Isn't it reasonable to doubt Young Earth Creationism?

[Stuu]

And growing with each new discovery!!

As you are no doubt aware, the problem is the definition of the word species. When you have a slowly and continuously changing group of closely related animals, each new generation of which is a product of the previous one, it becomes arbitrary where you draw a line between 'species'.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

It might disprove the current manifestation, but evolution is a slippery quarry. It's more of a concept than a theory, and a concept can be adjusted to fit the mental environment. The most evolutionary thing about evolution is the theory itself.

You need some new Kool Aid. Evolution is the fact of the history of life on earth as demonstrated in the fossil record, with the same tree of life evident in DNA comparison between modern species. That fact is explained by the theory of natural selection, which is the only explanation we have that is consistent with all evidence and contradicted by none.

Unless you have unambiguous evidence to the contrary? If you have then I would like to be invited to attend the presentation of your Nobel Prize.

Stuart

 

[Derf]

You need some new Kool Aid.

I appreciate the offer of your Kool Aid, but no thanks.

Evolution is the fact of the history of life on earth as demonstrated in the fossil record, with the same tree of life evident in DNA comparison between modern species.

This tree of life:
ScienceDaily: The Tree of Life may be more like a bush?

Or was it this one: ScienceDaily: Reshaping Darwin's Tree of Life, where the authors, because their paper demolishes Darwin's tree of life, have to clarify that "What we wish to clearly stress is that we are not engaged in Darwin-bashing. We consider Darwin a hero of science,". Hahahahahahahaha!!!

That fact is explained by the theory of natural selection, which is the only explanation we have that is consistent with all evidence and contradicted by none.

Natural Selection is a tautology. "Whatever survives is the fittest, and whatever is fittest survives." (And don't forget to define "fittest" as "the most likely to survive".) Certainly plenty of explanatory power there!

Unless you have unambiguous evidence to the contrary? If you have then I would like to be invited to attend the presentation of your Nobel Prize.

Stuart

There's plenty of evidence to the contrary, but I doubt you would ever consider it unambiguous.

He who controls the dictionary controls the debate.

 

[Jose Fly]

This tree of life:
ScienceDaily: The Tree of Life may be more like a bush?

Or was it this one: ScienceDaily: Reshaping Darwin's Tree of Life, where the authors, because their paper demolishes Darwin's tree of life, have to clarify that "What we wish to clearly stress is that we are not engaged in Darwin-bashing. We consider Darwin a hero of science,". Hahahahahahahaha!!!

I'm curious, did you make any effort to understand what they're talking about, or did you just Google, copy, and paste?

Natural Selection is a tautology. "Whatever survives is the fittest, and whatever is fittest survives." (And don't forget to define "fittest" as "the most likely to survive".) Certainly plenty of explanatory power there!

Yet somehow it happens, all the time, right before our eyes. Or do you have some other explanation for why certain strains of bacteria persist over others in certain environments?

 

[Stripe]

Yet somehow it happens.

Doesn't it suck to wake up each morning knowing you have to endure another day being this stupid?

He said "tautology." That directly implies that it has to happen.

And meanwhile, OP vanishes among the noise.

 

[Vulcan Logician]

It might disprove the current manifestation, but evolution is a slippery quarry. It's more of a concept than a theory, and a concept can be adjusted to fit the mental environment. The most evolutionary thing about evolution is the theory itself.

It adapts according to new evidence that is presented and not in relation to how it proves or disproves creationism. Scientists could care less what theory of biological origin is scrawled in any ancient texts. Just like a creationist doesn't pay attention to evidence, so to the scientist doesn't pay attention to ancient scripture.

Science changes its position when new evidence comes to light. That is its strength, not its weakness. It may appear less "authoritative" to people who are lost and looking for someone to tell them with certitude what is true and what is not true. But for the rest of us (who aren't lost, who don't find comfort in false certitude, who are merely looking for a more coherent understanding of the natural world) science's willingness to adapt its theories to new information demonstrates its trustworthiness.

EXAMPLE 1:

A fossilized bunny is found that disproves the current model of evolution.
Scientists: I guess the theory is wrong. Back to the drawing board.

Example 2:

A fossilized trilobite is found disproving the YEC model.
YEC: It doesn't matter what evidence comes to light. I am not changing my position.

Some people are convinced by hard-nosed certainty and inflexibility. I'm not one of them. That's why I find YECism implausible. It isn't honest in its consideration for the evidence. It is oblivious to evidence. It's position will not adapt or change no matter what is discovered. Plenty of people won't fault YECism for that, and its their right to believe what they want to believe. But me? I have my eyes open. I know the search for the truth isn't decided by whoever "sounds like they are certain."

 

[Stripe]

A creationist doesn't pay attention to evidence.

:yawn:

Darwinists are bigots.

 

[Stripe]

Some people are convinced by hard-nosed certainty and inflexibility. I'm not one of them. Darwinists aren't honest in their consideration of the evidence. They are oblivious to evidence. Their position will not change no matter what. Plenty of people won't fault evolutionists for that, and they can believe what they want. But me? I have my eyes open. I know the search for the truth isn't decided by whoever sounds certain.

Darwinists are bigots.

 

[6days]

So why were they reconciled to the Father by Jesus' blood?

"For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross." (Colossians 1:19-20
Jesus reconciled everything that sinned to the Father.

Jamie, I answered and actually referred to that verse in Colossians. There is a time coming when everything in the new heavens and new earth are fully reconciled to our Savior. Col. 1:20


If you ignore all other scripture, you could believe as you do. However, it is plain from Scripture that Christ's death (Last Adam) was for the redemption of the descendants of first Adam. (1 Cor.15). It is heretical to suggest Jesus died to redeem demons, aliens, pre-adamites etc.


Also, Scripture is clear that that there is no redemption for those who die having rejected so great a salvation.

Jesus explained that some “will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life” Matt. 25:46.

Besides the words of Jesus we can also notice Paul said that some “will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord” 2 Thessalonians 1:9. We can see John said of the wicked “the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever” Revelation 14:11


Universalism is a heretical belief...not all people will be redeemed.

 

[6days]

EXAMPLE 1:
A fossilized bunny is found that disproves the current model of evolution.
Scientists: I guess the theory is wrong. Back to the drawing board.

Good example. If a bunny is found in the Cambrian, both evolutionist and creationist scientists would adjust their models... but not throw out their model.

Example 2: A fossilized trilobite is found disproving the YEC model.

YEC: It doesn't matter what evidence comes to light. I am not changing my position.

Silly and false example. Trilobites help confirm the creationist model. (Sudden appearance, sophisticated design, extinction).

 

[Vulcan Logician]

Some people are convinced by hard-nosed certainty and inflexibility. I'm not one of them. Darwinists aren't honest in their consideration of the evidence. They are oblivious to evidence. Their position will not change no matter what. Plenty of people won't fault evolutionists for that, and they can believe what they want. But me? I have my eyes open. I know the search for the truth isn't decided by whoever sounds certain.

Darwinists are bigots.

Not so. Ken Ham for example has said that no amount of evidence would change his mind. There are plenty of Christians who are open-minded concerning the evidence. But if your position entails that you accept Genesis no matter what, you have admitted that you ignore evidence.

I was responding to a post that faulted evolutionary science for changing its position according to new evidence (ie suggesting that "certitude" was to be preferred over a changing scientific model). How is it bigotry to criticize that approach in a response?

 

[Stuu]

I appreciate the offer of your Kool Aid, but no thanks.

It's much sweeter, and has the advantage of being true.

Or was it this one: ScienceDaily: Reshaping Darwin's Tree of Life, where the authors, because their paper demolishes Darwin's tree of life, have to clarify that "What we wish to clearly stress is that we are not engaged in Darwin-bashing. We consider Darwin a hero of science,". Hahahahahahahaha!!!

Go back and read it properly. You could ignore what they have published, and treat the tree / bush / whatever metaphor of life as the pathway of each species individually, with the other species counting only as 'environment' and it remains unchanged. These researchers are just trying to link up the twigs with symbiotic connections.

Natural Selection is a tautology. "Whatever survives is the fittest, and whatever is fittest survives." (And don't forget to define "fittest" as "the most likely to survive".) Certainly plenty of explanatory power there!

That's only half of the explanation though isn't it.

There's plenty of evidence to the contrary, but I doubt you would ever consider it unambiguous.

I do try to set high standards, just as biologists have for the past 149 years, and that is how we have natural selection as the explanation for the diversity of life on earth. By contrast, you have nothing to offer.

He who controls the dictionary controls the debate.

What debate? Creationism is wrong and evolution by natural selection is right.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Not so. Ken Ham for example has said that no amount of evidence would change his mind. There are plenty of Christians who are open-minded concerning the evidence. But if your position entails that you accept Genesis no matter what, you have admitted that you ignore evidence.

I was responding to a post that faulted evolutionary science for changing its position according to new evidence (ie suggesting that "certitude" was to be preferred over a changing scientific model). How is it bigotry to criticize that approach in a response?

Stripe is so good at projecting he could get a job managing a whole chain of outdoor cinemas.

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

Ken Ham.

Who?

You declared yourself here to engage in sensible discussion, but you say all of the people your like to engage with hate evidence.


I responded concisely and sensibly to OP, but you want to talk about random people, probably misrepresenting them, in order to poison the well.

 

[jamie]

Jamie, I answered and actually referred to that verse in Colossians. There is a time coming when everything in the new heavens and new earth are fully reconciled to our Savior. Col. 1:20

Our Savior reconciled all sinners to the Father.

The sinful angels have not been judged.

"And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the Great Day." (Jude 1:6)

Who will judge these angels?

"Do you not know that we shall judge angels?" (1 Corinthians 6:3)

Righteous angels have no need of judgment.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Our Savior reconciled all sinners to the Father.

The sinful angels have not been judged.

"And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the Great Day." (Jude 1:6)

Who will judge these angels?

"Do you not know that we shall judge angels?" (1 Corinthians 6:3)

Righteous angels have no need of judgment.

So obviously, they must not be righteous (especially at the time of judgment). Duh. If they were, we wouldn't end up judging them.

Jamie, did you you ever hear of this verse?

I, even I, am the Lord, And besides Me there is no savior. - Isaiah 43:11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah43:11&version=NKJV

That's God speaking. "BESIDES ME there is no savior." Meaning there is only one savior of mankind. Yet Jesus is our Savior. That makes Him God.

 

[Vulcan Logician]

Who?

You declared yourself here to engage in sensible discussion, but you say all of the people your like to engage with hate evidence.


I responded concisely and sensibly to OP, but you want to talk about random people, probably misrepresenting them, in order to poison the well.

What?

I don't think you got what I was saying. I'm not saying that Ken Ham represents all YECs or anything. I'm merely pointing out one statement of his, a statement that I thought summed up the idea that I was criticizing.

If you think the argument has gotten unfair or has strayed from what is relevant, then lets go back to the original point.

What do you think about the fact that the theory of evolution changes when new evidence comes to light? Is that a strike against it?

Let's forget Ken Ham or anyone else. That's the issue. My position is that it is not a strike against it. What's your position?

 

[6days]

What do you think about the fact that the theory of evolution changes when new evidence comes to light?

The 'theory' is rubbery and non-falsifiable. Virtually everything the 'theory' proposed at the time of the Scopes trial has been proven wrong by science. And science continues to prove wrong, many of the false and shoddy conclusions that are based in a false belief system. (Junk DNA, pseudogenes, Neandertals, poorly wired vertebrate eyes, Darwins 'tree' ETC)

 

[6days]

Our Savior reconciled all sinners to the Father.
The sinful angels have not been judged.
"And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the Great Day." (Jude 1:6)
Who will judge these angels?
"Do you not know that we shall judge angels?" (1 Corinthians 6:3)
Righteous angels have no need of judgment.

And you think that suggests demonic beings will be reconciled to God? That is a heretical belief.
Scripture tells us what will happen to the demonic beings / rebel angels at the judgement... "'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels" Matthew 25:41

 

[Stripe]

What's your position?

The same as what I wrote first up. :up: