Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8943 total)
44 online now:
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,885 Year: 18,921/19,786 Month: 1,341/1,705 Week: 147/446 Day: 43/104 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why is it that God couldn't have made Creation with evolution?
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2479 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 106 of 167 (524058)
09-14-2009 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Arphy
09-14-2009 7:36 AM


Re: God using evolution
Sure if a new completely materialistic theory came out tommorrow that excludes God and the Bible,

Wrong. If a new viable theory were to include your god that was based on evidence then I could accept it. The pivot is not god but is evidence.

Edited by bluescat48, : the submittance didn't post whole message


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Arphy, posted 09-14-2009 7:36 AM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 585 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 107 of 167 (524065)
09-14-2009 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Arphy
09-14-2009 7:36 AM


Re: God using evolution
Arphy writes:

Sure if a new completely materialistic theory came out tommorrow that excludes God and the Bible, you might believe it. However all this does is show that you do have a dogma that only completly naturalistic explanations are allowed, instead of searching for the truth where ever it leads.


Wrong. Unlike creationists, all that matters to us is evidence. If there were evidence your god , or any other, would be responsible for evolution, I'd accept that. Unlike creationsits, who despite the evidence, don't accept evolution because it doesn't mention god. And so, act exactly like you accuse us of acting.


I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Arphy, posted 09-14-2009 7:36 AM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Apologetics
Junior Member (Idle past 3594 days)
Posts: 19
From: Michigan
Joined: 09-08-2009


Message 108 of 167 (524109)
09-14-2009 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Coyote
09-12-2009 9:20 PM


Re: God using evolution
Coyote writes:

Care to get back to the original topic? Remember, dealing with deities and it/they being responsible for evolution? Have you any empirical evidence that there are any deities? Any empirical evidence for any supposed deities at all? Or are you going to keep ducking the question?

With your starting presuppositions there is no evidence for a deity that you will except. We first need to show you how your worldview if flawed before you would begin to allow the thought of God to exist in the evidence.

Scientific evidence is susceptible to rescue devices (not that these rescue devices are valid). So this will not solve the debate, but something to consider.

The RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) looked into zircon crystals were uranium decays to lead (a half-life of 4.5 billion years). Each uranium atom when decaying releases eight helium atoms. The helium being so small is released from the zircon rapidly. But we are still finding large amounts of helium in the zircons.
You may be asking yourselves then why whould there be different amounts of helium in the zircons the farther down in the rock layer you go. Probably because the hotter the zircon the faster the hydrogen atom can leave since the particles are moving more rapidly.
-This is from a seminar given by Dr. Andrew Snelling (geologist), using some of Dr. Don DeYoung’s (Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div) writings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Coyote, posted 09-12-2009 9:20 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Coyote, posted 09-14-2009 1:57 PM Apologetics has responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 396 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 109 of 167 (524110)
09-14-2009 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Apologetics
09-14-2009 1:51 PM


RATE Group--off topic
I'm familiar with the RATE group and its work.

They set out to show that the radioactive decay constant wasn't a constant. They failed, instead confirming what scientists had said all along. They refused to believe their own data.

But that's off topic here. Start a new thread if you want to debate the RATE group's findings. I have a couple of good reviews I could cite for you.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Apologetics, posted 09-14-2009 1:51 PM Apologetics has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Apologetics, posted 09-15-2009 4:22 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Richard Townsend
Member (Idle past 3022 days)
Posts: 103
From: London, England
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 110 of 167 (524143)
09-14-2009 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Archangel
09-12-2009 3:12 PM


Re: God using evolution
quote:
It appears the definitions used for evolution have undergone more mutations than the theory as a whole. Even the Columbus Dispatch and our proposed new Ohio Science Standards report the definition of evolution is "a change in gene frequency in a population over time". Evolutionists justify this by asserting a definition can be altered as more information is acquired about the theory. However, the definition is now too general and surreptitiously conceals fundamental flaws in the theory itself. Furthermore, the delineation incorporates observations unrelated to the concepts of Darwinian evolution and effectively results in a classic "bait and switch".

It may surprise you that this is the best definition we have for evolution, now we understand how it works. How is it too general? What observations does it include that are unrelated to the concepts of Darwinian evolution? If the author means 'Darwin could have not used this definition', this is quite right. He didn't have enough knowledge.

quote:

A more appropriate definition for evolution is, a continuous naturalistic, mechanistic process by which all living things have arisen from a single living source which itself arose by a similar process from a non-living, inanimate world. This definition requires evolutionists to justify their claims of simplicity to complexity, life from nonlife, and common ancestry.

This mixes up evolution and abiogenesis, which creationists often do. Evolution does not assume things arose from a 'single' living source, or that life arose in a particular way. It is a description of a process that transforms one living thing into another.

I take that point that from the creationist viewpoint, something seems to be hidden by the modern definition. But that's because scientists have come up with the best definition irrespective of how it looks to others. But it's clear isn't it that there's been no stepping back from the claim that evolution has generated the diversity of life on earth? Everbody knows that evolution still claims that.

quote:

The other definition seeks to include observed adaptations within species without a corresponding increase in genetic information. For an evolutionist to accomplish this, he must scientifically describe and observe the mechanism by which genetic information is increased via mutation. Since this has never been observed, and there is no viable mechanism, evolution is nothing more than philosophical ramblings.

No, that's not the aim of the definition. Scientists do not have an issue with information increase through evolution. Genetic information is increased by many mechanisms - including point mutation, gene duplication, insertion and deletion of sequences. These have all been observed.

quote:

Biophysicist, Dr. Lee Spetner stated, "The neo-Darwinians would like us to believe that large evolutionary changes can result from a series of small events if there are enough of them. But if these events all lose information they can’t be the steps in the kind of evolution the neo-Darwin theory is supposed to explain, no matter how many mutations there are. Whoever thinks macroevolution can be made by mutations that lose information is like the merchant who lost a little money on every sale but thought he could make it up on volume.4

But mutation does not result only in loss of information. This is a non-argument.

quote:

Reporting finch adaptation as evidence for evolution is not unique. Finch evolution gained momentum when the research team of Peter and Rosemary Grant went to the Galapagos Islands in 1973. While observing the wide diversity of finches, they discovered that during an ordinary drought, the average beak length of some birds slightly increased. This preliminary data was then extrapolated to conclude after a certain number of droughts; a new species of finch could be created with a longer beak5. What they did not realize at the time, was during rainy seasons the beaks did not stay the same, they returned to normal. This type of intrinsic oscillation is an eloquent illustration of natural selection via adaptation but not evolution.

and the difference between these is.....?

quote:
The subject papers presented in Science magazine are excellent research examples demonstrating rapid adaptations within a species of bird. However, these adaptations utilize information previously existing in the genetic code of these creatures. The fact remains, they are still finches and they are still birds.

They are still finches and they are still birds. Absolutely. Does evolution claim that in the timeframe of an experiment such as this, a bird should evolve into a non-bird? Of course not. That would not be evolution as we understand it but something else. Again, I see the hang-up over information. It has been indisuptably proved that natural genetic processes add information to the genome.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Archangel, posted 09-12-2009 3:12 PM Archangel has not yet responded

    
Apologetics
Junior Member (Idle past 3594 days)
Posts: 19
From: Michigan
Joined: 09-08-2009


Message 111 of 167 (524282)
09-15-2009 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Coyote
09-14-2009 1:57 PM


Re: RATE Group--off topic
Coyote writes:

But if you want to present some empirical evidence feel free to do so.

Maybe I’m wrong, but how does my post about scientific evidence for a young earth not follow the topic. God could not use evolution because the earth is young.

Coyote writes:

You reject the scientific method, and yet claim you are pro-science?

Many of the founders of the scientific method were Christian. Why would we reject it. These men were Newton, Galileo, and Kepler. We have a reason to study science. These men knew the world around them would make sense, because of the attributes of God. We know that there is a God who upholds the universe in a rational way (Gen 8:22). How does science work in a random chance world? What we have studied for hundreds of years could change tomorrow in an evolutionary worldview.

Coyote writes:

You just pick and choose the results you like, and reject the results you disagree with because of religious belief, and claim to be pro-science?

You confuse observable science with origin science. We refuse your form of origin science (not repeatable) were the belief in evolution (molecules to man) comes from and adhere to observable science (were we get technology).

Did you know the Bible teaches a spherical earth (Isaiah 40:22) written around 760-698 BC. But Pythagoras did not asserted a round earth until 570-500 BC or Aristotle’s work in 389-322 BC.

The Bible teaches the earth floats in space (Job 26:7) written around 2000-1800 BC. Greeks taught a flat earth that floats on water in 900-800 BC.

The expanding universe (Isaiah 40:22). Not till the 1920’s did Writz and Hubble demonstrate the expanding universe.

Life is in the blood (Leviticus 17:11) written 1400 BC. In 1616 AD blood is found to be the key factor in life.

Now the Bible was going against what the secularist were saying in those days, but we now know the Bible to be right.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Coyote, posted 09-14-2009 1:57 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Perdition, posted 09-15-2009 4:45 PM Apologetics has responded
 Message 113 by Huntard, posted 09-15-2009 4:47 PM Apologetics has responded
 Message 115 by Richard Townsend, posted 09-15-2009 5:21 PM Apologetics has not yet responded
 Message 117 by bluescat48, posted 09-15-2009 5:42 PM Apologetics has not yet responded

    
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1527 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 112 of 167 (524284)
09-15-2009 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Apologetics
09-15-2009 4:22 PM


Re: RATE Group--off topic
How does science work in a random chance world?

It wouldn't. Nor would it work in a universe where a supernatural entity could come in and change things around by fiat, or make things appear counter to how they actually happened.

There is no reason to posit a "random chance world" when we have physical laws that constrain the possibilities.

What we have studied for hundreds of years could change tomorrow in an evolutionary worldview.

Tentativity is the hallmark of science. If something we have been studying for 100s of years has been shown to be wrong, then doesn't it make sense for us to change our mind?

If you mean, gravity could stop working or something preposterous like that, then you're wrong. For one thing, evolution has nothing to say about any of that. For another, if things could turn on and off like that, then our science would be completely wrong, far from being a necessary outcome. You seem to have little to no idea what science is and how methodical naturalism works.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Apologetics, posted 09-15-2009 4:22 PM Apologetics has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Apologetics, posted 09-15-2009 5:13 PM Perdition has responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 585 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 113 of 167 (524285)
09-15-2009 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Apologetics
09-15-2009 4:22 PM


Re: RATE Group--off topic
Apologetics writes:

Maybe I’m wrong, but how does my post about scientific evidence for a young earth not follow the topic. God could not use evolution because the earth is young.


So, your god is not omnnipotent? And more then that, you know exactly what he can and cannot do?

Why would we reject it.

All Christians don't. Some Christians (creationists) do.

How does science work in a random chance world?

No idea. You tell me.

What we have studied for hundreds of years could change tomorrow in an evolutionary worldview.

What are you talking about? And even if it could, what's so bad about adapting to new knowledge?

We refuse your form of origin science (not repeatable) were the belief in evolution (molecules to man) comes from and adhere to observable science (were we get technology).

Nonsense. You are as anti-science as can be.

I won't even go into your "bible told this and that" stuff, as for one, it's offtopic and two, it's complete rubbish.


I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Apologetics, posted 09-15-2009 4:22 PM Apologetics has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Apologetics, posted 09-15-2009 5:28 PM Huntard has responded

    
Apologetics
Junior Member (Idle past 3594 days)
Posts: 19
From: Michigan
Joined: 09-08-2009


Message 114 of 167 (524286)
09-15-2009 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Perdition
09-15-2009 4:45 PM


Perdition writes:

It wouldn't. Nor would it work in a universe where a supernatural entity could come in and change things around by fiat, or make things appear counter to how they actually happened.

I asking if you could please explain the existence of laws of nature and uniformity in your worldview?

Also so I can better understand your statement, please explain God making things appear counter to how they actually happened.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Perdition, posted 09-15-2009 4:45 PM Perdition has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Perdition, posted 09-16-2009 11:40 AM Apologetics has not yet responded

    
Richard Townsend
Member (Idle past 3022 days)
Posts: 103
From: London, England
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 115 of 167 (524289)
09-15-2009 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Apologetics
09-15-2009 4:22 PM


Re: RATE Group--off topic
quote:
We refuse your form of origin science (not repeatable) were the belief in evolution (molecules to man) comes from and adhere to observable science (were we get technology).

If your criterion for being scientific is being repeatable, you must also reject archaeology, geology, ecology, astronomy, meteorology, forensic science, and large parts of zoology, botany, and a number of other sciences. Feel free to do so...

If you will accept no evidence that is not repeatable, you must also reject history. It depends entirely on records of past events. We cannot see it directly nor repeat it.

You must also distrust newspaper accounts of past events - the events they describe cannot be repeated to confirm they happened as described.

The point is, you certainly do trust some information about past events that isn't based on repeatable experiment.

Some of the evidence for evolution is like this. It is in the form of records of past events.

Another point that is worth making is that physical evidence is often much more reliable than human witness statements. CCTV records are more reliable than witnesses memory. Human memory and testimony is fallible and selective.

This is contrary to the thinking of many creationists who value the written word highly. But science treats physical evidence with respect.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Apologetics, posted 09-15-2009 4:22 PM Apologetics has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by themasterdebator, posted 09-15-2009 10:04 PM Richard Townsend has not yet responded

    
Apologetics
Junior Member (Idle past 3594 days)
Posts: 19
From: Michigan
Joined: 09-08-2009


Message 116 of 167 (524290)
09-15-2009 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Huntard
09-15-2009 4:47 PM


Re: RATE Group--off topic
Huntard writes:

So, your god is not omnnipotent? And more then that, you know exactly what he can and cannot do?

I was speaking in terms that the poster could understand according to his worldview not mine.

All Christians don't. Some Christians (creationists) do.

Nonsense. You are as anti-science as can be.

Please give an example.

I won't even go into your "bible told this and that" stuff, as for one, it's offtopic and two, it's complete rubbish.

Is it rubbish because you don't agree that the earth is round, hangs in space, the universe is expanding, and that the life is in the blood? Or because you are looking at the evidence in a bias manner? Or do you have another reason?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Huntard, posted 09-15-2009 4:47 PM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Coyote, posted 09-15-2009 6:17 PM Apologetics has not yet responded
 Message 120 by Huntard, posted 09-16-2009 7:08 AM Apologetics has not yet responded

    
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2479 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 117 of 167 (524294)
09-15-2009 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Apologetics
09-15-2009 4:22 PM


Re: RATE Group--off topic
KJV Isaiah 49:22 writes:

he that sitteth above the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

It says circle not spheroid. What translation says sphere or spheroid?
Spreadeth as a tent does not mean expanding.

Job 26:7 is part of a parable.

Job 27:1 writes:

1 Moreover Job continued his parable, and said

Apologetics writes:

Life is in the blood (Leviticus 17:11) written 1400 BC. In 1616 AD blood is found to be the key factor in life.

A key factor not the key factor.

As for your dates of writing, no evidence that they were written any earlier that the 9th century BCE with Isaiah even later about the 5th century BCE after the exile.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Apologetics, posted 09-15-2009 4:22 PM Apologetics has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 396 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 118 of 167 (524305)
09-15-2009 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Apologetics
09-15-2009 5:28 PM


Creationists are anti-science
Nonsense. You are as anti-science as can be.

Please give an example.


Creationists are against the theory of evolution for religious reasons.

They accept revelation and scripture as being higher forms of knowledge than knowledge derived from evidence and theory (science).

This, at times, brings the two into conflict. Creationists will accept revelation and scripture over evidence and theory in those cases. That is anti-science, as revelation and scripture are the antithesis of science.

To relate this to the topic: this is a major reason why many will not accept that God could have used evolution as a method. It is also why many will claim Noah's flood was real, as described, the earth is less than about 10,000 years in age, and some even go so far as to claim the earth is the center of the universe.

For example, the Answers in Genesis Statement of Faith begins:

quote:
The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge. Source

The Creation Research Society has a similar code which all members must adhere to:

quote:
CRS Statement of Belief

All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:

1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.

2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.

3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.

4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior. Source


Now, where is there room in these creationists' statements of belief for science?

The scientific method is a tool. You can't do science if you pick and choose the answers you like and reject the answers you don't like. By rejecting the results of science because of revelation or scripture one would be inherently anti-science.

Perhaps you could look over your own statements on this thread and see where this might apply.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Apologetics, posted 09-15-2009 5:28 PM Apologetics has not yet responded

  
themasterdebator
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 167 (524327)
09-15-2009 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Richard Townsend
09-15-2009 5:21 PM


Re: RATE Group--off topic
To clarify, science requires that a theory be able to make testable predictions, not be repeatable. That is where evidence comes in. A theory predicts that we will find such and such evidence. For a list of testable predictions that evolution makes. Look here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Richard Townsend, posted 09-15-2009 5:21 PM Richard Townsend has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 585 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 120 of 167 (524359)
09-16-2009 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Apologetics
09-15-2009 5:28 PM


Re: RATE Group--off topic
Apologetics writes:

I was speaking in terms that the poster could understand according to his worldview not mine.


So, your god could have used evolution even if the earth is only 6.000 years old?

Please give an example.

See Coyote's post.

Is it rubbish because you don't agree that the earth is round, hangs in space, the universe is expanding, and that the life is in the blood? Or because you are looking at the evidence in a bias manner? Or do you have another reason?

The reason it is rubbish is because you guys only started claiming these things were refereing to what you are claiming they say AFTER it was well known that this was the case. Before that, nobody claimed this. Also, the bible has been used to claim, for example, that the sun revolves around the earth, instead of the other way around.


I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Apologetics, posted 09-15-2009 5:28 PM Apologetics has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019