Creation vs. Evolution - Page 6 - Talk Jesus

Laudite · 07-04-08

Quote:

Originally Posted by xDICEx

If you google "Robert Gentry", "tiny little mysteries", or "plutonium radio halos" you will be able to locate the publication history and reports that Mr Gentry has published in the different physics and science journals. Also his work is referenced in many ICR and AIG publications. The decay halos in biotite crystals can be viewed on google images.

So much for that. Science theories must be capable of falsification; that is why experiments are preformed. Rejecting the null-hypothesis, the falsification, on statistical methodological grounds tends to support the hypothesis under analysis. A known maxim in science philosophy is that results, data, or findings never prove theories, rather they disprove opposing theories. The real question for any theory then is what results, data, or findings will falsify the elements of the theory. Thus science knowledge is relative and not absolute. The history of scientific revolutions shows this: Ptolemaic geocentric universe gives place to the Capericum heliocentric model, or todays exchanges between the classical (Newtonian) and the quantum mechanical models.

The Bible, however, is in an altogether different ball park. Yes, it is true that human interpretation of the bible sometimes operates just like a scientist with theories and hypothesis testing; but the Bible says for itself that it is not to be privately interpreted. God's meaning is what good hermeneutics seeks to establish and to falsify human twisted meanings read into the bible: exegesis as apposed to ise-egesis (reading out of as apposed to reading into). When we behold an unequivocal bible teaching we are to believe it as reveled truth.

If death entered into the cosmos as the bible proclaims because of God's curse upon Adam's sin, then the formative (organizing) principal of the hypothesis of evolution (natural selection) doesn't come into being until after all of creation is already established. The good creation is the one before death and the curse entered into it. And it is the "very good" creation where all the various "kinds" were already formed by God's special creation. If we simply believe the biblical testimony, then it was completed in 7 light and dark periods registered on the face of this globe which we call night and day days. I must tell you this biblical teaching is what I believe. All the rest of the Bible that I also believe is really very much dependent on it being true.

So much for beliefs. As a scientist man can recognize theories as models of the real world he/she lives in. Regarding creation or evolution, they are 2 very diverging models. Since most of both models are heavily forensic and not experimental the falsifications of both are what we really need to focus on. Many posts in this thread do just that. Ex: the Cambrian explosion is a prediction of creation model and a falsification of an evolution model. It is the organic evolutionary falsifying evidence arising today that is causing so much panic in the evolutionary trenches. Geology is beset with flood evidence that is shaking it. Physics is embarrassed by God's tiny little mysteries.

Let me ask you a question: If relative theories falsify the absolute Bible, which one do you think is in fact falsified? Second, as good scientific theories must be falsifiable, Which model do you think explains the data and observations the best? For myself, I am a young earth creationist and from that point of view I love the studies of Paleontology, Archeology, Anthropology, and most all other more experimental sciences. ...DGB

Hmm... now just a second there. If the hypothesis is 'evolution' (a laughably imprecise term that is not, of course, falsifiable because of its lack of definitional boundaries) then the null hypothesis is 'not evolution' of course, we can't gather enough data to ever construct a hypothesis on 'evolution' we have to set a hypothesis like 'evolution through these methods with these results' and the null hypothesis being 'not evolution through these methods and with these results' while 'creation' may be supported by the null hypothesis, it is equally possible that the null hypothesis supports 'evolution through other means with other results' and the null hypothesis (being a logical negative) does not allow deductive statements. If you are a new earth creationist, then how do you deal with , for example, carbon decay on old objects? Also, doesn't the notion of a cambrian period with species not found concurrently with the first humanity require that death exist so that those non-concurrent species don't exist by the time man comes along?

Br. Bear · 11-21-08

Also, doesn't the notion of a cambrian period with species not found concurrently with the first humanity require that death exist so that those non-concurrent species don't exist by the time man comes along?

According to who? Is that a notion of a not found species concurrent with the notion or is it non-concurrent non-sense?

Hmm... now just a second there. If the hypothesis is 'evolution' (a laughably imprecise term that is not, of course, falsifiable because of its lack of definitional boundaries) then the null hypothesis is 'not evolution' of course, we can't gather enough data to ever construct a hypothesis on 'evolution' we have to set a hypothesis like 'evolution through these methods with these results' and the null hypothesis being 'not evolution through these methods and with these results' while 'creation' may be supported by the null hypothesis, it is equally possible that the null hypothesis supports 'evolution through other means with other results' and the null hypothesis (being a logical negative) does not allow deductive statements.

But when dealing with the Lord you need to leave out 'if'. If you do that, then your statement here is.... hypothetical. So, seek ye the Lord while you still can.

Bless you ...><>

Br. Bear

tish_tae · 08-26-08

My my, but there is some pride and arrogance going around here. I don't think it is wise to tell everyone what makes them a Christian when it is merely your own idea of what a Christian is. There are a great many Christians who understand the science of evolution and praise it for the great miracle it is revealed to be. The evidence for it was placed right in front of us by the Lord for all to see once they knew enough of the ways of his creation. We are there now and to turn your eyes from it because of a limited view of scripture is disappointing.

And seek forgiveness for applying a logic to scripture that causes either Apostle Paul or Moses to be a "liar". Consider:

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiselect

To believe in the "old earth evolution" theory makes the Apostle Paul a liar.

Secondly, Jesus himself declared the "beginning" to be when Adam and Eve were created.

19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

The beginning is the beginning. There is nothing prior to the beginning.

To believe in the "old earth evolution" theory makes Moses a liar.

God Himself, when giving the 10 Commandments, re-declares that He created the universe in 6 literal days.

Exodus 20:11 (God speaking) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

This is where we get one of the 10 commandments - Honor the sabbath.

Either Adam and Eve were the beginning, in which case Moses lies when he declares that there were 5 days before the beginning, or Paul is the liar. Unless you understand that neither is lying. They are telling a truth in a form that worked for them but is corrupted by your interpretation.

A little over 15 billion years ago our Lord said, "Let there be light" and there was light. Then the symmetries broke, separating time from space, matter from energy. Then some millions of years later the light was separated from the darkness, leaving the great background infra-red radiation. Nearly 10 billion years later the earth formed about the sun and gathered to itself the great oceans. Then life was breathed into the clay of the earth, the RnA crystals began to replicate and evolve, found membranes and catalysts and eventually brought forth DnA. Slowly the fishes and the plants of the sea evolved, not by growing bodies from bacteria, but by the children of bacteria being each a little different to its parent. Then by degrees life moved to the land and the animals and plants were created. Then the birds took to the air after a thousand generations of reptiles became, with each child, a little more bird like. Toward the end of this long and grand miracle the apes evolved and sometime after that there were apes that were much like humans and then humans themselves.

Perhaps atheists see this as a way of understanding without the need for the Lord, but why blame the Lord for their folly and ignore his creation because of it?

Praise Him for such a wonder.

louis · 10-01-08

...Ok, yeah, none of this can rattle the fact that JESUS is KING and that I am His subject and ONLY JESUS CAN (AND HAS) Saved me.

Serious question though: Kent Hovind (spelling?) states a reasonable explanation of why this is relevant to the Christian, but I dont remember his teaching. Can someone remind me why this issue is the subject of so much debate and why we should get involved in it?

----- EDIT -----
ANSWER: Because it would appear that those who fight for this thing are being persecuted by someone - Kent Hovind is in prison

.
Almost like the agents of evil are saying: "Preaching these things ain't illegal, yet, so lets slam this man with discredit and with something that will make people see him as a paw paw."

----- EDIT -----

BY THE WAY...

I just saw in wikipedia that Kent Hovind is serving a 10 year prison sentence on what appear to me to be federal and tax related issues. Perhaps that answers my question - I immediately started thinking that someone is attempting to discredit Kent. To make a fool of him. To shut him up.

I wont sugarcoat it - he is one of my favourites and he opened my eyes to a lot of things in the Bible, exposing the Bible to me as (what I now believe to be) an accurate, authoratitive historical account.

If I am misguided in my support for him, so be it, but I pray that Boss keeps him strong and healthy in prison. I owe you that much, Kent - I've never forgotten how you taught me to respect the Bible as the Word of God.

--- END EDIT ---

hadoz · 10-18-08

"A little over 15 billion years ago our Lord said, "Let there be light" and there was light. Then the symmetries broke, separating time from space, matter from energy. Then some millions of years later the light was separated from the darkness, leaving the great background infra-red radiation. Nearly 10 billion years later the earth formed about the sun and gathered to itself the great oceans. Then life was breathed into the clay of the earth, the RnA crystals began to replicate and evolve, found membranes and catalysts and eventually brought forth DnA. Slowly the fishes and the plants of the sea evolved, not by growing bodies from bacteria, but by the children of bacteria being each a little different to its parent. Then by degrees life moved to the land and the animals and plants were created. Then the birds took to the air after a thousand generations of reptiles became, with each child, a little more bird like. Toward the end of this long and grand miracle the apes evolved and sometime after that there were apes that were much like humans and then humans themselves."

Ya see, here again, is a story being told. I've heard a bunch of "stories" like this one being preached like gospel. Well, hey, it sounds logical to me but what you've written here, as if it has all been proven, isn't a fact. Yet it is stated like a fact. Which is the problem. This is exactly how it's being presented to us today and it shouldn't be.
What if when the Bible uses the phrase "from the beginning" it means from the beginning of when God made Adam and Eve, special, in the garden of Eden, a place on earth. What if Adam and Eve were the first of God's people by which I mean the chosen people by whom the rest of the world would be judged? That would mean that ALL human beings evolving from Apes isn't necessarily true even IF evolution does one day prove itself. Maybe the rest of the world evolved from slime and once it was able to support human life, God created humans and placed them in the garden. We have absolutely no evidence that link the bones of neanderthals to human beings, yet, and even if we did, it still may have little to do with Adam and Eve and all of their descendants. What if there were humans on earth while Adam and Eve were in the garden? Maybe these humans DID evolve from apes. That might explain the reason why there was a city already in existance shortly after they were removed from the garden. I'm not claiming that this is how it should be interpreted but only that it could be interpreted this way.
My point is that we have extremists on both sides of the argument throwing logs on the fire when there are so many unexplained questions.
It still seems to me to be a pitfall, one to be avoided. You can prove nothing so move on, you know God created everything, is in total control and can be trusted. Why make a mockery out of His word trying to explain something you don't know. Let the atheists be the prideful ones and the arrogant fools the Bible talks about, not you.

hiselect · 10-21-08

I dont think there's too much to be confused about. The bible lays it out pretty simply lol

Day 1: God created everything
Day 6: God created human beings, Adam and Eve

Macro evolution could not have possibly happened over billions of years because in the Bible mankind appeared only *five days* after the entire universe was created.

I believe the Bible first and foremost.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)