Evolution and Creationism: because ...

[Brian Schuh]

How did Israel manage that? I'm thinking Dutch hydrologic engineers...

Brian, there's a great deal of evidence from multiple disciplines pointing to an Old Earth, where do you come up with this Young Earth stuff? How do you explain away the evidence of great age?

First of all, let me give you one that is obvious and you probably already heard it. Carbon dating. About how long it takes for something to decay. I'm not even close to a physicist. Now how do you know how much carbon was in that rock when God created it? God could have created any amount of carbon in that rock he wanted.

 

[Brian Schuh]

I am not trying to prove that God created the universe. Rather, that is my premise. I'm actually not trying to prove anything. Evolutionists are trying to debunk the idea that God created everything, and one of their premises is that God didn't create the universe. It is easy to prove your conclusion, if your conclusion is one of your starting premises. So I just feel that since I'm not trying to prove anything, that the burden of proof is on the evolutionist. One must make a lot of assumptions before he even starts to carbon date something. That is just one example.

 

[McBell]

I am not trying to prove that God created the universe. Rather, that is my premise. I'm actually not trying to prove anything. Evolutionists are trying to debunk the idea that God created everything, and one of their premises is that God didn't create the universe. It is easy to prove your conclusion, if your conclusion is one of your starting premises. So I just feel that since I'm not trying to prove anything, that the burden of proof is on the evolutionist. One must make a lot of assumptions before he even starts to carbon date something. That is just one example.

*yawn*
You back peddle pretty well.

However, i am still wondering why you think that poking holes in evolution is evidence of creation.
The fact of the matter is that even if you proved beyond all shadow of doubt that evolution is completely 110% false, it reveals absolutely nothing about the truth of creation.

 

[metis]

What do you mean by-- "the Truth"? What is-- "the Truth"? Pontius Pilate asked this of Jesus when Jesus pulled the same stunt. "The Truth." The truth about what? The truth about whether evolution is true or not? Why is it so goddam important to know whether evolution is true or not? There are other truths that are much more important. How is that a wrong path? How is it a path at all? Evolution vs. Creation has no relevance to my path. Therefore "the Truth" about that debate has no affect on my life. I just find it fun to discuss.

So Jesus, before I execute you, tell me, what is "the Truth"?

Since both science and religion are attempts to ascertain the truth, whatever that may be, and even though their approaches are not the same, nevertheless they cannot logically conflict without one or both being incorrect. Therefore, when one cites misinformation about science that is known not to be true, and yet they try and justify it on the basis of their religious beliefs, then those beliefs are likely to be erroneous at least in part. For it to be the other way around, namely that the entire ToE is wrong, cannot be correct because it's been confirmed over and over and over again.

The ToE is a known entity in science whether you want to believe it or not, so what in essence you are doing is using religion as a set of blinders. I used to be a victim of that as well, as I previously mentioned, and it's only through doing real research, not using pseudo-scientific sources as you've been citing examples from, whereas you can begin to understand how your church is misleading you. I've seen this many times before, and I experienced it for myself. And if is intentionally misleading in this area, what other areas might it also be misleading you?

Evolution is important because it is the basis of modern biology, including in the field of medicine, plus it's also important because of its mindset that does its best to eliminate bias and seek objectively-derived evidence. If one does not use the scientific method to the fullest, then it is no longer science, plus the odds increase that one might be slipping back into medieval superstition.

 

[metis]

Evolutionists are trying to debunk the idea that God created everything, and one of their premises is that God didn't create the universe.

False. Science basically says nothing on the issue as to whether there's a god, gods, or none of the above. Nor does the ToE discount the possibility of there being a god or gods.

BTW, exactly how do you supposedly know that it's "God" and not "Gods"?

 

[metis]

First of all, let me give you one that is obvious and you probably already heard it. Carbon dating. About how long it takes for something to decay. I'm not even close to a physicist. Now how do you know how much carbon was in that rock when God created it? God could have created any amount of carbon in that rock he wanted.

How much carbon is not that important when it comes to C-14 dating-- it's the level of radioactivity in the carbon that's important.

BTW, notice your assumptions above: you say "God created it", which begs the question how could you possibly know that? Were you there when this supposedly happened? Are you sure it was "God" who did it? Could it have been "Gods"?

See, what you are doing is jumping from one assumption to another and then claiming that known scientific evidence, such as with the ToE, is wrong, and you can't seem to see own your inconsistency here. Science is not based on assumptions-- it's based on objectively-derived evidence. Religion is not based on scientifically-derived evidence-- it's based on assumptions ("belief"/"faith") that needs know evidence.

 

[12jtartar]

Metis,
You are rather comical yourself, as it seems that you do not realize that what is called science today, is just what is known today, tomorrow the science that men knows will change as he finds more and more he did not know. Every time science gets a little more powerful telescope, he finds that his understanding needs to be revised. The same with the research with the microscope, as men find more and more of the things that make up matter, atoms,etc.
How foolish it is to refuse to believe the One who is Perfect in Knowledge, and NEVER needs to change, Job 36:4, 37:16, 40:8. Do you really think that man knows more about creation than the Creator of ALL things??? The One who's thinking ability, when compared to man's is like the space from one end of the heavens to the other end, Isaiah 55:8,9.
Should any man who knows so very little, contend withe The Almighty???Job 40:2.

 

[metis]

Metis,
You are rather comical yourself, as it seems that you do not realize that what is called science today, is just what is known today, tomorrow the science that men knows will change as he finds more and more he did not know. Every time science gets a little more powerful telescope, he finds that his understanding needs to be revised. The same with the research with the microscope, as men find more and more of the things that make up matter, atoms,etc.
How foolish it is to refuse to believe the One who is Perfect in Knowledge, and NEVER needs to change, Job 36:4, 37:16, 40:8. Do you really think that man knows more about creation than the Creator of ALL things??? The One who's thinking ability, when compared to man's is like the space from one end of the heavens to the other end, Isaiah 55:8,9.
Should any man who knows so very little, contend withe The Almighty???Job 40:2.

Again, much like Brian, your approach above is loaded with assumptions, which is not science.

Secondly, by continuous use of the scientific method, science make its own corrections over time, which is in reality not a weakness but a strength. Does your religion do that? If you believe so, how does it do that? Can you point to any theological error in your religion that was correct by using objectively-derived evidence?

 

[12jtartar]

Metis,
Very easy to tell which God did this or that!!! There is only ONE TRUE GOD, John 17:3. God, Himself says that He is ONE God, Deuteronomy 6:4, Mark 12:28-3, Galatians 3:20, Jeremiah 10:2-12, 14-16, Isaiah 43:10-12, 44:6,9, 14-17,24, Psalms 115:1-8, 86:8,10, 89:6,7, 95:3, 96:4, 97:7,9. Jehovah God says that He is Almighty, Exodus 6:3. That term is Mutually Exclusive, Only one can be Almighty!!!

 

[12jtartar]

Mestemia,
Do not allow Satan to blind you eyes any longer, 2Corinthians 4:3,4. Anyone with eyes should be able to see that creation is far beyond anything man can do. Man has several branches of science that tries to make some inferior copies of what God created, and then they call him a great designer, but cannot recognize the fact that a much greater designer created the whole universe. The Bible is very insightful when it says that anyone who cannot see God in the creation, is without excuse, Romans 1:16-32.
All of the beginning of creation is based on. Theory that is completely at odds with science. Take The Big Bang for instance. All known laws tell us that, with explosions there is chaos, the bigger the explosion the greater the chaos.
How then can science explain that the heavens are called The Cosmos, because they are completely in harmony. It is funny that other laws they must follow, but when they know no answer it must be designed by Mother Nature. The scientists expect us to believe that somewhere in the distant past things happened that laws of today say are impossible. Science has not even scratched the surface of knowledge of the Universe, and they want ignorant people to believe that they know more than The Almighty, Omniscient God, Exodus 6:3, Job 36:4, 37:16, 40:2,Isaiah 55:8,9.

 

[McBell]

Mestemia,
Do not allow Satan to blind you eyes any longer, 2Corinthians 4:3,4. Anyone with eyes should be able to see that creation is far beyond anything man can do. Man has several branches of science that tries to make some inferior copies of what God created, and then they call him a great designer, but cannot recognize the fact that a much greater designer created the whole universe. The Bible is very insightful when it says that anyone who cannot see God in the creation, is without excuse, Romans 1:16-32.
All of the beginning of creation is based on. Theory that is completely at odds with science. Take The Big Bang for instance. All known laws tell us that, with explosions there is chaos, the bigger the explosion the greater the chaos.
How then can science explain that the heavens are called The Cosmos, because they are completely in harmony. It is funny that other laws they must follow, but when they know no answer it must be designed by Mother Nature. The scientists expect us to believe that somewhere in the distant past things happened that laws of today say are impossible. Science has not even scratched the surface of knowledge of the Universe, and they want ignorant people to believe that they know more than The Almighty, Omniscient God, Exodus 6:3, Job 36:4, 37:16, 40:2,Isaiah 55:8,9.

You have mistaken me for a choir member.
Let me assure you that I am not.

I do, however, find your transference quite comical.

 

[metis]

Metis,
Very easy to tell which God did this or that!!! There is only ONE TRUE GOD, John 17:3. God, Himself says that He is ONE God, Deuteronomy 6:4, Mark 12:28-3, Galatians 3:20, Jeremiah 10:2-12, 14-16, Isaiah 43:10-12, 44:6,9, 14-17,24, Psalms 115:1-8, 86:8,10, 89:6,7, 95:3, 96:4, 97:7,9. Jehovah God says that He is Almighty, Exodus 6:3. That term is Mutually Exclusive, Only one can be Almighty!!!

Just more assumptions built on top of other assumptions, and you obviously didn't answer my questions because we both know that you can't. It is logically impossible to prove there's only one god, plus we both know that objectively-derived evidence is not used in the development nor the correction of your "theology".

 

[SkepticThinker]

Obviously, a dragon and a T Rex don't look alike. That proves my point. Traditionally, pictures made in modern times to illustrate the reptiles in Ireland pictured them as dragons, until a historian found an old manuscript made by one of the actual Irish settlers with sketches of the T Rex. Modern people want to illustrate these old books with pictures of mythological dragons, what modern people believe a dragon should look like. When in actuality, what these early people saw were actual animals, and in this case of an old Irish manusript, it was obviously a T Rex.

Now how is it you missed my point on this before?

This is absurd. Does that mean that leprechauns, fairies, mothmen, gremlins, trolls, mermaids, unicorns, yeti, ghouls, goblins, pokemon and anything else imagined by the human mind, should also be real? I don't understand this line of logic.

 

[Sapiens]

If you think that millions of years and macro-evolution have been proven as fact you have been grossly misled.

We are still waiting for evidence that supports your claim.

1. No. Something has to be absolutely true before I will accept it as truth, however. I guess you and I don't have the same standards for truth.

Absolutely true? Does not exist. Most probable, most likely ... sure, that's available.

2. I have presented several web references. You either missed them or dismissed them out of hand. Your loss, not mine.

No, I looked at them, they are not worth the bandwidth that they burn.

Oh, you mentioned that there are civilizations older than 5776 years ago. I was mentioning Egypt as an example of one of those alleged civilizations. Did you forget what you said?

Already, I have made it clear in this thread that most scientific evidence for evolution doesn't matter. I'll just say, "Sure I agree, life evolved all through time back to when God created life." And then I suggested we move out of the realm of science to history, to see how evolution holds up to history. You are still ignoring the historical record, and you want to talk archaeology now. Okay shoot, tell me the evidence.

Evolution holds up just fine to history. Your problem is that your version of history does not hold up to evolution (and a bunch of other things).

I am not trying to prove that God created the universe. Rather, that is my premise.

Persuppostion of supernatural events is not an attempt to "prove that God created the universe"? We were not born yesterday.

I'm actually not trying to prove anything. Evolutionists are trying to debunk the idea that God created everything, and one of their premises is that God didn't create the universe. It is easy to prove your conclusion, if your conclusion is one of your starting premises. So I just feel that since I'm not trying to prove anything, that the burden of proof is on the evolutionist. One must make a lot of assumptions before he even starts to carbon date something. That is just one example.

Rather a bad example since it is clear that you have no idea of how radiometric dating is done.

Metis,
You are rather comical yourself, as it seems that you do not realize that what is called science today, is just what is known today, tomorrow the science that men knows will change as he finds more and more he did not know. Every time science gets a little more powerful telescope, he finds that his understanding needs to be revised. The same with the research with the microscope, as men find more and more of the things that make up matter, atoms,etc.
How foolish it is to refuse to believe the One who is Perfect in Knowledge, and NEVER needs to change, Job 36:4, 37:16, 40:8. Do you really think that man knows more about creation than the Creator of ALL things??? The One who's thinking ability, when compared to man's is like the space from one end of the heavens to the other end, Isaiah 55:8,9.
Should any man who knows so very little, contend withe The Almighty???Job 40:2.

Have you any arguments that support your claims outside of disputable scripture?

Very easy to tell which God did this or that!!! There is only ONE TRUE GOD, John 17:3. God, Himself says that He is ONE God, Deuteronomy 6:4, Mark 12:28-3, Galatians 3:20, Jeremiah 10:2-12, 14-16, Isaiah 43:10-12, 44:6,9, 14-17,24, Psalms 115:1-8, 86:8,10, 89:6,7, 95:3, 96:4, 97:7,9. Jehovah God says that He is Almighty, Exodus 6:3. That term is Mutually Exclusive, Only one can be Almighty!!!

Wallowing in a tautology does not help your case.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Oh, you mentioned that there are civilizations older than 5776 years ago. I was mentioning Egypt as an example of one of those alleged civilizations. Did you forget what you said?

Erm, no. I gave specific examples of objects which are older than 6 thousand years ago. I didn't mention Egypt, so why do you talk about it?

Already, I have made it clear in this thread that most scientific evidence for evolution doesn't matter.

I wasn't presenting evidence of evolution - I was presenting evidence of human civilization being older than 6 thousand years.

I'll just say, "Sure I agree, life evolved all through time back to when God created life." And then I suggested we move out of the realm of science to history, to see how evolution holds up to history. You are still ignoring the historical record, and you want to talk archaeology now. Okay shoot, tell me the evidence.

I've already presented three archaeological discoveries that pre-date the age of the earth that you have specified.

 

[Shad]

The chronology of ancient Egypt is an example of how nations wanted to make their nation look to have more antiquity than others. So ancient Egyptian historians would add fictional pharaohs to their list. Plus many of these pharaohs ruled jointly. Plus modern scholars have interpreted these writings in such a manner as to lengthen how long the dynasties lasted. What is amazing is that secular people accept these chronologies from Egypt as more accurate than the chronology of the ancient Hebrews, because hey- we're not idiots! we don't believe the bible! But they will jump to believe what the Egyptians said. If you accept that a bunch of Hebrew slaves left Egypt at a certain point in time, then in light of that, one can interpret Egyptian history differently and see it makes more sense. Without citing sources, maybe you can find it in a book "The Bible as History" Moses himself is even mentioned in ancient Egyptian history. So no, I don't believe Egypt predated the year the Hebrews claimed was the Creation. Although I haven't investigated, I suspect that it is pretty much the same with all those other civilizations said to predate the Hebrew year of creation.

You seem to forgets that people do not treat Egyptian chronology as religious doctrine while you do so with the Bible. The age of the Earth you put forward is not based on any science but a flawed chronology put forward centuries ago. You still entertain a false chronology whereas with an Egyptian chronology can, and has been, modified accordingly with new evidence. There are also disagreements regarding the chronology so no experts do not treat it as reliable as a universal view. There are massive gaps in the records especially in the 21st dynasty. Yet there is still a lot of evidence within this gap. This is different from the Bible chronology which has zero evidence outside of the text in it's gaps. The Bible also makes grand claims that have no evidence for such as the conquest of Canaan along with a list of cites destroyed. The grand claims of the Pharaohs are treated with a grain of salt until evidence supports such a claim. I would also point out that Egyptologists do not treat the claims of the supernatural from various Egyptians as fact whereas you treat the Biblical claims of the supernatural as fact. Your methods are completely different from archaeology then you cry foul when others do not follow your presupposition based method as reliable, true or even worth discussing.

The Bible as History is based off of work from the 1940s and before. It is written by a journalist not a historian nor archaeologist. It treats the Shroud of Turin as the real shroud, it isn't.

Moses was not mentioned in Egyptian history at all. You have merely read another story by a layman which has either distorted a name and/or figure as Moses to confirm the Bible, nothing more. A prime example was Egypt's period of monotheism in which people claim Moses was an Atenist priest, a student of Akhenaten or even Akhenaten himself. These ideas have been rejected within archaeology for decades but always turn up when a layman gains information new to them and make a conclusion without reading anything further with Egyptology about the topic.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Evolutionists are trying to debunk the idea that God created everything, and one of their premises is that God didn't create the universe.

Utterly false. Evolution says nothing whatsoever about the existence of Gods, and there are plenty of people who accept evolution while still believing in God. Evolution is categorically NOT atheistic (nor theistic). If you wish to know more, I suggest you read "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth Miller, who is the former head of the Human Genome Project, an outspoken opponent of Intelligent Design, and a practising Roman Catholic.

So I just feel that since I'm not trying to prove anything, that the burden of proof is on the evolutionist.

I hear this a lot. "I'm not trying to prove anything, so I don't have to". Like it or not, logic doesn't work that way. You have made a series of claims, and if you wish for any of us to accept those claims as true, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate them.

One must make a lot of assumptions before he even starts to carbon date something. That is just one example.

Like what?

 

[Shad]

First of all, let me give you one that is obvious and you probably already heard it. Carbon dating. About how long it takes for something to decay. I'm not even close to a physicist. Now how do you know how much carbon was in that rock when God created it? God could have created any amount of carbon in that rock he wanted.

Ad hoc rescue. God put X amount of carbon into the rock to throw off all our dating thus dating is flawed. You can not support this with evidence only presupposition of your religion. You toss up an argument from ignorance, nothing more. Now if applied to your views the evidence you have vaguely mentioned at times also has been dated. Thus this argument undermines your previous arguments. Unless you arbitrarily decide which dating is right and which is wrong. Which is merely confirmation bias and the opinion of a layman, which you admit you are.

 

[Sapiens]

Ad hoc rescue. God put X amount of carbon into the rock to throw off all our dating thus dating is flawed. You can not support this with evidence only presupposition of your religion. You toss up an argument from ignorance, nothing more. Now if applied to your views the evidence you have vaguely mentioned at times also has been dated. Thus this argument undermines your previous arguments. Unless you arbitrarily decide which dating is right and which is wrong. Which is merely confirmation bias and the opinion of a layman, which you admit you are.

It's like the idea that a trickster god made the universe with the light from distant stars already on its way.

 

[Shad]

It's like the idea that a trickster god made the universe with the light from distant stars already on its way.

It shows a God that created a conflict in which blind-faith is put above reason. Contradictory evidence is dismissed, reason undermined and ignored. This is if you grant the chronology based on the Bible is true.