[_ Old Earth _] Alright, time for some answers

[jasoncran]

http://creation.com/vital-mission-atheists

doesnt seem to point to god does it.

 

[Free]

http://creation.com/vital-mission-atheists

doesnt seem to point to god does it.

That article, like many creationists, makes some common errors in reasoning. One cannot equate evolutionary theory with atheism--one is science, the other a worldview. Science itself is neutral, it is the different worldviews that interpret scientific data differently.


If science points towards evolution then that is what should be believed, and the Christian should acknowledge that God created via means of evolution and the atheist should realize that it speaks nothing about the existence of God. The data should speak for itself.

 

[MarbleShooter]

That article, like many creationists, makes some common errors in reasoning. One cannot equate evolutionary theory with atheism--one is science, the other a worldview. Science itself is neutral, it is the different worldviews that interpret scientific data differently.


If science points towards evolution then that is what should be believed, and the Christian should acknowledge that God created via means of evolution and the atheist should realize that it speaks nothing about the existence of God. The data should speak for itself.

Amen. I've been trying to hold to this view for awhile now. Thanks for the common sense.

 

[Sparkey]

Humanizing the horde.

Science says [blah, blah, blah]. Anthropomorphizing (or worse, deifying) Science by stating categorically that "science" says anything is characteristic of humans. More often or not this happens in debates over evolution where proponents of one idea or another want to state their opinions rather than give objective data. But instead of saying, "I think," they say, "Science says."

Science teaches us about stratification (would be an example) where a lecturer might show a slide and then speak about erosion or other methods each strata could be laid down.
View attachment 2272

But science doesn't "teach" nor does it "point". When we use those types of verbs we are necessarily attempting to do the "teaching" or "pointing" ourselves. Instead of saying, "This data leads me to conclude," we do what comes naturally and say, "Science says..."

Certainly there is an ideal that scientists may strive for with relative degrees of success but that requires discipline. Such discipline isn't often found in debate.

 

[Free]

Humanizing the horde.

Science says [blah, blah, blah]. Anthropomorphizing (or worse, deifying) Science by stating categorically that "science" says anything is characteristic of humans. More often or not this happens in debates over evolution where proponents of one idea or another want to state their opinions rather than give objective data. But instead of saying, "I think," they say, "Science says."

Science teaches us about stratification (would be an example) where a lecturer might show a slide and then speak about erosion or other methods each strata could be laid down.
View attachment 2657

But science doesn't "teach" nor does it "point". When we use those types of verbs we are necessarily attempting to do the "teaching" or "pointing" ourselves. Instead of saying, "This data leads me to conclude," we do what comes naturally and say, "Science says..."

Certainly there is an ideal that scientists may strive for with relative degrees of success but that requires discipline. Such discipline isn't often found in debate.

I'm not really clear on what your point is--if you're agreeing or disagreeing with what has been stated.

 

[Sparkey]

Well, it's one thing to state that the account of the flood given to us by the Word of God is an allegory, that it symbolically represents something other than what it states, and that the flood didn't "really" happen. But it is quite another thing to try to state that rain itself is metaphorical. The bible is clear about conditions prior to the flood being different than they are today; we are presented with literal language that has no wiggle room. Nobody can assert that "rain" means something other than what it means.

It's not like they are asking us to imagine that a day (before the sun was created) might have been longer than 24 hours. Either it rained before the flood or it did not. What I'm trying to say is that the whole "there is no conflict between 'science' and the 'bible' argument is shallow. The oracles of "science" (or they who proclaim themselves such) are the ones to be held suspect when conflict arises. It would of course be possible for our understanding of the Word to be questioned, but having given prayerful consideration, there should be no overt conflicts.

Those who attempt to make the Word of God less than what it is oftentimes make the mistake of elevating or deifying "Science" into something it isn't. Science does not draw conclusions and does not advocate, nor "point" to any particular philosophy or religion. Those who allege that "science" is at odds with the Word of God do not consider that both nature itself and the declared word are subject to God and neither can (nor does in fact) deny His authority.

I remember somebody saying it better: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." (Mt 24:35, Mk 13:31, Lk 21:33)

 

[zeke]

One cannot equate evolutionary theory with atheism--one is science, the other a worldview. Science itself is neutral, it is the different worldviews that interpret scientific data differently.

Sure one can equate evolutionary theory with atheism. Why not? Our atheist friends have no problem with that concept at all. Will Provine (atheist and historian of science and of evolutionary biology) has no problem digesting that truth...

As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism. - Will Provine*​

Do you acknowledge the fact that evolutionism is a worldview that presents the notion that there are only materialistic explanation for the origin of all carbon-based *life*on this planet and that explanation does not include a Creator-God? Do you acknowledge the fact that virtually all evolutionary scientists buy into some version of evolutionism?

If science points towards evolution then that is what should be believed, and the Christian should acknowledge that God created via means of evolution and the atheist should realize that it speaks nothing about the existence of God. The data should speak for itself.

Well, my friend that might sound good on paper but it does not work well in reality. Biological evolution is a scientific fact but biological evolution does not 'point toward' a world where primitive life arose via chance from Darwin's “warm little pond†and 'evolved' via mutation and natural selection into you and me. That is mythology not science. Is that what Christians should believe?

Question for you – which creation worldview do you subscribe to...evolution via mutation and natural selection from a “warm little pond†or special creation via the mind of God.

“…evolution is the backbone of biology and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on unproven theory. Is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation. Both are concepts which the believers know to be true, but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.â€~ L.H. Matthews, Introduction to Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin (1971 edition)​

 

[Barbarian]

Sure one can equate evolutionary theory with atheism.

One can equate a merry-go-round to a helicopter, for that matter. And it wouldn't be a big a mistake.

Our atheist friend, Will Provine (historian of science and of evolutionary biology) has no problem with that truth...

Radical atheists and creationists have a common cause; to make God and science incompatible.

Do you acknowledge the fact that evolutionism is a worldview that presents the notion that there are only materialistic explanation for the origin of all carbon-based *life*on this planet and that explanation does not include a Creator-God?

Evolution isn't about the origin of life. But I acknowledge the fact that every scientific theory works without recourse to any supernatural entity at all, while never denying that such an entity exists.

Do you acknowledge the fact that virtually all evolutionary scientists buy into some version of evolutionism?

If you mean that about 97.7% of people with doctorates in biology accept evolutionary theory, that's true. "Evolutionism", hard to say; sounds like another creationist strawman to me.

“…evolution is the backbone of biology and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on unproven theory.

What kind of scientist doesn't know that science never "proves" anything? Something's fishy here.

Is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation. Both are concepts which the believers know to be true, but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.â€~ L.H. Matthews, Introduction to Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin (1971 edition)

It appears that Matthews printed Darwin's book, and then added his own misconception as a forward. The fact that he seems to have no record in the literature of science suggests he's another fraud.

 

[zeke]

Comes down to evidence. Science has it.

You boast much about your scientific expertise but you post little science. Let's see what you have. Present on this thread the evidence from science that proves theropod dinosaurs evolved into birds. Please do not include your assertions presumptions and speculation - just the science please. You're up.

 

[Free]

Sure one can equate evolutionary theory with atheism. Why not? Our atheist friends have no problem with that concept at all. Will Provine (atheist and historian of science and of evolutionary biology) has no problem digesting that truth...

As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism. - Will Provine*
​

No, one cannot equate the two. Just because some do does not mean that it is so. Again, science is the general discipline by which we learn about the universe by collecting data and drawing conclusions from that data. Christianity and atheism are two worldviews through which scientists interpret the data.

It is a category error to equate the two.

Do you acknowledge the fact that evolutionism is a worldview that presents the notion that there are only materialistic explanation for the origin of all carbon-based *life*on this planet and that explanation does not include a Creator-God?

No. That worldview is naturalism.

Do you acknowledge the fact that virtually all evolutionary scientists buy into some version of evolutionism?

Depends on what you actually mean by "evolutionism."

Well, my friend that might sound good on paper but it does not work well in reality. Biological evolution is a scientific fact but biological evolution does not 'point toward' a world where primitive life arose via chance from Darwin's “warm little pond†and 'evolved' via mutation and natural selection into you and me. That is mythology not science. Is that what Christians should believe?

I don't see how this addresses the point I made. And you seem to be confusing abiogenesis with evolution.

Question for you – which creation worldview do you subscribe to...evolution via mutation and natural selection from a “warm little pond†or special creation via the mind of God.

If God created via evolution, how are the two different?

 

[zeke]

One can equate a merry-go-round to a helicopter, for that matter. And it wouldn't be a big a mistake.

Then we agree - we can equate evolutionary theory with atheism.

Radical atheists and creationists have a common cause; to make God and science incompatible.

I believe "God created in the beginning" and there is no conflict between God and science. There is a conflict between Darwinian mythology and God; Darwinian mythology and science; and Darwinian mythology and reality.

Evolution isn't about the origin of life.

Sure it is.

If you mean that about 97.7% of people with doctorates in biology accept evolutionary theory, that's true.

I mean the vast majority of people with doctorates in evolutionary biology are atheists.

 

[zeke]

No, one cannot equate the two. Just because some do does not mean that it is so.

But it is so – even our atheist friends agree.

Again, science is the general discipline by which we learn about the universe by collecting data and drawing conclusions from that data.

Agreed – and the data does not support life arising via chance and evolving into me and you. Is science the only source of knowledge we have regarding the universe?

Christianity and atheism are two worldviews through which scientists interpret the data.

And since most evolutionary scientists are atheists they will always interpret the data with their atheistic bent?

Depends on what you actually me an by "evolutionism."

I gave the definition---*evolutionism* is a worldview that presents the notion that there are only materialistic explanation for the origin of all carbon-based *life*on this planet and that explanation does not include a Creator-God?

I don't see how this addresses the point I made. And you seem to be confusing abiogenesis with evolution.

I think it does address the point and abiogenesis is part of the evolutionary paradigm – without primitive life there could not have been any evolution.

If God created via evolution, how are the two different?

But did God create via evolution? Is that what your Bible says?

 

[Free]

But it is so – even our atheist friends agree.

Let me try and make it clearer: just because some claim that is the case, does not mean it is true. It is false to equate the two.

The vast majority of atheists likely believe in evolution but not all evolutionists are atheists.

Agreed – and the data does not support life arising via chance and evolving into me and you. Is science the only source of knowledge we have regarding the universe?

Are you a scientist? Can you look at all the data, understand it and come to a conclusion? Or are you just repeating what you read on creationist sites and in creationist books?

As for whether or not "science is the only source of knowledge we have regarding the universe," that all depends on what one wishes to know about the universe.

And since most evolutionary scientists are atheists they will always interpret the data with their atheistic bent?

Of course. And what of those who are professing Christians?

=zekeI gave the definition---*evolutionism* is a worldview that presents the notion that there are only materialistic explanation for the origin of all carbon-based *life*on this planet and that explanation does not include a Creator-God?

Which is naturalism.

But did God create via evolution? Is that what your Bible says?

It doesn't say anything about how God actually created.

 

[zeke]

Let me try and make it clearer: just because some claim that is the case, does not mean it is true. It is false to equate the two.

And you're claim is the correct claim? Why?

The vast majority of atheists likely believe in evolution but not all evolutionists are atheists.*

All atheists deny God – Darwinism leads to atheism - not all atheists believe in Darwinian evolution - not all scientists believe in Darwinian evolution.

Are you a scientist? Can you look at all the data, understand it and come to a conclusion? Or are you just repeating what you read on creationist sites and in creationist books?

Yes – I can and have looked at the evidence and it does not support the notion that life came from non-life via chance and evolved into you and me. Can you prove otherwise?

As for whether or not "science is the only source of knowledge we have regarding the universe," that all depends on what one wishes to know about the universe.*

Does God know about the universe?

Which is naturalism.

In a nutshell - the notion that the natural universe is all that exists and there is no supernatural.

It doesn't say anything about how God actually created.

Then we agree – the Bible does not say God created via evolution.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
One can equate a merry-go-round to a helicopter, for that matter. And it wouldn't be as big a mistake.

Then we agree - we can equate evolutionary theory with atheism.

If you truly believe that, even most creationists wouldn't agree with you. Creationists are smarter than they are generally portrayed.

Barbarian observes:
Radical atheists and creationists have a common cause; to make God and science incompatible.

I believe "God created in the beginning" and there is no conflict between God and science.

You just contradicted yourself.

There is a conflict between Darwinian mythology and God; Darwinian mythology and science; and Darwinian mythology and reality.

Your mythology apparently has nothing to do with Darwinian theory. Why not tell us about your mythology, so we can see how it compares to the real thing?

Start by telling us how it differs with the four points of Darwinian theory.

Barbarian chuckles:
Evolution isn't about the origin of life.

Sure it is.

Nope. Nothing about the origin of life in evolutionary theory. Even Darwin just suggested God did it.

Barbarian observes:
If you mean that about 97.7% of people with doctorates in biology accept evolutionary theory, that's true.

I mean the vast majority of people with doctorates in evolutionary biology are atheists.

I talked with one of them once. It seems he was raised to believe God and evolution where incompatible. Then he learned that creationism could not be true. And lost his faith. That is the real damage creationism does. The testimony from a former YE creationist, educated in the ICR graduate school:

But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm

At judgement, YE will have much to account for.

 

[zeke]

You just contradicted yourself.

Really? In your reality do you find a contradiction with my statement, "God created in the beginning and there is no conflict between God and science� Please enlighten us on your version of good logic.

Your mythology apparently has nothing to do with Darwinian theory.

Your confused – Darwinism is mythology mixed with a little science.

Start by telling us how it differs with the four points of Darwinian theory.

You have never defined your version of the “four points of Darwinian theoryâ€.

Nope. Nothing about the origin of life in evolutionary theory. Even Darwin just suggested God did it.

Tell me about Darwin’s “warm little pond†where he supposed goo became me and you. You may be confused about what Chuck believed – yes?

I talked with one of them once. It seems he was raised to believe God and evolution where incompatible. Then he learned that creationism could not be true.

Your version of reality is skewed my friend. God and biological evolution (science) are completely compatible. The Bible does not contradict science and the fact remains – God did “create in the beginningâ€. Doesn’t your Magisterium teach you that God created - in the beginning?

At judgement, YE will have much to account for.

Our YEC friends may want to take you to task on your silly statement but the truth remains - we shall all give account for what we teach others on “that Day†– you included, mate. You can explain to the Eternal why you push the leading atheistic creation myth to believer and non-believer - yes?

 

[zeke]

You boast much about your scientific expertise but you post little science. Let's see what you have. Present on this thread the evidence from science that proves theropod dinosaurs evolved into birds. Please do not include your assertions presumptions and speculation - just the science please. You're up.

2nd request.
Barbarian are you there? Have you located your evidences yet that proves theropod dinosaurs evolved into birds? Should I hold my breath?

 

[Free]

Let me try and make it clearer: just because some claim that is the case, does not mean it is true. It is false to equate the two.

And you're claim is the correct claim? Why?

Firstly, obviously just because someone claims something to be true does not mean it is actually true. Secondly, the problem here, as I have made clear, is that atheism is a worldview and evolution is not. The fact that there are theistic scientists, including Christians, that believe in evolution proves such a claim false. All I am doing is pointing out the error in reasoning.

Yes – I can and have looked at the evidence and it does not support the notion that life came from non-life via chance and evolved into you and me. Can you prove otherwise?

I have never made the claim that life came from non-life. That is abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution is concerned with what happened after life began.

In a nutshell - the notion that the natural universe is all that exists and there is no supernatural.

I wasn't asking what naturalism was, I was pointing out that your definition of "evolutionism" is actually naturalism.

Then we agree – the Bible does not say God created via evolution.

Of course, I have never said otherwise. But that does not mean he didn't create via evolution either. The Bible is silent on the details of how God created, so what that means is that it is possible that God did create via evolution.

 

[zeke]

Firstly, obviously just because someone claims something to be true does not mean it is actually true.

And that would include your claims?

Secondly, the problem here, as I have made clear, is that atheism is a worldview and evolution is not

Darwinism is a naturalistic worldview based on a misinterpretation of the scientific data. Biological evolution is a scientific fact. There is a big difference between Darwinism and biological science. The former is metaphysics the latter is science.

The fact that there are theistic scientists, including Christians, that believe in evolution proves such a claim false. All I am doing is pointing out the error in reasoning.

Is it your claim that theistic scientists, including Christians cannot be wrong? That would be an error in reasoning – yes?

I have never made the claim that life came from non-life. That is abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution is concerned with what happened after life began.

I never said you did but classical Darwinism teaches that life came from non-life via chance – no God allowed or needed. This creation-myth is also known as naturalistic atheism and it is what the vast majority of evolutionary biologists preach – they do not allow god-talk. It’s anathema to them for the obvious reasons.

I wasn't asking what naturalism was, I was pointing out that your definition of "evolutionism" is actually naturalism.

Then we agree "evolutionism" is atheistic naturalism?

Of course, I have never said otherwise. But that does not mean he didn't create via evolution either. The Bible is silent on the details of how God created, so what that means is that it is possible that God did create via evolution.

Do you have scriptural support that God created via Darwinian evolution or are you simply projecting the Darwinian paradigm to fit your worldview?

 

[lordkalvan]

Thanks and yes, that does help.

Have you had a chance to examine the link from post #38? I know there's a lot of information there but he spoke directly about assumptions #2 and #4. It seems that you agree with his assessment of assumption #2, that the C-14/C-12 ratio in the Biosphere (equilibrium) has NOT remained constant. What are your thoughts about #4, being: The specimen had not gained any carbon since it was buried. Of course, his assumptions are based on the shared belief that the flood happened; if that is so far "out of the question" for you to do other than flatly deny, I'll understand. I honestly believe that is as I said to Barbarian, "if conditions were literally what is written in Genesis we can make no guesses at all".

Sorry for the delay in replying. I have glanced at the linked article you referenced in post 38 and found it very interestig. I probably haven't been able to give it the in-depth attention it deserves, but these are my immediate thoughts on various points that seemed to stick out. On #4, specimens may or may not gain C14 after being buried and generally researchers and technicians do their best to ensure that such possibilities are accounted for. Anyway, here are my immediate thoughts(a;; quotes are from the referenced article):

The reason why Radiocarbon dates are viewed so positively is that the answers seem to be consistent with what is expected to occur by those who think in terms of time as being longer than what the Bible presents as the history of our world.

No. The reason radiocarbon dates are viewed positively is because they are widely consistent, use known and verified functions of physics, and are consilient with a range of independent dating methodologies that can be used to verify them. This is a view shared by many Christians who do not regard idiosyncratic calculations about the age of Earth derived from a pre-scientific culture’s understanding of the Universe to trump the evidence that they see in God’s creation itself.

The archeologist or scientist assumes that the date they receive is generally correct.

The assumption is made because it is grounded in sound scientific principles and practice.

Because it is assumed that man, for example, has ascended over a long period of time, researchers would automatically want to lengthen the amount of time indicated by the artifacts uncovered in archeological digs.

No, again. Researchers attribute dates to artefacts that are warranted by relevant evidence, be that radiocarbon dating, stratigraphic dating, known historical context, or whatever.

There is also the danger that good data could be thrown out because it doesn't fit with established thinking. For instance, I am told that there are sometimes found in the same level both "early" forms and "modern" forms of man. Because of what is considered to be an impossibility, the modern forms are assumed to have been examples of intrusions. The modern form is considered to have been buried much later in spite of the fact that the specimens are found in the same level.

This would be more persuasive if he explained what he understood by .modern’ and ‘early’, what he means by ‘the same level’ and if he actually cited and referenced some examples.

Before we start, lets look at the specific Carbon 14 dating assumptions.
1. The rate of C-14 decay (half-life) has always been the same.
2. The C-14/C-12 ratio in the Biosphere (equilibrium) has remained constant.
3. The specimen was in equilibrium with the Biosphere when buried.
4. The specimen had not gained any carbon since it was buried.
5. Today, we can measure the correct C-14/C-12 ratio in the specimen.

1. There is no evidence that hald-lives have varied appreciably.
2. No. Variations in C14 reservoirs are known and taken into account.
3. Generally, yes.
4. Assumed unless evidence indicates otherwise. An anomalous C14 date would be such an indication warranting further investigation to determine whether contamination had occurred or some other factor was involved.
5. The amount of C14 in a specimen can be measured to a high degree of precision.

The chart on the left shows two scenarios depicting how the C14 equilibrium could have changed in the past.

‘Could have’ is not evidential. In the examples given, there is evidence to support Scenario A, but none to support Scenario B.

There is presently no way to determine what the C14 level was before the flood.

Begging several questions: first, that there was a global flood of biblical proportions; second, that it occurred more recently than Professor Stuiver indicated we have data for C14 levels for.

Factors that could have affected past C-14 levels

Sadly, there is no evidence to suggest that any of these factors were impinged by a global flood. Indeed, the consilient evidence from other independent methodologies (speleothems, ice cores, lake varves, coral growth and dendrochronology) show no sign of any such flood occurring.

Does Coal have a residual level of C-14 left from before the Flood?

In his analysis, Mike Brown overlooks more recent research than that which he cites that C14 in coal is most likely the result of radioactive decay of the uranium-throium isiotope series that occurs naturally in some coal-bearing rocks. Some research also suggest that microorganisms found in coal may also be responsible for measured C14 content, but likely only significant if the coal is exposed to damp, warm conditions. C14 also occurs in other fossil fuels and this content varies widely, depending on particular local conditions.