Creation vs. Evolution

[6days]

Most scientists aren't in the least bit interested in debating with YECs Michael because they don't offer an honest science debate or any creationist "science" that stands up to scientific scrutiny.

Neil deGrasse Tyson on religious people

Haha.... actually ome within the evolutionary community have argued that evolutionists just stopped arguing because they were losing the argument.

 

[6days]

When scientists argue with the likes of Gish

The word scientists is inaccurate. It was evoluionists and those who compromised or rejected scripture that argued with Gish.*For ex google and watch a short half hour debate with Phil Donahue.. Whose side would you be on Iouae? I suspect you would try squiggle and find compromise between the two?

Gish was a stalwart defender of science and scripture. *Gish was one of a very few scientists who were willing to take a stand for God and the truth of his Word. Because of his courage and those like him, there are now thousands of scientists, i virtually every field of science, and in almost every country of the world who uphold God's Word as a source of absolute truth.*

As Christians we should believe that the word of our God stands forever. We do not need add new and secular opinions to scripture to try make it more attractive. "Then we will no longer be immature like children. We won't be tossed and blown about by every wind of new teaching. We will not be influenced when people try to trick us with lies so clever they sound like the truth. Eph.4:4

 

[iouae]

The word scientists is inaccurate.

Tell me this 6days, what science credentials do you have that you feel qualified to be the expert on what science is and what a scientist is?

 

[alwight]

Haha.... actually ome within the evolutionary community have argued that evolutionists just stopped arguing because they were losing the argument.

Tell me again about the speed of light and how it is that we can see Galaxies many million light years away?
Did Gish ever give an explanation that we can consider here?

When honest people become educated in such things (see that Neil Tyson video) mostly they soon realise that what YECs say is nonsense and that they will only dogmatically accept a literal Genesis whatever the science concludes from the evidence, come hell or high water.
So what is the point of real scientists arguing with such people as Gish?

For YECs Genesis must always remain believed as inerrant whatever science concludes from the evidence and facts.
So it really isn't worth the time, effort and the frustration of dealing with YECs who aren't the slightest bit interested in rational scientific reasoning if it should conflict with a literal Genesis.

How again did Gish explain how fossils are arranged in geological layers, where bunny rabbits are apparently stronger swimmers than diplodocus? Henry Mad Morrison (famous YEC) claimed it was because of "hydraulic sorting" iirc, perhaps Gish agreed with him?
Did Gish actually pose any scientific problems rather than rhetoric, do tell, let's see if I can answer him or find someone who already has? lain:

 

[iouae]

Tell me again about the speed of light and how it is that we can see Galaxies many million light years away?

How again did Gish explain how fossils are arranged in geological layers, where bunny rabbits are apparently stronger swimmers than diplodocus? Henry Mad Morrison (famous YEC) claimed it was because of "hydraulic sorting" iirc, perhaps Gish agreed with him?
Did Gish actually pose any scientific problems rather than rhetoric, do tell, let's see if I can answer him or find someone who already has? lain:

Let me guess that the answer you will get will be about the two-way speed of light, and "The data shows our universe has a light horizon radius of 46 Billion light years. You confuse distance with age. You confuse data and interpretations."

This will not be a satisfactory scientific answer.

I asked and did not get an answer for the stratification.

Instead I got a whole lot of side issues and pontifications. This time I hope for a straight-to-the-point answer.

And 6days, if you have no scientific background, it is OK to say so. It is also OK in science to admit that you do not know everything. It is OK to admit that your YEC is just a belief, and that nothing that science says will change your mind anyway. After all, you seem to collect and regurgitate random bits of science that you have seen other YEC'ists use. Then you reject all other reputable science. That is very unscientific. Especially since you don't seem to have the scientific background to evaluate how weak these YEC arguments really are.

If one is not going to be persuaded by science (since your mind is made up, a priori by your theology) do you not see the irony in trying to prove your point (YEC) using supposed scientific arguments? You are thus both using and dismissing science at the same time. True science is supposed to be guided by the facts. Thus you are a self confessed non-scientist since you will be guided by theology first and foremost no matter the facts. And pontificating about what true science is, while acting the opposite, by refusing to be guided by the facts, is laughable.

 

[6days]

The word scientists is inaccurate. It*was evoluionists and those who compromised or rejected scripture that argued with Gish. For ex google and watch a short half hour debate with Phil Donahue.

Tell me this 6days, what science credentials do you have that you feel qualified to be the expert on what science is and what a scientist is?

You don't need to be a brain surgeon to know Phil Donahue is not a scientist and says so.

 

[iouae]

You don't need to be a brain surgeon to know Phil Donahue is not a scientist and says so.

The band has struck up, and 6days has already begun dancing the two-step around the question - which was - give us your qualifications in the science arena.

Then when you say an evolutionist is not a scientist, we know that you are qualified to define science or a scientist.

 

[6days]

Tell me again about the speed of light and how it is that we can see Galaxies many million light years away?

Again?

The speed of light is 186,000 miles per second.

We see distant galaxies with our eyes, and telescopes.

Did Gish ever give an explanation that we can consider here?

I don't know....did he?*

When honest people become educated in such things (see that Neil Tyson video) mostly they soon realise that what YECs say is nonsense...

I like Neil deGrasse Tyson and enjoy some of his shows. However you have to realize.... and he sdmits that he interprets through his belief system of materialism. His religion, atheism, seems to force him into the corner of scientism presenting beliefs in things such as multiverse as if it was true.*

So what is the point of real scientists arguing with such people as Gish?

The point originally was to show that Biblical creation was not scientific. However Gish, and others turned the tables showing it was evutionism that was unscientific. It was then that Eugenie Scott and others told their fellow evolutionists to stop debating.*

For YECs Genesis must always remain believed as inerrant whatever science concludes from the evidence and facts.

Well the funny thing is that science keeps proving evolutionist arguments faulty that they have used against the Geneais account.*

 

[6days]

Then when you say an evolutionist is not a scientist....

Oops..... a wee it of dishonesty from you? A mistake? Or another strawman?

Some evolutionists are scientists.
Most evolutionists are not scientists.

 

[Jose Fly]

However Gish, and others turned the tables showing it was evutionism that was unscientific. It was then that Eugenie Scott and others told their fellow evolutionists to stop debating.*

They did? Funny....Gish is dead and I don't see any place or way in which he affected science.

Do you have examples? 'Cause from where I sit, it looks like the vast majority of the scientific community paid no attention to him at all.

 

[iouae]

Oops..... a wee it of dishonesty from you? A mistake? Or another strawman?

Some evolutionists are scientists.
Most evolutionists are not scientists.

So let's start defining how you avoid answering the real questions.

Filibustering...

I am not interested in anything but you answering the real questions.

And you have not addressed one of them yet.
1) What are your science qualifications?
2) Explain light from stars >6000 light years away.
3) Explain strata.

If you cannot satisfactorily answer these REAL questions, just admit that you are a fraud, filibustering, or playing for time.

 

[DavisBJ]

Gish was a stalwart defender of science and scripture. Gish was one of a very few scientists who were willing to take a stand for God and the truth of his Word. Because of his courage and those like him, there are now thousands of scientists, i virtually every field of science, and in almost every country of the world who uphold God's Word as a source of absolute truth.

It is clear that Creationists prefer formal debates to the more demanding rigor of scientific scrutiny. There are (and have been) debaters for the creationists who are very skilled at their art – persuading a technically unsophisticated audience that they are right.

But when you look at how many of Gish’s scientific arguments have proved themselves when subjected to impartial scientific scrutiny, then there are slim pickings indeed. In all the years since Gish entered the debate circuit, which of his creationist arguments can you identify that have proved themselves as scientifically valuable?

 

[DavisBJ]

Oops..... a wee it of dishonesty from you? A mistake? Or another strawman?

Some evolutionists are scientists.
Most evolutionists are not scientists.

I am sure there is probably a logical fallacy that applies to when a person uses one meaning for a word and their opponent naively pretends they meant something else. There is a fully valid and recognized branch of science dealing with Darwin’s theory, and the scientists who work in that field are called evolutionists. Of course, for you it plays better to the fundamentalists to use the term “evolutionist” in its broader meaning of anyone who accepts the correctness of the theory.

A wee bit of maturity might be in order - discuss ideas, and don’t hide behind semantics.

 

[alwight]

Tell me again about the speed of light and how it is that we can see Galaxies many million light years away?

Again?
The speed of light is 186,000 miles per second.
We see distant galaxies with our eyes, and telescopes.

You still don't seem to understand that photons of light take time to travel great distances before they reach our eyes and can only then be seen. The visible Galaxies are apparent representations of how they looked millions of years ago, a time you say never existed.
Yes I realise that some creationists might say that the universe was created with a history, that the photons of light from galaxies we can see were magically created en route so to speak. Which apart from anything else would be a divine deception of a universe of great age, and a lie, which in reality isn't any such thing. Just so that YECs can adhere to a literal Genesis despite the apparent science, scientific conclusions and astrophysics, never mind so-called "evolutionists".

Did Gish ever give an explanation that we can consider here?

I don't know....did he?*

Not to my knowledge.

When honest people become educated in such things (see that Neil Tyson video) mostly they soon realise that what YECs say is nonsense...

I like Neil deGrasse Tyson and enjoy some of his shows. However you have to realize.... and he sdmits that he interprets through his belief system of materialism. His religion, atheism, seems to force him into the corner of scientism presenting beliefs in things such as multiverse as if it was true.*

YECs don't really like ordinary people getting educated, getting degrees and becoming natural scientists because their belief in religious assertions tends to drop away with their greater wisdom.

So what is the point of real scientists arguing with such people as Gish?

The point originally was to show that Biblical creation was not scientific. However Gish, and others turned the tables showing it was evutionism that was unscientific. It was then that Eugenie Scott and others told their fellow evolutionists to stop debating.

Why do you think anyone would want to be an "evolutionist", presumably in your mind anyway regardless of scientific conclusions? What do you think is their motivation if it is not simply to try to understand our natural origins by the scientific method and by the use of facts and evidence rather than an ancient scripture?

For YECs Genesis must always remain believed as inerrant whatever science concludes from the evidence and facts.

Well the funny thing is that science keeps proving evolutionist arguments faulty that they have used against the Geneais account.

I can't really account for the nonsense that you are willing to treat us to 6days.

 

[6days]

I am not interested in anything but you answering the real questions.

You are even more interested in my answers than in ice cream???

IAnd you have not addressed one of them yet.
1) What are your science qualifications?

Let me answer that with a question. If im more educated in the sciences than you...does that mean my opinion is more correct than yours? If I have a masters degree in biology, does that mean i can not speak about physics? If I'm trying my darndest to pass my grade 4 science exam, does that mean anything i have said is untrue?

In other words you are about to make sd hominem fallacy of attacking the person rather than the argument. I like this definition "An attack upon an opponent in order to discredit their arguement or opinion. Ad hominems are used by immature and/or unintelligent people because they are unable to counter their opponent using logic and intelligence."

2) Explain light from stars >6000 light years away.

You should google this stuff. A light year is a distance of about 6,000,000,000 miles. It is the distance light travelling at 186,000 mph *could travel in a year.*

Question for you..... you seem to believe secular opinions about the age of the universe, which is related to Big Bang theory...and expansion which was much faster than the speed of light. So.... if you can believe secular opinions that exclude God; why is it so difficult to believe God?
Gen.1:14*And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

3) Explain strata.

Google could be your friend iouae.
Lets go with a dictionary definition: "a single bed of sedimentary rock, generally consisting of one kind of matter representing continuous deposition."

 

[6days]

am sure there is probably a logical fallacy that applies to when a person uses one meaning for a word and their opponent naively pretends they meant something else. There is a fully valid and recognized branch of science dealing with Darwin’s theory, and the scientists who work in that field are called evolutionists. Of course, for you it plays better to the fundamentalists to use the term “evolutionist” in its broader meaning of anyone who accepts the correctness of the theory.

Faĺlacy of equivocationoccurs when a key term or phrase in an argument is used in an ambiguous way, with one meaning in one portion of the argument and then another meaning in another portion of the argument.

For example if you said evolution is observable referring to how bacteria adapt; then you continue talking about your unobservable belief system in common ancestry using the word evolution, you have then committed the fallacy of equivocation.*


As to the word 'evolutionist'... I think you will find that C number one definition in most dictionaries is somebody who believes in common descent. I have also used to work in the past for people who believe in chemical evolution (abiogenesis) and also people who believe in stellar evolution.*

 

[DavisBJ]

As to the word 'evolutionist'... I think you will find that C number one definition in most dictionaries is somebody who believes in common descent.

I have often spoken with scientists about evolution, and used the word “evolutionist” in both the sense of a scientist who is involved in evolutionary studies, and in the sense of someone who simply believes in the theory. And with the exception of creationists, the listener understood from the context which meaning was being used.

God's Word is a source of inerrant truth on all matters it touches on, including science. His Word tells about our history... and our future.

Ping - Re: “God’s Word”, I am awaiting your overdue response to a prior post about where an eye witness to the creation personally testified as to what he saw.

 

[6days]

You still don't seem to understand that photons of light take time to travel great distances before they reach our eyes and can only then be seen. The visible Galaxies are apparent representations of how they looked millions of years ago, a time you say never existed.*

Yes I realise that some creationists might say that the universe was created with a history, that the photons of light from galaxies we can see were magically created en route so to speak. Which apart from anything else would be a divine deception of a universe of great age, and a lie, which in reality isn't any such thing. Just so that YECs can adhere to a literal Genesis despite the apparent science, scientific conclusions and astrophysics, never mind so-called "evolutionists".

Good job alwight *at explaining what you think should be a problem to Biblical creation. However the distant universe (which contains anomalies to stellar evolution / big bang) is consistent with Gods account of creating the stars on the 4th day. You believe in expansion which is much faster than the speed of light. I dont know how God did it, but He could have spread the galaxies faster than the speed of light.*


Re apparent age being a lie..... hmmmm. Im nit so sure. When Adam looked at Eve who was 2 minutes old, do you think he called God a liar? Did they count tree rings and call God a liar? No... they believed what He told them.*

 

[6days]

Ping - Re: “God’s Word”, I am awaiting your overdue response to a prior post about where an eye witness to the creation personally testified as to what he saw.

Ha.... sorry if I ignored your queation. The eyewitnees account in Geneis is the Creator Himself. "All scripture is given by God"*

 

[iouae]

You are even more interested in my answers than in ice cream???

Let me answer that with a question. If im more educated in the sciences than you...does that mean my opinion is more correct than yours? If I have a masters degree in biology, does that mean i can not speak about physics? If I'm trying my darndest to pass my grade 4 science exam, does that mean anything i have said is untrue?

In other words you are about to make sd hominem fallacy of attacking the person rather than the argument. I like this definition "An attack upon an opponent in order to discredit their arguement or opinion. Ad hominems are used by immature and/or unintelligent people because they are unable to counter their opponent using logic and intelligence."


You should google this stuff. A light year is a distance of about 6,000,000,000 miles. It is the distance light travelling at 186,000 mph *could travel in a year.*

Question for you..... you seem to believe secular opinions about the age of the universe, which is related to Big Bang theory...and expansion which was much faster than the speed of light. So.... if you can believe secular opinions that exclude God; why is it so difficult to believe God?
Gen.1:14*And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.


Google could be your friend iouae.
Lets go with a dictionary definition: "a single bed of sedimentary rock, generally consisting of one kind of matter representing continuous deposition."

So, not one straight answer to my 3 questions.
Just the usual tactic of generating your own questions and answering these instead. Let's call this "distraction". I am not a child to be distracted from MY questions with your straw men. And on the "strata" question you act like you don't understand the question, or play-dumb.

So far we have 1) filibustering 2) distraction 3) play-dumb

You have learned well from Gish, Hovind etc.

If someone were to question me on finance, it would quickly become apparent to him that I know little. I may think I am hiding my ignorance and holding my own. But by my use of terms, lack of basic financial concepts etc. to those trained in finance it would be obvious that I am just a financial hobbyist.

The same thing can be said about you and science. I can tell you have no training in this field you pretend to be an expert in. That is why you cannot give a straight answer to your science qualifications.

That is why when you do make an attempt at a scientific answer, you don't realise how inadequate it is. You are out of your depth. Not that that deterred Hovind, who got all his qualifications from the Internet School of Quackery or the equivalent of his day.. Which is why you tell me to go Google the answers. You have none yourself.

And please do not bother to quote scripture. I believe every single scripture. These too testify against you.