SUTG
New member
you might want to doublecheck those probabilities. :chuckle:
ARCHIVE: Best evidence for young earth supernatural creation.
- Thread starter noguru
- Start date
you might want to doublecheck those probabilities. :chuckle:
mighty_duck
New member
Where does the theory of evolution predict how DNA/RNA systems arose?
You reject the theory of evolution for not explaining something outside its scope. That's like saying you reject the theory of relativity because you can't think of a way RNA arose. Total non-sequitur. And a bigger non-sequitur is giving credit to the God of the Bible. If you're invoking a god-of-the-gaps, parsimony would require you to only fill the gap (abiogenesis), rather than accept wholesale a certain myth that was common where you grew up.
Hmmm... it looks like someone is confusing abiogenesis with evolution again. Or maybe hoping others will if he is vague enough about it.
Even more interesting, there are numerous clues and intermediates showing how they evolved. Would you like to learn about some of them?
No-tech, actually. Life is far beyond "tech." It's evolved. As you learned, engineers are starting to take a cue from nature; evolved systems are often better than "designed" ones. Sometimes it's possible to let a system evolve by natural selection, when design isn't even possible.
But you have a point here; creationists often pretend that evolutionary theory says that humans evolved from microorganisms. But microorganisms today are highly evolved themselves.
If you'd like to imagine that God poofed the first living things into existence, complete with DNA, evolutionary theory would still work.
Actually, you made up a theory of your own, and then rejected it.
Your answer seems to indicate that you believe science is in opposition to God and the Bible. Is this a correct assumption?
Quincy
New member
Yes it is. God is another term for your higher being or consciousness and is a gathering of the aspects of emotions and other things that make up the psyche which you can label as demi gods or dieties or whatever if you so choose. My opinion only, and I don't really care if anyone else agrees. I don't believe the bible is to be taken literal. It is just another path that teaches how to be christ like so that you can become spiritually enlightened with your god, higher self, or sense of right or wrong, whatever you want to call it.
noguru asked for people's best evidence. I supplied some. INSTEAD of showing that my evidence was not true...it was rejected BECAUSE it would not be used in a science classroom.
I then spent several pages asking what type of evidence would be accepted and why is a historical account rejected. INSTEAD of showing that my evidence was not true...I was repeatedly told that it isn't accepted because only that which is in a science text would be accepted.
Again, I asked why? For some reason certain lines of evidence are accepted (science text books that can only be used in a science classroom) and some are rejected (history books).
If I would have provided scientific evidence (which I have some) then this thread would just have degenerated into the countless other threads on creation and evolution.
Instead...I am trying to understand what evidence is acceptable (and why)? Which evidence is not acceptable (and why)?
So far it seems that science books are not allowed in the history class and history books aren't allowed in the science class.
That just seems odd that one would narrow the "rules" of acceptance. To prove my point I asked for scientific proof that George Washington was married. But, only a science textbook could be used. More specifically a physics textbook.
My arguement was tossed out for being silly! MY POINT EXACTLY.
So why is a history book (the Bible) not acceptable evidence for past events (recent creation)?
If it is just an opinion...then it is irrelevant.
It is my opinion that chocolate gelato is better than chocolate ice-cream. SO WHAT!
Evoken
New member
Quincy
New member
So I should take it that you think a book written by the hand of an imperfect creature like man can be perfect and taken literal? That sounds alot like an opinion as well, the only difference is that you think yours to be the truth and only truth. While I think mine to be my, and only my truth. Like I said though, I don't care what others think, I just find it odd people accuse me of doing the same thing they are doing. Eh, so be it, it's all good.
Actually I said that I originally rejected the idea that all life descended from a primitive ancestor, because I felt it was impossible for the DNA/RNA system to have arisen by a step-by-step process through random mutations. I still feel that this was a valid reason to reject the idea. Since that day 22 years ago or so many other things have been discovered that only reinforce my original decision (in spades). I have talked about these findings on this forum.
Originally the age of the Earth seemed to me to be ancient as most scientists currently believe. However, over the past 22 years I have gotten interested in re-examining the religion which I had rejected in my college days. I had always been interested in religion since my college days and had studied up on all the major world religions. Over time I discovered an interesting trend: as time went on skeptics of Bible history kept continually "backing off" previous objections to its accuracy. They had to because of archeological discoveries. I realized this because I subscribed to one of the magazines that covers this field.
I began to gradually gain a respect for the accuracy of Bible history and a skepticism against those who routinely dismissed it without having any hard evidence to do so. This trend continued for many years.
Finally I began to entertain the "impossible " possibility that Bible history was accurate all the way back, including the teaching that the universe and Earth were young. Interestingly, once I decided to entertain this possibility evidence began to appear that pointed in that direction. Nothing as concrete as we might like, but evidence nevertheless. At the same time I began to see that the "old age" methods were not as invulnerable as I had previously thought. For example, the rapid expansion of the universe concept opens up a whole bunch of these.
There is still no "final" certainty in my mind on this particular topic, but since the rest of the Bible has turned out to be so historically accurate, I have decided to tentatively assume that the universe and Earth are as young as indicated in scripture and pursue the idea further. Some Christians might say I lack faith, and this might well be true, but God does say something in His word about proving things true, so I don't think He would criticize me too much if I tentatively assume He is right but continue to look for further evidence that what He says is true.
macguy
New member
Evolutionists essentially argue that science has accumulated overwhelming evidence for evolution and the only people who reject it are the christian fundamentalists. Creationism is therefore a religious doctrine and has no scientific evidence in support of it. The only area of controversy is on the specific mechanism. Science is the search for truth so it is not in conflict with beliefs such as having value or not but neither does it confirm it.
The problem is, there is more to this debate than merely portraying us as biblical fundamentalists who don't want to accept the scientific evidence. We may indeed be wrong on quite a few areas, but i personally think we are getting closer to a better creationist theory. It's not as if evolution is based on extremely solid evidence because the area of focus is on a philosophical presupposition that is rather controversial(naturalism). To the creationist, Darwin essentially implies a blind watchmaker.
Besides the philosophical questions in the topic, I have one question for all you evolutionists. Textbook illustrations demonstrate that our ancestor's skulls were pretty thick and with large protruding brow ridges in order to protect the eyes. Why would natural selection, cause a diminish in these structures and size? What selective advantage would this bring?
Also, bacteria is able to digest the most abundant compound on Earth known as cellulose. It is a chief component of plants such as tree bark, grass, wood, etc. The reason why some animals such as horses, sheep, termites, and cows can use grass and/or wood for food is because they all have this certain bacteria that is able to digest cellulose. However, higher organisms suddenly lost this ability to digest cellulose thus they call this a vestigial cellulose metabolism system. If us humans possessed such an ability, there would be no such thing as starvation and lack of nutrition which has all been very major problems throughout history. An estimated 60% of today's population lacks nutrition. Evolution in it's saving power should select for such an ability to metabolize cellulose and would certainly work against the life forms that lost this ability!
The problem is, there is more to this debate than merely portraying us as biblical fundamentalists who don't want to accept the scientific evidence. We may indeed be wrong on quite a few areas, but i personally think we are getting closer to a better creationist theory. It's not as if evolution is based on extremely solid evidence because the area of focus is on a philosophical presupposition that is rather controversial(naturalism). To the creationist, Darwin essentially implies a blind watchmaker.
Besides the philosophical questions in the topic, I have one question for all you evolutionists. Textbook illustrations demonstrate that our ancestor's skulls were pretty thick and with large protruding brow ridges in order to protect the eyes. Why would natural selection, cause a diminish in these structures and size? What selective advantage would this bring?
Also, bacteria is able to digest the most abundant compound on Earth known as cellulose. It is a chief component of plants such as tree bark, grass, wood, etc. The reason why some animals such as horses, sheep, termites, and cows can use grass and/or wood for food is because they all have this certain bacteria that is able to digest cellulose. However, higher organisms suddenly lost this ability to digest cellulose thus they call this a vestigial cellulose metabolism system. If us humans possessed such an ability, there would be no such thing as starvation and lack of nutrition which has all been very major problems throughout history. An estimated 60% of today's population lacks nutrition. Evolution in it's saving power should select for such an ability to metabolize cellulose and would certainly work against the life forms that lost this ability!
It's directly observed. If that's your argument, it's over for you.
They lied to you about that. Paleontologists rarely use C-14, because at the extreme limit it can be used for objects no more than about 50,000 years old.
And it will every time. Why? Because seals eat shellfish, which get much of their carbon from geologic sources which are quite ancient. You can use it on seals and any other organism which gets ancient carbon in its diet.
That's interesting. Show us that one.
See above. Didn't the guys who told you this know about snails getting carbon from rocks? Of course they did. But they correctly guessed that you didn't. And so it worked for them.
Impossble. Any lab finding that little material in a substance simply notes that there is too little to give a date. BTW, some coal gives much younger dates, because it's near uranium deposits, and the radiation can produce some C14 from nitrogen.
I'd like to see that. Show me the data.
It really is stuff like this that makes Creationists look a bit dumb. Not very well thought through and only apeals to people that want to beleive it and "Dig" no further.. I'm sorry but that's the way it is. There are archaological digs in Egypt showing all kinds of fossils dated at millions of years old.. guess what under the geolocical layers and the type of Rock the Sphinx is based on !! SOme in close proximity to Giza.
So Egyptians built the Sphinx dated before the flood... it got moved during the flood on top of rock layers and formations and fossils and it only moved up.. the force that created the "appearance" of millions of years of layers and deposited fossil records of animals long since dead... didn't wash the sphinx away... it just "Floated" to the top of these layers to settle where it was built whilst all around it millions of years of evidence was left under pyramids and buildings... City walls were plonked back where they were built but ontop of evidence of oan old earth caused by the flood ?
The evidenced for an old earth is all around this area and guess what it's under stuff that survived a "Global Flood" !!! and you need any more ? I got loads.
The bible is unacceptable when used as a science text in science class. It fails to have the characteristics of a science text. It fails to do so by presenting as truth that which has not been tested experimentally and by claiming to have certain truths rather than probable supositions backed by experimental evidence.
The bible is not acceptable as history either. Check what historians see as the criteria for a document being "historical". It has some claim as history but can be shown to be very inacurate by internal and external evidence.
The bible can be used as a book of mythology in a class on mythology or comparitive religions. It can be used as a text on Judeo/christian belief.
I'm looking to see what you're trying to achieve in this thread other than pedantic avoidance of the issue, but I can't make out your point.
Let me recap again.
noguru asked for evidence.
I provided historical evidence.
The evidence was excluded because it was not in a science textbook.
I asked "why isn't history considered evidence."
I was given the answer "because it isn't science."
I asked if truth can only be found in a science text.
Basically (in a roundabout way) I was told yes. History books were put on the same level as a superman comic book as being evidence for anything.
I asked why history is excluded as evidence.
We then get to the crux of the matter and that is not all history books are rejected just the bible. Apparently a court document stating that George Washington had a wife is considered more evidence than the Bible.
In summary...
noguru asked for evidence. I provided evidence. People excluded my evidence because they didn't like it. Evidence is asked for but only predertmined evidence.
Oh yes....and then the scientific method was discussed and some buddha said that it was science that the Earth was barren of life. I asked him, using the scientific method (complete with observations), to back up his claim.
That's about it.
I never said it was a science text. Read the entire thread first.
OOOOOOh, way too much science. Lets go back to a "history" book, especially the one written by a bunch of different people over many years, translated (often mistranslated?) and cobbled together by some church men several hundred years after the last incidents it claims to described.
Yep sounds like good evidence to me.
The evidence for an old earth is overwhelming. It is not contained in the Bible. If you base your faith on the historical accuracy of the creation story in the Bible, you are clearly on thin ice.
AMEN!