And you are saying that you have lived such a sheltered life that you haven’t been aware that fossils show a sequence of life forms, spanning millions of years? Wasn’t graduation from elementary school a pre-requisite for your college classes?
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
Middle school was the first public school I was a part of. I was home schooled prior to that. As for the fossil record, evolutionists and creationists disagree. It is not that there is no fossil record. It is a matter of interpretation of the evidences found in that record.
Not to mention violating the Constitution. The same Amendment that prevents schools from prescribing a prayer or religious doctrines, prevents them from denying any religious doctrines.
Belief in God and prayer in school is possible because of personal religious conviction on the part of the students. Some things are not allowed when they are excused by religious conviction, but not these.
On the home schooling – I feel for you. You are aware (maybe not, with your myopic engineering view) that by the end of elementary school a child’s worldview is pretty well set, and necessarily reflects his innate trust that what he was being taught was true. I was not home-schooled, but there was never any question about the role of Christianity as the foundation in my home when I was growing up. It took longer than I care to admit for me to break free of the shackles of religious dogma I had grown up under. You can do it too.
But I find it interesting that the division between the two camps is strongly along theological lines. I often deal with scientists from a diverse set of religious persuasions. I have worked with scientists from countries with wildly different political ideologies. Consistently when I have encountered the “it’s a matter of interpretation of the evidence” mantra, it has come from Christian fundamentalists. The evidence is clear and unambiguous to hundreds of thousands of scientists, both secular and religious, but it is too muddy to be trusted to those who think their ancient nomadic religious traditions are the more accurate physical accounts. To maintain that position, as debates in these forums will attest, the fundamentalists have to concurrently try to discredit huge parts of astronomy, physics, chemistry, geology, and biology.
If you are comfortable in that role, then your personal standards are not ones that I would want.
Have you studied the fossil record from both points of view?
Davis Young, PhD, Professor (emeritus) at Calvin College (a Christian College), Geologist. He has written several books detailing, from his PhD-level Christian geology professors stance, why the creation account in Genesis is not a literal account. Get his books, because he won’t be contesting the reality of God or the Bible, but he will detail the evidence he sees God left in the rocks for an ancient earth. And he says no global flood.
I haven’t seen the fundamentalists say much beyond the order of the fossils can’t be trusted as an indicator of when they lived. You have anything about their view with more scientific substance to it than that?
I believe rock layers would be looked at in Geology. Who would look at fossils? That would be Paleontology.
Do you believe the order of the fossils can be trusted as an indicator of when they lived?
If the universe was created in six days about less than 6,000 years ago (which is the approximate age of mankind or the earth) then that gives the time frame for fossils at its greatest.
Let’s see if you can actually be a bit more specific and respond to this question again: what advice would you give teachers about how to teach about how life forms appeared on earth? Remember this is not a hypothetical issue for biology teachers. They have to address the issue. Do you object to them presenting the consensus view of the vast majority of the scientists who actually research the diversification of life?
Do you think those two fields are not highly interdependent? You think the paleontologist finds a fossil, and has no idea about how to read the geologic strata he found it in?
I know that index fossils have been shown to be reliable enough indicators of the age of the rock they are in that they are often used as a primary dating tool. Seen any rabbits in the pre-Cambrian?
I don’t know of any mainstream scientist who is not beholden to a literal Genesis who doesn’t consider the 6,000 year figure as sad proof of human gullibility.
Teaching comes down to personal conviction. If you are not able to teach something because of your religious convictions you should not be forced to do so. Some Christians teach evolution as a theory. I don't know if they share what they believe or not. Some may believe in evolution while others do not. As for those who have no problem teaching evolution, it may be while maintaining the Christian belief in their life and practice or it may not. Not all teachers are Christians. Either way evolution has been taught though to be honest I believe a consistent Christian would be opposed to teaching evolution even if they have to because it is their job. It is true that what really matters is that people come to the Son of God, Jesus Christ, for salvation and that He would be their Lord and Savior. But evolution is another falsehood that seems to get in the way or prevent people from understanding the one true God, the God of truth, the God of the Bible.
Not at all. But I do not have information about it.
I don't know anything about the pre-Cambrian. I do know a little about dating methods but I don't know what they all are and in what disciplines... only that using math sometimes people can arrive at false conclusions (dating something by something that has been dated falsely).
It actually takes a lot of work to arrive at that number, though the details are easily apparent to anyone that can read the English text. Perhaps looking at the work of someone else can help someone arrive at the conclusion with more speed.
You actually put more thought into this response than I have seen in most of your prior ones. I think you make some good points. Of course, right at the end, the narcotic need to denigrate evolution overcame you, but I understand that deeply engrained addictions are hard to overcome. As you have said before, you don’t actually know much about evolution, so we know your antipathy is not based on scientific knowledge. Looks like that addiction to an unthinking mindless literal reading of that nomadic creation myth still has you hooked. Hope you get that monkey off your back someday.
You're going to ask a creationist to do math for you? You're cruel. He knows it, because someone (who probably can't do the math either) told him it is.
6days
New member
\Imagine how difficult it is for atheists with PhD's to break free from their evolutionary dogma. As some of them say...they lived and breathed evolutionism,...it wasn't easy to come to the realization none of their cherished beliefs were true.
6days
New member
pre flood... no life other than what might have burrowed into the dirt
Radiometric dating assumes Biblical creation is false... and daughter elements were not created by God.
If God created ther daughter elements such as lead... the dating method is not reliable.
You likely are familiar with RATE?
No one can stop an individual student from praying or bringing a Bible to school, so long as he doesn't disrupt school activities, or impose on others.
I've had students do reports on things like cloning, and they are free to put up posters making religious arguments for or against. So far, the administration has always backed me on that.
6days
New member
religion / evolutionism can't be refuted
religion / evolutionism can't be refuted
Before declaring what creationists believe, you might want to do a little homework...
AIG https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/
Creation.com http://creation.com/speciation-conference-brings-good-news-for-creationists
ICR http://www.icr.org/article/study-shows-bird-species-change-fast/
God's Word tells us the way He did it "For in six days the LORD made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and everything in them."
That's the fallacy of equivocation... Change of alleles is responsible for adaptation and speciation...Observable science.
The belief in a common ancestor is not observable...its a belief about the past.
Do you believe in the Creator of the Bible who declared creation very good?
Or do you believe in the creator of evolutionists... a process of death, extinctions. sickness, genetic disorders and suffering?
Is that something else you "know"?
Perhaps you cut that verse out of your Bible?
Genesis 1:25 NLT
No... The point is the silly and false conclusions evolutionists made about coelacanth fossils that science proved wrong.
Evolutionism has too much plasticity to be falsified. There are MANY discoveries which surprise and shock evolutionists, but the belief is like a fog which can cover any landscape.
Carbon dating of dinosaur bones yielded dates of 23,000 years to 39,000 years.
C14 in diamonds ...whats this about "too old"?
God created about 6000 years ago.
We were talking about Carbon14 dating. The creationist model is that there was very little C14 in the atmosphere pre flood.
That link seems broken...I couldn't open it.
How about this one?
http://kgov.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue
Yes... Not sure if you noticed but I suggested iron as a rescue device to you twice already.
The article says that "the blood vessels soaked in red blood cells remain recognizable after sitting at room temperature for two years." But soaking something in red blood cells in a lab for two years is a wee bit different than the blood vessels lasting 65 million years of temperature extremes.
The preserved blood vessels and connective tissue are much more consistent with the creationist model dating the fossils about 4,000 years ago. And we know soft tissue can survive that long in mummified bodies.
Sue was dated? The sedimentary rock was dated? or nearby igneous rock?
Radiometric dating relies on the assumption that the Biblical account of creation is wrong...that daughter elements are the result of decay... it relies on the assumption that God did not create daughter elements.
Radiometric dating is sometimes quite accurate. The science involved is good... It should be reasonably accurate for anything in the last few thousand years.(And we know sometimes the dates can be wildly wrong...or shifted up or down to meet evolutionary expectations)
Unequivocal? :juggle:
Paleo-ornithologist Alan Feduccia, Professor Emeritus at the University of North Carolina and a world authority on fossil birds, sums it up:
“Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.”
Note that Feduccia is an evolutionist himself, not a creationist And the ‘dating’ of Archaeopteryx by evolutionists’ own reckoning puts it millions of years after the creatures it supposedly gave rise to!
Better to read the whole article... http://creation.com/archaeopteryx-modern-black-feathers
God created all kinds of fish ...some even have lungs. But they did not evolve. God said they would produce after their own kind.
Evolutionary BEFIEFS hope the feathers aren't as good.
COSMOS magazine..."Archaeopteryx, a 150 million-year-old raven-sized dinosaur, had black feathers on its wings that were structurally identical to those of modern birds, researchers have reported."[/quote]
That sure doesn't fit evolutionary predictions...but all evidence is incorporated since it is not falsifiable.
religion / evolutionism can't be refuted
YUPBarbarian said:
Before declaring what creationists believe, you might want to do a little homework...
AIG https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/
Creation.com http://creation.com/speciation-conference-brings-good-news-for-creationists
ICR http://www.icr.org/article/study-shows-bird-species-change-fast/
Barbarian said:
God's Word tells us the way He did it "For in six days the LORD made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and everything in them."
Barbarian said:
That's the fallacy of equivocation... Change of alleles is responsible for adaptation and speciation...Observable science.
The belief in a common ancestor is not observable...its a belief about the past.
Barbarian said:
Do you believe in the Creator of the Bible who declared creation very good?
Or do you believe in the creator of evolutionists... a process of death, extinctions. sickness, genetic disorders and suffering?
You seem to "know" a lot that isn't truth. God did not use nature to make organisms. See Genesis 1Barbarian said:
Barbarian said:
Is that something else you "know"?
Perhaps you cut that verse out of your Bible?
Genesis 1:25 NLT
This is what it says...The team predicts that even in a bone at an ideal preservation temperature of −5 ºC, effectively every bond would be destroyed after a maximum of 6.8 million years. The DNA would cease to be readable much earlier — perhaps after roughly 1.5 million years, when the remaining strands would be too short to give meaningful information.Barbarian said:
Barbarian said:
No... The point is the silly and false conclusions evolutionists made about coelacanth fossils that science proved wrong.
Barbarian said:
Evolutionism has too much plasticity to be falsified. There are MANY discoveries which surprise and shock evolutionists, but the belief is like a fog which can cover any landscape.
Barbarian said:
Carbon dating of dinosaur bones yielded dates of 23,000 years to 39,000 years.
C14 in diamonds ...whats this about "too old"?
God created about 6000 years ago.
Barbarian said:
We were talking about Carbon14 dating. The creationist model is that there was very little C14 in the atmosphere pre flood.
Barbarian said:
That link seems broken...I couldn't open it.
How about this one?
http://kgov.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue
Barbarian said:
Yes... Not sure if you noticed but I suggested iron as a rescue device to you twice already.
The article says that "the blood vessels soaked in red blood cells remain recognizable after sitting at room temperature for two years." But soaking something in red blood cells in a lab for two years is a wee bit different than the blood vessels lasting 65 million years of temperature extremes.
The preserved blood vessels and connective tissue are much more consistent with the creationist model dating the fossils about 4,000 years ago. And we know soft tissue can survive that long in mummified bodies.
You are mistaken again.....no creationist link says that.Barbarian said:
Barbarian said:
Sue was dated? The sedimentary rock was dated? or nearby igneous rock?
Radiometric dating relies on the assumption that the Biblical account of creation is wrong...that daughter elements are the result of decay... it relies on the assumption that God did not create daughter elements.
Barbarian said:
Radiometric dating is sometimes quite accurate. The science involved is good... It should be reasonably accurate for anything in the last few thousand years.(And we know sometimes the dates can be wildly wrong...or shifted up or down to meet evolutionary expectations)
Barbarian said:
Unequivocal? :juggle:
Paleo-ornithologist Alan Feduccia, Professor Emeritus at the University of North Carolina and a world authority on fossil birds, sums it up:
“Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.”
Note that Feduccia is an evolutionist himself, not a creationist And the ‘dating’ of Archaeopteryx by evolutionists’ own reckoning puts it millions of years after the creatures it supposedly gave rise to!
Better to read the whole article... http://creation.com/archaeopteryx-modern-black-feathers
Moving the goal post fallacy. The point was, this is yet another example of evolutionary tall tales being proven wrong by science.Barbarian said:
Barbarian said:
God created all kinds of fish ...some even have lungs. But they did not evolve. God said they would produce after their own kind.
Barbarian said:
Evolutionary BEFIEFS hope the feathers aren't as good.
COSMOS magazine..."Archaeopteryx, a 150 million-year-old raven-sized dinosaur, had black feathers on its wings that were structurally identical to those of modern birds, researchers have reported."[/quote]
That sure doesn't fit evolutionary predictions...but all evidence is incorporated since it is not falsifiable.
When I think of science I think of things that can be tested. I have no idea how someone would think to test macro evolution. To conclude macro evolution occurs because micro evolution does would be faulty as well.
As for additions and mindless thinking scientific knowledge is not supposed to be such. Science is not the only way of knowing things about the world in which we live. But it is a good means by which to do so. At what point do you feel I denigrated evolution? I've looked back through this post and near the end I am not doing so and I didn't think I was early on either. I simply point out that there is one God, the God of truth, and that this God is also the God of creation. You believe a person can be a Christian and believe in evolution. If you believe in evolution and are a Christian or don't know what Christianity is even, either way, I hope you come to the knowledge of the Savior Jesus Christ and what He as done for you. Knowing this is much better than any science study you could do, evolution or not.
- Status