• 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.

Creationists vs "Atheistical Darwinialistic evolutionalists"

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
From a closed thread (found here), I wanted to continue the discussion:

I'm afraid it's much worse than that. I would amend Dobzhansky's statement to say, "Nothing in all of modern science makes sense except in the light of evolution."

Unfortunately, my side makes the opposite claim, and an article was written to that effect. Worth the read, I think.

astronomy to physics to genetics to geology and so on, none of it makes any sense at all except in the light of an evolving universe that is billions of years old.

And I could make the opposite claim.

So instead of just question begging, how about reasoning out your argument?

Those are inventions.

Yes they are. Was knowledge of darwinia--- evolution required to make any of them?

Did Eli Whitney need to know about evolution or YEC to invent the cotton gin? No.

So that's one that did not require knowledge of evolution. Now how about the rest of those inventions? Did the rest of the inventors of those items require knowledge of evolution in order to invent them?


Light bulb, vacuums, pasteurization, railway, typewriter, electric motor, carburetor, loudspeaker, telephone, phonograph, microphone, photographic film, seismograph, solar panels, punch cards, cars, combustion engine, AC transformer, contact lens, tractor, ballpoint pen, cinematography, wind energy, zipper, escalator, X-ray, remote control, tape recorder, air conditioning, fire fighting foam, neon lamp, EKG, airplane, seismometer, sonar, radio, TV, rockets, radar, sliced bread, transfusion (think Harvey here), EEG, steel, radio telescope, jet engine, computer, Velcro, transistor, atomic clock, nuclear reactor, fiber optics, hard drives, satellites, spandex and spam, lasers, digital photography, optical disc, 3D holography, LED, mouse, lunar lander, Venus lander, video games, video cassette, space station, e-mail, karaoke :)
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
​, LCD, microprocessor, MRI, Ethernet, PC, DNA sequencing, Internet, Plasma TV, GPS, MP3 player, flash drive? (See more inventions and discoveries.)



Those things have nothing to do with each other.

Yes, that's my point. Yet you made the following claim:


Atheistical Darwinialistic evolutionalists have been at the forefront of all scientific advancements for the past century or more.



Are you hereby retracting that claim, since, as you claim, Darwinian beliefs and evolution, and inventing things like the cotton gin, have nothing to do with each other?

Or are you going to continue to assert that they do, by claiming the following?:


Atheistical Darwinialistic evolutionalists have been at the forefront of all scientific advancements for the past century or more



People can still invent all sorts of products without having any understanding of YEC or evolution.

Correct. Thank you for at least partially conceding my point, UN.

But try understanding astronomy,

Supra.

or genetics,

https://kgov.com/crispr-explained-bel-style

or geology,

https://kgov.com/bel/20040603

or physics

https://kgov.com/wave-particle-duality-is-a-triality

with the assumption of a 6,000 year old universe and see how far it gets you.

Well, no, "assumption of a 6,000 year old universe" would be called question begging, and would lead to bias.

Go where the evidence leads.

I think you'll find that the evidence, when you actually consider and examine it, leads to a young universe.

And even worse for your position, I assert that such things CANNOT be explained by the old earth/universe position or by evolution, because information is not physical, and information cannot arise from non-information, and life cannot arise from non-life.

Does that mean you can't be YEC? No, you can still believe anything you want. But try being a YEC and accomplishing anything significant in the physical sciences.

You mean like Spike Psarris, who is a former engineer with the US Military space program, and his video, What You Aren't Being Told About Astronomy: Our Created Solar System, and a volume two titled Our Created Star and Galaxies?

Or maybe Dr. Jerry Bergman or even Dr. Jonathan Sarfati.

Or perhaps you mean these doubters, or countless others who might be fired or lose their tenure, or at the very least, be discriminated against if their beliefs about origins were known to their (potential) employers.

I think your unstated claim, that if one rejects darwinism or evolution or an old universe/earth, one cannot be a "good" scientist, falls flat on its face when you actually consider how many accomplished scientists there are who reject it. (Note: I'm not trying to appeal to popularity here, just pointing out that there are scientists who are accomplished in their work and yet reject your overall position.)

1) Any major figure in science who lived before Darwin doesn't count, because they had no way of knowing about the theory of evolution.

Which is why I also listed scientists who lived AFTER Darwin as well.

Special pleading won't get you very far, UN.

2) Galileo was persecuted for his views by the existing church of the time.

So? Scientists today are being persecuted (see above) by the "church" of evolution and Darwinism for their views. So what's your point?



3) Newton held to a number of unorthodox scientific and religious views.

What, specifically, are you referring to?

And even if so, just because someone has erroneous beliefs about something doesn't mean everything they believe is incorrect. It doesn't follow logically.

It is a fact that Newton rejected the claim that the solar system formed naturally, and defended the historical accuracy of Scripture.

Aron Ra attempted to make the same claim you made, that Newton wasn't a YE creationist, when in fact he was.

4) Kelvin was certainly no "young earth" creationist, as he hypothesized that the earth was between 20 million and 40 million years old.

You're right, I should not have called Lord Kelvin a YEC.

I will point out, however, that he still rejected naturalistic origins of life and the universe.

https://kgov.com/fathers-of-the-phys...ciences#kelvin

* Lord Kelvin's Proof of God vs. AronRa's Two-word Quote Mine: Evolutionists wrongly accuse creationists of quote mining. In an RSR debate, popular atheist AronRa committed a record-breaking "quote mine" of only two words! Ra wrote that in Kelvin's opinion, the concept of evolution was "not unscientific." :) For a more accurate assessment of this old-earth creationist's views, in the Address of Sir William Thomson [Lord Kelvin], President, at the Forty-First Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Kelvin concluded his lengthy report with these words:

"But overpoweringly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie all round us; and if ever perplexities, whether metaphysical or scientific, turn us away from them for a time, they come back upon us with irresistible force, showing to us through Nature the influence of a free will, and teaching us that all living beings depend on one ever-acting Creator and Ruler." -Lord Kelvin

In the same speech, Kelvin also defended the experimentally established law of biogenesis and rejected abiogenesis, which is the popular claim of naturalistic origins for life itself, unsubstantiated by evidence but believed by virtually all atheists, as a matter of unquestionable dogma and blind faith:

"A very ancient speculation, still clung to by many naturalists... supposes that... dead matter may have run together or crystallized or fermented into 'germs of life,' or 'organic cells,' or 'protoplasm.' But science brings a vast mass of inductive evidence against this hypothesis of spontaneous generation, as you have heard from my predecessor in the Presidential chair. Careful enough scrutiny has, in every case up to the present day, discovered life as antecedent to life. Dead matter cannot become living without coming under the influence of matter previously alive. This seems to me as sure a teaching of science as the law of gravitation." -Lord Kelvin

Such words from Kelvin "incited a great flutter amongst the dovecots of science of the shoddy kind" remarked a John Buchanan. Still though, Kelvin was not a young-earth creationist and he proposed in his speech that perhaps life that was originally created by God on another planet and may have come to Earth via meteorites. And then, while specifically disavowing the mechanisms of Darwinism, Kelvin wrote, "if evolution there has been," then that life would have been guided to diversify by intelligent design. And ultimately Kelvin observed that even if all this did happen, it does not imply however that mankind evolved from animals!

And Kelvin would always reject efforts to provide a maximum age for the earth as older than 40 million years, which age is far too young, even if evolutionary mechanisms could theoretically create vital organs, for Darwinian mechanisms to explain the diversity of life. For as widely observed, natural selection can explain the survival, but not the arrival, of the fittest.

 
Last edited:

User Name

Well-known member
Below is an image of Supernova remnant G1.9+0.3:
.

This supernova is located ~27,000 light years away from Earth, meaning that it takes at least 27,000 years for the light from this supernova to reach Earth. Try making any kind of scientific sense out of that with the assumption of a 6,000 year old universe.

But wait! It gets worse. This is a supernova, meaning that it is the remnants of an exploded star. Stars have very long lifespans. The largest stars have the shortest lifespans--as little as 10 million years, while smaller stars can last for around 10 billion years. So how did we get a supernova remnant from a dead star whose light takes over 27,000 years to reach us in a universe that is only 6,000 years old?
 

Right Divider

Body part
But wait! It gets worse. This is a supernova, meaning that it is the remnants of an exploded star. Stars have very long lifespans. The largest stars have the shortest lifespans--as little as 10 million years, while smaller stars can last for around 10 billion years. So how did we get a supernova remnant from a dead star whose light takes over 27,000 years to reach us in a universe that is only 6,000 years old?
Please show us your observations that confirm this theory.
 

User Name

Well-known member
So you have NO observations to support your theory. I thought not.

I was under the impression that science was about forming theories based on observations. Silly me.

Fine, then ignore that part and answer this in a manner that makes scientific sense, based on observations: "But wait! It gets worse. This is a supernova, meaning that it is the remnants of an exploded star. So how did we get a supernova remnant from a dead star whose light takes over 27,000 years to reach us in a universe that is only 6,000 years old?"
 

Right Divider

Body part
Fine, then ignore that part and answer this in a manner that makes scientific sense, based on observations: "But wait! It gets worse. This is a supernova, meaning that it is the remnants of an exploded star. So how did we get a supernova remnant from a dead star whose light takes over 27,000 years to reach us in a universe that is only 6,000 years old?"

So you gave up on supporting your wild and unsupported speculation about the age of stars?
 

User Name

Well-known member
So you gave up on supporting your wild and unsupported speculation about the age of stars?

I sure have! Have you given up on answering this question--"So how did we get a supernova remnant from a dead star whose light takes over 27,000 years to reach us in a universe that is only 6,000 years old?"
 

Right Divider

Body part
I sure have! Have you given up on answering this question--"So how did we get a supernova remnant from a dead star whose light takes over 27,000 years to reach us in a universe that is only 6,000 years old?"

The answer is simple: God stretched out the universe that He created.

I know that this beyond your ability to accept. Too bad.
 

User Name

Well-known member
The answer is simple: God stretched out the universe that He created.

Science, remember? "Based on observations," as you said? When you can demonstrate your YEC beliefs scientifically, then and only then can you call it science. Until then, all you have is a religious belief. That's not science.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Science, remember? "Based on observations," as you said? When you can demonstrate your YEC beliefs scientifically, then and only then can you call it science. Until then, all you have is a religious belief. That's not science.

I have a news flash for you: Nobody has observational evidence on how the universe came into being.

You don't and I don't. So I rely on the Creator's own commentary; whereas you rely on human ideas.

The "big bang" is not science.
 

User Name

Well-known member
I have a news flash for you: Nobody has observational evidence on how the universe came into being.

We have observational evidence that Supernova remnant G1.9+0.3 is ~27,000 light years away, meaning that it takes at least 27,000 light years for the light from that supernova to reach Earth so we can see it. So how did we get a supernova remnant from a dead star whose light takes over 27,000 years to reach us in a universe that is only 6,000 years old? Remember, a star doesn't just form one day and blow up the next. Stars have lifespans. So we have to factor in the lifespan of the star before it blew up, and then factor in the time it takes for the light from that supernova to reach Earth so we can see it. The challenge for you is to account for all of that time while still maintaining that the universe is 6,000 years old.

Or you can just believe whatever you want to believe and forget about the science.
 

Right Divider

Body part
We have observational evidence that Supernova remnant G1.9+0.3 is ~27,000 light years away, meaning that it takes at least 27,000 light years for the light from that supernova to reach Earth so we can see it. So how did we get a supernova remnant from a dead star whose light takes over 27,000 years to reach us in a universe that is only 6,000 years old? Remember, a star doesn't just form one day and blow up the next. Stars have lifespans. So we have to factor in the lifespan of the star before it blew up, and then factor in the time it takes for the light from that supernova to reach Earth so we can see it. The challenge for you is to account for all of that time while still maintaining that the universe is 6,000 years old.

Or, you can just believe whatever you want to believe, and forget about the science.
Once AGAIN... you SPECULATE about things that you CANNOT observe.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Below is an image of Supernova remnant G1.9+0.3:
So how did we get a supernova remnant from a dead star whose light takes over 27,000 years to reach us in a universe that is only 6,000 years old?

The usual creationist dodge is that God created light on the way to the Earth to make it look as though the object was very old. In this case, God faked a supernova explosion of a star that never existed.

Which is a remarkably cynical ploy for anyone claiming to be a Christian.

There's a more imaginative and honest way around this reality:

Aardsma & the Virtual History Hypothesis
Young-cosmos creationist, Aardsma (Ph.D. in nuclear physics from the University of Toronto) believes that his “virtual history” hypothesis is less problematic than the usual creationist excuse of “creation with apparent age.” Aardsma even admits at one point below that “I think there is enormous evidence of biological evolution (meaning extensive changes to flora and fauna)—-again, in virtual history.” But not in real history. Read his explanation of virtual history below and see if you are convinced:

“The two ideas share some similarity, but differ at a basic level both philosophically and theologically. Creation with Appearance of Age gives the impression that God arbitrarily painted a facade of age over the creation — that He could have chosen to leave everything looking its ‘real’ created age (i.e., roughly 7000 years, by my best Bible chronology reckoning) if He had wanted to, but He chose instead to make things look much older. This immediately raises theological objections: ‘But why would God do such a thing? Isnʼt it fundamentally dishonest to make something look like it isnʼt? Isnʼt God being deceitful?’” (This is where the “heresy” mentioned above comes from.)

“The virtual history view never encounters this problem. It says that the people who are saying ‘creation with appearance of age’ donʼt understand properly what the word/idea ‘creation’ means. The virtual history view goes to the analogy of human creations to try to show what ‘creation’ means. It takes the creation of a story by a human author as (probably its best) analogy. It observes that in all such stories one always has a virtual history present—-grown characters wearing sewn garments and living in already built houses… right from page one of the story. What is implied from page one of the story is a cause-and-effect virtual history to the story, stretching back into the indefinite past. This virtual history in no way contradicts the actual date (in the story charactersʼ time) of creation of the story. (That ‘date’ we would fix at page one of the book, since that is when, in the story frame of reference, the story world comes into existence.) We find by such analogies that an ‘appearance of age’ is inherent in what ‘creation’ means.” (This is where the “redundancy” mentioned above comes from.)

“But this ‘appearance of age’ is not an add-on and is not arbitrary. Try to imagine writing a story which does not have an ‘appearance of age’. After you have completed that exercise, try to imagine writing a fiction story which has a false ‘appearance of age’. I find that it is intrinsically impossible to create such stories. I.e., you cannot have a ‘creation with an appearance of age’ if you mean by that anything other than a creation with its inherent virtual history. To ask for a creation with a false appearance of age (which includes the case of a creation having no appearance of age), is to ask for the impossible/ridiculous.” (This is where the ‘absurdity’ mentioned above comes from.)

“We are living in a ‘story’ God created. God is both author and reader of this story (e.g., ‘For in Him we both live and move and have our being.’ Acts 17:28.) (Note how this works. A story-world has no existence in the book; its existence is in the mind of the author and readers.) Page one opens about 7000 years ago our time, (the only time frame we have access to). This ‘story’ has a virtual history stretching back billions of years. We find this to be the case by computing the time it would take light to travel from remote galaxies we see in the sky, or by computing the time it would take radioactive elements, such as uranium dug from the earth in natural ores, to decay as much as they have. These great ages in no way negate the fact that page one opens 7000 years ago. Nor does our virtual history, with all its dinosaurs etc. negate the fact that we are created."

https://edwardtbabinski.us/scrivenings/2014/young-cosmos-creationists-with-higher.html

It sounds loony, but it has the obvious virtue of not assuming a dishonest creator, which is what "appearance of age" requires.
 
Top