[_ Old Earth _] Big Bang and evolution as viewed by creationists.

[aiki]

The Barbarian:

Hello.

You wrote:

No. The idea that "we each have our own reality" is not a defensible argument in science or in theology. There are objective criteria required for transitionals.

Actually, the "we each have our own reality" point of view is regularly defended in philosophical circles. I don't agree with it, mind you, but many eminent philosophers hold that it is, at least in certain respects, true.

But this isn't what I've suggested. A fossil is a fossil. This is an undeniable reality upon which both Evolutionists and Creationists agree. What a fossil suggests about the origins and history of life on this planet, however, is a matter of interpretation.

Not for a Christian. We are supposed to follow the truth wherever it goes.

Uh huh. Unfortunately, the facts of reality don't always plainly or simply establish what is true. Philosophers have debated this for a very long time now. For a Christian, the truth is found in the pages of Scripture. This truth interprets the Christian's reality, which is often radically different from what may discerned empirically.

Nope. If that were true, we'd only see people of a certain persuasion accepting science. But we see Christians, Jews, Muslim, agnotistics, athiests, etc. all accepting evolution.

That one won't fly.

How so? Please explain.

I can tell you aren't a scientist. Why not find out what it's about.

This is an assumption born in ignorance. You've no idea what I do or don't know about science. Do you operate from such assumptions alot?

Creation, yes. Creationism, no. Creation is consistent with science, creationism is not. Big difference between the two.

Well, I know of Creationist scientists who would disagree with you. In light of this, I take the above comment as another of your opinions rather than fact.

In Christ, Aiki.

 

[Drew]

To assert that "evolution and creation are simply different interpretations of the same facts of science" is like saying that the following two assertions:

1. Drew (me) killed Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman
2. OJ killed Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman

are simply different interpretations of the same facts.

Let me qualify a little: When I say creation, I mean "creationism" as per the distintion that Barbarian properly draws. I think that God did create the universe - this event just happened to take place about 15 billion years ago.

"Interpretation" is a term more properly applied to "why" type questions, not "what actually happened" type questions. To suggest that God created the universe 10,000 years ago is to effectively suggest that He "planted" all sorts of evidence to mislead us into believing otherwise.

Of course, it is possible to construct a theory that is consistent with a literal interpretation of the Genesis account in the same way that one can construct a theory that I was the killer and not OJ. But in both cases, the most awkward, complicated, and wildly convoluted explanations are required to make the evidence fit. So all "interpretations" are simply not created equal.

Aiki, all we have seen from the "creationist" side in this debate is an attack on a highly cartoonized and specious strawman version of evolution along with the usual arguments about the motivations of those who oppose the literalist view. While it may not have taken place here, creationists frequently abuse the second law of thermodynamics, either wilfully or through ignorance to support the notion that evolution is somehow impossible.

Let's talk about the motivation of scientists for a second. I think that if any scientist could make a plausible case for a young earth, he would be all over it like ugly on an ape. Why? Because like most of the rest of us, the scientists seeks acclaim and professional recognition. I think that most scientists dream of coming up with new theories much more than they desire to engage in a wildly complex conspiracy to suppress the truth about our origins.

We need to go "where the truth leads" not where pre-conceived interpretations of the scriptural texts of Genesis leads us.

 

[Quath]

Here is the problem as I see it. Christians have had a very poor attempt at predicting reality based on the Bible. People believed that diseases were caused by demons; the Earth was flat; and the Earth was immovable. Now science challenges so many of the other Christian beliefs gained from the Bible like

1. No world flood, just a local one.
2. Old Earth/universe.
3. Evolution as the process for the diversity of life.
4. Jesus existed as a historical person.

So does a Christian deny science and just trust the Bible. Of so, they should at least believe the world does not move because that is very clear from the Bible. Or do they realize that humans made the Bible with imperfect understandings?

One can reconcile science and Christianity, but something has to give. Mostly, it is fundamental literalism. For example, you can imagine that God designed by evolution or God guided evolution or God created additional humans out of dirt.

Quath

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

"Common sense" tells you that common sense works on things commonly encountered.

What about quantum mechanics. QM defies common sense, and indeed surpases the limitations of the human mind to conceive! Even people who study QM readily admit they don't "understand" it.

Common sense is over rated. When I was a kid, it was common sense that kids could ride on thier mother's lap in the car!

 

[jwu]

Common sense is what tells people the earth is flat...

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Well, I know of Creationist scientists who would disagree with you. In light of this, I take the above comment as another of your opinions rather than fact.

Creation science is an oxymoron. These are people who posit that the Grand Canyon could have formed in a single flood event. :roll:

 

[Heidi]

Well, I know of Creationist scientists who would disagree with you. In light of this, I take the above comment as another of your opinions rather than fact.

Creation science is an oxymoron. These are people who posit that the Grand Canyon could have formed in a single flood event. :roll:

And who are you to tell God how he created the world??You have no clue how many other variables there were thousands of years ago when the world was created. None. All scientists know is what they can see today. Period. They didn't even know what an atom or a quark was until the microscope was invented! And there are millions of other particles they still cannot see and don't understand how they work! Yet they claim to know how the world was created? That is not only arrogance, but delusions of grandeur as well.

Each generation of scientists throughout history thinks they know how the world was created. But then the next generation shows the flaws in their theories and evolution is no exception.

And as far as ancient peoples thinking disease was caused by demons, do you know what causes evil & what causes good, Quath? Do you know that most people do not want to do evil but cannot help themselves? Many serial killers like Jeffrey Dahmer wanted to stop but couldn't. Homosexuals claim all the time they can't help their attraction to other men. So what causes people to do the things they do? There are so many things you do not understand or have the anwers to, Quath, but claim you do that you only look foolish.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Well, I know of Creationist scientists who would disagree with you. In light of this, I take the above comment as another of your opinions rather than fact.

Creation science is an oxymoron. These are people who posit that the Grand Canyon could have formed in a single flood event. :roll:

And who are you to tell God how he created the world??You have no clue how many other variables there were thousands of years ago when the world was created. None. All scientists know is what they can see today. Period. They didn't even know what an atom or a quark was until the microscope was invented! And there are millions of other particles they still cannot see and don't understand how they work! Yet they claim to know how the world was created? That is not only arrogance, but delusions of grandeur as well.

Each generation of scientists throughout history thinks they know how the world was created. But then the next generation shows the flaws in their theories and evolution is no exception.

And as far as ancient peoples thinking disease was caused by demons, do you know what causes evil & what causes good, Quath? Do you know that most people do not want to do evil but cannot help themselves? Many serial killers like Jeffrey Dahmer wanted to stop but couldn't. Homosexuals claim all the time they can't help their attraction to other men. So what causes people to do the things they do? There are so many things you do not understand or have the anwers to, Quath, but claim you do that you only look foolish.

As I've said before unless you can show that the physical properties of the universe were so starkly different that things like radiometric dating, geologic layering, etc can't be used as clocks, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that all physical occurances are perfectly reversible. That is to say, that 15 million years ago if you drop and smash an egg, then take time and go backwards instead of forwards, the egg will fly back together and shoot up to your hand.

 

[Quath]

Each generation of scientists throughout history thinks they know how the world was created. But then the next generation shows the flaws in their theories and evolution is no exception.

The flaws are more like "it wasn't 12 billion years ago, but 15 billion." It is not "all your work is useless."

And as far as ancient peoples thinking disease was caused by demons, do you know what causes evil & what causes good, Quath? Do you know that most people do not want to do evil but cannot help themselves? Many serial killers like Jeffrey Dahmer wanted to stop but couldn't. Homosexuals claim all the time they can't help their attraction to other men. So what causes people to do the things they do? There are so many things you do not understand or have the anwers to, Quath, but claim you do that you only look foolish.

We do have the answers. It is in the wiring of our brain. With some poking an proding in your brain, you can be made to do anything and think anything. There are no demons needed to explain that.

Here is an excellent example from Ebon Musings:
The future seemed bright for Mary Jackson. Though she had grown up in a poor inner-city neighborhood, she had overcome this disadvantage to become the valedictorian of her high school graduating class, and had won a scholarship to an Ivy League university where she made the dean's list all four semesters of her first two years. She was well on her way to realizing her goal of becoming a pediatrician and working with children in the same inner-city areas where she had spent her own childhood.

However, in the summer after her sophomore year, those close to her began to notice strange changes in her behavior. She had been raised a devout Baptist and only rarely drank alcohol in the past, but now she began to drink regularly, in alarmingly large amounts. She began going to bars, first on weekends, then on weekdays, and often ended up sleeping with the men she met there, even though she already had a boyfriend. Eventually, she began using cocaine.

The summer ended and she returned to school. Her grades the first semester of her junior year were dismal - three F's and two D's. Her advisor warned her that she would lose her scholarship if this continued, but she flatly refused his recommendation of counseling and became angry and verbally abusive when he suggested it. Her academic performance, as well as her health, continued to worsen during her next semester. She finally saw a doctor after catching a case of pneumonia that would not go away, and his examination revealed a dread diagnosis: Mary Jackson had become infected with HIV and now was suffering from AIDS. Her fall from grace, it seemed, was complete.

Mary admitted sleeping around, but insisted it was not for money. Crying, she said that she could not understand why she had become promiscuous; this had never happened when she was younger, but for some reason, she no longer seemed able to turn down men she met in the bars. Her physician suspected a personality disorder, but she had one other symptom that made him suspicious: she had not had a menstrual period for months. Suspecting a disorder of her pituitary gland, he referred her to the neurologist Dr. Kenneth Heilman.

Dr. Heilman found that Mary had lost her drive to achieve long-term goals, could not avoid seductive situations, and had become short-tempered and easily frustrated. When asked to repeat a simple memory test, she snapped, "Once is enough," and admitted, "Up to about a year ago, it was extremely rare that I got angry. Now it seems I am always flying off the handle" (Heilman 2002, p. 83).

As well, she had a cluster of other strange symptoms. One of them was a disorder called environmental dependency syndrome, in which the patient's behavior seems controlled by external cues and stimuli rather than internal decisions. Given a pen and paper, but no instructions on what to do with them, she immediately picked up the pen and began writing her name. When a comb was placed on the table in front of her, she took the comb, as if unconsciously, and began to comb her hair (p. 84).

The frontal lobes regulate and inhibit our behavior, and environmental dependency syndrome is a classic sign of frontal lobe dysfunction. Her other symptoms fit this diagnosis perfectly as well. But why had this change in behavior come on her so suddenly?

Dr. Heilman found the answer when he ordered a magnetic resonance scan of Mary's brain. The MRI revealed that a large tumor was growing in her brain, emerging from the pituitary gland and pressing on her orbitofrontal cortices, areas of the frontal lobe so named because they are directly over the orbits of the eyes. It was this tumor that had caused the sudden and dramatic change in her personality.

Mary underwent surgery to remove the tumor and began antiviral combination therapy to control the HIV infection, and the resulting change in her personality was every bit as sudden and dramatic as the last one had been. Her drive and motivation returned, and she returned to college, got her bachelor's degree, and enrolled in a program to get her master's degree in social work. "Her mother thinks that she still loses her temper more rapidly than she did before the tumor developed, but in general says her daughter is 'her old self'" (p. 85).

A case possibly even more shocking than Mary Jackson's was presented by neurologists Russell Swerdlow and Jeffrey Burns at the 2002 annual meeting of the American Neurological Association: a man whose brain tumor turned him into a pedophile (Choi 2002).

The patient, a 40-year-old schoolteacher, had had a normal history with no previous record as a sex offender. But then, without warning and for no apparent reason, his behavior changed; he began soliciting prostitutes, secretly visiting child pornography web sites, and finally made sexual advances toward minors, behavior for which he was arrested and convicted of child molestation. The man himself knew that this behavior was not acceptable, but in his own words, the "pleasure principle" overrode his self-restraint (ibid.), and he failed to pass a court-mandated Sexaholics Anonymous course. The evening before he was to be sentenced, he checked himself into a hospital, saying he feared that he would rape his landlady and complaining of headaches. An MRI revealed that he had an egg-sized brain tumor - and just like Mary Jackson's, it was pressing on his orbitofrontal cortex.

Brain surgeons removed the tumor, and after recovering from the operation, the man was able to successfully complete the Sexaholics Anonymous course and returned home. For some time, his behavior was completely normal. Then, around October 2001, he began complaining of headaches again, and once again began collecting pornography. A second MRI scan revealed that the tumor had begun to grow back; again it was surgically removed, and again the behavior disappeared.

In both cases, as the tumor grew, these patients' personalities changed radically, along with corresponding alterations in their behavior. When it was removed, their personalities promptly returned to type, and normal, societally acceptable behavior resumed. This correlated variance provides strong evidence that personality and behavior are unified with the brain. The values that guide our behavior, the motivation to embark on and complete goals, the basic character traits that determine who we are and how we act - the evidence shows clearly that all of these things arise from the frontal lobes of our brains.

Anyway, there are many examples that show our behavior is from the brain, not demons.

Quath

 

[Ajax 777]

The best definition of the Big Bang Theory I have yet heard:

God said "Let there be light," and BANG!... there it was.

 

[Heidi]

Each generation of scientists throughout history thinks they know how the world was created. But then the next generation shows the flaws in their theories and evolution is no exception.

The flaws are more like "it wasn't 12 billion years ago, but 15 billion." It is not "all your work is useless."

And as far as ancient peoples thinking disease was caused by demons, do you know what causes evil & what causes good, Quath? Do you know that most people do not want to do evil but cannot help themselves? Many serial killers like Jeffrey Dahmer wanted to stop but couldn't. Homosexuals claim all the time they can't help their attraction to other men. So what causes people to do the things they do? There are so many things you do not understand or have the anwers to, Quath, but claim you do that you only look foolish.

We do have the answers. It is in the wiring of our brain. With some poking an proding in your brain, you can be made to do anything and think anything. There are no demons needed to explain that.

Here is an excellent example from Ebon Musings:
The future seemed bright for Mary Jackson. Though she had grown up in a poor inner-city neighborhood, she had overcome this disadvantage to become the valedictorian of her high school graduating class, and had won a scholarship to an Ivy League university where she made the dean's list all four semesters of her first two years. She was well on her way to realizing her goal of becoming a pediatrician and working with children in the same inner-city areas where she had spent her own childhood.

However, in the summer after her sophomore year, those close to her began to notice strange changes in her behavior. She had been raised a devout Baptist and only rarely drank alcohol in the past, but now she began to drink regularly, in alarmingly large amounts. She began going to bars, first on weekends, then on weekdays, and often ended up sleeping with the men she met there, even though she already had a boyfriend. Eventually, she began using cocaine.

The summer ended and she returned to school. Her grades the first semester of her junior year were dismal - three F's and two D's. Her advisor warned her that she would lose her scholarship if this continued, but she flatly refused his recommendation of counseling and became angry and verbally abusive when he suggested it. Her academic performance, as well as her health, continued to worsen during her next semester. She finally saw a doctor after catching a case of pneumonia that would not go away, and his examination revealed a dread diagnosis: Mary Jackson had become infected with HIV and now was suffering from AIDS. Her fall from grace, it seemed, was complete.

Mary admitted sleeping around, but insisted it was not for money. Crying, she said that she could not understand why she had become promiscuous; this had never happened when she was younger, but for some reason, she no longer seemed able to turn down men she met in the bars. Her physician suspected a personality disorder, but she had one other symptom that made him suspicious: she had not had a menstrual period for months. Suspecting a disorder of her pituitary gland, he referred her to the neurologist Dr. Kenneth Heilman.

Dr. Heilman found that Mary had lost her drive to achieve long-term goals, could not avoid seductive situations, and had become short-tempered and easily frustrated. When asked to repeat a simple memory test, she snapped, "Once is enough," and admitted, "Up to about a year ago, it was extremely rare that I got angry. Now it seems I am always flying off the handle" (Heilman 2002, p. 83).

As well, she had a cluster of other strange symptoms. One of them was a disorder called environmental dependency syndrome, in which the patient's behavior seems controlled by external cues and stimuli rather than internal decisions. Given a pen and paper, but no instructions on what to do with them, she immediately picked up the pen and began writing her name. When a comb was placed on the table in front of her, she took the comb, as if unconsciously, and began to comb her hair (p. 84).

The frontal lobes regulate and inhibit our behavior, and environmental dependency syndrome is a classic sign of frontal lobe dysfunction. Her other symptoms fit this diagnosis perfectly as well. But why had this change in behavior come on her so suddenly?

Dr. Heilman found the answer when he ordered a magnetic resonance scan of Mary's brain. The MRI revealed that a large tumor was growing in her brain, emerging from the pituitary gland and pressing on her orbitofrontal cortices, areas of the frontal lobe so named because they are directly over the orbits of the eyes. It was this tumor that had caused the sudden and dramatic change in her personality.

Mary underwent surgery to remove the tumor and began antiviral combination therapy to control the HIV infection, and the resulting change in her personality was every bit as sudden and dramatic as the last one had been. Her drive and motivation returned, and she returned to college, got her bachelor's degree, and enrolled in a program to get her master's degree in social work. "Her mother thinks that she still loses her temper more rapidly than she did before the tumor developed, but in general says her daughter is 'her old self'" (p. 85).

A case possibly even more shocking than Mary Jackson's was presented by neurologists Russell Swerdlow and Jeffrey Burns at the 2002 annual meeting of the American Neurological Association: a man whose brain tumor turned him into a pedophile (Choi 2002).

The patient, a 40-year-old schoolteacher, had had a normal history with no previous record as a sex offender. But then, without warning and for no apparent reason, his behavior changed; he began soliciting prostitutes, secretly visiting child pornography web sites, and finally made sexual advances toward minors, behavior for which he was arrested and convicted of child molestation. The man himself knew that this behavior was not acceptable, but in his own words, the "pleasure principle" overrode his self-restraint (ibid.), and he failed to pass a court-mandated Sexaholics Anonymous course. The evening before he was to be sentenced, he checked himself into a hospital, saying he feared that he would rape his landlady and complaining of headaches. An MRI revealed that he had an egg-sized brain tumor - and just like Mary Jackson's, it was pressing on his orbitofrontal cortex.

Brain surgeons removed the tumor, and after recovering from the operation, the man was able to successfully complete the Sexaholics Anonymous course and returned home. For some time, his behavior was completely normal. Then, around October 2001, he began complaining of headaches again, and once again began collecting pornography. A second MRI scan revealed that the tumor had begun to grow back; again it was surgically removed, and again the behavior disappeared.

In both cases, as the tumor grew, these patients' personalities changed radically, along with corresponding alterations in their behavior. When it was removed, their personalities promptly returned to type, and normal, societally acceptable behavior resumed. This correlated variance provides strong evidence that personality and behavior are unified with the brain. The values that guide our behavior, the motivation to embark on and complete goals, the basic character traits that determine who we are and how we act - the evidence shows clearly that all of these things arise from the frontal lobes of our brains.

Anyway, there are many examples that show our behavior is from the brain, not demons.

Quath

And what does society think is normal? :o Atheists don't think sex without marriage or homosexuality are abnormal. So are you saying that all atheists have brain tumors?

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Other animals have sex without getting married, other animals display homosexuality(which percentage wise corresponds to the occurance of homosexuality in humans). Even assuming there's no reason to believe that humans are animals, these are our only examples of sexual behavior that we can point to outside ourselves. Unless you want to point to God, whose only kid he had, out of wedlock, who went on to spend all his time hanging out with 12 guys and 1 woman, who many christians would have you believe he never married.

Your Victorian take on human sexuality is a fairly new thing, typical human sexuality was repressed because it represented a lower class mentality that middle and upper classes wanted to distance themselves from during the Industrial revolution, nothing to do with Christian sentiments. Even celebacy is just a form of church tradition, started when some priest castrated himself because his girlfriend dumped him.

The point of the case of Mary Jackson was that she had an anomoly in her brain that caused a gigantic personality switch and made her lose her ability to cope with social interation in a way that wasn't detrimental to her health. Homosexuality doesn't cause people to don black clothing and flip out and kill people, it means that they're attracted to the same sex. Just like Heterosexuality means that someone is attracted to the opposite sex. Simple facts, doesn't change how they interact with society, just changes their method of interaction.

 

[Heidi]

It's also normal to swear, hate, envy, have greed, eat too much, engage in indiscriminant sex, etc. Are these qualities you tell your children to pursue? :o Do you even think?

 

[peace4all]

It's also normal to swear, hate, envy, have greed, eat too much, engage in indiscriminant sex, etc. Are these qualities you tell your children to pursue? :o Do you even think?

Such a normal thing that god created eh?

Do you ever see a church boycotting Hostess? for all teh twinkys they make?

Do you ever hear a church boycotting the hate produced from the iraq war?

How often do you hear churches complaining abotu republicans giving all teh cotnracts to other republican friends?

 

[Quath]

And what does society think is normal? :o Atheists don't think sex without marriage or homosexuality are abnormal. So are you saying that all atheists have brain tumors?

It is not about what is normal. The idea is than your brain is your personality. Your spirit does not guide you or make decisions. It is all in the mechanics of the brain.

You are a good person that doesn't like to hurt people. You love God and see Jesus as your savior. But with a scaple in the hands of someone that understands how the brain works, all that can be changed.

So it is not spirits or demons or a soul that guides us, but the mechanics of our brain. I am not implying that homosexuals are brain damaged, just that they may have different wiring. I am not saying what is good or bad, just saying that who we are is determined by how our brain is functioning.

Quath

 

[reznwerks]

[
Quath

And what does society think is normal? :o
Normal is normal. Check a dictionary once in a while. It is a very simple explanation. It is what occurs or is found most often.

Atheists don't think sex without marriage or homosexuality are abnormal.
You are grasping again and incorrect as usual. Since the highest ratio of atheists in society are in the range of 10 to 13% and since upwards of 50% and more have no problem with sex outside of marriage as long as a relationship existed. Homosexuality by definition cannot be normal as defined since it represents such a small segmento of the population as a whole. The question remains does homosexuality occur randomly without choice and the jury is still out with strong arguments on both sides and animals themselves have shown homosexual behavior.

So are you saying that all atheists have brain tumors?
Where did that come from? LOL[/quote]

 

[reznwerks]

quark

And who are you to tell God how he created the world??
Who are you to tell others how an unproven deity did all kinds of things and we should believe "just because".

You have no clue how many other variables there were thousands of years ago when the world was created. None. All scientists know is what they can see today. Period.
What we can see today is what existed yesterday? You have nothing but faith without evidence.

They didn't even know what an atom or a quark was until the microscope was invented!
Yes and the more science found out less and less spots there are for God to hide in.

And there are millions of other particles they still cannot see and don't understand how they work!
So what? Man never said he had all the answers. YET! He may never have all the answers , it's OK. These are answers waiting to be found.

Yet they claim to know how the world was created? That is not only arrogance, but delusions of grandeur as well.
That is what the evidence tells us. It is better than telling about an unproven deity doing it all. Until you have some evidence and God comes out from hiding what we can see is worth a whole lot more than what you believe without evidence.

Each generation of scientists throughout history thinks they know how the world was created. But then the next generation shows the flaws in their theories and evolution is no exception.
If only creationists could be so discriminating. You see science is after the truth and theists are still looking to confirm something that so far looks very unlikley.

And as far as ancient peoples thinking disease was caused by demons, do you know what causes evil & what causes good, Quath?
Excuse me Quath if I bud in. Evil and Good are subjective terms defined by the culture.

Do you know that most people do not want to do evil but cannot help themselves?
I don't see most people doing evil. In fact I am amazed at the kindness people show to complete strangers. You are repeating again I bet.

Many serial killers like Jeffrey Dahmer wanted to stop but couldn't.
Dahmer had a troubled childhood and more.

Homosexuals claim all the time they can't help their attraction to other men.
This implies and natural cause not chosen.American Indians described similar traits in males but they did not have the homo phobe mentality that exists today. They just accepted it as just the way it was.

So what causes people to do the things they do?
There are many many things that cause people to do the things they do and there is not just one thing as you imply.

quote]

 

[aiki]

Drew:

You wrote:

To assert that "evolution and creation are simply different interpretations of the same facts of science" is like saying that the following two assertions:

1. Drew (me) killed Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman
2. OJ killed Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman

are simply different interpretations of the same facts.

Perhaps. But your example is ridiculous, mine is not. Creationists don't deny that the facts are what they are; they simply offer what they believe is a reasonable alternative interpretation of the import of these facts to what Evolution posits.

qualify a little: When I say creation, I mean "creationism" as per the distintion that Barbarian properly draws. I think that God did create the universe - this event just happened to take place about 15 billion years ago.

Well, no reasonable, straightforward reading of Genesis, and any of the other places in Scripture which refer to the six-day Creation, would give you any such idea. What's more, this kind of dating confounds the biblical account of the Fall of Man. Genesis must be found to be in error if, as Evolution suggests, there were billions of years of death before the Fall of Man in Eden. The whole matter of Christ's redemptive work as a response to the effect of Adam's sin becomes meaningless if death was present billions of years before Adam was created.

"Interpretation" is a term more properly applied to "why" type questions, not "what actually happened" type questions. To suggest that God created the universe 10,000 years ago is to effectively suggest that He "planted" all sorts of evidence to mislead us into believing otherwise.

To suggest what you have -- that the Evolutionistic view of the beginnings of Life and the Universe are correct -- makes much of the Bible, and in particular the gospel, a lie.

Of course, it is possible to construct a theory that is consistent with a literal interpretation of the Genesis account in the same way that one can construct a theory that I was the killer and not OJ. But in both cases, the most awkward, complicated, and wildly convoluted explanations are required to make the evidence fit. So all "interpretations" are simply not created equal.

This is a matter of opinion. I find much of the Evolutionist view to be exactly as you've described the Creationist view above. For instance, the idea that life spontaneously formed from non-life seems to me an extremely awkward beginning to the "scientific" Theory of Evolution.

While it may not have taken place here, creationists frequently abuse the second law of thermodynamics, either wilfully or through ignorance to support the notion that evolution is somehow impossible.

Would you please explain how entropy and Evolution are complementary one to the other? Thanks.

Let's talk about the motivation of scientists for a second. I think that if any scientist could make a plausible case for a young earth, he would be all over it like ugly on an ape. Why? Because like most of the rest of us, the scientists seeks acclaim and professional recognition. I think that most scientists dream of coming up with new theories much more than they desire to engage in a wildly complex conspiracy to suppress the truth about our origins.

Actually, I think this is a rather simplistic understanding of the state of things in the scientific community. First of all, there is now a long-standing, constantly growing investment by the larger proportion of the scientific community in support of the Theory of Evolution. Over the last century or so the reputations of many, many scientists have been made in defense and propogation of this theory. Their influence has powerfully shaped and directed the research efforts of the greater scientific community during this time into reinforcing the Theory which made them great. Do you really believe that such scientists would be looking to embrace the Creationist view which denies their beloved theory even if they thought it was true? Not likely. Do you think they wouldn't do all in their power to stamp out any theory that might diminish what made them great? Their conduct to date shows that they have and would.

Second of all, there are the underlying moral implications to the Creationist view, which is ultimately, I believe, why most secular Evolutionists are so rabidly opposed to it. John 3:19, 20 explain, "And this is that condemnation: that light is come into the world, but men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. For he who does evil hates the light, neither comes to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved." The Bible makes it clear that those who deny God and His Word are walking in darkness, hating the light that comes from such places as the Creationist view of the origin of Life. You can bet such scientists aren't actively looking for anything that might suggest that they do, indeed, have to answer to a holy God.

We need to go "where the truth leads" not where pre-conceived interpretations of the scriptural texts of Genesis leads us.

Well, if I think that the scriptural texts of Genesis proclaim a literal, six-day Creation (which I believe they do), using them as a basis for interpeting the facts of science is "going where the truth leads". I do no more in this than the true, full-blown Evolutionist who comes to the facts of science already believing that the truth is that there is no God, that the Universe came from nothing, and that life began out of non-life. The reality of human thought is that there is no such thing as a "brute fact" accepted as such. Everyone has a bias(es) through which all facts, all "truths" are interpreted -- as your posts and mine clearly illustrate.

In Christ, Aiki.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

This is a matter of opinion. I find much of the Evolutionist view to be exactly as you've described the Creationist view above. For instance, the idea that life spontaneously formed from non-life seems to me an extremely awkward beginning to the "scientific" Theory of Evolution.

Except that evolutionists don't have this view. Life did not "spontaneously" form from non life. Besides the theory is evolution is not contingent on how life arose. How life arose is called the thoery of abiogenesis. Even is the Invisible Pink Unicorn waved a magic want to create life, the theory of evolution only applies to the process of change that occured after life began.

 

[Drew]

Would you please explain how entropy and Evolution are complementary one to the other? Thanks.

Basically, creationists will argue that the 2nd law says that everything tends toward disorder and this makes it impossible for purely naturalistic processes to give rise to the complex living structures we see around us.

This is not a legitimate inference from the 2nd law.

The second law states that heat will not flow spontaneously from a colder body to a warmer one, or, equivalently, that the total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. However, this law does not prevent the development of increasing order for the following reasons:

1. The Earth is not a closed system - it receives low entropy sunlight as an input and radiates higher entropy heat away. This flow of energy, and the changes in entropy that accompany it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.

2. Entropy cannot necessarily be equated with disorder. Sometimes, this is true, but not always. We can go down this road further if we have to, but for now I won't. Besides, even if entropy is equated with disorder, the creationist argument still fails.

3. Even in closed systems, local decreases of entropy can occur if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the self-same closed system.

Now. lest anyone try to pull the old "2nd law applies in open systems as well" argument, you will, of course, get no dispute from me. But it is critical to note that, unlike the closed system case, the 2nd law does not require entropy to increase in an open system - the entropy of such a system can increase or decrease provided that the total entropy of the universe decreases.

No matter how you look at the second law, it cannot be used as an argument against evolution.