Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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:   If evolution is not the answer, then what is?
IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 4436 days)
Posts: 569
From: Ireland
Joined: 05-19-2003


Message 1 of 52 (41109)
05-23-2003 12:46 PM


I've been browsing through the site for a while, and I've noticed a strange omission - the creationists here continuously post arguments refuting evolution, but so far I don't think I've seen a single post relating to an alternative to evolution.
Do any creationists (or anyone really) have any thoughts regarding a new scientific theory, similar to evolution in that it explains the features of the world we can see around us? I am not an "evolutionist", whatever that means - I am a geologist, and I consider evolution to be a perfectly useful theory, that so far has proved to be correct in my experience. If a new and better theory were developed I wouldn't hesitate in abandoning evolution as obsolete.
So, I invite anyone who has any ideas on this to come and share them.
The Rock Hound
------------------
"Science constantly poses questions, where religion can only shout about answers."

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by NosyNed, posted 05-23-2003 1:07 PM IrishRockhound has not replied
 Message 3 by Paul, posted 05-23-2003 8:59 PM IrishRockhound has replied
 Message 8 by 6days, posted 05-27-2003 2:02 PM IrishRockhound has not replied
 Message 34 by Brad McFall, posted 06-05-2003 1:03 PM IrishRockhound has replied
 Message 37 by 6days, posted 06-09-2003 11:38 AM IrishRockhound has not replied
 Message 38 by 6days, posted 06-09-2003 11:40 AM IrishRockhound has replied
 Message 42 by 6days, posted 06-09-2003 3:59 PM IrishRockhound has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 2 of 52 (41114)
05-23-2003 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by IrishRockhound
05-23-2003 12:46 PM


Hello, RH
Maybe I've spent long on sites like this. You're being unfair there are lots of creationist answers for this . In fact there seems to be one or more of them for every individual creationist.
And once they start to articulate one it changes into something else faster than "kinds" were supposed to have evolved after the flood.
What you want is something coherent. Lots of luck.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by IrishRockhound, posted 05-23-2003 12:46 PM IrishRockhound has not replied

  
Paul
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 52 (41171)
05-23-2003 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by IrishRockhound
05-23-2003 12:46 PM


Hi Rock,
Well, as a Creationist I certainly can't offer any other alternative to evolution However, as I am an OENRC I do wan't to ask you; as a Geologist, do you see any evidence of 2 world wide floods? if so please explain. Thx.
Respectfully, Paul.
:My apologies if this thread goes in a different direction because of my question. I'm sure Admin will move if necc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by IrishRockhound, posted 05-23-2003 12:46 PM IrishRockhound has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by NosyNed, posted 05-23-2003 9:02 PM Paul has not replied
 Message 5 by IrishRockhound, posted 05-26-2003 11:01 AM Paul has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 4 of 52 (41172)
05-23-2003 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Paul
05-23-2003 8:59 PM


That's off topic, RH, if you want to answer could you make under a geology or flood topic?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Paul, posted 05-23-2003 8:59 PM Paul has not replied

  
IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 4436 days)
Posts: 569
From: Ireland
Joined: 05-19-2003


Message 5 of 52 (41345)
05-26-2003 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Paul
05-23-2003 8:59 PM


Sorry I'm late replying - Internet problems.
Anyway, I'm suprised that I got so few answers - I thought I might get flamed there for a while
As far as I know there is no evidence currently supporting the idea of a world wide flood at any stage in history. There are some areas that experienced very widespread flooding - so much so that it might appear as if the entire world was flooded. I think this is where the story of Noah's flood came from.
Bear in mind that I'm basing this on my own knowledge of the geology of Ireland and Britain. If there was a world wide flood I doubt we'd be left out.
This is off topic - if the admin could move it to the appropriate forum I'd appreciate it.
The Rock Hound

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Paul, posted 05-23-2003 8:59 PM Paul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by IrishRockhound, posted 05-27-2003 12:44 PM IrishRockhound has not replied

  
IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 4436 days)
Posts: 569
From: Ireland
Joined: 05-19-2003


Message 6 of 52 (41460)
05-27-2003 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by IrishRockhound
05-26-2003 11:01 AM


Still looking
Hey,
I'm still looking for a new alternative to evolution - or maybe a theory of life, the universe and everything - proposed by creationism. Is anyone willing to help me out here? Any creationist at all?
If the earth is only 6000 years old, you must have some idea of what's been going on.
The Rock Hound

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by IrishRockhound, posted 05-26-2003 11:01 AM IrishRockhound has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by John, posted 05-27-2003 12:53 PM IrishRockhound has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 52 (41461)
05-27-2003 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by IrishRockhound
05-27-2003 12:44 PM


Re: Still looking
quote:
If the earth is only 6000 years old, you must have some idea of what's been going on.
ummm.... God did a bunch of stuff. Isn't it obvious?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by IrishRockhound, posted 05-27-2003 12:44 PM IrishRockhound has not replied

  
6days
Inactive Junior Member


Message 8 of 52 (41470)
05-27-2003 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by IrishRockhound
05-23-2003 12:46 PM


A Christian Alternative to Creation
It seems to me that the relative positions of naturalists, whether evolutionists or no, and Christians are mutually exclusive which would preclude any alternative for either. The naturalist is only willing to use the five senses and the Christian is only willing to use faith as a basis for belief. It is irrelevant what theory the naturalist believes because it will always be based upon natural cause and effect. Likewise, whatever interpretation a Christian may have, it will always be subordinate to God-given faith in the Bible.
With that written, it is more probable that the naturalist should have alternative theories and that the Christian should be immovable from Genesis chapters 1 through 3 and John chapter 1. A Christian would not normally believe that there was an alternative to the Bible so never entertains the thought that there is one, at least as far as creation, as traditionally taught, is concerned. For the Christian, there may be great latitute to debate HOW God created, if not explicit in the Bible, but never WHETHER God created.
This idea of HOW, rather than WHETHER, seems to present a better parallel to the naturalist point of view, to me, and a more suitable place for dialogue, than a mutually exclusive Creation vs naturalism argument, at least for the sake of information sharing among people interested in the same disciplines. Likewise, the naturalist may take it for granted that a Christian is immovable from belief in God but that a dialogue may be had along some point concerning HOW an event occurred. If this can reconcile the naturalist's belief in the five senses and the Christian's belief in God then well. I don't expect Christians to move from the belief that God created everything nor do I expect that naturalists will see with anything but their natural eyes.
If it is true that Christians "attack" the theory of evolution, it is equally true that Christianity itself is under attack from all quarters by naturalists. However, because the Christian's "attack" is based in the belief of a single cause for the universe - God - the Christian will never have any other answer. In contrast, the naturalist is free to pick and choose as many theories as pallatable because fossil evidence will always reveal some new species or refute the newest nuance of evolution. It is no surprise, therefore, that the naturalist's "base" is a constant, shifting sand because naturalist theories are all based upon what they see at a single point in time and never the entire fossil record as a whole - which seems to constantly refute their theories as the Bible predicts it will. Should one seek an alternative to creation, it is this - "In the beginning God." Should another alternative be required, well, then, "In the beginning God." So on en finitum. There is no alternative to the bedrock truth that God is the cause and effect of His creation. I'm sorry but I can not make anyone else believe this because belief can only come from God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by IrishRockhound, posted 05-23-2003 12:46 PM IrishRockhound has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by bulldog98, posted 05-27-2003 2:19 PM 6days has not replied
 Message 10 by Dan Carroll, posted 05-27-2003 2:27 PM 6days has replied
 Message 11 by truthlover, posted 05-27-2003 5:27 PM 6days has replied
 Message 12 by 6days, posted 05-27-2003 10:12 PM 6days has not replied

  
bulldog98
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 52 (41472)
05-27-2003 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by 6days
05-27-2003 2:02 PM


Re: A Christian Alternative to Creation
quote:
If it is true that Christians "attack" the theory of evolution, it is equally true that Christianity itself is under attack from all quarters by naturalists.
How is that? The only portion of Christianity that I see as coming under "attack" from naturalists is the idea that Genesis can be scientifically proven, which comes from places like AIG, ICR, Dr. Dino, and the Discovery Institute, among others. And even for those of us who "attack" those institutions, we are not attacking Christianity itself--but rather, the misrepresentation of science in order to support Genesis (or ID) presented by said places.
quote:
However, because the Christian's "attack" is based in the belief of a single cause for the universe - God - the Christian will never have any other answer.
Precisely--and that's not a scientific answer. So why do these places decry the science behind it, when they have no alternative scientific explantion? (Or at least, not one that I've seen, and obviously not one that Rockhound has seen).
quote:
In contrast, the naturalist is free to pick and choose as many theories as pallatable because fossil evidence will always reveal some new species or refute the newest nuance of evolution. It is no surprise, therefore, that the naturalist's "base" is a constant, shifting sand because naturalist theories are all based upon what they see at a single point in time and never the entire fossil record as a whole - which seems to constantly refute their theories as the Bible predicts it will.
Thank you for proving my point about the tactics of those who espouse Creationism. You are incorrect--the "naturalist's" base is always constant, not shifting: evolution is the cause of the diversity that exists on the planet today. That does not shift. What is more open to examination are the most important mechanisms which led to the existence of a particular species, or the existence of particular transition species throughout time. And keep in mind that what may be most important for one species may not hold for another--that's why sweeping generalizations are often not used, and hypotheses contain qualifiers. We admittedly don't know everything--if we did, scientists would be out of a job.
quote:
Should one seek an alternative to creation, it is this - "In the beginning God." Should another alternative be required, well, then, "In the beginning God." So on en finitum. There is no alternative to the bedrock truth that God is the cause and effect of His creation. I'm sorry but I can not make anyone else believe this because belief can only come from God.
That's all fine and dandy--but then, why do places like ICR try to prove "In the beginning God?" It's unprovable, as it is by definition, a matter of faith. There would not be such a schism in the "religion" and "naturalist" camps if these places realized that, even if one was to somehow "prove" evolution incorrect, the default would not be Creation, but rather, some other scientific theory.
[This message has been edited by bulldog98, 05-27-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by 6days, posted 05-27-2003 2:02 PM 6days has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 52 (41473)
05-27-2003 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by 6days
05-27-2003 2:02 PM


Re: A Christian Alternative to Creation
quote:
Should one seek an alternative to creation, it is this - "In the beginning God." Should another alternative be required, well, then, "In the beginning God." So on en finitum. There is no alternative to the bedrock truth that God is the cause and effect of His creation.
Okay.
What's "God"?
I'm not kidding. You say that "God" is the creator of the world. So what exactly is this "God"? What are you believing in?
-----------
Dan Carroll
[This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 05-27-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by 6days, posted 05-27-2003 2:02 PM 6days has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by 6days, posted 05-27-2003 11:50 PM Dan Carroll has replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 11 of 52 (41502)
05-27-2003 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by 6days
05-27-2003 2:02 PM


Re: A Christian Alternative to Creation
quote:
This idea of HOW, rather than WHETHER, seems to present a better parallel to the naturalist point of view, to me, and a more suitable place for dialogue, than a mutually exclusive Creation vs naturalism argument, at least for the sake of information sharing among people interested in the same disciplines.
This is great. You probably should have left it there, except that there's no debate left when you say this. If the issue is "how," then, if we are to accept the evidence of the earth, nature, and the universe, the answer is "by gradual, natural processes over billions of years."
I believe "In the beginning, God..." I also believe that the beginning was about 14 billion years ago in a big bang, because "the heavens declare the glory of God, and the hammered dome of the sky declares his handiwork." So I let the heavens declare the glory of God, that he is very ancient, and the skies his handiwork, that he creates over long period of times using a process of birth, life, and death to get to his results.
quote:
contrast, the naturalist is free to pick and choose as many theories as pallatable because fossil evidence will always reveal some new species or refute the newest nuance of evolution. It is no surprise, therefore, that the naturalist's "base" is a constant, shifting sand because naturalist theories are all based upon what they see at a single point in time and never the entire fossil record as a whole - which seems to constantly refute their theories as the Bible predicts it will.
This is what I meant by "you should have stopped." You act like you are willing to discuss the "how" of God's creation, but you begin by with an insult that's quite obviously based in ignorance. It's one thing to say you believe the Bible says God did it. It's quite another to suggest, so inaccurately, that the fossil record refutes evolutionary theories.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by 6days, posted 05-27-2003 2:02 PM 6days has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by 6days, posted 05-27-2003 11:51 PM truthlover has replied

  
6days
Inactive Junior Member


Message 12 of 52 (41534)
05-27-2003 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by 6days
05-27-2003 2:02 PM


Re: A Christian Alternative to Creation
I think that both sides have more than just a professional stake in what we consider to be the origin of the universe, we also have a personal stake. For we Christians, an attack on the veracity of the Bible IS an attack on Christianity. Perhaps for you, an attack on your theory is likewise an attack on Science. Our God-given faith is a rock that can’t be explained — it just is. Why should I believe in the Creator when I once believed evolution? Because God gave me faith to believe otherwise. That faith is personal so I may take unbelief, in the form of certain criticisms, as a personal attack, on some level, whether that attack is meant to refute the misrepresentation of science or not. I believe that God created the universe in 6 days, so, to me, any other explanation than God is false. Like your defense of evolution, I equally defend Biblical truth against evolutionary, pre-conceived ideas of science that consistently ignore irrefutable evidence for global deluge. Yet, at the same time, I also know that you are only able to judge the world by what you see — and what you see is what you have faith in. Because you and I see differently, we have faith in different things. Therefore, when AIG looks at the world from a Bible based perspective, you automatically assume they are wrong, and AIG may assume that you are attacking the truth, vice versa.
As to your second comment about belief versus science, well said. I never want anyone to believe that my belief in God is based upon what I dug up out of the ground. Belief is a gift from God. However, because God gave us an overview of what he did in six days, we must still look to the same creation that you see if we are to understand HOW he may have created it. It may come as a surprise to you but you and I have more in common than you suspect. Namely, faith. I believe God’s creation is a testimony to God, you believe the biom is a testament to evolution. I believe the Holy Bible, you believe The Origin of Species, or perhaps Gould, Dawkins, etc. Pastors preach Biblical truth in church, you may teach your theory in a public school or university. I can never measure God, nor comprehend what he actually did, yet I have faith that God created the universe in 6 days; you can never plumb the depths of eternity, measure the width of the universe, or make the dead come back to life, yet you have faith that there was a Big Bang, microbes to man evolution, and no basis for a Creator. As far I am concerned, that defines you as a religious person who seeks to study God’s Creation with the preconceived notion that God didn’t make it. Now, if we can only get you to come to church . . .
Thirdly, Thank you for proving my point about the tactics of those who espouse Creationism. You are incorrect--the "naturalist's" base is always constant, not shifting: evolution is the cause of the diversity that exists on the planet today. This is as much a circuitous, declaration to me as my beliefs probably are to you, i.e I am right because you are wrong! Yet, how can you say that your position is constant if your theory of evolution constantly changes. If you were a Christian, and Darwin’s first book was the Bible, you would have a library of King James Versions 1859 v. 1-12, 1860, v.1-12, 1861 v. 1-12, etc. Practically one Bible for every month, or so it may seem to me. With so much shifting sand beneath your theory, the resulting dust cloud obscures all the differences and causes them to superficially appear to be a consistent whole. While you may argue that your theory is unified, other evolutionists may argue differently. I don’t argue that you have a right to believe what ever you wish, but when your theory is elevated to physical law by some, based upon their beliefs, and not because evolution can be replicated in the laboratory, it seems that your platform is shifting, and, indeed, slippery. The fact that evolutionists recognize the constant need to modify their micro-theories ought, over time, to convince the majority that the macro-theory, microbes to men, ought also to be modified into a new theory. The fossil record just does not seem to support the old one.
As to, why do places like ICR try to prove "In the beginning God?. I am familiar with them but I can’t speak for them, AIG, etc. As for me, my belief in God, the Bible, God’s Creation, etc, is purely based in faith. If it was not then I could not claim to be a Christian by faith alone, without works. Not that ICR, et al are guilty of this, but some attempt to have evidential based faith whereby, Since I’ve proved God, now I know he’s real. The Bible says nothing in the New Testament about proving God before you believe — it simple requires belief. Either you believe that Jesus Christ is God or you don’t. Simple. However, to revisit my first message, there is room to theorize HOW God did something, not WHETHER he did something, if it’s mentioned in the Bible. That may be precisely what ICR, AIG, etc is doing when they debate you with the same evidence. I’ve read several laments from AIG that you evolutionists beat your dead horse instead of looking at the evidence from the same angle as they. Shall we say, Tit for Tat?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by 6days, posted 05-27-2003 2:02 PM 6days has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by crashfrog, posted 05-27-2003 10:26 PM 6days has replied
 Message 17 by truthlover, posted 05-28-2003 1:54 AM 6days has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 13 of 52 (41537)
05-27-2003 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by 6days
05-27-2003 10:12 PM


Re: A Christian Alternative to Creation
Now, if we can only get you to come to church . . .
You might be surprised - from what Truthlover has told us in the past I wouldn't be surprised if he goes to church and studies the Bible far more often than you.
Practically one Bible for every month, or so it may seem to me. With so much shifting sand beneath your theory, the resulting dust cloud obscures all the differences and causes them to superficially appear to be a consistent whole.
Personally, I'd rather be almost right, always moving closer to the truth; than totally and eternally wrong. What use is your "foundation of stone" if it means your house is built in the wrong place?
I'm no person of faith. I don't think faith is useful. But if I was a person of faith, I'd sooner be of truthlover's brand of faith than yours, I think. At least his faith doesn't demand I turn my brain off.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by 6days, posted 05-27-2003 10:12 PM 6days has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by 6days, posted 05-28-2003 12:09 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
6days
Inactive Junior Member


Message 14 of 52 (41543)
05-27-2003 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Dan Carroll
05-27-2003 2:27 PM


Re: A Christian Alternative to Creation
Good question but it should be phrased, Who is God? Ask him yourself. I did, and he told me. Before he revealed himself to me, I couldn’t perceive him either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Dan Carroll, posted 05-27-2003 2:27 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Dan Carroll, posted 05-28-2003 1:34 PM 6days has not replied

  
6days
Inactive Junior Member


Message 15 of 52 (41544)
05-27-2003 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by truthlover
05-27-2003 5:27 PM


Re: A Christian Alternative to Creation
I disagree. We already learn quite a bit from each other, it’s just that AIG, ICR, etc is more candid about it. They aren’t as coy about admitting when the opposition is correct as, say, Nature. We Christians and evolutionists will certainly never walk around the garden of Eden, hand in hand, discussing God’s Creation but we can at least publicly admit when the other has a good point — AIG consistently does. And, according to AIG, at least one evolutionist organization has admitted that AIG is correct. My point is that Christians and evolutionists will never agree, but, from the Christian point of view, for us, we might build a scientific dialogue based upon HOW, not WHETHER. The WHETHER is a given for us so why debate it if it’s not debatable.
As to evolution, your’re right, there would be no room, for that is a WHETHER argument. But, where physiology, geologic mechanisms, genetics, etc can be observed today, particularly in the laboratory, there should be room for honest dialogue among professional scientists. AIG ought to be allowed to publish it’s reports in Nature but it doesn’t because of that publication’s bias. Yet, AIG and ICR both provide links to evolutionist reports, when able, so that their readers will have a comprehensive grasp of the subject.
By the way, I like the verse but my version states it thus:
Psalm 19:1-6 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.
Oh, and don’t forget:
Psalm 97:1-7 The LORD reigneth; let the earth rejoice; let the multitude of isles be glad thereof. Clouds and darkness are round about him: righteousness and judgment are the habitation of his throne. A fire goeth before him, and burneth up his enemies round about. His lightnings enlightened the world: the earth saw, and trembled. The hills melted like wax at the presence of the LORD, at the presence of the Lord of the whole earth. The heavens declare his righteousness, and all the people see his glory. Confounded be all they that serve graven images, that boast themselves of idols: worship him, all ye gods.
Or:
Exodus 20:9-11 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
To close, no one has the complete fossil record from which to prove evolution, therefore, that theory is still in flux. I think evolutionists are the ones that say that of all the species found so far, perhaps less that five percent constitute Animalia. AIG and ICR seem to think that the ever growing fossil record, in all taxa, refutes evolution rather than proves it because there is no clean geologic column in which marker species can be traced up. Rather, their wide, chaotic distribution of from single specimens to 100,000s seems to suggest a pattern of world-wide deluge rather than the familiar dry river bed, or lake paradigm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by truthlover, posted 05-27-2003 5:27 PM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by truthlover, posted 05-28-2003 2:18 AM 6days has replied
 Message 29 by nator, posted 06-03-2003 9:05 AM 6days 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