[_ Old Earth _] Creation Thoery Model.

[Sparkey]

Well first you need a testable creation theory.

And we will need to wait for the Creator to show it (again) if He so chooses.

 

[Barbarian]

"Theory" is probably the wrong term. That is really a scientific term, and science is completely unable to handle the supernatural.

There are certainly creation theologies, among them YE. There are also creation theologies in Christian thought that are perfectly consistent with evolution, an ancient Earth, and so on. This is why many denominations, although open to evolution, do not endorse any particular belief about creation.

 

[turnorburn]

Evolution is a theory creation is fact..

tob

 

[Barbarian]

Evolution is a theory creation is fact..

Technically, they are both facts. It's just that creation is a fact derived from faith, and a theory is a fact derived from evidence.

 

[Barbarian]

A concept I had a hard time really understanding was the concept between Observational Science and Historical Science. When you start to understand these two different terms, then you'll see that those that assert Evolution Theory as true use as much faith as those who assert Creation Theory is true.

I'm not sure you realize what observational science and historical science are.

We know that observational science is true because we can see it, test it and verify it.

Such as evolution. We can take a population, put it in a particular environment, and see what happens. Evolution happens.

When you drop a rock, it falls and we can repeat this test and each time, we observe the rock falls.

In many ways, gravity is as certain as evolution. But not quite. We can observe both. But of course, we know why evolution works, but we still aren't completely sure why gravity works.

In this way, the theory of gravity is affirmed. Go into outerspace, and we find that this law no longer applies

Newton said it does. He's right. We use gravity when we send probes to other planets. BTW, it's not "Newton's Law of Gravity." It's "Newton's theory of gravitation." The reason that we call it a theory, is that it not only predicts things, it also explains things. So it's stronger than a law, which predicts, but does not explain.

Natural selection and adaptation are readily seen through observational science, and both theories of Evolution and theories of Creation can be formed around observational science. This brings us to Historical science and where these different views of the past come into play. Nobody was around 10,000 years ago taking samples and writing stuff down, so we can only assume from what we see today how things may have been say 6,500 years ago or so and really, that's where the debate is and frankly, ones view is going to be biased upon which assumptions one takes as better representing the truth.

So you're saying that we can't be sure gravity was working back then, because you think no one was there to see it? BTW, there are structures older than 6,500 years old.

For example: Evolution says we came from the oceans and at one time we were single celled entities and though Evolution, we turned into fish, then lizards, then rodents, monkeys and then humans.

No. Lizards, rodents, and monkeys are not on the line that led to humans.

All of this is based on theory which is derived from observational science, yet nobody was around when as Evolution explains as a big bang

Evolutionary theory says nothing at all about the big bang.

and in likeness, nobody was around when, as the Biblical account states, "And God said". Both of these assertions are taken on faith, the only differences is, "Faith in what".

I suppose one might say "faith in evidence", but technically, faith is built on received knowledge, not evidence.

I think where the real crime is committed is when Evolutionists and Creationists pit the Bible against observational science because observational science can confirm both Evolution and Creation theories.

No. Creationism is not consistent with observed evidence.

 

[turnorburn]

Barbarian said

Technically, they are both facts. It's just that creation is a fact derived from faith, and a theory is a fact derived from evidence.

I know an Atheist that said the very same thing..:naughty

tob

*edit: my answer was/is..

Proverbs 3:19 The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens.

20 By his knowledge the depths are broken up, and the clouds drop down the dew.

21 My son, let not them depart from thine eyes: keep sound wisdom and discretion:

22 So shall they be life unto thy soul, and grace to thy neck.

23 Then shalt thou walk in thy way safely, and thy foot shall not stumble.

24 When thou liest down, thou shalt not be afraid: yea, thou shalt lie down, and thy sleep shall be sweet.

 

[Vaccine]

Here is an observation:
Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'.-Stephen Jay Gould Harvard professor, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, historian of science, "Evolution's Erratic Pace",Natural History, vol. 86, May 1977

That's the creation model, sudden appearance, fully formed. Consistent with the observations. Supported by the facts.

 

[Asyncritus]

Historical science is a very long catalogue of extremely foolish theories, which were long regarded as fact.

Take the spontaneous generation of life. For over 2000 years it was thought that life spontaneously arose. van Helmont actually thought that it arose from a mixture of wheat and dirty underwear! That went on till 1864 when Pasteur finally destroyed it with his famous experiment using a curved neck flask.

Darwin didn't know this, when he published his Origin. Pity. It would have saved the world a great deal of folly.

Take the Flat Earth - for how long was that held?

Worse, the idea that acquired characteristics could be inherited was long held too. Darwin held it as well, and it was a plank in his theory, but has now been quietly shoved aside. Did you know that he actually thought that a bear, catching insects in the water and on the water could have evolved into a whale?

The man should have been a writer of fairy tales, and would have saved us a lot of trouble.

Sir Richard Owen persuaded him to expunge that particular piece of nonsense from Origin's later editions. He did expunge it, but only grudgingly.

That theory still persists today - despite the fact that we know better.

Here's a joker talking about the evolution of man:

"The shift in hunting from small to big game...had an enormous effect on the shaping of man, nearly doubling the size of his brain, and transforming one breed of Australopithecus to Homo erectus..."

That's a former editor of Scientific American talking. Pfeiffer, p 165

He obviously hasn't heard the fact that acquired characteristics cannot be inherited, because they do not affect the sex cells' DNA.

Too bad, evolution guys.

 

[Asyncritus]

No. Creationism is not consistent with observed evidence.

What utter nonsense.

 

[Mike S]

Other than the fact that God doesn't really have a physical body, or look like a big old bearded guy, it's not really that weird a picture. He did, as the picture suggests, create nature, and then use that created thing to make everything else.

There are many things we disagree on, but on this issue...I agree completely.

I've never understood why this is a hugely controversial subject.

 

[Barbarian]

Historical science is a very long catalogue of extremely foolish theories, which were long regarded as fact.

"Creation Science", "Intelligent Design", Geocentrism, etc.

Take the spontaneous generation of life.

Refuted by an evolutionist. Spontaneous generation was compatible with creationism, but not with Darwinian theory.

That went on till 1864 when Pasteur finally destroyed it with his famous experiment using a curved neck flask.

Yep. But you seem to be undercutting your own argument, here.

Darwin didn't know this, when he published his Origin.

As you learned earlier, Darwin's theory ruled out the notion of spontaneous generation because his theory says that all organisms have a common ancestor. Pasteur later showed Darwin was right. Again, you seem to be undercutting your own argument.

Take the Flat Earth - for how long was that held?

Do tell us how long you think it was. I would like to have your opinion on that.

Worse, the idea that acquired characteristics could be inherited was long held too. Darwin held it as well, and it was a plank in his theory

No. He thought it was true as all scientists did in his day, but he thought that it was not as important as natural selection. Of course, modern evolutionary theory shows that to be a false idea.

Here's a joker talking about the evolution of man:

"The shift in hunting from small to big game...had an enormous effect on the shaping of man, nearly doubling the size of his brain, and transforming one breed of Australopithecus to Homo erectus..."

That's a former editor of Scientific American talking. Pfeiffer, p 165

Didn't see that in the scientific literature. Is your point that popular magazines aren't reliable about scientific topics?

He obviously hasn't heard the fact that acquired characteristics cannot be inherited, because they do not affect the sex cells' DNA.

Ah, you've misunderstood. He's talking about natural selection, not acquired characteristics. Once our survival became a matter of wits and cooperation, not merely strength and speed, natural selection greatly favored smarter people. Still does. It's why there are so few creationist scientists in the world. (WFTH-I)

Too bad, evolution guys.

Looks like you've done it again. But do tell us about the flat earthers.

 

[Asyncritus]

Evolution is a theory creation is fact..

Technically, they are both facts. It's just that creation is a fact derived from faith, and a theory is a fact derived from evidence.

More nonsense.

A theory is not a fact. Evidence is fact - so you've said nothing really.

A theory is not a fact derived from fact!

 

[Barbarian]

Here is an observation:

Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'.-Stephen Jay Gould "Evolution's Erratic Pace",Natural History, vol. 86, May 1977


And:
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
--Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History

And:

"Allopatric speciation suggests that species with large central populations are stabilized by their large volume and the process of gene flow. New and even beneficial mutations are diluted by the population's large size and are unable to reach fixation, due to such factors as constantly changing environments.[15] If this is the case, then the transformation of whole lineages should be rare, as the fossil record indicates. Smaller populations on the other hand, which are isolated from the parental stock, are decoupled from the homogenizing effects of gene flow. In addition, pressure from natural selection is especially intense, as peripheral isolated populations exist at the outer edges of ecological tolerance. If most evolution happens in these rare instances of allopatric speciation then evidence of gradual evolution in the fossil record should be rare. This stimulating hypothesis was alluded to by Mayr in the closing paragraph of his 1954 paper (p. 179)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

Notice that Gould's point was that gradual, sympatric speciation should be rare, as the evidence shows it is. But notice that it's not absent. It's just not the normal mode. Gould mentions horses, for example. I can show you why it's gradual, with many slight changes over a very long time, if you like.

That's the creation model, sudden appearance, fully formed.

Remember, the "creation model" includes evolution, since that is how God did it.. The "creationist model" denies those facts.

As you see, the evidence does not support creationism, although Christian creation is completely consistent with evolution.

 

[Barbarian]

More nonsense.

A theory is not a fact. Evidence is fact - so you've said nothing really.

You've confused the colloquial use of theory (as in "it's just a theory") with the real thing. A theory is an idea that has been tested and found to be supported by evidence. Hence evolution and gravity are observable facts. (Gravity is almost as well-established as evolution)

A theory is not a fact derived from fact!

See above. You've been confused by the popular use of the word. BTW, you haven't told us how long you think people believed the Earth is flat. You indicated it was a very long time. Can you tell us about that?

 

[turnorburn]

Barbarian said

it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists

I used to wonder whose side you were on, well this leaves nothing to the imagination..

tob

 

[Barbarian]

I used to wonder whose side you were on

Apostolic Trinitarian Christianity. Not in the least bit, a YE creationist.

well this leaves nothing to the imagination..

Thank you. Hard to be a Christian, sometimes. But it has its rewards, if you know what I mean.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Technically, they are both facts. It's just that creation is a fact derived from faith, and a theory is a fact derived from evidence.

I know an Atheist that said the very same thing..

I learned that from a professor who was a lay reader and on the vestry board of the local Episcopal church. Do you suppose that truth might be independent of the theological views of the person speaking it? :o

Proverbs 3:19 The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens.

If you're willing to go that far, why not completely trust Him and accept the way He did it, as well?

 

[turnorburn]

This is what i believe..

Proverbs 3:19 The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens.

20 By his knowledge the depths are broken up, and the clouds drop down the dew.

21 My son, let not them depart from thine eyes: keep sound wisdom and discretion:

22 So shall they be life unto thy soul, and grace to thy neck.

23 Then shalt thou walk in thy way safely, and thy foot shall not stumble.

24 When thou liest down, thou shalt not be afraid: yea, thou shalt lie down, and thy sleep shall be sweet.

everything else is smoke and mirrors.. fancy titles on a church marque don't impress me nor does a professor/wolf disguised in sheep's clothing

tob

 

[Vaccine]

Here is an observation:

Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'.-Stephen Jay Gould "Evolution's Erratic Pace",Natural History, vol. 86, May 1977


And:
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
--Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History

My post said nothing whatever about "transitional forms".

"Allopatric speciation suggests that species with large central populations are stabilized by their large volume and the process of gene flow. New and even beneficial mutations are diluted by the population's large size and are unable to reach fixation, due to such factors as constantly changing environments.[15] If this is the case, then the transformation of whole lineages should be rare, as the fossil record indicates. Smaller populations on the other hand, which are isolated from the parental stock, are decoupled from the homogenizing effects of gene flow. In addition, pressure from natural selection is especially intense, as peripheral isolated populations exist at the outer edges of ecological tolerance. If most evolution happens in these rare instances of allopatric speciation then evidence of gradual evolution in the fossil record should be rare. This stimulating hypothesis was alluded to by Mayr in the closing paragraph of his 1954 paper (p. 179)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

Notice that Gould's point was that gradual, sympatric speciation should be rare, as the evidence shows it is. But notice that it's not absent. It's just not the normal mode. Gould mentions horses, for example. I can show you why it's gradual, with many slight changes over a very long time, if you like.

Gould's made an observation and suggested a conclusion.
I think that's a good example of what @StoveBolts was talking about. Observable science was "Sudden appearance, fully formed", Historical science was Gould's interpretation of that observation, or just as valid suggestion is that's evidence for creation.

That's the creation model, sudden appearance, fully formed.

Remember, the "creation model" includes evolution, since that is how God did it..

In a court of law, I believe the objection is "assumes facts not in evidence". Evolution assumes an origin, it assumes facts not in evidence. Creation is the suggestion supported by the observations.

 

[Sparkey]

In a court of law, I believe the objection is "assumes facts not in evidence". Evolution assumes an origin, it assumes facts not in evidence. Creation is the suggestion supported by the observations.

If we downgrade Creation to a level playing field so that it may be judged with the same scale as Man's theory, it too assumes an origin and it too assumes facts not in evidence. I see this as the essential problem, my personal unwillingness to downgrade my esteem for the Word of God. I doubt that many Judges would hold my regard for the "evidential weight" of the Bible to be significant. It is only one man's regard being weighed against the regard and favor of another man.