rahvin.
LucyTheApe writes:
It depends a bit on what "all the way back to Noah" means. If the bible proves to be historically correct, through observation, all the way back to Noah, would you then consider looking for evidence of a flood? There's a general problem that both the Noah's Ark story, and the Garden of Eden story read like fables. So even the rest of Genesis were shown accurate, that might support the idea that these were accurate renderings of fables from that era, but it wouldn't be persuasive that they were accounts of actual events.
LucyTheApe writes:
Well of course I would. However, we know that won't happen. At one time geologists did assume that there might have been such a flood. But, as they looked for evidence, all of the evidence contradicted the idea of a global flood.
If evidence of a global flood poked you in the eye, would you then consider the implications this has on our understanding of the geology of the earth. LucyTheApe writes:
Of course not. That it is in the bible is never reason to reject a hypothesis, just as it isn't reason to accept a hypothesis. Physical evidence is required for such decisions.
Or would you reject the concept of a flood and it's implications only because its written in the bible?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1369 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
...and if my grandmother had wheels...
the problem with proposing such a rather simple test for creationism is that it pretty much fails coming out of the gate. i mean, before we even went to check biblical history, we'd need to determine which version of it we're checking. afterall, there are a few discrepancies. which, that simple fact alone, rather knackers the whole premise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4215 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
If by some strange occurance the stories in Genesis were scientifically
proven to the same accuracy as what we now have on evolution, I would say yes. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1619 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
I'm willing to listen to real evidence does this mean it would not be off topic for me to present my evidence? keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
As per the subtitle, I think that this topic would function best if only "evolutionists" participated.
The topic title question is directed to evolutionists - It is not asking for or looking for said evidence from the creationist side. Perhaps there should be a specifically "creationists only" counter-topic. Normally I would direct any replies to moderation messages such a this one, to go to the "General discussion..." topic. But in this case I'm guessing any such discussion should happen in this topic (the exception to the general rule). Adminnemooseus New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts. Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073] Admin writes:
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon. There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot. Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1619 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
See, I don't care about any sort of "presupposition" or "agenda." My only agenda is the desire for accuracy. I want to know and understand the truth, as closely as we are able to verifiably determine. As per the subtitle, I think that this topic would function best if only "evolutionists" participated. and how many evolutionists are really searching for evidence of creation? keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22490 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
Like you, I follow the evidence wherever it leads. I'm not an atheist, and my only "worldview" is "studying the evidence is how to figure things out." If the evidence says there was a global flood, then there was a global flood, which would be absolutely fantastic!
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1619 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
even if a global flood was proven, what evidence is that of a creator?
keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
hypothetically speaking, if evidence along the lines of a universal, cross-species genetic bottleneck just a few thousand years ago, combined with a global sedimentary layer, or if it were somehow proven incontrovertibly that humans were created and did not evolve, or other such evidence was discovered that completely blew the current models and understanding of history, geology, physics, and biology out of the water...what would be the reaction of Evolutionists? Well, my reaction would be: that's interesting. - It would be interesting, though, what evidence could come up that could undermine the obvious fact that the earth and the universe are billions of years old. I mean, just to start with, we see stars that are more than 6000 light years away. That right there is a pretty big problem. Not only that, but physicists have already told us what different sizes of stars would look like at different points in their millions of years life spans -- and when astronomers look up in the sky, they see exactly these types of stars -- they actually see stars that look all the world as if they are different ages in a billions of years old universe. Let's look at geology. What would 6000 years of sediment look like? Not very much, I'd warrant. One would think that a 6000 year old earth would be basically granite covered with top soil. Whence the thousands of feet of sedimentary rock? And if there were a flood, one would think that at best the top soil would be washed off of the highlands, leaving pretty much bare rock, and the low lands would have maybe several hundred feet of un lithified sediments. Remember that an old earth sans flood was pretty much proven long before Darwin. And then there's radiometric dating. The fact that radiometric dating was consistent with the geologic record as already established by geologists shows how traditional geology and radiometric dating provide independent checks on each other -- so we can be more confident that the geologists got it right, and, in turn, we can have some confidence in the radiometrically established age of 4.6 billion years for the solar system. - The problem with trying to prove a young earth is that we already have a lot, a lot, a lot of evidence for an old earth. Proving a young earth is going to require a lot more than a couple of anomalies here, and a few unanswered questions there. It is going to take a broad and testable young earth theory that explains the data that we do have, and much, much more evidence that systematically supports that theory over the traditional geologic theories. Here is the evidence that would have convinced me of a young earth and young universe: All stars being 6000 light years away or closer, and every year bringing another light year's worth of stars into view. All the stars being pretty much the same -- same size, same color, indications of the same "age". Geology being really a granite crust covered with top soil -- no sedimentary rocks. Radiometric dating consistently giving ages of 6000 years or less. All fossil species being more or less the same ones that we see today -- maybe a couple of "new" ones that have gone extinct since the beginning, but not entirely different eco-systems. A mix and match of characteristics that would render a nested hierarchical classification scheme for the species impossible -- thereby proving evolution false and negating the need for deep time for that reason. -- The fact is, that Young Earth Creationism already had the chance to prove itself correct, and failed from the very beginnings of geology. I really cannot think of what any evidence for a young earth could possible look like at this point. He fought for the South for no reason that he could now recall, other than the same one all men fought for: because he'd been a damn fool. -- Garth Ennis
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4215 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
tesla and how many evolutionists are really searching for evidence of creation? I, myself am searching for the truth no matter what it is. Edited by bluescat48, : quote correction There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Many of use already believe that their is evidence for Creation, however we also understand that the literal Biblical Creation myths have definitely been proven false. They are simply wrong.
Would we consider accepting "Special Creation" or some other undefined Creation? That would depend on several things. First a "Creation Model" must be put forward. Once that is done the model would need to be tested against the existing model to see which better explains what is seen. If the new model really did explain what is seen better than the current model, I would of course accept it. Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024