Key points of Evolution

quote:

---

you are saying that fossils, geology, cosmology, microbiology, and biology are not key points of evolution... wow

---

I don't know what's surprising. For a start they're all too wide to be considered "key points".The term "evolution" is almost always taken to mean biological evolution (as in "Darwin's theory of..."), unless context makes it obvious that that is not intended. On that basis:Since all of evolution is contained within biology, it is obviously absurd to call "biology" a key point of evolution. Calling evolution a key point of Biology would make more sense (and even then it ought to refer to the basic idea, not the whole theory)Microbiology is a subset of biology but essentially the same objections apply.Cosmology really has nothing to do with evolution at all. Or at least no more than it does with absolutely anything else.Geology doesn't have much to do with evolution either.Fossils at least relate to evolution, but even then they are evidence rather than a "key point".Edited by PaulK, : fix typos

That isn't relevant because the survey was about personal beliefs.Which is why it was no good for telling you the scientific consensus (which would be the consensus of the scientists working in relevant fields, excluding any unscientific personal belief they might have).

quote:

---

In your thread about tree rings, you give the indication that God would be evil to do something like that. To give the appearance of age when it did not exist. Well it is my opinion that he would be evil to do anything else. If God did not give the appearance of age, then scientists would not be able to figure out anything based upon nature. For example, if God created a full grown tree, would it have rings? If a tree appeared to be one thousand years old, would it have one thousand rings? If you were a scientist at that time, would God be fair to you if your examination of all new trees had rings, however created trees did not. How would you be able to develop a sound scientific theory relating rings to annual growth periods? You look at a tree that is obviously a thousand years old, and it has no rings. How would you be able to prove scientific theories? You could not!

---

Obviously your argument is untrue. Firstly God does not need to create a tree that appears to be one thousand years old. Secondly science is a recent development, and the information that trees grow rings is quite easily determinable without needing fake tree rings to be created at the beginning (most trees are only decades to a few centuries old). So unless you assume that the creation was very recent (say only a few hundred years ago at most) your argument is definitely untrue.If, on the other hand, God created trees that did not have rings scientists could identify the date of Creation and at least know that something special had happened at that time. The only thing that they could not find is the fake history that God had created.So what your argument amounts to is that "God had to lie because otherwise nobody would hear His lies". Is that really what you mean to say ?

quote:

---

Who are we to say what God needs or does not need to do? That is part of the problem

---

Your whole argument is founded on the idea that God needs to create an illusion of age. So who are you to make such an assertion ?

quote:

---

What makes you think that God would not have wanted to make the beauty of nature available from the beginning? Do you think God would form a featureless globe with no beauty, and then place man upon it?

---

Why does God have to be in such a hurry ? Why not watch His creation grow and develop, only placing man on it when it is ready ?

quote:

---

If God created a thirty year old man, he would not only appear to be thirty years old, he would BE thirty years old in every sense of the word. A medical examination would not indicate that the man was not thirty years old. Do you think that God would create a man with no food or water in his system, because He was afraid that scientists would accuse Him of lying by creating someone who appeared to have eaten food and drank water in the past. That argument is ridiculous. Think about it! The same would be true of any other feature of nature that God created.

---

I have thought about it. Do you really think that I haven't seen this argument (150 years old, at least !) before now ?. In fact I can see that I have thought about it more than you have. As we live and grow older, living leaves its marks. The after-effects of injury, disease and the general stresses of living. Would God create all those signs on his thirty-year old man ? Why ? Would He create this man with - for example - worn or decayed teeth or even (in a modern world) dental fillings ? Or false memories ?There are similar signs in nature. Tree rings are not just simple rings of even size. Their width depends on the growth of the tree - which in turn depends on the conditions of that year - and we can match up the patterns in the rings to produce longer chronologies than we could from any single tree. Those chronologies can be correlated with other evidence (such as carbon dating). If God wants to create a living tree with false rings does He have to create a pattern in the rings ? And create dead trees with matching patterns ? And adjust the carbon isotopes in the trees so that carbon dating works out ?To refer to another example referred to here, how many layers of annual varves does Lake Suigetsu need ? Why do the "fake" varves need to include items such as leaves ? Why do these items have to carbon date to ages that agree well with their position in the varve deposits ?

quote:

---

What are you basing God's dishonesty upon?

---

I am not the one implying that God has been dishonest. You are the one claiming that God has created a huge mass of false and misleading evidence for no apparent reason. What do YOU base that on ?

quote:

---

God has told the entire world that He is the Creator. When God created anything, it should agree in design and attributes with the natural laws that He has established.

---

He certainly has not.

quote:

---

So, if man looks at nature and finds evidence that God is not the Creator, then it is entirely possible that man (the creation) is misinterpreting the evidence.

---

But that is not what we are talking about. According to you the evidence is being interpreted correctly, on the basis of knowledge that God WANTS us to have - those natural laws you refer to. It is just that - according to you - that evidence is massively misleading, because God has made it that way. But you can't provide any good reason to assume that God would do something so dishonest as to mislead us in that way.

quote:

---

Man is attempting to use God's own creation and His laws of nature, to imply that God could be dishonest.

---

That is not true. The dishonesty of God is an implication of YOUR arguments since you require God to have created a huge amount of massively misleading evidence without giving any valid reason.

quote:

---

I am sure that you have thought about many things more than I have. I am only attempting to develop theories that may reconcile those things that I believe to be true, to what scientists believe to be true. That is the whole point of this mental exercise. I am not doing this specifically to annoy you.

---

In that case you need to consider things more deeply. I have pointed you to some of the questions you need to consider. You need to consider all the evidence of age, ask yourself why God would choose to make it that way, when it will mislead any who rely on the natural laws you say that he wants us to know and understand.

quote:

---

He has told you. You may have chosen not to listen.

---

Of course, you are in no position to know any such thing.

quote:

---

I truly believe that neither of us has considered all of the implications that would be involved if God were to instantly create a man, a tree, or anything else full grown.

---

But it is not necessary to consider all he details. So long as we can find some details that could easily be different, that mislead while serving no clear purpose your idea is in question. If you cannot find plausible reasons why God would knowingly create such a huge array of misleading evidence then why insist that He did ? Why not accept that the evidence is not misleading and the universe really is as old as it appears instead.Equally if you insist that God does rush things and that much of the apparent past is a false history then you must reject all knowledge of the past. You literally cannot even know if the universe existed five minutes ago.If you cannot truly deal with these points (and there is no way you can do that without accepting that God will leave holes in the evidence that we can find - and have not) then you might have a point worth discussing.