Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can Creationists Show Evolution Never Happened?
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 110 of 126 (84697)
02-09-2004 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by burntdaisy622
02-09-2004 11:07 AM


BurntDaisy, you are correct in that our current state of knowledge does not allow us to say how life arose on earth. Therefore you are certainly entitled to hold whatever belief you wish about that.
However, isn't this yet another case of God of the gaps? This is when there is some gap in our knowledge of the natural world. A believer then suggests the answer "God did it". The theological danger to this is that gaps close. If you observe what has happened historically you find the "God did it" explanation going away as we learn more. This is theologically dangerous ground.
The more theologically sophisticated accept that God is responsible for our natural world but that his involvment doesn't stoop to tingering with it here and there. In this view God was able to create a universe that allowed for life to arise when the conditions were right. His structuring of the laws of that universe were such that not only could living things arise but also self-aware (God like?) living things could arise.
The topic of this thread is "evolution" not the origin of life. That we know a lot about. There is no gap there to squeeze a god into.
You say you are a "creationist". However you should be careful of that term. When it is not qualified it tends to mean someone who is a biblical literalists. A "fundie" for short. These folk claim a 6,000 year old earth, a global flood and that everything is wrong with most of modern science. These "gaps" have already been closed.
[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-09-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by burntdaisy622, posted 02-09-2004 11:07 AM burntdaisy622 has not replied

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 111 of 126 (84764)
02-09-2004 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by burntdaisy622
02-09-2004 11:07 AM


Do you know how many scientists have set out to prove that creation is false and have ended up becoming some of the most devout christians? C.S. Lewis, Josh McDowel for example. Try reading "Mere Christianity" by Lewis or McDowel's "Case For Christ."
Not to be nitpicky, but "Case for Christ" was written by Strobel, not McDowel. Strobel wasn't a scientist, but a journalist. His book shows how NOT to be a good reporter.

Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by burntdaisy622, posted 02-09-2004 11:07 AM burntdaisy622 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by PaulK, posted 02-10-2004 3:16 AM Asgara has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 112 of 126 (84765)
02-09-2004 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by burntdaisy622
02-09-2004 11:07 AM


burntdaisy622,
Can evolutionists show that Creation never happend?
Can you prove fairies never did it? No? It's a totally meaningless proposition sans evidence, then. Can you PROVE I didn't fart the earth out after a curry? No? What value do you think we should place on such explanations, then?
The point is that "creation" makes direct predictions, especially when accompanied by a flood. Evolution does too, but its predictions are borne out, creations aren't.
Please explain why the correlation of ordering of potentially multiple lineages in a cladogram matches evolutionary predictions to the tune of 5.68*10^323:1......
568,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 : 1 ....chance of 300 cladograms only enjoying a 60% (as opposed to a 75% corroboration with stratigraphy).
of it occurring by chance.
So, you see your problem, no one has to falsify your claim, you have to support it.
Look at your little finger, imagine an atom in it, imagine an electron in that atom. The odds of the evolutionary expectation being what they are, are all of the electrons in the known universe : 1 of that happening.
Evolution happened, mate.
Mark
[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-09-2004]

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by burntdaisy622, posted 02-09-2004 11:07 AM burntdaisy622 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 113 of 126 (84930)
02-10-2004 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Asgara
02-09-2004 3:33 PM


And neither C. S. Lewis nor Josh McDowell were scientists. And indeed Lewis never even claimed to be trying to disprove the Bible - his conversion back to Christianity was for other reasons entirely (as "Burntdaisy" would know if he or she had actually read _Mere Christianity_).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Asgara, posted 02-09-2004 3:33 PM Asgara has not replied

  
Rc2000
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 126 (89166)
02-27-2004 11:01 PM


Been trying to take in all this. Read over a good bit. Not sure though if this has been mentioned.
I don't know a lot about science, gnomes, DNA and all the stuff ya'll have been talking about.
So, whether it makes sense or not, I'll throw this out and see how bad it gets ripped up.
Long story short--- God created life and it was perfect. After the 'fall' in Eden, things became imperfect and went the way of nature instead of the supernatural perfection it started out with.
Then, in this natural state, evolution, mutation, adaptation, whatever, became possible.
I can't prove it no more than anyone can absolutely without a doubt prove creation and/or evolution. At least from what I can figure. It's just an idea that helps me make some sense of living things. Being able to prove or disprove either or a degree in genetics, astronomy, etc isn't a prerequisite to believing in God and his handywork.
But, He did give us a mind to use and free will. We have the right and obligation to question things and not fall for the latest fad that comes along.
Oh, ya'll lost me on a lot of stuff waaaaaaaay back, but it was very interesting trying to make sense of it. I need to go back over this stuff later when I have more time.
Rc

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by NosyNed, posted 02-27-2004 11:46 PM Rc2000 has not replied
 Message 116 by NosyNed, posted 02-27-2004 11:46 PM Rc2000 has replied
 Message 120 by Brian, posted 02-28-2004 10:05 AM Rc2000 has replied

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


Message 115 of 126 (89178)
02-27-2004 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Rc2000
02-27-2004 11:01 PM


I don't know a lot about science, gnomes, DNA and all the stuff ya'll have been talking about.
Then you have no right what so ever on the validity of the statments science makes. You actually have to know what you are talking about before you can start to critize.
I can't prove it no more than anyone can absolutely without a doubt prove creation and/or evolution.
This depends on what you mean by all of "prove", "without a doubt" and both "creation" and "evolution".
It is entirly possible to demonstrate that a YEC creation scenario is false (or you have to believe in a God as prankster). That is easier than proving something 'absolutely true'. That, by itself, doesn't prove any alternative true, of course.
See the "evolution as fact and theory" thread to understand that evolution as "fact" is provable beyond any reasonable doubt. The "how" part is less "provable" but is clearly correct beyond any reasonable doubt also.
Being able to prove or disprove either or a degree in genetics, astronomy, etc isn't a prerequisite to believing in God and his handywork.
But, He did give us a mind to use and free will. We have the right and obligation to question things and not fall for the latest fad that comes along.
Believing in God (of some types) is not an issue of science. So you are right it isn't something that genetics or astronomy disproves or proves.
He did give us a mind and a lot of evidence for us to figure out how he did things. The current scientific consensus in biology, geology and physics is in no way a "fad". Only a deep ignorance could possible lead someone to think that for a minute.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Rc2000, posted 02-27-2004 11:01 PM Rc2000 has not replied

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


Message 116 of 126 (89179)
02-27-2004 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Rc2000
02-27-2004 11:01 PM


I don't know a lot about science, gnomes, DNA and all the stuff ya'll have been talking about.
Then you have no right what so ever on the validity of the statments science makes. You actually have to know what you are talking about before you can start to critize.
I can't prove it no more than anyone can absolutely without a doubt prove creation and/or evolution.
This depends on what you mean by all of "prove", "without a doubt" and both "creation" and "evolution".
It is entirly possible to demonstrate that a YEC creation scenario is false (or you have to believe in a God as prankster). That is easier than proving something 'absolutely true'. That, by itself, doesn't prove any alternative true, of course.
See the "evolution as fact and theory" thread to understand that evolution as "fact" is provable beyond any reasonable doubt. The "how" part is less "provable" but is clearly correct beyond any reasonable doubt also.
Being able to prove or disprove either or a degree in genetics, astronomy, etc isn't a prerequisite to believing in God and his handywork.
But, He did give us a mind to use and free will. We have the right and obligation to question things and not fall for the latest fad that comes along.
Believing in God (of some types) is not an issue of science. So you are right it isn't something that genetics or astronomy disproves or proves.
He did give us a mind and a lot of evidence for us to figure out how he did things. The current scientific consensus in biology, geology and physics is in no way a "fad". Only a deep ignorance could possible lead someone to think that for a minute.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Rc2000, posted 02-27-2004 11:01 PM Rc2000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Rc2000, posted 02-28-2004 5:57 AM NosyNed has replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 117 of 126 (89180)
02-28-2004 12:04 AM


Thread moved here from the The Great Debate forum.

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 118 of 126 (89183)
02-28-2004 12:05 AM


Thread moved here from the The Great Debate forum.

  
Rc2000
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 126 (89220)
02-28-2004 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by NosyNed
02-27-2004 11:46 PM


Understood. It would take a long time for me to be able to enter in this like several of the others have. Best to find something at my level. (grin)
The current scientific consensus in biology, geology and physics is in no way a "fad".
Oh, slight misunderstanding. By fad, I meant pseudo science (I think that's what it's called) and not established science.
Rc

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by NosyNed, posted 02-27-2004 11:46 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by NosyNed, posted 02-28-2004 10:48 AM Rc2000 has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 120 of 126 (89246)
02-28-2004 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Rc2000
02-27-2004 11:01 PM


Perfect?
Hi, nice to meet you.
Just a quick question.
Long story short--- God created life and it was perfect.
Where do you get this information from, and if it is from the Bible, can you tell me where in the Bible that life was created as 'perfect'?
Thank you.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Rc2000, posted 02-27-2004 11:01 PM Rc2000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Rc2000, posted 02-28-2004 2:47 PM Brian has replied

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


Message 121 of 126 (89256)
02-28-2004 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Rc2000
02-28-2004 5:57 AM


Sorry
Of course, and there is a lot of pseudo-science floating around. Most of it obviously silly but some a bit more subtle. I suppose at the fringes it blends into real science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Rc2000, posted 02-28-2004 5:57 AM Rc2000 has not replied

  
Rc2000
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 126 (89270)
02-28-2004 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Brian
02-28-2004 10:05 AM


Re: Perfect?
Hi,
Well, in Genesis God created living things and said they were good. Seems to me that God wouldn't create anything that was imperfect or corrupted at that time.
To get into something this deep, I'd need to be better prepaired. A man's gotta know his limitations.
Rc

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Brian, posted 02-28-2004 10:05 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Yaro, posted 02-28-2004 3:11 PM Rc2000 has replied
 Message 125 by Brian, posted 02-29-2004 5:58 AM Rc2000 has replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 123 of 126 (89276)
02-28-2004 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Rc2000
02-28-2004 2:47 PM


Soooooo....
Well, in Genesis God created living things and said they were good. Seems to me that God wouldn't create anything that was imperfect or corrupted at that time.
...*cough*... Satan.... *cough*...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Rc2000, posted 02-28-2004 2:47 PM Rc2000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Rc2000, posted 02-28-2004 6:34 PM Yaro has not replied

  
Rc2000
Inactive Member


Message 124 of 126 (89301)
02-28-2004 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Yaro
02-28-2004 3:11 PM


Re: Soooooo....
Sounds like a subject for another topic. (grin)
Rc

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Yaro, posted 02-28-2004 3:11 PM Yaro 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