Can any creationist tell me ...

[dad1]

In 1859 The Origin of Species hit the stands, and most scientists and thoughtful people were very rapidly persuaded by the power of its arguments and demonstrations.

Though creationism never wholly went away after 1859, it was greatly overshadowed until, in 1961 Whitcomb and Morris published The Genesis Flood, and, particularly in the US, put enthusiasm into the bible literalists' cause again. The book also marks the birth of 'creation science'.

I address this question to creationists here:

If, as creationists say,

─ the theory of evolution is truly wrong, and

─ 'creation science' is valid science

then why, in the 56 years since The Genesis Flood, has creationism put not one single scientific mark, not the tiniest scientific scratch, on the theory of Evolution?

Why has it put no mark on Mohammedanism? Why expect your religion to get marked?

 

[blü 2]

Why has it put no mark on Mohammedanism? Why expect your religion to get marked?

Are you saying that the Theory of Evolution is a religion? If said by the follower of a religion, that would be a self-demeaning tu quoque, no? ("I may be in the gutter but so are you!' sort of thing.)

But I wasn't aware that 'creation science' had declared Islam to be its sworn enemy. It's the theory of evolution that 'creation science' inveighs against, yet after more than 50 years they haven't got beyond snarl and spit.

Or are you saying something else again?

 

[Faithofchristian]

At first Charles Darwin, went at evolution as one species evolving from another, until later on in his life, he discovered that there had to be a greater power behind every living form of life.

There are some things that people do not know about Charles Darwin. That as a kid growing up, his father was a minister.

And as his daughter wrote about her father Charles Darwin, that in his personal life he was studying to be a minister himself.

Then as Charles Darwin started to Rican on his theory of evolution later in his life, that nothing happens by chance, that there is a greater power behind everything.

But there were people who had money laying on everything that Charles Darwin taught, that those people took Charles Darwin to court and had him committed into a insane Asylum, there Charles Darwin would be interviewed by a reporter, which was published in the Readers digest in 1972.
Then not much longer afterwards Charles Darwin died at the age of 80yrs or so.

It's all there in the biography of Charles Darwin.

 

[blü 2]

At first Charles Darwin, went at evolution as one species evolving from another, until later on in his life, he discovered that there had to be a greater power behind every living form of life.

The important thing is the power of his theory of evolution, which greatly enlarged the interest in discovering more of the facts of evolution, and has proved such a sound base for the modern form of the theory.

But there were people who had money laying on everything that Charles Darwin taught, that those people took Charles Darwin to court and had him committed into a insane Asylum

If you're not referring to his trying 'hydrotherapy', or to his correspondence with the gardener of the Hampshire Asylum at Knowle, neither of which called his sanity into question, you might find it informative to explore your claim further, with a view to verifying or rejecting it independently of the Readers Digest.

 

[Faithofchristian]

The important thing is the power of his theory of evolution, which greatly enlarged the interest in discovering more of the facts of evolution, and has proved such a sound base for the modern form of the theory.
If you're not referring to his trying 'hydrotherapy', or to his correspondence with the gardener of the Hampshire Asylum at Knowle, neither of which called his sanity into question, you might find it informative to explore your claim further, with a view to verifying or rejecting it independently of the Readers Digest.

It's not only what the Readers digest reported, but also what his daughter wrote in about her father's biography.

This how it became to be known, that in Charles Darwin personal life he was studying to become a minister. By what his daughter wrote about her father.

 

[blü 2]

It's not only what the Readers digest reported, but also what his daughter wrote in about her father's biography.

This how it became to be known, that in Charles Darwin personal life he was studying to become a minister. By what his daughter wrote about her father.

Thanks. I'll check it out.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Thanks. I'll check it out.

Over the years since back to 1972-73, i was around 22-23 years of age, I was in my doctors office, and found the Readers digest laying there, about Charles Darwin, I read the Article.
But over the years my only regret that I didn't ask the receptionist at my doctors office, if I could haved it or buy that Readers digest from them.

But i went to libraries, even did alot of checking on the internet, but with no luck.
Seeing I didn't have the exact month or year, all I know is what I remember is I wasn't married at the time until 1974. And I knew me and my wife at the time, were only dating.
But I did come across on the internet about Charles Darwin daughter and to what she had written about her father in her biography of her father.

Thank you

 

[blü 2]

But i went to libraries, even did alot of checking on the internet, but with no luck.

Have you considered that it might not have been a correct report? I'd certainly never heard of it, and a quick click around the net didn't turn up anything.

 

[gnostic]

Once again Lemaitre and Planck's theories were considered faith based at one time also- arguably a pretty productive basis as it turns out!

But can we at least agree to put all that aside- that we should follow the evidence wherever it leads- no matter the implications of it?

aka the scientific method, or how would you define that?

Once again, you are completely ignoring that Lemaître did not contribute to the expanding universe model (later the Big Bang model), nor was he the earliest.

The Russian theoretical physicist, Alexander Friedmann, thought of it, in 1922, 5 years before Lemaître's Hypothesis of the Primeval Atom (1927).

And also 2 years before Lemaître, in 1925, the American physicist, Howard Percy Robertson, came up with his own expanding universe model, as well as predicting using the redshift to determine if the galaxies were moving away from each other, which Edwin Hubble confirmed in 1929.

All 3 physicists had independently predicted the expanding universe model, using General Relativity as the framework for their respective models.

What is remarkable that such ideas came so soon after Hubble using the Hooker Telescope, that the Milky Way is only just one of many other galaxies out there. The discoveries that the Andromeda and Triangulum galaxie, not nebulae, separate from the Milky Way, was observable evidences that the universe was much larger than the Milky Way.

Friedmann, Robertson and Hubble were the earliest advocates for expanding universe model, not just Lemaître, and they are 3 known atheists.

But the expanding universe model or the Big Bang model isn't about theism vs atheism, it was just physics and astronomy. It had nothing to do with one man's religion or God; it was just about the science.

Lemaître was an important contributor to the BB model, but so were Friedmann, Robertson and Arthur Geoffrey Walker (Robertson's partner in the 1930s).

And in 1948, George Gamow, Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman were responsible for extending the Big Bang further than Lemaître, with the Hot Big Bang model, the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) and the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR).

Without Gamow and Alpher, Lemaître's model would have become stagnant. CMBR was the biggest evidence of the universe expanding, from a hotter and denser beginning. It (CMBR) was not discovered until 1964 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson.

Albert Einstein actually didn't like Lemaître's model (1927), and came up with his own cosmology model (spherical and static universe). Brilliant as Einstein was, It was Robertson's peer review that made Einstein withdrew his model.

You shouldn't ignore history, as you have repeatedly done, @Guy Threepwood .

 

[dad1]

Are you saying that the Theory of Evolution is a religion?

Of course.

If said by the follower of a religion, that would be a self-demeaning tu quoque, no? ("I may be in the gutter but so are you!' sort of thing.)

Not all religions are equal. Also when a belief system presents itself as actual knowledge or science, tat is evil.

But I wasn't aware that 'creation science' had declared Islam to be its sworn enemy.

Who said it was?

It's the theory of evolution that 'creation science' inveighs against, yet after more than 50 years they haven't got beyond snarl and spit.

There is not really any creation science. Strawman.

 

[Polymath257]

Of course.
Not all religions are equal. Also when a belief system presents itself as actual knowledge or science, tat is evil.

So creation 'science' is evil?

There is not really any creation science. Strawman.

Thank you! It's time that someone actually admits this! Creationists don't have their views because of science. Rather, they have them in *spite* of science.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Nothing in Evolution theory goes against creationism in Islam. God is the who and Science tells us the how. Nothing random, and nothing by chance, all of it planned and designed.

The thing that bothers me about this notion is that it implies that all the seeming "accidents" of DNA replication, of geographic changes (mountain forming, earthquakes, floods, and whatever else leads to separation of populations encouraging evolution) seems to imply that God indeeds controls everything -- and at an extremely detailed level.

What this means, of course, is that you personally control none of it -- not even yourself. And therefore you deserve no praise, nor any censure. Neither does anybody else, for we none of us could have any possibility of choice. (Because, you see, a human squashing a bug, or building a wall, or digging a ditch, has the potential to impact how evolution turns out very locally -- which over time can lead to more far-reaching effects.) If you think God controls it all, then you control NOTHING, and are therefore neither worthy nor guilty. You're just another piece on God's board game, moved as he sees fit, along with everything else.

 

[blü 2]

Of course.
Not all religions are equal. Also when a belief system presents itself as actual knowledge or science, tat is evil.

So reasoning honestly and transparently about nature from examinable evidence and repeatable experiment is 'religion', you say? None of my dictionaries agrees with you, but, whatever turns you on.

Who said it was?

You appeared to imply it with your mention of Islam.

There is not really any creation science.

You can say that again!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

There is not really any creation science.

You can say that again!

And well said to you, sir.

 

[dad1]

So reasoning honestly and transparently about nature from examinable evidence and repeatable experiment is 'religion', you say?

No. When talking about the early history of mankind on earth, we are likely not dealing with nature as it is today. So you can't examine it. Prove the state of the past was the same or you may not model the past based on that premise. Period.

You appeared to imply it with your mention of Islam.

Maybe cite the quote so I can see what context was there.

 

[blü 2]

No. When talking about the early history of mankind on earth, we are likely not dealing with nature as it is today. So you can't examine it. Prove the state of the past was the same or you may not model the past based on that premise. Period.

I infer from your statement that you have no idea whether you had great-grandparents or not.

 

[Faithofchristian]

In the thread it's asks, "Can any creationist tell me..."
First of all your not being Pacific on what you want to know.
So it could be just about anything. Unless people know exactly what it is your asking and wanting to know.

 

[blü 2]

In the thread it's asks, "Can any creationist tell me..."
First of all your not being Pacific on what you want to know.
So it could be just about anything. Unless people know exactly what it is your asking and wanting to know.

My question is set in this background.

In 1961 Whitcombe and Morris published The Genesis Flood, breathing fresh life into creationism and creating the idea of 'creation science'.

In particular, creationists repeatedly deny the correctness of the theory of evolution.

Yet in the time between 1961 and now, 56 years or so, 'creation science' has made not a single scientific scratch on the theory of evolution, not one reasoned criticism that has required the theory to be amended in any way, let alone invalidated it.

So my question is this: if creationism is correct about the theory of evolution, what accounts for the complete failure of 'creation science' to demonstrate any scientific flaw in the theory of evolution at all?

Although they've had over half a century to do so?

 

[Faithofchristian]

Let's start with the Creation Science of Evolution.

They do the same thing as those of the Creationists of Genesis do.

In Genesis Chapter 1 verse 1, It reads " In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
It does not say when God created the heaven and the earth. Only in the beginning when ever that was.

Notice after earth. There's a period indicating that nothing more to be said Period.
Back before Periods were added at the end of a sentence, people would leave a big blank between two sentences to indicate the end of one sentence and the beginning of another sentence.
But now we indicate the end of a sentence by putting a Period at the end of a sentence.
As it is in Genesis Chapter 1 verse 1 to indicate nothing more to be done or said Period.
That now in Genesis 1:1 we read In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth Period.
So the question arises when was the beginning ?
Seeing the earth was already here?

If we look at Verse 2 "And the earth was without form, and void"
Notice the word ( was ) According to the Greek translation the word ( was ) means (became) without form and void,"

So the question is, What happen that the earth became without form and void?

Now why would a Almighty God create the earth without form and void?
The Almighty God did not create the earth that way, the earth became without form and void.
If something became in such a way, that means it wasn't always that way, Right.
That something happened that it became without form and void?

Therefore throughout the scriptures God tells what happened to the earth what happened that the earth became without form and void.

Now ask yourself this question, the earth means dry land.
Now why would the Almighty God create the earth and then cover the earth with water, and then come cause the dry land to appear, which the earth, dry land was already there, then put the water to cover the whole earth, then come and cause the dry land appear.which the dry land was there to begin with and putting the water in it's rightful place it is now.
Why not just to do it right from the beginning and have it done with, than create the earth and then cover it with water, and then come and have the dry appear which was there in the first place?

Therefore leads to the creation science of Evolution and the creationist of Genesis's.

Which both can't explain how if the earth as being 6000 yrs old, but then the Dinosaurs bones stands there in the way, as being Millions of yrs old.

But both the Creation Science of Evolution and the Creationists of Genesis's account, keep referring to the earth as being 6000 yrs old.
That they both just can't get pass that the earth is not 6000 yrs old, but Millions of yrs old, If not Billions of yrs old

 

[Looncall]

No. When talking about the early history of mankind on earth, we are likely not dealing with nature as it is today. So you can't examine it. Prove the state of the past was the same or you may not model the past based on that premise. Period.

Maybe cite the quote so I can see what context was there.

Stuff and nonsense. You have been fed lies by con artists.

The past leaves traces in the present. So far, nothing has been found that indicates any such changes in the working of the world back into deep time.