Old Testament Creationism

Ewen Ebsworth wrote: So Bible translators can`t be trusted, even though they are experts in their field, yet scientists can be, precisely because they are experts in their respective fields?

Actually what I was trying to say was that only experts in both fields should be permitted to have a say. i.e. if anyone hasn't read the New Testament in the original Greek (I definitely haven't) and only rely on the translated version(s) (me again!), should not, in my view, be allowed to argue/preach anything about the New Testament from authority because, for one thing, which one of the 50 different versions of the Bible is the source of truth?

How many preachers just in the US for example do you think this would apply to?

Ewen Ebsworth wrote: The translations are not just one translator's arbitrary work; translation is guided by evaluating the entire body of manuscript evidence to ensure accuracy by groups of Greek and Hebrew experts.

The problem I have with this is, just through observing contemporary goings on, both individuals and groups of humans can't seem to do anything "selflessly" i.e. there always seems to be an underlying agenda whether political, religious or money motivated. It's not that Bible translators can`t be trusted, I mean all humans cannot be trusted to be truely objective. Why would you suppose humans were any different 2000 years ago?

Ewen Ebsworth wrote: Looks like you begin with the answer to me and fit the evidence around it

I agree, just not in the context you were using it.

Ewen Ebsworth wrote: Bible translators work from thousands of ancient manuscripts: in fact there are more manuscripts for the New Testament than any other in ancient literature.

I know, but how many of these were written in Aramaic and languages other than Greek and English and therefore come complete with all the translation problems I alluded to previously.

Irrespective of the message or source, I find it ludicrous to accept that all events and teachings associated with and/or attributed to anyone is likely to be a true and factual account once you consider, the person is no longer alive to provide any clarification, if the account was written by those who didn't witness the events, if the account is written years after the events occurred, if parts of the text shows signs of tampering (additions) (who knows what may have been deleted), if the account had been agreed upon by a group of humans (with an agenda), in a different language from that spoken today, and therefore requiring yet another translation whereby the meaning is again agreed upon by a group of humans (with an agenda), resulting in over 50 different versions…bearing in mind O`Sensei`s teachings can't be easily interpreted within 44 years of his death. I'm not saying it is impossible - just implausible.

Ewen Ebsworth wrote: God is not defined by a book, but He is the author of a book...the Bible. Tell me Mary, is it faith that is so anathema to you or just what you perceive to be fundamentalism?

That's an offensive way to phrase a question, but I'll try to answer it. I find fundamentalism to be foolish and inescapably erroneous -- ANY fundamentalism, not merely Christian fundamentalism. I have no problem with "faith" by some definitions, and find other forms of "faith" to be an exercise in willful stupidity. Believing that something is the literal truth because it comes with the stamp of your religion on it makes no more sense than believing food is healthy because you bought it at a "health food store". Your religion -- any religion -- is the product of human beings who seek to represent, in their inevitably flawed way, their understanding of the divine or the spirit. Some do so earnestly, some do so honestly, some do so cynically and with an eye out to their own opportunity. Even the most well-intentioned are flawed, and what they produce (with their religion's brand name stamped on it) is likewise flawed. Some of it is produced by charlatans and self-serving demagogues. None of it is perfect. Buyer beware...or, well, don't. Up to you.

Hugh Beyer wrote: Oy. Well, thanks for answering my question (which was "What did Jesus ever say that contradicts the theory of evolution", btw). But your answer demonstrates the issues I have with the way you approach the bible. First, you've taken an off-the-cuff, introductory remark as a core point of the saying. I don't believe you can hang a cosmology from an off-hand remark quoted second-hand 2000 years ago. Second, you choose to allow Jesus to be precise and imprecise according to your preference. Jesus' remark contradicts Genesis just as much as it does evolution. Man was not created on the first day but on the sixth; so man was not created male and female "from the beginning of creation" but from the sixth day of creation. OMG, Jesus lied or was mistaken. My faith crumbles. Finally, you make a big deal about how Jesus just said "made" and nothing about how he made them, e.g. by evolving them over millenia. But why would he? That's not the point of what he was saying. Evolution doesn't prove God doesn't exist, any more than hammers prove carpenters don't exist. Quit making the atheists' arguments for them, please.

Hugh, it shouldn`t surprise either of us that we disagree on certain things (within the context of this discussion). You have an issue with "my" approach to the Bible, but from your response I too see issues with yours. You have also shown your preference in choosing Jesus` words to allow for evolution because he said "in the beginning" not "on the sixth day". Jesus is alluding to creation when he says "in the beginning" as these are the first words in Genesis 1. Genesis 1 records God creating over six days (as you have pointed out Adam and Eve were created on the sixth day), not millions of years.

The context of Jesus` statement also makes it clear what Jesus meant by "in the beginning" because he is discussing the issue of divorce with the Pharisees. Jesus is asked whether it is lawful to permit divorce and Jesus responds by quoting from Genesis 1 & 2, before the Fall in Genesis 3. Jesus` point is that divorce was a concession given to Moses because of man`s fallen sinful nature; but God`s intention was always - from the beginning of its institution i.e. when he made Adam and Eve - that marriage was for life. So Jesus is not wrong about when God created Adam and Eve.

There are many serious theological problems with evolution (depending on your view of course), however, as a Christian I have found that theistic evolutionists have not satisfactorily dealt with the theological problems their beliefs in evolution cause.

Mary Malmros wrote: That's an offensive way to phrase a question, but I'll try to answer it. I find fundamentalism to be foolish and inescapably erroneous -- ANY fundamentalism, not merely Christian fundamentalism. I have no problem with "faith" by some definitions, and find other forms of "faith" to be an exercise in willful stupidity. Believing that something is the literal truth because it comes with the stamp of your religion on it makes no more sense than believing food is healthy because you bought it at a "health food store". Your religion -- any religion -- is the product of human beings who seek to represent, in their inevitably flawed way, their understanding of the divine or the spirit. Some do so earnestly, some do so honestly, some do so cynically and with an eye out to their own opportunity. Even the most well-intentioned are flawed, and what they produce (with their religion's brand name stamped on it) is likewise flawed. Some of it is produced by charlatans and self-serving demagogues. None of it is perfect. Buyer beware...or, well, don't. Up to you.

Thank you for your honesty, I apologize for any offence caused, however reading your comments they have hardly been exactly "polite". Neither of us are perfect and maybe its the nature of this kind of internet discussion that brings out the worst in us .

I like your health food store analogy, if I may I would like to continue using it in my response...

We human beings are inherently sinful (in other words imperfect). Sin is like a sickness in many ways. Now say we go into the health food store to buy some food recognising our need for a healthier diet. We browse the isles looking for healthy alternatives to our favourite foods. Imagine we come across a package which has the nutritional value of the product as well as an official stamp or logo of a well known, trusted quality control organisation. With the information we have we draw an inference that this food is indeed healthy and so we buy it, eager to get home and start making the necessary changes to our lifestyle. There is nothing illogical or foolish about that. We have looked at the evidence and drawn sensible conclusions. Now there may be some counterfeit products in that health store, which contain no health benefits and deceive us. That is a possibility. But where there are counterfeit products there are always real ones from which the counterfeit has been copied. Familiarity with the real brand and product will help us detect and identity the fake.

This is what the Christian faith is like. The Bible is not just a man-made book about God which we must take at face-value regarding its truth claims. The Bible gives us a diagnosis for our condition (sin) and perscribes the remedy (faith in Jesus). The "stamp" of authority does not come from the religion (Christianity) it comes from God Himself. God created the universe so naturally He is omnipotent and because He is eternal and not confined to the dimensions of space-time that are part of our universe He is omniscient. Knowing that humanity would use its free-will irresponsibly (like those bad eating habits and laziness) He created the means of our salvation knowing we could never achieve it by ourselves and inspired the creation of the Bible through His Holy Spirit so that people of all generations after its completion could know this truth. Salvation is an act of God`s grace. God began it and God will bring it to completion.

Now I understand you will probably object to my use of your analogy, but the point is we as imperfect, flawed people how can we say what God is and is not capable of doing? It is because of our finiteness that we struggle to comprehend the truth. I would encourage you not to disregard the Bible because of your (justifible) view of the flaws in human nature. Yes we are flawed, but God by very His very nature is able to overcome them.

David Partington wrote: Hi Ewen. Thanks for replying to my nonsense. I think I must have had a funny turn following my recent birthday. You know what they say…Another year older -- Another year wider! (at least in my case anyway.) I would have to assert that Behe's "theory" was not scientific. His observation about irreducible complexity as it would relate to the theory of evolution I thought, was actually quite insightful but his assertion that "it therefore must have been designed" cannot be tested so isn't science. Now to answer the question I knew you were asking… A theory has to fit the facts, not the other way around. If facts contradict the theory then either 1) the theory is wrong, 2) the theory is incomplete, 3) the facts are wrong. The number of facts that currently support the theory of evolution are so numerous that I doubt enough contradictions could ever be found that would prove the theory was just plain wrong. I think it more plausible that if enough contradictions were ever found then the theory would have to be deemed incomplete and would therefore need to be re-defined to take the new facts into consideration. I have no idea how many contradictions would be required but I have yet to hear of any scientific facts that do contradict the theory. If you can propose a theory that explains the past, present and any future facts better than the theory of evolution, provided it was based on science and not the supernatural, then scientists would use that theory instead. Actually, the theory wouldn't necessarily need to be better to be useful -- it could simply be a different explanation such as how light can be explained in both terms of waves as well as packets of energy.

Hi David, thank you for your responses, they are very helpful.

I would like to add that evolution is not empirically testable either - it supposedly happened millions of years ago before human beings existed and so no-one was around to observe it. Yes we have the fossil record, but fossils needn`t take millions of years to form, they can form very quickly depending on the conditions. Yes there is radiometric dating, but again it applies the principle of uniformitarianism that is untestable because no-one was alive millions of years ago to verify whether the decay rates were constant. Yes there is the field of genetics and biochemistry, but again similarity doesn`t prove common ancestry either (and in fact as work in the this field continues to make new discoveries a lot that was once thought of as "proof" of evolution has had to be abandoned, such as so-called "junk dna".

I would also add your conditions for an alternative theory to evolution uses circular reasoning - scientific theories must be naturalistic in order to be science, evolution is naturalistic therefore evolution is science.

Actually what I was trying to say was that only experts in both fields should be permitted to have a say. i.e. if anyone hasn't read the New Testament in the original Greek (I definitely haven't) and only rely on the translated version(s) (me again!), should not, in my view, be allowed to argue/preach anything about the New Testament from authority because, for one thing, which one of the 50 different versions of the Bible is the source of truth?

I think you are mistaken when you think that one of the 50 versions is, or has to be, the correct "version". There are many versions of the Bible translated into English because they have different purposes. Some translations use paraphrases rather than word by word translation to make it easier to understand, some use more contemporary language (particularly to help new or young Christians), some use more accurate word by word translations with more technical vernacular. What all of them have in common is the fact that they keep to the spirit of the text - what is the text saying? You can compare the different versions and you will find there are no differences in meaning, just expression. This is important for the journey of the Christian, as they grow in spiritual maturity, different versions may be more appropriate for them.

Irrespective of the message or source, I find it ludicrous to accept that all events and teachings associated with and/or attributed to anyone is likely to be a true and factual account once you consider, the person is no longer alive to provide any clarification, if the account was written by those who didn't witness the events, if the account is written years after the events occurred, if parts of the text shows signs of tampering (additions) (who knows what may have been deleted), if the account had been agreed upon by a group of humans (with an agenda), in a different language from that spoken today, and therefore requiring yet another translation whereby the meaning is again agreed upon by a group of humans (with an agenda), resulting in over 50 different versions…bearing in mind O`Sensei`s teachings can't be easily interpreted within 44 years of his death. I'm not saying it is impossible - just implausible.

I would say that you need to apply this skepticism to science just as much as history or religion. Evolutionary scientists have an agenda - they are well documented in places, such as the video I posted a link to earlier in the thread. Richard Dawkins is perhaps the most famous and obvious example. Dawkins fervently promotes an atheistic, secular form of science and has tried his hardest to ruin the credibility of Christianity and destroy the integrity of the God of the Bible. Now I`m not accusing all secular scientists of doing the same, just that there are many who have an anti-religion agenda. So scientists aren`t totally objective either.

Ewen Ebsworth wrote: Hi David, thank you for your responses, they are very helpful. I would say that you need to apply this skepticism to science just as much as history or religion. Evolutionary scientists have an agenda - they are well documented in places, such as the video I posted a link to earlier in the thread. Richard Dawkins is perhaps the most famous and obvious example. Dawkins fervently promotes an atheistic, secular form of science and has tried his hardest to ruin the credibility of Christianity and destroy the integrity of the God of the Bible. Now I`m not accusing all secular scientists of doing the same, just that there are many who have an anti-religion agenda. So scientists aren`t totally objective either.

I guess this means to that two wrongs somehow make a right? Again, I don't find many scientists who have an anti-religion agenda in fact most seem to practice some form of religion. I posted a link earlier in the thread about the Vatican's pursuit of the sciences and it's compatibility with the Catholic doctrine.

I have enjoyed reading about your point of view however I won't make the mistake of trying to debate with you since you now appear to be running around in circles fending off all attempts at reason with these pre-conceived notions of yours. Good Luck.

WIlliam Hazen

Ewen Ebsworth wrote: We human beings are inherently sinful (in other words imperfect). Sin is like a sickness in many ways. Now say we go into the health food store to buy some food recognising our need for a healthier diet. We browse the isles looking for healthy alternatives to our favourite foods. Imagine we come across a package which has the nutritional value of the product as well as an official stamp or logo of a well known, trusted quality control organisation. With the information we have we draw an inference that this food is indeed healthy and so we buy it, eager to get home and start making the necessary changes to our lifestyle. There is nothing illogical or foolish about that. We have looked at the evidence and drawn sensible conclusions.

Sensible, if we indeed had reason to believe that the quality control organization was indeed trustworthy. That is where we may differ. You seem to feel that the Christian church and Christian religion are worthy of trust such that there's no need to question anything that comes out of them. I look at history and draw other conclusions.

Ewen Ebsworth wrote: Now there may be some counterfeit products in that health store, which contain no health benefits and deceive us. That is a possibility. But where there are counterfeit products there are always real ones from which the counterfeit has been copied. Familiarity with the real brand and product will help us detect and identity the fake.

Er, well, yes, and what is one to do when you've got multiple mutually contradictory self-proclaimed representatives of the "real brand"?

Ewen Ebsworth wrote: This is what the Christian faith is like. The Bible is not just a man-made book about God which we must take at face-value regarding its truth claims. The Bible gives us a diagnosis for our condition (sin) and perscribes the remedy (faith in Jesus). The "stamp" of authority does not come from the religion (Christianity) it comes from God Himself.

...from God Himself, who wrote THAT book, and no other book, and all the other books whose believers say, "No, THIS one comes from God Himself" are false and their believers are liars? But you're saying the same thing that they are, i.e., MY book is right and all other books are wrong, because I say that God says so. Why would I believe one proclamation of "they're wrong and I'm right" over another?

Ewen Ebsworth wrote: Now I understand you will probably object to my use of your analogy, but the point is we as imperfect, flawed people how can we say what God is and is not capable of doing?

But that's exactly what you just did -- not only said what God is capable of, but what God actually did.

Ewen Ebsworth wrote: I would like to add that evolution is not empirically testable either - it supposedly happened millions of years ago before human beings existed and so no-one was around to observe it.

So, do you think that the truth of a crime can never be found out if there are no living witnesses? We convict people every day based on evidence, rather than eye-witness testimony (and, indeed, more and more psychology suggests that eye-witness testimony isn't actually all that reliable as compared to hard evidence).
The data support the theory of evolution. They do not support the conjecture of creationism.

Yes we have the fossil record, but fossils needn`t take millions of years to form, they can form very quickly depending on the conditions.

evidence, please, that even a significant minority of fossils formed over short time periods?

Yes there is radiometric dating, but again it applies the principle of uniformitarianism...

This is incorrect. Radiometric dating is based on radionucleotide decay rates, not on geology; if you have a problem with it, you have a problem with physics. Uniformitarianism is a geological theory.

...no-one was alive millions of years ago to verify whether the decay rates were constant.

Uhhh, yeah. See above. You have a problem with freshmen-level basic physics, not just evolution and geology. Is there a field of science you *do* respect?

Yes there is the field of genetics and biochemistry, but again similarity doesn`t prove common ancestry either

Nesting hierarchies of relatedness completely support evolution from a common ancestor, and do not support individual creation. ERVs pretty much prove common ancestry, unless you think that the devil put those viruses in the genes to fool us all...?

and in fact as work in the this field continues to make new discoveries a lot that was once thought of as "proof" of evolution has had to be abandoned, such as so-called "junk dna".

There's still a lot of DNA that can be messed with pretty much willy-nilly from one generation to the next, with no impact on the phenotype of the organism. Ever heard of SNPs? They're how individuals are identified with DNA testing... because they mutate in non-coding DNA so much that no two people have the same pattern of mutations. With no ill effect, nor any benefit.

I would also add your conditions for an alternative theory to evolution uses circular reasoning - scientific theories must be naturalistic in order to be science, evolution is naturalistic therefore evolution is science.

That's not circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is more like, 'I know god exists because the bible says so, and I know that the bible is true because it's the word of god.'
The fact that both evolution and any scientific alternative to evolution must be testable, and therefore naturalistic, is based on the definition of science and empiricism. It might or might not be true, but it's had the best track record of miracles of any mode of thought humans have thus far come up with.

So scientists aren`t totally objective either.

This is very true, but unlike religion or politics, science rewards those who overthrow old paradigms the most completely and effectively. Scientists routinely tear each other's ideas to shreds, in order to see how durable they are. It's a slow process, and a jerky one that sometimes moves in the wrong direction for a generation until the old guard dies off, but it has produced better results and improved our understanding of the universe better than any other method of thought out there.

Eben, I missed this response to me on my first read because you quoted it under Mary's name. Please be careful to track whom you're responding to.

I never claimed the scientist who made the discovery was an atheist...

Yeah, you kind of did. And you did it again just within the last few posts, by implying that evolutionary researchers only support evolution because they want to discredit Christianity. As for 'interpreting the data for yourselves,' that would require you to actually look at the data firsthand, rather than regurgitated by the ICR.

The second point I think is a straw man argument - history shows us this is not true. I already gave Sir Isaac Newton as an example, but others would include Robert Boyle and his work in chemistry, who played an important role in disproving the Aristotelian 4 humors theory. Then there is Kepler, the Wright Brothers, James Clark Maxwell pioneer of the electromagnetic radiation theory, Pastuer and his work on germ theory of disease. These mens beliefs in a Creator did not prevent them from moving science forward.

No one ever said that Christians can't be scientists or mathematicians... just that different fields have different proportions of Christians and atheists.
You can look at this timeline and draw your own conclusions, though, based on the clustering of discoveries and of believers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timelin...ic_discoveries

Did your geology 101 class happen to work under the principle of uniformitarianism?

It covered both unitarianism and catastrophism, and suggested that some geological formations are the result of one, and some of the other; it also showed us (with lab) how to tell the difference between the two. Like I said, it's not hard once you know the signs.

Ewen Ebsworth wrote: I would like to add that evolution is not empirically testable either - it supposedly happened millions of years ago before human beings existed and so no-one was around to observe it... Yes there is radiometric dating, but again it applies the principle of uniformitarianism that is untestable because no-one was alive millions of years ago to verify whether the decay rates were constant.

Thanks for undermining your own argument, i.e. before human beings existed so no-one was around to observe/verify it.

As you have already confirmed you believe that humans didn't arrive on Earth until day six, you can no longer argue your god created the heavens, the earth, light, darkness, sky, dry land, the seas, vegetation, the sun, the moon, the stars, living creatures in the water and birds in the air…when no human was around to observe/verify it. Can you?

In addition to radiometric dating I would have offered other corroborative methods of dating however I knew you would simply refute them. I have looked at a few of these rebuttals -- and to be honest they didn't seem to be wholly scientific.

I thought we agreed that only experts in their field were allowed to argue from a position of authority!

Lorien Lowe wrote: evidence, please, that even a significant minority of fossils formed over short time periods?

The majority of fossils are found in sedimentary layers of rock and around 95% of the fossil record is made up of marine invertebrates. One of the major methods of fossilization is permineralization, which involves water. The environment is crucial for fossils to form, as scavengers and predators as well as natural elements all play a factor in the degradation of the body.

This is incorrect. Radiometric dating is based on radionucleotide decay rates, not on geology; if you have a problem with it, you have a problem with physics. Uniformitarianism is a geological theory.

I apologize for not making myself clear. You are correct in that I did seem to misuse the term uniformitarianism, however what I meant was that radiometric dating is used along side other geological principles to date rocks, which use uniformitarianism. Radiometric dating is used in conjunction with other geological principles.

Uhhh, yeah. See above. You have a problem with freshmen-level basic physics, not just evolution and geology. Is there a field of science you *do* respect?

I`m not questioning the physics of radiometric dating, only pointing out certain assumptions are necessary as pre-conditions.

Nesting hierarchies of relatedness completely support evolution from a common ancestor, and do not support individual creation. ERVs pretty much prove common ancestry, unless you think that the devil put those viruses in the genes to fool us all...?

Or common designer? Nesting hierarchies focus primarily on morphology, but this is sometimes contradicted by the fossil record when supposed ancestors are actually "younger" than their descendants.

That's not circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is more like, 'I know god exists because the bible says so, and I know that the bible is true because it's the word of god.' The fact that both evolution and any scientific alternative to evolution must be testable, and therefore naturalistic, is based on the definition of science and empiricism. It might or might not be true, but it's had the best track record of miracles of any mode of thought humans have thus far come up with.

And I am not arguing from that position either.

This is very true, but unlike religion or politics, science rewards those who overthrow old paradigms the most completely and effectively. Scientists routinely tear each other's ideas to shreds, in order to see how durable they are. It's a slow process, and a jerky one that sometimes moves in the wrong direction for a generation until the old guard dies off, but it has produced better results and improved our understanding of the universe better than any other method of thought out there.

This is an ironic statement. So unlike religion or politics science rewards those who overthrow old paradigms yet creationist science and intelligent design are both derided as "religious" paradigms and not science and thus discredited and evolution is so firmly entrenched that the paradigm is untouchable.

Lorien Lowe wrote: Eben, I missed this response to me on my first read because you quoted it under Mary's name. Please be careful to track whom you're responding to.

Sorry for the confusion, and in return would you mind spelling my name correctly.

Yeah, you kind of did. And you did it again just within the last few posts, by implying that evolutionary researchers only support evolution because they want to discredit Christianity. As for 'interpreting the data for yourselves,' that would require you to actually look at the data firsthand, rather than regurgitated by the ICR.

No I didn`t, I referenced the research that had been done into dinosaur fossils and how they have found evidence that contradicts the evolutionary timescale. I said nothing of the scientists beliefs. The point was raised that the scientist in question is not a creationist thus invalidating the argument, which I disagreed with. As for my comments regarding the agenda of some evolutionary scientists, I was making the point that skepticism should be applied fairly and not just arbitrarily.

Mary Malmros wrote: Sensible, if we indeed had reason to believe that the quality control organization was indeed trustworthy. That is where we may differ. You seem to feel that the Christian church and Christian religion are worthy of trust such that there's no need to question anything that comes out of them. I look at history and draw other conclusions. Er, well, yes, and what is one to do when you've got multiple mutually contradictory self-proclaimed representatives of the "real brand"? ...from God Himself, who wrote THAT book, and no other book, and all the other books whose believers say, "No, THIS one comes from God Himself" are false and their believers are liars? But you're saying the same thing that they are, i.e., MY book is right and all other books are wrong, because I say that God says so. Why would I believe one proclamation of "they're wrong and I'm right" over another? But that's exactly what you just did -- not only said what God is capable of, but what God actually did.

Granted it is a tricky course to navigate, idolatry was a major problem in ancient Israel and still is in the Church today (depending on your definition of idolatry).

I think Christianity has made many mistakes as an institutionalized religion and yes, sadly, there are black marks on its history. It is not that I implicitly trust the Church or the Christian religion, but the empty tomb and the phenomenon of the early apostolic church convince me that Jesus genuinely rose from the dead. This is why I believe.

David Partington wrote: Thanks for undermining your own argument, i.e. before human beings existed so no-one was around to observe/verify it. As you have already confirmed you believe that humans didn't arrive on Earth until day six, you can no longer argue your god created the heavens, the earth, light, darkness, sky, dry land, the seas, vegetation, the sun, the moon, the stars, living creatures in the water and birds in the air…when no human was around to observe/verify it. Can you? In addition to radiometric dating I would have offered other corroborative methods of dating however I knew you would simply refute them. I have looked at a few of these rebuttals -- and to be honest they didn't seem to be wholly scientific. I thought we agreed that only experts in their field were allowed to argue from a position of authority!

How can a human verify its very own Creator creating before He even created us? Of course not. The argument from Genesis 1 is not empirical by nature so I have not contradicted my own argument.

Ewen Ebsworth wrote: The majority of fossils are found in sedimentary layers of rock and around 95% of the fossil record is made up of marine invertebrates. One of the major methods of fossilization is permineralization, which involves water. The environment is crucial for fossils to form, as scavengers and predators as well as natural elements all play a factor in the degradation of the body.

Suppose I grant all of that: it does not suggest rapid fossilization.

I apologize for not making myself clear. You are correct in that I did seem to misuse the term uniformitarianism, however what I meant was that radiometric dating is used along side other geological principles to date rocks, which use uniformitarianism. Radiometric dating is used in conjunction with other geological principles. ...I`m not questioning the physics of radiometric dating, only pointing out certain assumptions are necessary as pre-conditions.

Yes, certain assumptions are necessary for any endeavor. We 'assume' that the sun will rise tomorrow, just the same as it has every other day of our lives. We 'assume' that the physics of radioactive decay are constant, and just like the sun rising, we are validated in this assumption by the functioning of our clocks. Thousands or millions of human hours have been spent researching nuclear physics, and not once has there been cause to question this assumption.

Or common designer? Nesting hierarchies focus primarily on morphology, but this is sometimes contradicted by the fossil record when supposed ancestors are actually "younger" than their descendants.

If everything was uniquely created, that suggests starting from scratch each time. Why would whales have the same bone structure in their forelimbs as a bat, if a designer was making each one de novo? Also, it hasn't been based purely on morphology for a few decades now; Linnaeus went by morphology, and that was a good start, but first molecular similarity and then DNA similarity and ERVs took precedence. Which, by the way: you ignored the ERVs. How do you explain them? Also, evolution isn't linear any more than your own family is linear. There are aunts, uncles, cousins, cousins several times removed, etc. and looking only at morphology won't necessarily give a correct lineage.

This is an ironic statement. So unlike religion or politics science rewards those who overthrow old paradigms yet creationist science and intelligent design are both derided as "religious" paradigms and not science and thus discredited and evolution is so firmly entrenched that the paradigm is untouchable.

What you seem to be missing is that, in order for a new theory to overthrow the old, it must have better explanatory and predictive power and fit the data more closely. That is why evolution overthrew creationism, and why the reverse has not happened. The reason that evolution is so thoroughly 'entrenched' is because it has high explanatory power, high predictive power (fossils continue to be discovered, in appropriate strata, that fit predictions of when various features should have started appearing), and fits the data very tightly.
A single fossilized rabbit in the carboniferous strata would be a serious blow to evolution. Is there anything that would disprove creationism for you?

Ewen Ebsworth wrote: Sorry for the confusion, and in return would you mind spelling my name correctly.

My apologies. Ewen.

No I didn`t, I referenced the research that had been done into dinosaur fossils and how they have found evidence that contradicts the evolutionary timescale. I said nothing of the scientists beliefs. The point was raised that the scientist in question is not a creationist thus invalidating the argument, which I disagreed with. As for my comments regarding the agenda of some evolutionary scientists, I was making the point that skepticism should be applied fairly and not just arbitrarily.

You have strongly implied that evolutionary scientists, like Dawkins, only accept evolution because it satisfies their prejudices and ulterior motives, as opposed to accepting evolution because that's where the evidence points.

Some food for thought over at Quanta Magazine.

Ron

Ewen Ebsworth wrote: Granted it is a tricky course to navigate, idolatry was a major problem in ancient Israel and still is in the Church today (depending on your definition of idolatry). I think Christianity has made many mistakes as an institutionalized religion and yes, sadly, there are black marks on its history. It is not that I implicitly trust the Church or the Christian religion, but the empty tomb and the phenomenon of the early apostolic church convince me that Jesus genuinely rose from the dead. This is why I believe.

Isn't believing that there was an empty tomb implicitly trusting the Christian religion?

Matthew Story wrote: Isn't believing that there was an empty tomb implicitly trusting the Christian religion?

FWIW.



Creation "science" attempts to create an explanation to account for what is written in a book. So you start with what you already believe and look for evidence to confirm it, ignoring all the rest. So hope rests on exceptions and the "1%" to be the rule. Hope. Faith. It is not science. It is cherry picking data in the worst possible of ways. It is insulting to scientists the world over to call it science. All it does is give some means of reassurance to those who wish to believe and for whatever reason need their religion to be absolutely and literally accurate. As contrasted to all the other mere "mythologies" those other deluded folk want to believe. Hubris.

Real science, on the other hand, starts with what you observe in the world, what you measure, what you find. Then you try to develop a theory that accounts for what you see and also what you do not. It is also open to change over time as new means of testing the theory are devised to push the limits in new ways.

Here I am an atheist who managed to get degrees in philosophy, religious studies and political science (you should have seen the look on the chair of the Religious Studies department when I pointed out that I had all the credits necessary). And I come from a purely scientific family (my father was quite literally a rocket scientist and most of my upbringing was surrounded by JPL and CalTech scientists and engineers). But I still think there is room for faith. I still fully respect those who have religious convictions. I am just at a loss as to why there is such an insistence in this country in particular for such a literal interpretation of a works that were themselves translated multiple times (with all the problems that creates) and then based on the writings sometimes many times removed from the actual events. And don't get me started on the various books not included in what we today call the bible. "Naw, don't like this one because it's not what we want to believe now 3 centuries later."

Me, if I was to follow a God it would be Thor. He has a hammer. Hammers are cool.

Argh, I wasn't going to post on this thread again. Sorry. Carry on, I feel better now...

Oops, sorry... Should add...

The semi-joking graphic above I think cuts to the point. There is a difference between trying to figure something out and trying to find a post-hoc explanation of something. Not trying to prove what you want to believe. But trying to understand what you observe. There is a *huge* difference.

Keith Larman wrote: Creation "science" attempts to create an explanation to account for what is written in a book. So you start with what you already believe and look for evidence to confirm it

Bingo. This is why creationism, no matter how sophisticated it gets, will never be science. As long as you are starting with your conclusion and then searching for evidence to support it, you aren't doing science, period. Creationists complain that they're being blown off by the scientific community; this is why.

Keith Larman wrote: It is insulting to scientists the world over ...

It is also insulting for Christians all over the world.
It is important to realize that creationism is not a natural expression neither of Christian faith nor Christian theology. It simply is the outcome of a certain form of political and social conservatism coupled with a certain psychological condition.

As I said before: The Roman Catholic Church aswell as the Union of the Protestant Churches over here have officially stated different times, that creationism is not corresponding to teaching of Christian theology, but is hindering Christian faith.
In my own church there is even a "decree" of that tells me as a Lutheran pastor that I shall not ban creationists form my parish - but try to lead them back to faith ...

This may sound hard in the US where there is a totally different understanding of what Church is, what Christian faith means and what Theology has to say.
But for me it is important that people know that creationism is not the same as Christian faith or Christian Theology. At least not in very big parts of the churches all over the world.

There remain enough existentially issues which can be discussed between science and faith or between believers and atheists. And we may not arrive to an aggreement in a lot of points. But regarding creationism we do.

Carsten Möllering wrote: This may sound hard in the US where there is a totally different understanding of what Church is, what Christian faith means and what Theology has to say.

Although it may not seem so from elsewhere, the United States is a diverse place with many different understandings and beliefs, including among Christians. My sister, whom I mentioned earlier, is a US Christian. Fred Phelps claims to be one as well,

Carsten Möllering wrote: It is also insulting for Christians all over the world.

Oh, I agree as well, I just didn't feel it necessary to speak to that issue.

Carsten Möllering wrote: It is also insulting for Christians all over the world. It is important to realize that creationism is not a natural expression neither of Christian faith nor Christian theology. It simply is the outcome of a certain form of political and social conservatism coupled with a certain psychological condition.

Ouch.....!!!: