1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

See who is a Creation Scientist

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by BobRyan, Sep 7, 2004.

  1. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    "made everything in life look evolved" That is an assumption that you have made based on your own pre-conceived ideas which in turn are based on "science so-called" theories, not based in any true scientific facts.
    More accurately put, Did he create with an appearance of age? The answer is yes, He did.

    Did Adam look like an infant the day that he was created, or perhaps like a thirty year old man? Do you think it possible that Adam was created with "an appearance of age"

    When God created all the plant life and the fruit bearing trees, were they all seeds? Or do you suppose there might have been some trees that had the appearance of 30, 40, even 100 years old?

    When God created the creatures of the sea including the whales, were all the whales in their infancy, or do you think that some of them might be full grown, with an appearance of age.

    On the fourth day, when God created the sun moon and stars--as I believe he did create them on the fourth day. Did he create them with an appearance of an age or not. He set them in the sky. After they were one day old what did they look like? Something newly hatched in a testube? I think not! Everything that God created had an appearance of age. That is why it is impossible for you to date any of it with any accuracy, the flood notwithstanding.

    Where common sense makes good sense why believe in nonsense?
    DHK
     
  2. El_Guero

    El_Guero New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    UTEOTW

    In a separate thread you said that you took my silence as meaning:
    What I have stated, I have stated clearly. You have misconstrued my position.
     
  3. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    If the universe was created as if it had age, then that means that in the mind of God, the way the universe would have looked at the earlier age was contemplated and, in fact, existed as a concept in the mind of God.

    Since the universe does not exist except as a concept in the mind of God anyway, this means the contemplated history of the universe has just as legitimately a claim to being real as the contemplated present of the universe.
     
  4. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
  5. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "What I have stated, I have stated clearly. You have misconstrued my position."

    Oh, let's give the whole post so that the reader can decide if I really misconstrued anything.

    The fact of the matter is that you made a false claim that scientists involved in biology are not actually following the scientific method. I then gave you a short summary of the scientific method and followed that with how biologists in the field of evolution actually follow the method. You have never raised any objections to that. For example, you have never shown factually (or even attempted at all) to show what I claim are the observations are not really observations. You merely repeat the same false assertion if you even mention it again.

    I am making the assumption that since you cannot spell out any faults in my reasoning that you cannot find any faults. If you cannot give the fault, then why do you make the same assertions? If you can find fault, then why don't you detail them for us? Instead you distort the facts by claiming that I have misconstrued you when all I said was that I was going under the assumption that you must not object to claims that evolution does follow the scientific method since you have not raised any objections. I distorted nothing of your position. At worst, I made a bad assumption.

    But you still have not shown what is wrong with the short summary. Here it is again for the reader.

    So let's see how evolution stacks up.

    Step 1. I have given you a partial list of observations above. So check.

    Step 2. Well, we hypothesize that these observations seem to show that all life may be related. So we will go with that as a hypthesis. New life forms can develop from other life forms.

    Step 3. Now the fun begins. Let's look at a few examples.

    Take whales for example. They are sea dwelling mammals. During their development, they have cute little legs and feet that emerge and then are reabsorbed. Sometimes this programmed cell death does not occur and the whales are born with full on rear legs. Well, we'll predict that whales have a land dwelling ancestor and we should be able to find fossil of such. And we do. Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Basilosaurus and many others. Well, once we have the fossils we see that they show whales evolving from ungulates. So if we test modern ungulates we should find them closely related to whales. We test and they are. Now, if whales came from land animals, they then once had a functional sense of smell. We might be able to find the remains of the genes for this system. And guess what, whales have scores of pseudogenes of a sense of smell just like what the land animals to which it is related have.

    Man has traits that makes us another ape. There should be links between us and the other apes. And there are. (For a whole thread on the genetic links see http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/66/19.html? ) Some of the links are genetic. We find shared pseudogenes and retroviral inserts and transposons between man and the other apes. We have a rich fosil record leading back to common ancestors.

    The fossil record shows the horses and rhinos share a common ancestor. We predict that genetics should show the same link. And it does.

    Darwin even predicted that there must be a means for carrying the instructions for making life. Last century we found it, DNA.

    So, evolution passes the thrid step with flying colors. This third step is where we really spend all of our time in debates.

    Step 4. Well here we refine our theory as we make more observations and we see how different scientists support different notions with new discoveries. Some ideas are cast off in favor of new ones, such as cladogenesis replacing orthogenesis for the most part, but such is the process. We have lab experiments where rapid evolution can be observed. Evolution meets the criteria of the fourth stage.

    So we see, contrary to your assertion, that evolution does follow the scientific method.</font>[/QUOTE]
     
  6. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Where common sense makes good sense why believe in nonsense?"

    It is common sense to think that an omnipotent designer would design a whale from scratch that would have dozens of genes for a sense of smell on land which serves no purpose in the sea? These genes have lost their ability to function through the generations and become pseudogenes.

    It is common sense to think that an omnipotent designer would design a whale from scratch that has genes for making hind legs? Fetal whales have cute little hind legs and feet that are reabsorbed before birth. Sometime this programmed cell death does not occur and the whales are born with hind legs.

    It is common sense to think that an omnipotent designer starting from scratch would give all animals a set of four genes to make vitamin C but in the primates, including humans, would break one of those four genes in the very same specific location among all the different species leaving the other three genes with nothing to do?

    It is common sense to think that an omnipotent designer starting from scratch would give humans and the other apes many inserts of viral DNA that are the exact same sequence and in the exact same location in the genome?

    It is common sense to think that an omnipotent designer starting from scratch would make sure that there are numerous transitional fossil series if the transitions never actually happened?
     
  7. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    It sounds like you are questioning the "common sense" of an omnipotent Creator who created all things with intelligent design. Because you find certain traits in certain animals overlap each other you automatically assume that one proceeded or descended from the other. That is a wild leap of faith without any scientific basis for doing so. It is only a guess that denies that Christ created all things with Intelligent design.
    Do you think that there must be a reason why all the watches that a certain watch-maker makes have characteristics that are peculiar to that brand of watch? I wonder why? They were all made by the same person, weren't they, and all have his particular art work engraved into them.

    The Bible indicates that man is without excuse for not recognizing Him as the creator of this world, even the triune Godhead. We see it through the intelligent design of God our Creator.

    "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse." (Rom.1:20 NKJV)
    DHK
     
  8. Bro. James

    Bro. James Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,130
    Likes Received:
    59
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The mind of God--is far beyond the comprehension of His finite creatures--particularly the humanoids. Every time someone tries to define God, they wind up "in the ditch"--of human reasoning--which is throughly corrupted by his depraved nature--which brings up an interesting question: Whence cometh the evolutionary mechanism of human depravity?

    Our basic response regarding God ought to be: "My God, How Great Thou Art".

    Selah,

    Bro. James
     
  9. hillclimber

    hillclimber New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,075
    Likes Received:
    0
    great...GREAT
     
  10. El_Guero

    El_Guero New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bro. James ... you said it well.
     
  11. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "It sounds like you are questioning the "common sense" of an omnipotent Creator who created all things with intelligent design."

    It is an intelligent design to give whales dozens of sensory genes which are not even expressed and could not be used?

    It is an intelligent design to give all primates three genes for making vitamin C that have nothing to do because the fourth needed gene is broken in exactly the same spot in all species of primate?

    "Because you find certain traits in certain animals overlap each other you automatically assume that one proceeded or descended from the other. That is a wild leap of faith without any scientific basis for doing so."

    It might be if that's all there was. But you build a strawman. The true theory of evolution is based on much more than that. There is excellent scientific basis for it.
     
  12. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    The "true" theory of evolution is what? The true theory of evolution is an out for atheism. It begins with the big bang theory, and is still seeking to find out for sure the origin of the universe. It does not confine itself to biology but deliberately puts itself in the realm of metaphysics where it has no business being. Ergo: creation vs. evolution. They both deal with the creation or origin of our universe. They both deal with matters of faith and not science. Science cannot deal with matters pertaining to the origins of the universe or even the earth. Why does it pretend it can? Because it is atheistic in its very outlook and premises.
    DHK
     
  13. P_Barnes

    P_Barnes New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2005
    Messages:
    122
    Likes Received:
    0
    QUOTE]The "true" theory of evolution is what? The true theory of evolution is an out for atheism. It begins with the big bang theory, and is still seeking to find out for sure the origin of the universe. It does not confine itself to biology but deliberately puts itself in the realm of metaphysics where it has no business being. Ergo: creation vs. evolution. They both deal with the creation or origin of our universe. They both deal with matters of faith and not science. Science cannot deal with matters pertaining to the origins of the universe or even the earth. Why does it pretend it can? Because it is atheistic in its very outlook and premises.
    DHK [/QB][/QUOTE]

    I've never understood why some insist that Darwinian Evolution and atheism are somehow related. I guess for the same reason that some want to believe that communism and atheism are related. They simply are not.
    Also, the origins of the universe/Planet Earth and abiogenesis have nothing to do with Darwinism. Why do we have to muddy the waters with such assertions?
     
Loading...