Announcement

Collapse

Creation Science Rules

This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective.
Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed.
1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team
2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
See more
See less

Chance or Design (Evolution or Creation)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Chance or Design (Evolution or Creation)

    John 1:3-4 King James Version (KJV)
    "3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
    4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men."

    To most scientists in the world today, the theory of evolution is no longer just a theory but is regarded as a fact. There are differences of opinion regarding the tempo, mode, and mechanisms of evolution, but the basic concepts of the theory have become an established philosophy. Even the educational systems of the world teach evolution by natural selection and the big bang as the only feasible theory of origin, to the exclusion of anything else especially creative design.

    Now natural selection in itself is not a scientific principle, as it is based on circular reasoning. By natural selection, the weaker are eliminated and the stronger survive to propagate the species. It is all started by chance, the idea of the big bang was that a tiny point of nothing started the universe and somehow life started by chance.

    The evidence for evolution is based largely on interpretation and a rationale for the long ages required for the evolutionary events to have taken place. However, each of these parameters is open to alternative explanations which also happen to be in harmony with the biblical account.

    Evolutionary scientists argue that creationism is not science, that it is based on a preconceived ideology, which excludes it from the realms of science. However, if the facts fit the biblical creation account, is it excluded?

    So is there evidence for Creation by design, was the DNA by purpose, and the form of mankind and domain made by a Creator?
    Last edited by Hobie; June 15, 2019, 05:13 AM.

  • #2
    Darwin's great discovery was that it doesn't work by chance. Except in the sense you see in Ecclesiastes:

    Ecclesiastes 9:11 I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

    Still, the smart money is on the swift, strong, and wise, even if time and chance are involved. And as Aquinas points out, God can use contingency as easily as He can use necessity to effect divine providence.
    This message is hidden because ...

    Comment


    • #3
      Well the problem evolutionist are finding is the fossil record does not show creatures gradually changing into others, there is nothing from the sea crawling out on land and all the way to man. Now look at the idea of natural selection as the very name “selection” implies that you’re choosing between two or more variants. So that means that the end result is extinction of one in favor of the other. Natural selection never increases the number of variants; it only decreases them. So the problem is how does a mechanism that makes less and less end up making more and more”?

      Then you have the built-in ability of some animals to adapt to changing conditions, much too rapidly to have anything to do with any proposed evolutionary mechanisms or millions of years. For example, island deer have been seen to respond to a scarcity of resources by decreasing their body size, by as much as two-thirds.

      So the evolutionist are coming up with new ideas to try to allow for Creation yet hold on to Evolution. The Gap Theory proposes two cycles of Creation. In the first cycle, there is an initial six-day Creation. Everything is then destroyed by God, and a gap or period of time occurs. Then, the Creation described in Genesis occurs.

      This interpretation allows for long time periods. However, there is no evidence of a gap in the fossil record and this model raises more questions than answers.

      Progressive Creation suggests that God created numerous times, and that these Creation episodes were spread over long ages. Scripture does not support this theory.

      Theistic Evolution says that God directs the process of evolution and helps it along when it comes to the difficult barriers. This is just not what the Bible says, and its just a way to get around Creation and basically the Creator Himself...

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Hobie View Post
        John 1:3-4 King James Version (KJV)
        "3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
        4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men."

        To most scientists in the world today, the theory of evolution is no longer just a theory but is regarded as a fact. There are differences of opinion regarding the tempo, mode, and mechanisms of evolution, but the basic concepts of the theory have become an established philosophy. Even the educational systems of the world teach evolution by natural selection and the big bang as the only feasible theory of origin, to the exclusion of anything else especially creative design.

        Now natural selection in itself is not a scientific principle, as it is based on circular reasoning. By natural selection, the weaker are eliminated and the stronger survive to propagate the species. It is all started by chance, the idea of the big bang was that a tiny point of nothing started the universe and somehow life started by chance.

        The evidence for evolution is based largely on interpretation and a rationale for the long ages required for the evolutionary events to have taken place. However, each of these parameters is open to alternative explanations which also happen to be in harmony with the biblical account.

        Evolutionary scientists argue that creationism is not science, that it is based on a preconceived ideology, which excludes it from the realms of science. However, if the facts fit the biblical creation account, is it excluded?

        So is there evidence for Creation by design, was the DNA by purpose, and the form of mankind and domain made by a Creator?
        Do you believe that God made evil?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Hobie View Post
          Well the problem evolutionist are finding is the fossil record does not show creatures gradually changing into others,
          There's a great deal of that. Your fellow creationist, Kurt Wise, writes:

          Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
          Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms (emphasis mine)


          there is nothing from the sea crawling out on land and all the way to man.
          Wise admits that there are many of these.

          Now look at the idea of natural selection as the very name “selection” implies that you’re choosing between two or more variants. So that means that the end result is extinction of one in favor of the other.
          No. For example, disruptive selection tends to favor two or more populations evolving from one. Good example are Darwin's finches. Or flies in Hawaii, numerous species having evolved from two separate species that somehow made it there.



          Natural selection never increases the number of variants; it only decreases them.
          No, that's obviously wrong. And it's not just by disruptive selection. A hint was that unusual species tend to be found in isolated areas. Founder effect and a new environment tends to produce a new species, while the old species continues.

          So the problem is how does a mechanism that makes less and less end up making more and more”?
          And now you know.

          Then you have the built-in ability of some animals to adapt to changing conditions, much too rapidly to have anything to do with any proposed evolutionary mechanisms or millions of years.
          You're confusing homeostasis with evolution. One is merely the ability of the organism to alter body processes under stress. The other is a change in the allele frequency of the population. You are limited to the genes with which you were born; your body has the capacity to adapt to a degree, but not as much as a population can change by allele frequencies changing.

          For example, island deer have been seen to respond to a scarcity of resources by decreasing their body size, by as much as two-thirds.
          Happens to humans, too. Starve kids, even a little, and they will grow up smaller. But that's not evolution.

          So the evolutionist are coming up with new ideas to try to allow for Creation yet hold on to Evolution.
          See above. There's a lot going on that you don't understand very well.

          Theistic Evolution says that God directs the process of evolution and helps it along when it comes to the difficult barriers.
          No, that's Michael Behe's story. He doesn't think God can make evolution work without tinkering with it from time to time. In the real world, that's not necessary.

          While evolution is completely consistent with scripture, there are also some forms of creationism that are not ruled out by the Bible. The "life ex nihilo" doctrine of classic YE creationism is ruled out by Genesis, however.
          This message is hidden because ...

          Comment


          • #6
            And most professional creationists now tell us that new species evolved rapidly after the flood from a relatively few basic "kinds."

            So even creationists understand that evolution tends to produce more species, not less.
            This message is hidden because ...

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
              And most professional creationists now tell us that new species evolved rapidly after the flood from a relatively few basic "kinds."

              So even creationists understand that evolution tends to produce more species, not less.
              Nope.

              Evolution doesn't happen.
              Where is the evidence for a global flood?
              E≈mc2
              "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

              "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
              -Bob B.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                And most professional creationists now tell us that new species evolved rapidly after the flood from a relatively few basic "kinds."

                So even creationists understand that evolution tends to produce more species, not less.
                Yes, multiple created kinds at the beginning branching out into what we see today.

                Not some "matter came alive on its own" and "everything is descended from a single first life form".
                All of my ancestors are human.
                Originally posted by Squeaky
                That explains why your an idiot.
                Originally posted by God's Truth
                Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
                Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
                (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

                1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
                (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

                Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by ioy1273 View Post
                  Do you believe that God made evil?
                  Do you believe He gave us freewill or made us robots, I think the answer is clear.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Hobie View Post
                    Do you believe He gave us freewill or made us robots, I think the answer is clear.
                    You didn’t answer the question. Did God make evil or not?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
                      Yes, multiple created kinds at the beginning branching out into what we see today.
                      Precisely what you just told me couldn't be.

                      Not some "matter came alive on its own"
                      More properly, the earth brought forth living things, as God intended. But as you learned earlier, that has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution, which is about the way living things change over time.

                      and "everything is descended from a single first life form".
                      It comes down to evidence. As you saw before, the evidence is compelling. Even your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise admits that we have "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

                      Would you like me to show you some of it, again?
                      This message is hidden because ...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Hobie View Post
                        Do you believe He gave us freewill or made us robots, I think the answer is clear.
                        How much "freewill" do you think you have exactly? It certainly isn't absolute.
                        Well this is fun isn't it?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                          There's a great deal of that. Your fellow creationist, Kurt Wise, writes:

                          Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). ... Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
                          Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
                          A bit awkward in sentence structure, but Kurt Wise doesn't mean to imply that the fossils support Macroevolution.

                          Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                          No. For example, disruptive selection tends to favor two or more populations evolving from one. Good example are Darwin's finches. Or flies in Hawaii, numerous species having evolved from two separate species that somehow made it there.
                          "After their kind" Genesis 1:11,21,24,26

                          Genesis 1:31 "it was good" contrasted with Romans 8:18-23 that suggests creation is under struggle and suffering. Yet evolution suggest millions of years where man is not present. It creates theological problems and inconsistencies.
                          Last edited by Lon; June 22, 2019, 09:52 PM.
                          My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
                          Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
                          Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
                          Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
                          No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
                          Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

                          ? Yep

                          Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

                          ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

                          Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                            Evolution ... is about the way living things change over time.
                            Nope.

                            Evolution is the idea that all living things are descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection.

                            Darwinists want to be imprecise, using "change" as the definition. After all, who in their right mind would deny that things change?

                            They want to define the discussion out of existence.

                            It comes down to evidence.
                            Which is why you follow up with:

                            YE creationist, Kurt Wise admits that we have "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."
                            Darwinists think that opinions are evidence.

                            Would you like me to show you actual evidence again?
                            Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                            E≈mc2
                            "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                            "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                            -Bob B.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              YEC denies all aspects of Darwinism as significant, necessary or possible descriptions of reality.

                              There cannot be a universal common ancestor.

                              Random mutations can never improve information.

                              Natural selection might play a minor role in limited situations, but they are so rare and insignificant as to be next to worthless in a sensible discussion over how today's variety arose.

                              Darwinists here have been told these things over and over, but continue to insist that the discussion be conducted on the assumption that their idea is correct.

                              They are religious devotees, not inquirers into science.
                              Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                              E≈mc2
                              "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                              "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                              -Bob B.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X