Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Christ at the Campfire The new Creation Museum is awesome!

Thank you for your compliment, but it does not seem there is very much common ground. I disagree with many of your conclusions, and must say that this is probably because I disagree with your founding premise.

I would say that most of those you speak of (though I would grant that there are probably some) are not trying to prove creation, but operate on a simple concept. As you say, science consists of coming to a theory or idea about some concept, and then trying to disprove it. If you can come up with even one thing that proves it is not so then the theory is proven wrong. I dare say most mentioned are not trying to prove creation. As I said before, such a thing is not possible here and now scientifically. Rather, they are simply trying to show by evidence that evolution is both not logical and not true. I believe this can and in fact has been done. In fact, I would enjoy your honest opinion of the relationship of the laws of thermodynamics and evolution.

I also disagree with you most strongly concerning your assertion that evolution is science. I think many of the things studied in relation to it do fall under true scientific fields of study. Archeology, biology, astronomy, and many other sciences are able to fall under the scientific method. When it comes to the theory of evolution itself, however, I am aware of no proof that can be reproduced, no evidence that can be viewed that does not have various other much more practical, logical and likely explanations. Indeed, when looked upon fairly, and with an open mind, I believe it is very clear that the only way that evolution can be accepted is by an exercise of faith more monumental than that required to believe in a Creator. For this reason, more scientists are rejecting evolution every month, though you would never know it from the unbalanced and insultingly biased atacks in college classrooms such and that pictured in the following Youtube:

http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2007/03/creation_science_101.php

As for myself, I prefer sites a little more inteligent than that, such as:
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/

But the biggest problem I have is, if life started from non-life, and by accident, why haven't we discovered how to do it in the lab? We can map the genetic chain, we can describe all of the chemicals in the body, yet we cannot find that elusive thing that changes non-living to living. If nature could do it blindly and by chance, why is it, do you think, that with all of our science, we cannot?

And, I again assert that God could easily have preserved His word even through the medium of fallen men. To place God under rules that men establish such that one will not even consider that the infinite God is not so limited is to raise yourself above God. You seem to not even accept His divine intervention as a possibility. There can be (speaking from faith) only one conclusion:


"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."

Romans 1:16 - 25


There is no one so blind as they who will not see.

Of course you don't believe them. If you did, you would have to consider and think about what Genesis might actaully mean. Its easier to bury your head in the sand and simply say 'I don't believe it'. Otherwise, you might have to think.

Also, I haven't seen any of my scientific rebutals contested. That's not even a debate! In a debate there is a point/counter point relationship. All I've seen is YECs putting up a point of garbage science an I've pointed out the multitude of errors in their conclusions. There has yet to be a counter point made by the YEC.

.

Thanks. I have to admit, the cyrstal 'proof' was one I had not heard of before . Although familiar with the helium diffusion in the cyrstals, it was the first time I'd heard of it as a proof of 'young Earth'.

Its actually kind of fun to read the trash science and see how long it takes to figure out the errors. That paper, although intended to look like a science paper was not very challenging.

A huge concern I have with the trashy 'science' is the true intent of the authors. I can understand how a young Earth believer without any science background might come up with those ideas but, cleary, Humpreys has enough background to know better. This leads me to conclude that in many cases it must be outright deceit.

Why would someone honor God and his work by deceiving those unable to understand?

Sanlen,



True. Perhaps that is why so many YECs are trying to find that one thing. We've seen a few weak attempts on this thread.

Also, you must keep in mind that the whole theory doesn't not have to be 'thrown out'. For example, we may have a theory (note is from observation, not experimentation) that all mice have tails. Now we can never prove that is true and no matter how many mice we observe, there is always a possibility that one might some day be found without a tail. If one was found without a tail, would we throw out the whole theory or just change it to 'most mice have tails'? (I remember that from my grade 8 textbook)




What evidence has shown this? I must have missed that post.




I am dissapointed in this request. I thought you were not going to use trash 'science'. To try to prove evolution impossible. You have stated that in other posts, I believe.
The example you are trying to use involves the second law of thermodynamics. I didn't think any 'creationists' were still trying to use it!
I will give a full explanation if required(although I'm sure you could get an answer on Google for this one as it is so old).
This example is very deceitful as the average person does not fully understand the laws of thermodynamics/entropy and people using this 'arguement' are preying on that lack of knowledge!
If anybody wants a full explanation, I will PM it to them as it would be very long to post here. Simply put, the creation 'scientists' try to apply a law for closed systems to an open system.





I can't agree here. You may be unaware but that does not make it fact.Many YECs don't understand enough about evolution to be aware. Evolution is used as they do cancer research involving genetics, and in all biological sciences. Many YECs seem to have a very limited understanding of evolution and think , in error, its 'monkeys to men' and other silly, incorrect concepts.




Do you have any proof of that? Are you talking about 'scientists' like 'Dr.' Kindell?





If you are getting your information on evolution from a site like that, I can see why you have certain beliefs about evolution. It also tells me that I have over estimated you. How could you read through trash science like that without being critical?

In one statement they say that the fossil record is dubious as it lacks transitional forms, then,on the top of the next page I read, they say that there is a lack of clear distincion in the morphology of the various fossils of early humans! They contradicted themselves and clearly have little or no understanding of evolution. Evolution teaches that change of species is gradual so that statement actually supports it yet they come to the conclusion it refutes it!!!





I note this is one of the two main problems the website you link to outlines. If this is the biggest problems you have with evolution, then we have found some common ground.

Evolution does not deal with the origin of life!!You would only have to read to title of Darwin's book to be aware of that. His book is not called 'Origin of life' it is called 'Origin of Species'. Evolution is the science of how species change over time.

I challenge you to educate yourself on the actual foundations of evolutionary science. You are obviously interested so why do yourself the disservice of reading biased and deceitful 'information'? I'm not asking you to believe it, I'm challenging you to learn so you can make educated decisions and arguements.

SakoAlberta,

I agree that finding one area of error does not necessarily mean that you throw out a whole theory. But you should modify it to include observable facts.

I have to admit that it is very frustrating discussing issues with you. You seem to take what is said and change the meaning to fit your understanding. You have done that numerous times in your responces. That shift always has the effect of making those who disagree with you look like morons, when what was said did not mean what you respond with at all. I actually think we would find a lot of room for agreement if that was not the case.

Take for example, this statement.
"In one statement they say that the fossil record is dubious as it lacks transitional forms, then,on the top of the next page I read, they say that there is a lack of clear distincion in the morphology of the various fossils of early humans!"

Their statement is very clear to me. In fact,
" the fossil record is dubious as it lacks transitional forms, "
and
"on the top of the next page I read, they say that there is a lack of clear distincion in the morphology of the various fossils of early humans!"
reinforce each other, not contradict. We seem to be two poles separated by a common language.

In spite of repeated attempts you still seem to be intent on creationists using science to prove creation. Given your attitude, why would anyone except those who love having their head cracked like me respond to your barbed attacks?

You ask me if I have any proof that more scientists are deserting evolution every day. Yes I do (I can't wait to hear how you bash all of these).

www.scienceagainstevolution.org

www.aboundingjoy.com/scientists.htm

www.foolishfaith.com/book_chap3.asp

www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/atheists_are_great_rationalize.html

www.helpforhomeschoolers.com/Article5.htm

www.idthefuture.com/index.html

www.chick.com/bc/1987/evolution.asp

I find it amusing, on a sad note, that you urge me to educate myself. Could this possibly be because scientists are living proof of evolution? By this I mean that one place evolution absolutely exists is in the evolving definitions of the term. (per www.sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/01/what-is-evolution.html ). What genetic mutation has mandated this in evolutionary scientists? Perhaps this is the proof long waited for supporting "special" evolution.

No, I'm saying the opposite. Creationists should stop trying to use science. There has not been one 'proof' of a young Earth offered up that any educated person could not see the error in reasoning.



My barbed attacks? I've been quite cordial, actually. How is it a 'barbed attack' when offering up reason that shows some piece of trash science is wrong? If these 'proofs' of a young Earth had any validity, you would not keep offering up more, you would defend them.



Of course the definition is ever changing. Science is an ever growing and changing body of knowledge.

I skimmed trough the paper you left a link to on "What is Evolution?". Did I miss something? Nowhere that I saw does anyone claim evolution includes the origin of life. The scientists actually seem to be quite consistent on the definitions.

I notice that you did not respond to my observation that YECs, incuding yourself, seem to confuse the origin of life with evolution. How can you make an arguement when you don't even have a idea what you discussing?



There is no shift. And if it walks like a duck,...

You have left me with a whole list of, what I presume, are many of your creationist websites. The first looks like a site that links to other creationist sites, so I didn't spend much time there. I opened the second and there was a bunch of quotes from supposed scientists that no longer believe in evolution.

Here's the first two on the list:

Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species." (Dr. Etheridge, Paleontologist of the British Museum)

"I reject evolution because I deem it obsolete; because the knowledge, hard won since 1830, of anatomy, histology, cytology, and embryology, cannot be made to accord with its basic idea. The foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long- deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man." (Dr. Albert Fleischmann, University of Erlangen)


To the weak-minded that is very convincing. You'd hate to question two such famous modern scientists!

Lets start with Dr. Etheridge. Firstly, the quote was from the 1800's.Here's a little history lesson: When curious parties in the 1920s inquired about the identity of Etheridge, the director of the British Museum surmised that the man in question was �Robert Etheridge, Junr., who was Assistant Keeper of Geology in this Museum from 1881 to 1891,� at which time he left for Australia, where he died in 1920. The director hastened to add that �Mr. Etheridge�s opinion on this subject should not be considered as in any way representing scientific opinion in this Museum.�

Thus instead of a contemporary distinguished scientists doubting evolution we have an obscure nineteenth century figure that never had any fame at all. In short, the creationists have been dishonest in their presentation of the quote. There seems to be a lot of deceit as the YECs try to convince the unquestioning of their views.

Dr. Albert Fleischmann(1862-1942), another obscure, long-dead biologist.
A reputable but relatively obscure German zoologist who taught for decades at the University of Erlangen in Bavaria. In 1901 he published a scientific critique of organic evolution, Die Descendenz-theorie, in which he rejected not only Darwinism but all theories of common organic descent. This placed him in a unique position among biologists. As Kellogg noted in 1907, Fleischmann seemed to be �the only biologist of recognised position � who publicly declared a disbelief in the theory of descent.� In his declining years Fleischmann informed English acquaintances that he was writing a book �that will wipe evolution off the slate,� but the work never appeared.



I went no further into your lists. If you want to use what is contained in them to make a point, that is your choice, but do your own research. I'm not going to do it for you.

Allow me one speculation:

There seems to be a lot of deceit by the YECs. They use garbage science to try to convince, they use quotes out of context or from obscure 'scientists', they have credentials like 'Dr.' that they did not get from accredited institutions, etc. I've been pondering their motivation. It can't be for God. He would never approve of lying? Many of these people are good talkers and are intelligent enough to know they are deceiving in their presentation.

Are they selling vidos, lectures, conferences, etc? Is this another example of predators preying on the most vulnerable members of our society? I'm just speculating, but please, keep your wallet close if these guys ask for your money.

The only eye witness to the beginning of the universe was the Godhead. And this thread is about CREATION. I believe that puts it squarely in the ORIGIN OF LIFE -- it had to begin somewhere.

God takes the credit for it (or perhaps the responsibility and accountablity for it) in the first ten words of the Bible. He said it's creation and I did it, and then proceeds to explain it in simple enough terms for a dummy like me to understand.

As far as the young earth argument goes, has anyone ever considered that God may have made the earth with some age to it? Adam was created as an adult that could commune with his Creator, and named the animals. He must have had some age or everything would have been called goo goo and da da. But I guess that must be some more "garbage science." (Whatever in the blue eyed world that is?)

There, now that's a better line of reasoning. That's how creation should be defended. You didn't try to show 'proofs' using untruths.

I've often considered that it may have happenned much as you describe it. That's much in line with St. Augustine's writings, as well. I am a creationist as I believe God did create life, however, I believe he made the species by evolution after he created life.

It then becomes academic whether he 'made the Earth old' or not. That would make for an interesting arguement but, in the end, no one could prove whether Earth is 4.6 billion years old or whether God made the Earth 4.6 billion old. And, it really wouldn't matter, would it? The net result is the same.

I do take issue with one statement:



I don't believe this validates you point as God did not have to make Adam old, he could have made him with knowledge and intelligences already mature. Not the same thing.

Thanks for the resonable post.

Hey Shootist, wait a minute your going to loose your designation as the
if you keep this up.

I've been reading the thread carefully.

I hate to offend anybody, but the posters that have been trying to prove creation by using science references are looking kinda foolish.

Why has nobody been able to defend the creation proofs after SakoAlberta discredited them? Its becoming obvious to me why. I was hoping to read a debate but its been pretty one sided. Actually, its been more one sided than a debate between Einstein and the flat Earth society!

A good point has also been made as to the motivation of the experts the creationists have been citing. Do these guys sell videos and such? Is this how they make a living? I'm to young to offer advice to my elders but I'd be careful if they are professionals.

SakoAlberta... did you ever hear that saying that brevity is the soul of wit?

You've written a whole lot more than should be necessary, and seem to be on some sort of a one man crusade, I must say...

If you don't want to take the Bible at face value, that's your prerogative. As I've said now three times, I used to be where you are now. The Holy Spirit can work wonders in your heart, and give a depth to your understanding that man's knowledge can never offer.

But you've got to want it, and you've got to ask for it in prayer.

Dan

I haven't argued that. My arguement has been with those trying to prove creation through science as I strongly believe they are doing God, themselves, and others a disservice by the deceit they are writing. Brief enough?

Who said anything about 4.6 billion years? I said, ". . . with some age" NOT ancient beyond the farthest stretch of all reason. The earth could be 6,000 years old as far as the age of the creation goes, and still have the "science falsely so called" (1 Tim 6:20) think that the elements, say Carbon 14, have a half life or a rate of decay of blah, blah, blah (a highly technical, scientific term ) and so it would appear as if the earth was really old, BUT in essence, it really isn't any more than a few years beyond the 6,000 mark.

And Adam named the animals some time during day 6 BEFORE Eve was created, and there was still no help meet for the man, so the Lord performed abdominal surgery on him and VOILA -- Mrs Adam. Ya see, God called their name Adam. Adam called her Eve, not the Lord. The Lord called her Adam, and woman.

Anyway, evolution is not high on my list of things to debate. It proves nothing and it attacks the character of God and the cerdibility of his word, so you have my final word on this post. Keep pressing on.

LOL, I gave you too much credit.

Apparently, you have as little knowledge of what you are debating as the other YECs on this thread. I can see why you wouldn't want to debate. Its so much easier to just not know, isn't it?

P.S.

Interesting you mention up C 14 which could never be used to determine the age of the Earth.

IMHO, the word "created" in the english Bible would be better translated as "organized", from the original texts. God took the materials that were available and organized an Earth. Who knows how old these materials were, or where they originally came from? I don't presume to understand 1/10th of one percent about how the earth might have been created/organized, but i'm 100% certain that God knew what he was doing when he did it, and some day we will understand.

Just my $0.02

Wasn't looking for credit.



I never said I was a YEC, and I am not, strictly speaking. I believe that the world was created with some age, just as Adam was, and just as the animals were. They were told to multiply and replenish the earth. Babies, both human and animal, cannot multiply. They have to be mature enough to mate, at least. And God would not leave two babies in the middle of a garden with no mother to care for them and feed them milk.





Well, I'll at least admit that I don't know, instead of placing my trust in science that is in a constant state of flux to cause me to doubt what my creator has done. Through all your supposed intellect and 'scientific' research, you are no closer to "knowing" any more than I do. I'll trust the Lord. You trust what you want.



Maybe I mis-stated the thing. Carbon 14 is used to date some of the fosils, I think. And the dates of the fosils are used to show that the earth is older than 6,000 years, so it is a deductive thing, which could be arguably called "garbage science." You know, look at htis strata that occurred 40-50 million years ago. How do we know it was 40-50 million years ago? Why by the fosils we located in it. And how do we know that the fosils are that old? Why of course because they occur in this strata. And 40-50 million year has a built in error of 25% -- somehow, I guess that is scientific and you can really hang your hat on a 25% error.

Wasted a bunch more electrons on nothing. . . . . . . .

Absolutely wrong. The stata are aged by radioactive dating but not by C 14. Its half life it much too short.



No, garbage science is when data and conclusions are intentionally misleading, not when one is incapable of understanding the concept.

Ya want to know the crazy thing about all of this? ? ? ? ? ? ?

A couple days ago, I posted that an 88 year old man -- my father-in-law -- trusted Jesus Christ as his Saviour. 9 -- that's right NINE replies to a post about a guy getting delivered from the clutches of sin and getting spectacularly born again -- SAVED -- DELIVERED from hell!

And somehow, YOU figure it out, us dumb clucks would sooner debate YEC and CS and evolution. Who gives a flying flip? My SAVIOUR just birthed another son into the Kingdom of God! And evolution had nothing to do with it -- not even the 258 posts. And nothing the Pope had to say had ANYTHING to do with it. It was God acting according to his word. Eternity was changed that day!



And on the ramparts of heaven there was much joy over one sinner that repented of his ways over the 90 and 9 "just" men that debated scientific garbage.

Ain't God good?