Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What evidence is needed to change a creationist
Volunteer
Junior Member (Idle past 5909 days)
Posts: 21
From: Tennessee
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 40 of 144 (447172)
01-08-2008 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Lithodid-Man
12-24-2007 3:33 AM


How about if we could get the scientific community to agree? If evolution were a fact, proven beyond doubt,or even a convincing theory, we could not possibly expect to see thousands of reputable scientists rejecting it outright. The fact that a lesser number of scientists reject evolution is not the issue here, as some evolutionists maintain.The issue is that thousands of credible scientists would not deny the theory of evolution if it were a proven fact. Something else, then, must account for belief in evolution, something other than the scientific data.
Two or three examples are in order at this time. Molecular biologist and medical doctor Michael Denton - "Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century." Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
(Bethesda, Md: Adler & Adler Publishers, Inc. 1986), p.358.
Dr. Louis Bounoure, Director of the Zoological Museum and Director of Research at the National Center of Scientific Research in France -
"Evolution is a fairy tale for grownups." J. Rostand,"La Mode et la vie," October 1963, p. 31 from V. Long,"Evolution:A Fairy Tale for Adults," Homiletic and Pastoral Review, Vol 78 (1978), No.7,pp27-32.
Arthur L. Schawlow, winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics. When confronted with the marvels of life and the universe,"The only possible answers are religious... I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life." Arthur L. Schawlow," One Must Ask Why and Not Just How?" in Henry Margenan and Roy Abraham Varghese, Cosmos, Bios, Theos: Scientists Reflect on Science, God, and the origins of the Universe, Life, and Homo Sapiens (La Salle, Il: Open court, 1994),p105.
Now when you start your ridicule, as evolunists always do, remember these are not my words, heaven knows I'm not bright enough to do anything other than to have faith in the ideas of one group of scientists or the other. I choose the Creationists. You choose to have faith in the evolutionists, unless you're one of the scientists quoted in the scientific journals. So there we are, you are not going to change your belief system nor am I.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Lithodid-Man, posted 12-24-2007 3:33 AM Lithodid-Man has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Phalanx, posted 01-08-2008 12:57 PM Volunteer has not replied
 Message 42 by nwr, posted 01-08-2008 1:27 PM Volunteer has not replied
 Message 43 by cavediver, posted 01-08-2008 2:12 PM Volunteer has not replied
 Message 44 by Granny Magda, posted 01-08-2008 2:31 PM Volunteer has not replied
 Message 45 by bluescat48, posted 01-08-2008 3:38 PM Volunteer has not replied
 Message 46 by Percy, posted 01-08-2008 8:15 PM Volunteer has not replied
 Message 82 by Jaderis, posted 01-22-2008 5:38 PM Volunteer has not replied

  
Volunteer
Junior Member (Idle past 5909 days)
Posts: 21
From: Tennessee
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 47 of 144 (447749)
01-10-2008 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Lithodid-Man
12-24-2007 3:33 AM


Changing my view of creation
Another thing that would be necessary is for evolution to seem more logical. If order does not come from chaos in the natural world it would not make logical sense to argue that it did with respect to origins.
If complex systems such as computers require the need of a designer to find both purpose and function it doesn't make logical sense to think that infinitely more complex systems such as the human body occurred without an intelligent agent. Logic would indicate that if something looks designed it must be designed.
Maybe someone can explain the logic in Punctuated Equilibrium (PE).
Stephen Gould and Niles Eldredge tried to explain away the fact that the fossil record showed abrupt appearance of species and stasis, or lack of substantial change, throughout a species' range in the fossil record. Eldredge and Gould stated that the abrupt appearance of species could be exlained by the transition occurring quickly, geologically speaking, in small, isolated populations such that the transitional forms would be highly unlikely to be preserved. What are Gould and Eldredge ultimately saying? What is PE? Ultimately, PE is a proposed mode of evolution. What is evolution? Is it not change? PE is supposed to be a mode of change and yet the evidence for it is stasis. But what is stasis? Is it not lack of change? So then lack of change (stasis) is the evidence for change (evolution via PE)!
Man, I have a headache. I'm going next door to play a little chess with my neighbor and think logically for a while.

"Faith is: the substance of fossils hoped for,the evidence of links unseen."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Lithodid-Man, posted 12-24-2007 3:33 AM Lithodid-Man has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by DrJones*, posted 01-10-2008 6:11 PM Volunteer has not replied
 Message 49 by Coragyps, posted 01-10-2008 6:23 PM Volunteer has not replied
 Message 50 by sidelined, posted 01-10-2008 6:48 PM Volunteer has not replied

  
Volunteer
Junior Member (Idle past 5909 days)
Posts: 21
From: Tennessee
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 51 of 144 (447821)
01-11-2008 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Lithodid-Man
12-24-2007 3:33 AM


Other questions about evolution
I was unaware that this forum existed until recently and I have several unanswered questions in my mind. Evolutionary theory suggests that life evolved through minute changes witin organisms over long periods of time. If this is true, how would the heart, which requires the brain to tell it to beat, function during its intermediary stages while the brain was evolving? When did the heart, which is a whole system by itself, decide to evolve and become a complex circulatory system? How did this circulatory system evolve in small increments separate from the heart if it needs all of its parts together to function?
What about the nervous system? When did a primitive unintelligent organism decide that it needed to develop a nervous system? Why did the organism need a nervous system if it survived without one? When did a primitive organism decide it needed a muscular system, a respiratory system, and a digestive system?
How did all of these complex systems evolve separate from each other if they need to work together?

"Faith is: the substance of fossils hoped for,the evidence of links unseen."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Lithodid-Man, posted 12-24-2007 3:33 AM Lithodid-Man has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by AdminNosy, posted 01-11-2008 1:41 AM Volunteer has not replied
 Message 55 by EighteenDelta, posted 01-11-2008 8:02 PM Volunteer has not replied

  
Volunteer
Junior Member (Idle past 5909 days)
Posts: 21
From: Tennessee
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 78 of 144 (450507)
01-22-2008 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Force
12-31-2007 8:33 PM


"Creationists do not understand Science."
I may not be a scientist,but I do understand what Robert Jastrow has to say about the Big Bang. As you probably know, Robert Jastrow now sits in Edwin Hubble's chair at Mount Wilson observatory. In addition to serving as the director of Mount Wilson, Jastrow is the founder of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies. His credentials as a scientist are impeccable.
Jastrow writes, "Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and bibical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy." Jastrow, God and the Astronomers,11.
"Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover...That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact." "A Scientist Caught Betwee Two Faiths: Interview with Robert Jastrow," Christianity Today, August 6,1982.
By speaking of the supernatural,Jastrow brings to mind the conclusion of Arthur Eddington. Although he found it "repugnant," Eddington admitted, "The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural."
Arthur Eddington, The Expanding Universe(New York:Macmillan,1933)178.
Even though I'm not a scientist and don't understand science, I guess that I'm in pretty good company believing that God created the universe with a Big Bang.

"Faith is: the substance of fossils hoped for,the evidence of links unseen."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Force, posted 12-31-2007 8:33 PM Force has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Rahvin, posted 01-22-2008 11:47 AM Volunteer has replied
 Message 80 by Percy, posted 01-22-2008 12:47 PM Volunteer has not replied
 Message 81 by jar, posted 01-22-2008 2:53 PM Volunteer has not replied

  
Volunteer
Junior Member (Idle past 5909 days)
Posts: 21
From: Tennessee
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 83 of 144 (450712)
01-23-2008 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Rahvin
01-22-2008 11:47 AM


Re: "Creationists do not understand Science."
Now why would Jastrow and Eddington admit that there are "Supernatural" forces at work? Why couldn't natural forces have produced the universe? Because these scientists know as well as anyone that natural forces were created at the Big Bang. In other words, the Big Bang was the beginning point for the entire physical universe. Time, space, and matter came into existence at that point. There was no natural world or natural law prior to the Big Bang. Since a cause cannot come after its effect, natural forces cannot account for the Big Bang. Therefore, there must be something outside of nature to do the job. And that is exactly what the word supernatural means.

"Faith is: the substance of fossils hoped for,the evidence of links unseen."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Rahvin, posted 01-22-2008 11:47 AM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by jar, posted 01-23-2008 11:10 AM Volunteer has not replied
 Message 85 by Rahvin, posted 01-23-2008 11:30 AM Volunteer has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024