Exactly
Isn't it reasonable to doubt Young Earth Creationism?
- Thread starter Vulcan Logician
- Start date
Have you not read Revelation? It details what happens to him.
Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years;and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things he must be released for a little while.And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prisonand will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle, whose number is as the sand of the sea.They went up on the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. And fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them.The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. - Revelation 20:1-10 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation20:1-10&version=NKJV
Derf
Well-known member
You're asking me to explain the authors' assertion of their own Darwin-bashing??
If you're unwilling to hear it from them, why would it make more sense for me, whom you've already dismissed as stereotypical, to explain it to you? Go read their article. Go find out why even committed Evolutionists are starting to question the standard model.
I do not believe that God is completely deterministic. I do believe that He allows His creation latitude to operate freely within the physical laws. SO did God design the plasmodium parasite or did it evolve? Well, any time there is a co evolution of two very desperate organisms things get a bit sticky. There are a couple of parasites that take over a host organisms brain and make the host die in such as was to be beneficial to the parasite. Was such a complex life cycle designed or develop from traditional evolutionary processes? Two entirely separate species developing at the same time to create a life cycle that is beneficial to one or both of them. I don't have a definitive answer but I lean towards designed. I know what people will say about God because of that but I believe that God had a plan in mind. Don't ask me what is plan is for such a thing, I don't know His details.
I remember seeing an artile discussing two function identical genes in an organism. It didn't end well.
I am stretching here but bear with me for the sake of discussion. We suddenly have two chromosomes for skin. Now one of those chromosomes begins to change such that ends up controlling muscles. That is a process that requires some very interesting study.
I put "quickly" in quotes to indicate that it doesn't change quickly bu rather to has how quickly it changes. This gets to be important because the Earth is only about 4.5 billion years old. Life is considerably younger. How much time is required for evolution to explain the bio diversity we currently see?
I fully understand how an allele that provides some benefit can propagate through a breeding group. The first occurrence of that allele is what leaves me scratching my head a bit.
I don't see how it could. Because its not just one species of birds becoming two. We have plants and animals and fungi. Things fly and live in the ocean depths that would crush us to paste. We have parasites that live in the mouths of lobsters and one that eats the tongue of fishes, attaches itself to the stump and serves as the fishes tongue from that moment on. There is an orchid that has an 11" bloom and exactly one moth that can fertilize that orchid because it has an 11" proboscis. I am not entirely convinced that from the moment the first life came into existence till now that enough time has passed to account for the inedible diversity we see around us.
es, there is plenty of work that remains to be done in all of the scientific fields dealing with this topic.
Lon
Well-known member
I DID lazy boy.
Not even to me, just says a LOT about you verses anybody else. It is virtually verbatim (as I said, not even addressed to me) :yawn:
:yawn: AGAIN not addressed to me. You are a broken record, Jose.
As long as it includes your coworker next door, sure. Give that example. If not? :nono:
I can do better. You don't really try very hard. You 'like' those that can't explain. :think: Makes it easier I'd suppose.
1) We can't help but express God. He is in our DNA, even if one is an atheist. The lie in the Garden wasn't a complete fabrication. In a 'bad' way, they did become 'like God.' That's how salesmen still work today, they don't give you all the data else their sales success rate goes way down. Even an atheist must find, necessarily, God inescapable but for the delusion of running to the next corner. Point: No science is done without God. 2) We might not mention God by name, but every right and correct observation reflects who He is. Creation isn't what it is supposed to be, so there may be some of it that isn't concerned with Him. I'd think, with creation in turmoil, I'd be able to meet you on a few points. Even evolution is a sign of turmoil and the need to adapt. I'm not entirely sure if I'd call that grace or curse. God enables everything but the Dodo, Tasmanian Tiger, Northern White Rhinos (not meant to be an encompassing list), to survive. To me, such conversations can be meaningful but they seldom take place. I believe it would be/is good science and theology discussion because it seeks honest answers from both. One day, I hope you meet on that field for what is much more meaningful than you often settle for.
Continuing with the thought above, if that's so, then it isn't an all encompassing definition of 'science.' Science simply seeks to know. If you aren't seeking? Not really doing it as open as the subject is concerned. Of course, we all narrow our fields. A biologist may very well ignore NASA. I guess I'm agreeing to an extent, but doing Biology doesn't eschew astrophysics.
You'd be incorrect if you thought nobody ever did science from the Bible, and it'd be your own problem and shortsightedness. So no, in fact, I don't believe your stats. There has been science involved with God and not just by Jews or Christians.
There is a lot. It is a shame you don't know. Leprosy is described well in the Bible and it was a Christian relying on biblical principles that came up with the cure. Archeology? Science. Nutrition? Absolutely and still looking to Jews as well as analyzing why certain foods were given/prohibited.
This is unthinking broken record. I'm not sure of your success rate when asking things. Perhaps there is a reason you use this as your fall-back, but you've been in enough conversations with me, specifically, to know I'm well researched.
My contention, again is in-house. It isn't as cut and dry of a conversation between us. You could, if you are interested, start a thread in ECT (get permission) simply to see where such a query would go and how we'd handle it between us. I'd enjoy a bit of debate with George Jennings. As I said to you, I also mentioned to him that creation science is all of Christianity. I realize Creation Science Institute is YEC, but the term doesn't have to be that specific. Anybody that believes God created can be termed creation science.
Again, it might be more helpful to start this in ECT to see how the in-house discussion carries. I'm not at all avoiding your question, but I'm not sure you'd appreciate the conversation if it became a three-way instead of between two Christians who disagree. I am not sure I'm YEC, but I'm sympathetic to those scriptures used and believe there are good points to pay attention to, scripturally. I'd simply say I'm always open to whatever is on the table because I'm not able to empirically say anything about a time I wasn't there. I wasn't there when the earth was made. Job 38:4
6days
New member
Absolutely! Darwin noted different species of finches in the Galapagos Islands. Evolutionists thought that these species have developed over the course of up to 5,000,000 years. That time frame was not based on science, but on the belief that everything evolved from a common ancestor over the course of millions and millions of years. Real science involving observation has now shown that these different species likely developed over the course of a few hundred years.Stuu said:
Evolutionists are often surprised how quickly animals can adapt to changing environments. Especially in the past, evolutionists thought change and speciation was a slow gradual process taking millions of years. The creationist model calls for the ability to rapidly change and even rapid speciation. Adaptation~ speciation usually happens when natural selection, 'selects' information that already exists in the genome. It is a process identified by a creationist (Edward Blyth) before Charles Darwin popularized the notion. It is a process similar to that of breeding animals... artificial selection. Selection is a process that usually eliminates unwanted information... It does not create new information.
Jose Fly
New member
You claimed those two articles constitute evidence that should cause one to reject evolution. I read them, and being a biologist, understood them. What I didn't understand is why you cited them as somehow being contrary to evolution. So I asked you to explain why you think that. Since then you've done everything you can to avoid answering/explaining.
If you don't know and can't explain, man up and just say so.
Jose Fly
New member
So how would one tell the difference between evolution that's guided by God and evolution that isn't?
What exactly do you mean by "designed"? What role do you believe God played in the process?
Sure. Like all mutations, the effects vary.
Ok.
Keep in mind that life has been around for ~4 billion years. That's a ridiculously long time. And every single replication event that's ever occurred is a new random trial. So the answer is....yes, definetely.
Jose Fly
New member
Oh for goodness sakes. Lon, that's the same "Support for creationism at all-time low" survey I cited. You just cited an older version.Lon;5225191[URL="http://news.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx" said:
You really are entertaining.
Ok then. You and your fellow Christians should keep publicly arguing about whether the earth is 6,000 years old and flat, while simultaneously telling yourselves that you're in no way anti-science. I'll even help you get a stage.
Thanks for sharing your beliefs.
Science is the application of a method. Science has rules and standards. It is not an "anything goes" enterprise.
I never said otherwise. But there's a huge difference between examining Biblical stories from an archaeological standpoint and attributing phenomena to acts of God.
There's a lot of science where specific phenomena are attributed to God? Where?
I'm not interested in starting your discussions for you.
But this is not about the annihilation of you personally, it is about ideas. Many of the ideas you promote are scientific nonsense, but you use the language of science to described them, for example the word evidence.
Science is all about disproving bad ideas, that's how science comes to have the highest quality of information. If you don't want your ideas to be subjected to the harsh analysis of scientific rationality then couch them in terms of religious fantasy, then we will be able to tell the difference.
Can you play the ball, not the man? Or is every kick at the ball a personal attack on your shins?
Stuart
If you don't read past the first few lines, then yes that is what it says. But go further down:
Younger Americans -- who are typically less religious than their elders -- are less likely to choose the creationist perspective than are older Americans. Americans aged 65 and older -- the most religious of any age group -- are most likely to choose the creationist perspective.
You can see in that table that the 18-29 respondents who are willing to use the word 'evolution' in the description of their beliefs totals 65%, more than twice as many as identify with young earth creationism. Meantime, 50% of 65+ year olds are still on for YEC. So that is the nature of the radical change: the young are abandoning both christianity and creationism. So the 42% figure is not that relevant to the discussion because, as you will recall, it was about 'the kids', who are turning their backs on it relative to the population in general, which was the point I was making.
Stuart
There you go. Seemed is a personal construction.
Meantime we have all sorts of stuff that donesn't require any 'seeming' at all, unambiguous empirical evidence for a 4.54 billion years old earth say, and you suddenly aren't in the mood for that seeming to indicate a very old earth.
Seems to me you cherry pick your reality.
Stuart
Space-time was what inflated during the Big Bang. Time came into existence at the start of the Big Bang. There is no such thing as 'before' the Big Bang.
Yes, energy can only be converted from one form into another. The total energy of the universe is zero, because the gravitational energy of the inflation at the Big Bang is negative energy compared to the positive energy and matter that was borrowed. So, since the total energy is always zero, it can't be created or destroyed.
An interesting question, since the total energy of the universe is zero!
Stuart
I know. You want the ideas you hate to disappear. You're a coward. A real man would engage rationally, not gloat over the relative popularity of what he believes.
That's nice.
Yep. That's what it's all about: Evidence.
Wake us up when you're willing to engage sensibly over it.
:AMR:
What is that? Soccer?
Aren't you a Hurricanes fan?
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
6days
New member
Awww Stuu... you are so sweet, not wanting to annihilate Stripe personally... just the ideas that you don't like?Stuu said:
The breeder eliminates unwanted, pre-existing genetic info. It is a process that may benefit the breeder, but causes a loss of genetic info to the animal or plant.Stuu said:
Yes... I agree. When a detective sees someone with a smoking gun standing over a dead body, it seems reasonable to suspect the person with the gunStuu said:
So, it seems like nothing created everything?Stuu said:
[MENTION=9611]Stuu[/MENTION]
Here's an article you might be interested in, concerning 14C.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0019445
Here's the relevant part:
Nearly 5% of modern 14C was found in a supposedly 80 million year old Mosasaur fossil. Yet 14C is supposed to decay away in less than 100,000 years.
Here's an article you might be interested in, concerning 14C.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0019445
Here's the relevant part:
Nearly 5% of modern 14C was found in a supposedly 80 million year old Mosasaur fossil. Yet 14C is supposed to decay away in less than 100,000 years.
The so-called big bang thing happened in a physical universe.
Are you claiming this physical universe has always existed?
What is your evidence for that?