Creation vs. Evolution

[alwight]

Yes... He is 'shackled' to the source of absolute truth.

:yawn:

But you are sort of missing the point on him. Barbarian suggested Wise admits that evidence supports evolution. Its a silly suggestion because Wise is a Biblical creationist and understands that evidence is interpreted to support what you choose to believe.

Kurt Wise is honest and clever enough to understand and acknowledge the problems that the ToE presents to YECs. What he doesn't offer however are similar rational alternative answers, he simply insists that there are other answers but that our understanding is currently insufficient.

Kurt Wise "Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate."

Yes, I've seen that quote many times before. It seems as though he thinks that a denial of reality would be called for, if that isn't already the case, should any utterly conclusive evidence emerge short of God Himself declaring that the ToE was indeed a fact. :liberals:

There are various articles by Wise. The one Dawkins and others dishonestly quote mine is actually called Towards a Creationist
Understanding of 'Transitional Forms’
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

Yes but has he got any peer reviewed rigorous science to offer that supports YECism is what I was after?
I think not btw, but if I'm wrong then please cite it rather than telling me how unfair his opponents perhaps are.
I think you might try to understand that as he says science doesn't have all the answers but what Darwinian evolution offers is a reasonable naturalistic explanation for natural evidence, which could be falsified should it be wrong.
But he accepts that much and that he can't falsify it, though he would dearly like to I suspect.
Science doesn't have an agenda to suppose that any supernatural agencies be involved and perhaps Kurt Wise at least can manage to keep his religious non-science beliefs and his science in separate boxes.

 

[6days]

:
Yes but has he got any peer reviewed rigorous science to offer that supports YECism is what I was after?

Yes... The link I gave you is peer reviewed... by Biblical creationists.

 

[6days]

In the 1960s most scientists thought that they were the same species. It wasn't until their genes began to be examined from DNA that we found them to be rather more divergent than earlier thought. .

Science has proven evolutionists wrong on everything they said about Neandertals.
Evolutionists portrayed Neandertals in museums as stooped over hairy beasts
Science shows they walked erect... as we do.
Evolutionists said they were carnivores.
Science shows they ate meat and grains....as we do.
Evolutionists said Neandertals were inarticulate, and incapable of speech
Science shows they had the same capabilities of speech as we do. (virtually identical hyoid bone)
Evolutionists said Neandertals were dim witted.
Science shows they seemed to be quite intelligent (with brains larger than ours. They may be more intelligent than us... we don't know).
Evolutionists said Neandertals had no culture.
Science shows they enjoyed art, buried their dead, seemed to enjoy music.
Evolutionists said We didn't interbreed with Neandertals.
Notice this article that denies their humanity titled "Neanderthals Did Not Interbreed With Humans"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...t-interbreed-with-humans-scientists-find.html
Science has shown many of us are ancestors of Neandertals and helps confirm the Biblical account. All humanity is one blood. Christ died and was resurrected, for all humanity.

 

[alwight]

Yes... The link I gave you is peer reviewed... by Biblical creationists.

But no one qualified to peer review science presumably? I didn't think so.
Anyhow I don't think that scientists would particularly want to peer review any such YEC strategy even if by Kurt Wise.

 

[alwight]

Science has proven evolutionists wrong on everything they said about Neandertals.
Evolutionists portrayed Neandertals in museums as stooped over hairy beasts
Science shows they walked erect... as we do.
Evolutionists said they were carnivores.
Science shows they ate meat and grains....as we do.
Evolutionists said Neandertals were inarticulate, and incapable of speech
Science shows they had the same capabilities of speech as we do. (virtually identical hyoid bone)
Evolutionists said Neandertals were dim witted.
Science shows they seemed to be quite intelligent (with brains larger than ours. They may be more intelligent than us... we don't know).
Evolutionists said Neandertals had no culture.
Science shows they enjoyed art, buried their dead, seemed to enjoy music.
Evolutionists said We didn't interbreed with Neandertals.
Notice this article that denies their humanity titled "Neanderthals Did Not Interbreed With Humans"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...t-interbreed-with-humans-scientists-find.html
Science has shown many of us are ancestors of Neandertals and helps confirm the Biblical account. All humanity is one blood. Christ died and was resurrected, for all humanity.

This is all nonsense 6days. Who are these "evolutionists"? :idunno:
Early representations of Neanderthals simply reflected the available science of the time and perhaps sometimes in a way designed to impress the general public, pop science.
It isn't a case of evil dogmatic "evolutionists" being corrected by science it's simply science correcting itself.

 

[6days]

But no one qualified to peer review science presumably? I didn't think so.
Anyhow I don't think that scientists would particularly want to peer review any such YEC strategy even if by Kurt Wise.

I don't think evolutionists want to peer review scientists who proclaim scientific evidence supports the Biblical account.

 

[6days]

Early representations of Neanderthals simply reflected the available science of the time...

No... Science does not make sloppy inaccurate guesses based on a false belief system. It was evolutionists making assumptions based on their beliefs in a common ancestor that portrayed Neandertals as sub humans.

 

[The Barbarian]

Science has proven evolutionists wrong on everything they said about Neandertals.

Hmmm... scientists said that Neandertals were an early form of human. Confirmed. Some creationists were convinced they were a form of ape. Science right, creationists wrong.

Scientists said that Neandertals had fairly short lives, relative to ours. Confirmed. Some creationists claimed they lived very long lives. Science right, creationists wrong.

They said that Neandertals were much more robust than the average Cro-magnon (pretty much our own subspecies), while creationists claimed they were deformed and weakened by rickets. Science showed the creationists were wrong.

Scientists said that Neandertals had larger brains than humans. Confirmed.

Scientists showed that Neandertals had a developed Broca's area, and a larynx capable of speech. (Would you like me to show you)

Science has shown that Neandertals are close enough to us to be considered the same species, and could even occasionally interbreed with us. Agassiz, the last great biologist who was a creationist, thought Neandertals were brutes, and even thought Africans were a different species.

Science right, creationists wrong.

Scientists have shown that Neandertals were capable of making tools, even some rare example of Neandertal art have been documented by "evolutionists." Creationists for a long time, justified their denial of common ancestry with modern humans by pointing out that we had no examples of Neandertal art But they were wrong.

Science shows they enjoyed art, buried their dead, seemed to enjoy music.

The "music loving Neandertal" story is quite interesting. It seems a popular science magazine puts an "April Fool" article in their magazine every year

One year, they reported that a "Dr. Todkopf" had discovered that Neandertals had bands playing tubas and bagpipes. He even speculated that they might have gone extinct when the racket drove off all the game.
http://discovermagazine.com/1997/apr/andaoneandauhuh1108

Funny. But some "creation scientist" found it, while quote-mining, and next thing, it's on the Institute for Creation Science radio program as a fact.
"Many of these items were discovered in the Neander valley of Germany where the very first Neandertal fossil was discovered in 1856. For instance a tuba, a musical instrument made from a mastodon tusk, what looks like a bagpipe made from a part of an animal bladder, a triangle, and a xylophone made from hollowed out bones."
creationist Marvin Lubenow, citing Dr. Todkopf's "discovery"

Even funnier. Apparently, the story has legs. Thanks for reminding us.

Science has shown many of us are ancestors of Neandertals and helps confirm the Biblical account.

Unfortunately, creationists haven't gotten the message. Agassiz, for example. Or Henry Morris, of the ICR, who claimed that even modern humans are genetically distinct from each other (he also asserted that blacks are intellectually and spiritually inferior, but that's another issue)

All humanity is one blood.

This was demonstrated by an "evolutionist", Dr. Francis Collins, who is a world-class scientist and an evangelical Christian who accepts the fact of evolution.

Such a demonstration is beyond the capability of any creationist today.

 

[Jacob]

According to AiG:
"The Bible, God’s revelation to us, gives us the foundation that enables us to begin to build the right worldview to correctly understand how the present and past are connected. All other documents written by man are fallible, unlike the “God-breathed” infallible Word (2 Timothy 3:16). The Bible clearly and unmistakably describes the creation of the universe, the solar system, and the earth around six thousand years ago. We know that it’s true based on the authority of God’s own character. “Because He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself” (Hebrews 6:13)."
Source

The Bible is not fallible because the Bible says so?
"All other documents written by man are fallible..." (including this one presumably.)
How do they know that the Bible isn't fallible too?
Because an anonymous author of Hebrews says that God "swore by Himself" of course.

Sceptics, we have lost, there is simply no argument against the power of that overwhelming reasoning and rationality, we may as well all pack up and go home ....Oh wait I'm home already... :liberals:

God's word is trustworthy. What He has said He will accomplish and do, He (indeed) will.

The word of God contains commands and promises as well as the knowledge of God, His person/being/nature/attributes/character.

So that aspect of God's word which is a promise, that what He said He will accomplish and do, comes about as an extension of who He is.

This particular verse is not God verifying scripture from within scripture by His own word in all things, though that He may do (indeed we have New Testament Scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 which like referred to the Old Testament Scripture (sacred/holy scripture) but which has also been applied to the whole of the Bible). But here in specific we see a verse that corresponds or relates to Himself and Abraham.

Hebrews 6:12-20. Notice in verse 12 an application or understanding is being established where then the example of what God did with Abraham can be seen to go further than just God's relationship with Abraham.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear All,

Well, from what I've read of all that you all have said, I cannot add anything. Good job everyone!! Finally sharing without anger. It's cool. I'm saying this because it's a first!

God Bless All Of Your Hearts And Souls,

Michael

 

[alwight]

God's word is trustworthy. What He has said He will accomplish and do, He (indeed) will.

The word of God contains commands and promises as well as the knowledge of God, His person/being/nature/attributes/character.

So that aspect of God's word which is a promise, that what He said He will accomplish and do, comes about as an extension of who He is.

This particular verse is not God verifying scripture from within scripture by His own word in all things, though that He may do (indeed we have New Testament Scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 which like referred to the Old Testament Scripture (sacred/holy scripture) but which has also been applied to the whole of the Bible). But here in specific we see a verse that corresponds or relates to Himself and Abraham.

Hebrews 6:12-20. Notice in verse 12 an application or understanding is being established where then the example of what God did with Abraham can be seen to go further than just God's relationship with Abraham.

So you are still supposing then that the Bible is the actual word of God because the Bible says so?
If it had been written by humans then it would be just as likely to be as fallible as anything else.
Do you understand at least that I don't presume to doubt God, I doubt that the supposed word of God has any more than a human input to it, and is therefore just as fallible as any other written work.

Considering that the Bible has often been retranslated or adapted and much of the original context is without hard evidence and is foreign to us, then it seems highly irrational to me that a literal adherence and total trust in it would be warranted or would simply be presupposed.

 

[Jacob]

So you are still supposing then that the Bible is the actual word of God because the Bible says so?
If it had been written by humans then it would be just as likely to be as fallible as anything else.
Do you understand at least that I don't presume to doubt God, I doubt that the supposed word of God has any more than a human input to it, and is therefore just as fallible as any other written work.

Considering that the Bible has often been retranslated or adapted and much of the original context is without hard evidence and is foreign to us, then it seems highly irrational to me that a literal adherence and total trust in it would be warranted or would simply be presupposed.

The word of God, and that the prophets wrote under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is contained in the Bible.

That the Bible is self-verifying is important. It's just not the same as what you were originally implying.

This verse may not even be talking only about scripture.

2 Peter 1:21 NASB - for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Have you seen the following verses?

2 Timothy 3:16 NASB - All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

2 Timothy 3:17 NASB - so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

 

[6days]

Some creationists were convinced they were a form of ape. Science right, creationists wrong.

Science is always 'right'. Gods Word is always right. Evolutionists and creationists can be wrong. IF a few creationists thought Neandertal bones were from an ape....its because Gods Word eliminates any possibility of sub humans. They had to be fully human or fully animal. .

But at least they did not think a Neandertal tooth was evidence of extinct pigs.


It was evolutionists trying to sell their belief system as science who said Neandertals were dim witted. There wasn't a shred of evidence to support that. Why not assume Neandertals were more intelligent?? Simple....that would be contradictory to evolutionism that believes intelligence evolved.Its the same with all the other false claims evolutionists made ... it wasnt science.

Science has shown many of us are ancestors of Neandertals and helps confirm the Biblical account. All humanity is one blood.

This was demonstrated by an "evolutionist", Dr. Francis Collins, who is a world-class scientist and an evangelical Christian who accepts the fact of evolution.

Delicious irony that evolutionists keep finding evidence that confirms the truth of scripture.... often admitting surprise. (Jefferson has a thread with examples of science surprising evolutionists...with the science showing Biblical creationists were correct)

I always like to recall that Neandertal bones were discovered in a valley named after a young German, Joachim Neander who wrote 60 Christian hymns including one that" is generally regarded as one of the greatest hymns of praise of the Christian church"....Praise to the Lord, the Almighty, the King of Creation (German: 'Lobe den Herren, den mächtigen König der Ehren')

I suspect that Neander would be pleased that Neandertals humanity helps to confirm the Biblical account of God creating humans distinct from animals.

 

[Jose Fly]

I don't think evolutionists want to peer review scientists who proclaim scientific evidence supports the Biblical account.

Given your explanation of the creationist approach to data (interpret it according to what you already believe), it's understandable that scientists are as interested in reviewing creationist material as they are in reviewing material from geocentrists.

 

[Jacob]

Given your explanation of the creationist approach to data (interpret it according to what you already believe), it's understandable that scientists are as interested in reviewing creationist material as they are in reviewing material from geocentrists.

People do interpret according to what they already believe, whether the person believes in creation or not. But it is possible for a person who doesn't believe in creation to change their mind and agree with God about the world He has created and the individual He has made them. We have the privilege of serving the Creator. He has rescued us from ourselves in the person of Jesus Christ.

 

[Jose Fly]

People do interpret according to what they already believe, whether the person believes in creation or not.

Obviously not always, otherwise our knowledge of the universe around us would still be stuck in our prehistoric days.

 

[Jacob]

Obviously not always, otherwise our knowledge of the universe around us would still be stuck in our prehistoric days.

If you have a belief, your life is either defined by it or you are open to change. But believing God is different than just having some belief.

 

[Jose Fly]

If you have a belief, your life is either defined by it or you are open to change.

And obviously throughout history there have been enough people who are "open to change" and interpret data for what it is rather than what they want it to be, to take us from our primitive past to everything we see around us today.

But believing God is different than just having some belief.

Do you believe that's true only when it comes to your belief in your god, or do you allow that for all beliefs about all gods?

 

[Jacob]

And obviously throughout history there have been enough people who are "open to change" and interpret data for what it is rather than what they want it to be, to take us from our primitive past to everything we see around us today.

What do you mean by primitive past?

Do you believe that's true only when it comes to your belief in your god, or do you allow that for all beliefs about all gods?

There is only one God.

As for beliefs and believing God they are both different than believing in God.

It is possible to believe in God and believe God and not have a perfect (set of) beliefs. What we believe is different than in whom we believe.

 

[Jose Fly]

What do you mean by primitive past?

Let's say anything before 10,000 years ago.

There is only one God.

As for beliefs and believing God they are both different than believing in God.

It is possible to believe in God and believe God and not have a perfect (set of) beliefs. What we believe is different than in whom we believe.

That still doesn't really address the question. You claimed that believing in your god is not just some belief. I'm asking if you apply that to all beliefs in gods, or just your own.

Hindus for example believe in many gods. Are their beliefs in gods not just some belief?