Creationism an Option?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Metaron
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Metaron said:
Your observation of science. We can’t keep saying this, as boths sides claim it. Both Creationism and Evolution are both still theories. Scientists can err. Therefore, what has been considered “proven” is not necessarily over-and-done with. Both Creationist Theory and Evolutionist Theory are both theories. Both are still opened to be questioned, as to their truthfulness.

Someone else could just as well say,
Click to expand...
You are getting horribly mixed up here. Creationism is a metaphysical explanation of an event, the creation of the universe. It’s only evidence is a few bible verses. It stands or falls on that and that alone. It is a hypothesis, with no ability to be tested and which can predict absolutely nothing.

Evolution theory is a time tested explanation of how life evolved on this planet. It started with a hypothesis, which was testable and which has been tested. It explains the evidence of the natural world in a way that so far has held up. It does not mean a theory in the commonly held definition. A scientific theory is more akin and for all intents and purposes in the lay world means fact. Science however never concludes that anything is proven absolutely. You must go the the 1999 NAS report on science and religion wherein they will explain to you what a theory is.

It is not a matter of truthfulness. No one is lying about evolution. There is ongoing research as there is in every single area of science. Thousands of people still study and research and test Einstein’s theories of relativity while dozens of disciplines use his principles every day. We are all the beneficiaries of many advances already gleaned from Einstein, yet the research goes on. Someday his theories may be replaced by others that more perfectly explain physics. The same may be said of Evolution. Yet we use it until something comes alone which is better if that ever happens.

If Creationism offered a better means to explain the facts of nature science would drop evolution in a split second and adopt creationism. That however is not gonna happen since creationism is not a scientific theory…

I sure hope this clears things up a bit for you. I have a good list of science sites all linked directly to evolution, and big bang, and earth age. You should know that a catholic priest is the author of the big bang theory, the one that would be discarded if we were to drop science in favor of a simple religious explanation for how the universe and we came to be.
 
Evolution, as described in biology texts, cannot function. To complete its function, it requires divine providence. Jesus Christ said that “he that made them at the beginning, made them male and female…” (Matthew 19:4). No mention of asexual protozoa. Of course, some people will try to convince you that He wasn’t talking about the period of time mentioned in Genesis.

God bless,
Ed
 
Barbarian, re the claim that there are no transitionals:
Sounds like a testable claim. What do you think a transitional would be like?

Did you know that transitionals predicted over 100 years ago have subsequently been found in the fossil record, and important new ones are found almost every month?

Sure. But first, since you asserted that there are no transitionals, let’s see your definition of the word. I’ll answer your question, you answer mine.

Fair enough?
No, I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything.
Click to expand...
So you are now retracting your claim?
But first, what kind of evolution are we defining?
Click to expand...
There is only one basic theory. Lysenkoism, and Lamarckism, the last two challengers are essentially dead.

If you don’t know what it is, I suggest Ernst Mayr’s “What Evolution Is.”

Meantime, are you sure you want to withdraw the claim that there are no transitionals?
 
Metaron said:
So, if someone disagrees with you, you immediately label them or goup them with fundamentalists instead of using logical argumentation and scientific evidences?
I’ve said this time and time again: NO THROWING THE FUNDAMENTALIST LABEL AROUND ON THIS THREAD or grouping people that believe Creationism with them. It has nothing to do with either proving evolution or proving Creationism, and therefore, does not belong on this thread. It’s a cheap-shot.
Click to expand...
Heavens no, I surely do not. But to argue YEC is to argue creationism. And to argue creationism puts you in league with the great unschooled, mostly unchurched fundamentalists. It is also the interpretation of radical islam. I cannot help it that this is the case. I do recognize how uncomfortable this position may be to you. It remains however, the truth. the Church has spoken quite plainly to those who would use a fundamentalist approach to sctripture. They call such behavior “intellectual suicide” and warn Catholics from it.

I and several of us have submitted tons of links to reputable scientific institutes and to Vatican statements all showing how creationism is not scientific in any regard and that evolution is essentially agreed upon by the last 2 popes and many of its scholars and theologians and scientists themselves. You apparently are very new to this forum or you havent bothered to read the links we’ve all used here extensively over the last 3 months at least.
 
Metaron said:
This has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OP, AND DOESN’T BELONG IN THIS THREAD. Quit name-calling and present evidence for your side.
Click to expand...
My advice would be…if you feel my post which was not directed to you, in some way offends you as not being on point, then I would simply ignore it and move on.
 
edwest2 said:
Evolution, as described in biology texts, cannot function.
Click to expand...
Factually incorrect.
To complete its function, it requires divine providence. Jesus Christ said that “he that made them at the beginning, made them male and female…” (Matthew 19:4). No mention of asexual protozoa.
Click to expand...
Does that mean that asexual protozoa don’t exist? Seems to be the argument you must make using your line of reasoning.

Peace

Tim
 
Orogeny said:
Factually incorrect.Does that mean that asexual protozoa don’t exist?
Click to expand...
No - merely that no asexual protozoa ever gave birth to human beings. (Or anything else that was not of its own kind.)
 
The evidence against evolution is overwhelming and that is why the Bible is correct in teaching a young earth and a six day creation. Gen 1-11 is literally correct.
 
DLC said:
The evidence against evolution is overwhelming and that is why the Bible is correct in teaching a young earth and a six day creation. Gen 1-11 is literally correct.
Click to expand...
LOL…well seems we’ve all been wasting our time in this discussion. And your authority?
 
jmcrae said:
No - merely that no asexual protozoa ever gave birth to human beings. (Or anything else that was not of its own kind.)
Click to expand...
Doesn’t mean that at all, at least that is not what ED wrote.

No one, ever, has suggested that an asexual protozoa has given birth to a human being. That is beyond a silly assertion.

Peace

Tim
 
DLC said:
The evidence against evolution is overwhelming and that is why the Bible is correct in teaching a young earth and a six day creation. Gen 1-11 is literally correct.
Click to expand...
All it takes is one piece of evidence. I’ll be waiting for your evidence.

Peace

Tim
 
Orogeny said:
All it takes is one piece of evidence. I’ll be waiting for your evidence.

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
Well, for one, genes die out, and deteriorate. They don’t somehow appear out of nowhere, as macro-evolution suggests. Remember, micro-evolution is accepted by everyone, creationist and evolutionists alike.
And for another thing, every know mutation has been a bad thing! It doesn’t make anything better… heavens, no. And, like I said before, why are there no half-and-half animals today? Why aren’t there any in the fossil record?

And most evidence points to the earth being younger that evolutionist say, like the fact that the sun would have expanded and consumed our earth by now if the solar system is as old as the evolutionists say.
…Whenever [the bombardier beetle] is approached by a predator, such as a frog, he squirts the stored chemicals into the two combustion tubes, and at precisely the right moment he adds another chemical (an anti-inhibitor). This knocks out the inhibitor, and a violent explosion occurs right in the face of the poor attacker.
Click to expand...
Could such a marvelous and complex mechanism have evolved piecemeal over millions of years? The evolutionist is forced to respond with a somewhat sheepish “yes,” but a brief consideration of this viewpoint will reveal its preposterous nature.
Click to expand...
According to evolutionary “thinking” there must have been thousands of generations of beetles improperly mixing these hazardous chemicals in fatal evolutionary experiments, blowing themselves to pieces. Eventually, we are assured, they arrived at the magic formula, but what about the development of the inhibitor? There is no need to evolve an inhibitor unless you already have the two chemicals you are trying to inhibit. On the other hand, if you already have the two chemicals without the inhibitor, it is already too late, for you have just blown yourself up. Obviously, such an arrangement would never arise apart from intelligent foresight and planning.
Click to expand...
[Edited by Moderator]
Click to expand...
The Collapse of Evolution by Scott Huse
 
Well, before I comment on your reply, I must comment on your source of information. You really, really need to look into the science just a little bit. Some of the arguments that you cite are not even accepted by fundamentalist creationists organizations anymore.

I asked for evidence against evolution and you haven’t been able to come up with a single one. All you have give is a demonstration of a complete lack of scientific knowledge and an ability to regurgitate fundamentalist nonsense.

I will take that as an admission on your part that there is NO evidence against evolution.

Peace

Tim
 
Just for starters, its geologists and cosmologists who are dating the earth, not evolutionists. So you might want to check out what they say.Try either the Geological Society of America, or American Geological Institute. Both are linked on my blog. See also the Smithsonian. That should set you straight on how old the earth is.
 
It is possible that God put the earth together as written and literally stretched out the heavens, meaning objects billions of light years away were put there instantly.

God bless,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
It is possible that God put the earth together as written and literally stretched out the heavens, meaning objects billions of light years away were put there instantly.
Click to expand...
Of course it is. But only if God wanted to deceive us. Is that your stance?

Peace

Tim
 
Orogeny said:
Well, before I comment on your reply, I must comment on your source of information. You really, really need to look into the science just a little bit. Some of the arguments that you cite are not even accepted by fundamentalist creationists organizations anymore.

I asked for evidence against evolution and you haven’t been able to come up with a single one. All you have give is a demonstration of a complete lack of scientific knowledge and an ability to regurgitate fundamentalist nonsense.

I will take that as an admission on your part that there is NO evidence against evolution.

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
As I stated before, I am not on either side at this time! I wanted both sides to present their arguments; when no one took your challenge, I decided to voice what I had heard from the other side. Yet you are hell-bent on winning for the sake of gloating, even though I stated I’m neutral in this dispute. And then you go and throw the Fundamentalist label at me again, even though I said I was not on either side! I wanted to see both arguements from both sides! I think you owe me an apology. I’m abandoning this thread, because it seem that the evolutionist side (as well as the creationist side to a certain extent) love vitriol, gloating, and denouncing the other side as moronic know-nothings. I thought this would be a constructive way to hear both sides, but all I got was stereophonic denouncements. I won’t try this again…
 
i can understand your frustration, the problem is that these types of threads have been done over and over (and I assume will happen again) and its often very frustrating dealing with the same arguments and evidence or lack there of from certain people, so you must forgive them if they seem to be a little abrasive (which for the record I do not).

My advice is that if you have a specific questions, google them and look for the pro/con arguments and that should lead you into some interesting rabbit holes. If you cant figure some part of the arguments out go ahead and post em up, its been my experience that people are more than happy to give you some answers, sift through the nonsense and you should have at least a basic sketch of the position (whatever that may be).

To be honest I (and probably most of the other supporters of evolution in this thread) would have no problem believing creationism as characterized by traditional YEC’s or OEC’s, unfortunately the evidence for their positions (especially YEC’s) is simply not there or takes advantages of glitches in the system and applies that to the system as a whole, to me that is their greatest flaw. Another would be their ad-hoc’ish answers when pressed about evidence in the scientific realm.

I was once in your position (somewhat neutral) but after reading alot of info on the web, books on both subjects (I still like Hugh Ross and his team) etc etc, the only thing you are left with is that while there are certainly holes in evolution’s case and the evidence is somewhat weak in some areas, the evidence for the other side is nearly non-existant and positive evidence is even less.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top