Any young earth creationists out there?

  • Thread starter Thread starter semper_catholicus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gorgias said:
We don’t have to get into a debate about ‘evolution’ to address @Glark’s point here, though. His claim is that one interpretation of the Bible (a literalistic one) informs us that the earth is about 6000 years old, based on the genealogies in the OT.
Click to expand...
No, you’re wrong; that’s not my claim at all. I believe the “six days” of creation occurred 6000-10,000 years ago. But Scripture says the earth was created BEFORE the “six days”, which means the earth could be much older.
 
Someone may be reading the debates in these forums…😀

Arizona Moves to Alter Wording About Evolution in Education
Proposed changes to the state’s school science standards would emphasize that parts of the theory are “not proven.”

www.the-scientist.com

Arizona Moves to Alter Wording About Evolution in Education

Proposed changes to the state’s school science standards would emphasize that parts of the theory are “not proven.”
www.the-scientist.com www.the-scientist.com
 
Last edited:
Dan123 said:
Thousands of years is literally nothing in terms of what it takes to cause larger changes.
Click to expand...
Animal and plant breeding by humans can be considered a huge experiment that has been in progress for thousands of years and involved millions of participants. Its results - which are empirical evidence - suggest creatures are genetically limited to reproducing according to their kinds.

Which experiment that has lasted thousands of years and involved millions of participants has provided empirical evidence that “kinds” can evolve into different “kinds” (macroevolution)?
 
Last edited:
Dan123 said:
Why not? Depends on how you define kinds doesn’t it? Humans are great apes, is human the kind or is ape the kind? Homonids are primates, is hominid the kind or is primate the kind? Primates are mammal, is primates the kind or is ‘mammals’ the kind?
Click to expand...
If the kind boundary can’t be crossed, how did the mammal kind evolve form the dinosaur kind?

Besides that, the term “according to their kind” suggests stasis, the opposite of evolution.
 
Suggests to you maybe. Someone who believed evolution might just say your interpretation was wrong.

I don’t know if the ‘kind’ boundary can or can’t be crossed until we agree what a kind is.
 
Dan123 said:
Abiogenesis is literally a practically new frontier of science, so no there’s no generally accepted ideas on how this happened.
Click to expand...
That’s not the point. The scientific community generally accepts that life arose naturally from inanimate matter. An explanation of how it happened isn’t a prerequisite for holding this belief - just belief in evolution isn’t dependent on an explanation or evidence.
A mathematical model yes, no scientist is claiming it as more than that.
Click to expand...
Their assumption is: Life can arise without God - all it needs to get going are the right conditions and a little luck.
 
Dan123 said:
There’s another thread here asking how we determine or measure design, if you know how please contribute because we’re all stumped
Click to expand...
I need to know how to determine or measure design to know that a log cabin was designed and not a fluke of nature?

If a machine can build itself, can you give an example?
 
A theistic evolutionist can easily “deal” with a Scripture like this by pulling out the “symbolic language” card. In this way, the entire Bible can effectively be ignored.
 
Glark said:
I need to know how to determine or measure design to know that a log cabin was designed and not a fluke of nature?
Click to expand...
Not at all. Is a beach designed? Is a tree designed? Is the moon designed? We know how log cabins come about, we’ve seen it happen, some of us may have created them ourselves. They contain patterns of architecture consistent with the types of buildings human beings of a certain development level use. But most specifically, they contrast heavily with nature. We recognize their artificial design specifically because they look completely different from nature. So how do we recognize design in nature, we need a different point of comparison.
 
buffalo said:
Proposed changes to the state’s school science standards would emphasize that parts of the theory are “not proven.”
Click to expand...
As far as I know, the only parts of the theory that are proven are 1) mutations occur, 2) natural selection occurs. The remainder of the theory is conjecture, and so isn’t worth teaching.
 
Just look at those 'faces" on Mt. Rushmore. They look designed, but …

A living cell is in effect, a very complex machine. Complex machines are designed - unless you can give me an example of one that isn’t.
 
Last edited:
Glark said:
Just look at those 'faces" on Mt. Rushmore. They look designed, but …
Click to expand...
So to be clear, no one designed the mountains themselves, only the faces?
Glark said:
A living cell is in effect, a very complex machine. Complex machines are designed - unless you can give me an example of one that isn’t.
Click to expand...
Analogies to systems that don’t include self replication and mutation are never going to work. If there’s no valid analogy that doesn’t justify comparing them to something without those traits. Otherwise you’re just choosing what to compare it to as a way to demonstrate your existing conclusion. They aren’t machines any more than machines are living creatures.
 
Last edited:
Glark said:
I have never claimed such a thing.
Click to expand...
I never claimed that you ever claimed that the church ever claimed that scripture ever claimed that it was to be taken literally…
Glark said:
Animal and plant breeding by humans can be considered a huge experiment that has been in progress for thousands of years and involved millions of participants. Its results - which are empirical evidence - suggest creatures are genetically limited to reproducing according to their kinds.
Click to expand...
No they don’t. For ‘thousands of years’, ‘millions of people’ have been breeding ‘better’ forms of domestic animals to serve domestic purposes. They have not been experimenting with evolution.
Glark said:
Which experiment that has lasted thousands of years and involved millions of participants has provided empirical evidence that “kinds” can evolve into different “kinds” (macroevolution)?
Click to expand...
The fossil record suggests that God has been doing exactly that.
Glark said:
Besides that, the term “according to their kind” suggests stasis, the opposite of evolution.
Click to expand...
Only if you are a biblical literalist. Buffalo, for example, thinks that there were only a few dozen ‘kinds’, of which all the millions of different subsequent species are mere adaptations. To me, this is macro-evolution on a grand scale.
Glark said:
Their assumption is: Life can arise without God - all it needs to get going are the right conditions and a little luck.
Click to expand...
Some people’s assumption is that, I agree; however, most of the Scientists posting on this thread think that God was responsible for the conditions from which abiogenesis arose.
Glark said:
I need to know how to determine or measure design to know that a log cabin was designed and not a fluke of nature?
Click to expand...
A log cabin is no more designed than a bird’s nest. And no less.
Glark said:
The vast majority of evolutionary and abiogenesis scientists are - unsurprisingly - rabid atheists.
Click to expand...
I have met several atheists, but only one person with rabies. The rabid person was a devout Hindu.
Glark said:
Why not? Charles Darwin did.
Click to expand...
Not the one I’m thinking of.
Glark said:
A theistic evolutionist can easily “deal” with a Scripture like this by pulling out the “symbolic language” card. In this way, the entire Bible can effectively be ignored.
Click to expand...
Hey, you never got back to me on this. Who said, earlier in this thread: "A Catholic ought to be able to use the CCC as a faithful and comprehensive guide to what a Catholic can believe, yet it states that Genesis is written in figurative language. Where is the part that informs an uninformed reader … that a literal interpretation is also permitted?”
Glark said:
Just look at those 'faces" on Mt. Rushmore. They look designed
Click to expand...
Are you claiming that the faces on Mr Rushmore are machines? I’m all confused now…
 
Last edited:
Dan123 said:
how do we recognize design in nature
Click to expand...
How about:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

There’s a lot more where this came from.
Hugh_Farey said:
Are you claiming that the faces on Mr Rushmore are machines? I’m all confused now…
Click to expand...
The view would be that Mount Rushmore has clearly been formed with intent by a causal agent, and it is nothing in terms of complexity compared to what we find in nature, with living organisms actually being transcendent to the reality of simple molecules.

I’m pretty sure everyone here has noticed how we get used to things very quickly. I remember getting ten bucks as a kid and thinking I was rich. It’s never enough. Something similar is at work here. In today’s Gospel reading, from Matthew 10, we read:
“Let the children come to me; do not prevent them, for the Kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Amen, I say to you, whoever does not accept the Kingdom of God like a child will not enter it.” Then he embraced the children and blessed them, placing his hands on them.
Click to expand...
For the purposes of this thread, this can be interpreted in terms of their being a source of wonder, existing as they do in a brand new relationship with the world. We can stop seeing what is before our eyes. Just look at all this wonder. Random mutations? Natural selection? Give me a break!
 
Dan123 said:
So to be clear, no one designed the mountains themselves, only the faces?

2a8d961f568f16aaff357af941f83f4f53facf6c.png
Glark:
Click to expand...
They could be designed as all of creation is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top