[_ Old Earth _] What is your opinion?

[jesseedavis]

True or false:

The interpretation of evidence from the fossil record depends on the worldview of the interpreter.

 

[Classik]

Yeah.

 

[Barbarian]

There is an objective reality, and humans, even with conflicting worldviews, can find it.

Note this from Kurt Wise, a YE creationist, but also a degreed scientist:

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.) and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
Wise, K. P., 1994. Australopithecus ramidus and the fossil record. CEN Tech. J., 8(2):160-165.

Furthermore, if a confirmed Darwinist like Gould could survey the fossil record and realize that Darwin's idea of gradualism and constant rates of evolution were usually not supported by the fossil record, which mostly shows evidence for relatively fast change (in geologic time scales) followed by stasis as the species becomes fit in the environment, then it's clear that this is true of both sides. Another case of this is the addition of genetics to the theory, as it became clear that Darwin's conception of inheritance was faulty.

True, none of this erases Darwin's four points, and Kurt Wise remains a YE creationist because he holds his interpretation of the Bible above the evidence, but it shows that we are not prisoners of our worldviews, unless we let ourselves be.

 

[zeke]

True, none of this erases Darwin's four points, and Kurt Wise remains a YE creationist because he holds his interpretation of the Bible above the evidence, but it shows that we are not prisoners of our worldviews, unless we let ourselves be.

The Bible is the evidence.

The evidence from Scripture is by far the best evidence for creation. No better evidence can be imagined than that provided from Him who is not only the only eyewitness observer, but who also is the embodiment of all truth. All Christians should be content in His claims for creation. There are those, however, who reject the authority of the Scriptures. ~ Kurt Wise​

How do you reconcile your theistic Darwinism (an oxymoron) with the Darwinistic worldview of Will Provine

Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent. ~ William Provine​

Is Provine a prisoner of his worldview?

 

[jesseedavis]

There is an objective reality, and humans, even with conflicting worldviews, can find it.

I can agree with this, at least slightly. However I think we may differ on just what that "objective reality" is.

True, none of this erases Darwin's four points, and Kurt Wise remains a YE creationist because he holds his interpretation of the Bible above the evidence, but it shows that we are not prisoners of our worldviews, unless we let ourselves be.

Side note: Barb, do you believe in Christ?

For now, the only thing I'll say on this is that in terms of historical sciences, evidence does not make any claims for itself nor does it tie itself to any other evidences. At the end of the day, the only "neutral" conclusion we can have is that a fossil is a fossil and man what a dirty one at that!

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
There is an objective reality, and humans, even with conflicting worldviews, can find it.

I can agree with this, at least slightly. However I think we may differ on just what that "objective reality" is.

That's what evidence is for.

Barbarian observes:
True, none of this erases Darwin's four points, and Kurt Wise remains a YE creationist because he holds his interpretation of the Bible above the evidence, but it shows that we are not prisoners of our worldviews, unless we let ourselves be.

Side note: Barb, do you believe in Christ?

You're new here, um? Orthodox Trinitarian Christian. How about you?

For now, the only thing I'll say on this is that in terms of historical sciences, evidence does not make any claims for itself nor does it tie itself to any other evidences. At the end of the day, the only "neutral" conclusion we can have is that a fossil is a fossil and man what a dirty one at that!

Hang on, you've got a lot to learn about it. What do you know about paleontology? Where do you want to start?

 

[jesseedavis]

Orthodox Trinitarian Christian, huh? Okay, sounds good. Yes, I follow Christ.

What do I know of paleontology? Well, this depends on what way you want to look at it. Scientifically, nothing. Anything beyond a very basic layman's stuff, maybe a tad.

Well, before we delve into the depths of it, can we first start with some theology?

What's your take on God's truthfulness?

 

[Barbarian]

Orthodox Trinitarian Christian, huh? Okay, sounds good. Yes, I follow Christ.

That's good to know, but then, I look below, and you're questioning Christ's truthfulness. If you're a Christian, this shouldn't be an issue. I'm wondering why it is for you.

What do I know of paleontology? Well, this depends on what way you want to look at it. Scientifically, nothing.

How do you form an opinion on something you don't know about?

Well, before we delve into the depths of it, can we first start with some theology?

Sure. But you're setting yourself up, if you start suggesting that Christians don't think God is truthful.

 

[Barbarian]

How do you reconcile your theistic Darwinism (an oxymoron) with the Darwinistic worldview of Will Provine

Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent. ~ William Provine

Is Provine a prisoner of his worldview?

As you learned, dogmatic atheists share an agenda with creationists to make science opposed to God. Provine is what is sometimes referred to as a fundy atheist. Not surprising to see an alliance between the two groups.

Neither is willing to accept God's creation.

 

[jesseedavis]

That's good to know, but then, I look below, and you're questioning Christ's truthfulness. If you're a Christian, this shouldn't be an issue. I'm wondering why it is for you.

Sure. But you're setting yourself up, if you start suggesting that Christians don't think God is truthful.

because he holds his interpretation of the Bible above the evidence

Again, your take on the truthfulness of God please?

 

[zeke]

As you learned, dogmatic atheists share an agenda with creationists to make science opposed to God. Provine is what is sometimes referred to as a fundy atheist. Not surprising to see an alliance between the two groups.

Creationists believe God created - atheists deny God - you remain very confused scientifically and theologically and the truth remains - Charles Darwin understood perfectly that his version of evolutionism was/is atheism. You have had the wool pulled over your eyes. Wake up and learn from your error.

 

[Barbarian]

Again, your take on the truthfulness of God please?

I've answered once already. If you can't accept that God is truth, you don't know much about Christianity.

So let's hear about you. Are you a Christian?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
As you learned, dogmatic atheists share an agenda with creationists to make science opposed to God. Provine is what is sometimes referred to as a fundy atheist. Not surprising to see an alliance between the two groups.

Creationists believe God created

Sort of. They just don't approve of the way He did it.

atheists deny God

While creationists are lukewarm.

you remain very confused scientifically and theologically and the truth remains - Charles Darwin understood perfectly that his version of evolutionism was/is atheism.

And yet he suggested that God created the first living things. Doesn't that tell you there's something wrong with your assumption?

You have had the wool pulled over your eyes.

I always knew that Darwin had ascribed creation to God. It came as a shock to you, because you were told some foolish story about science being atheism.

Wake up and learn from your error.

 

[jesseedavis]

I've answered once already. If you can't accept that God is truth, you don't know much about Christianity.

So let's hear about you. Are you a Christian?

Jesus said, " I am the way, the truth and the life..." John 14:6

I believe He is Truth and that He cannot lie, I'm not questioning this. You imply that you believe God is truth, that was part of what I wanted to know. I'll redirect my question for you. Do you believe the Bible is God's Word? Do you believe the Bible is truth?

 

[zeke]

As you learned, dogmatic atheists share an agenda with creationists to make science opposed to God.

You still don't get it - Darwinian lore is not science - it is a godless woldview based on naturalism.

Provine is what is sometimes referred to as a fundy atheist.

Provine, like Dawkins is a militant atheist who understands evolution quite well...

Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented. ~ William Provine ​

And yet he suggested that God created the first living things. Doesn't that tell you there's something wrong with your assumption?

Darwin rejected God and the faith of Christ long before he checked out. He was what he was - an agnostic atheist who knew well where his version of evolution went - straight to atheism. Try to move forward - you have been duped - Darwin has given atheism its own “creation” story and you appear to buy into that myth.

Darwin’s theory was never meant to be compatible with a Creator. Its purpose was to remove God from the last sphere of life He had so dominated. It was an attempt to demolish Paley’s argument from design and give atheism its own “creation” story. (Bill Johnson, Is Darwinism Atheistic?)​

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian asks:
I've answered once already. If you can't accept that God is truth, you don't know much about Christianity.

So let's hear about you. Are you a Christian?

(declines to say)

Why do you not want to answer the question?

I believe He is Truth and that He cannot lie, I'm not questioning this.

Would you agree, even if He used allegory or figurative language to express the truth, it would still be the truth?

And would you tell us whether or not you claim to be a Christian?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
As you learned, dogmatic atheists share an agenda with creationists to make science opposed to God.

You still don't get it

We all got it. You and your atheist fellows want to keep science and God apart.

Darwinian lore is not science - it is a godless woldview based on naturalism.

You're problem is Darwin attributing the origin of life to God, in The Origin of Species. So we know you're wrong.

Barbarian chuckles:
Provine is what is sometimes referred to as a fundy atheist.

Provine, like Dawkins is a militant atheist who understands evolution quite well...

Remember, you had to be disabused of one misconception after another concerning evolution. So you really have no idea.

Darwin rejected God and the faith of Christ long before he checked out.

But when he wrote about his theory, he thought God created living things. So much for your assumption.

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence from The Origin of Species

You've been snockered again, it seems.

 

[jesseedavis]

Are you a Christian?

(declines to say)

Why do you not want to answer the question?

Honestly, after reading up on your posts, I figured you have ample intelligence to infer from the responses I did give you that I am indeed a Christian. After all can one follow Christ without first believing in Christ and that He is who He says He is? However, to eliminate further speculation for you, yes Barbarian, I am a Christian.

Just curious,

would you tell us whether or not you claim to be a Christian?

This seems to have a bit of harsh skepticism towards someone that you aren't paying a whole lot of attention to don't you think?

Would you agree, even if He used allegory or figurative language to express the truth, it would still be the truth?

I do agree, He often does throughout His word. Care to expound on your thoughts behind this question?

 

[Barbarian]

Honestly, after reading up on your posts, I figured you have ample intelligence to infer from the responses I did give you that I am indeed a Christian.

I'm just wondering why you're reluctant to simply say "yes, I'm a Christian."

Barbardian asks:
Would you agree, even if He used allegory or figurative language to express the truth, it would still be the truth?

I do agree, He often does throughout His word. Care to expound on your thoughts behind this question?

How do you know whether a passage is to be taken as figurative or not?

 

[zeke]

You and your atheist fellows want to keep science and God apart.

You struggle - Darwinism is not science - Darwinism is atheism - I reject atheism and Darwinism - you try to embrace a form of Darwinism that is non-biblical and non-scientific.

You're problem is Darwin attributing the origin of life to God, in The Origin of Species.

Darwin easily snookered you my friend - learn from your mistakes. Darwin's theory was never meant to be compatible with a Creator. Darwin's purpose from the get-go was to eliminate God and give atheism its own “creation myth".

The Darwinian revolution was not merely the replacement of one scientific theory by another, as had been the scientific revolutions in the physical sciences, but rather the replacement of a world view, in which the supernatural was accepted as a normal and relevant explanatory principle, by a new world view in which there was no room for supernatural forces. ~ Ernst Mayr​

Surprise - Darwinism leaves no room for supernatural forces - where does that leave you?