Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact..?

[Reformed1689]

Actually, no.. it doesn’t.
If you look into this matter, you’ll actually find that ‘eyewitness testimony’ statistically is the LEAST RELIABLE evidence there is.

Not when the eyewitness is the one who actually did the creating.

 

[Reformed1689]

@KeyserSoze do you believe in God? Did Jesus come back from the dead?

 

[Deacon]

One of the first challenges to my new- found faith as a high school student centered around creation, that was back in the 1970’s.

As a freshman in a small Christian college I was assigned a book by Bernard Ram, The Christian View of Science and Scripture, written in the late 1950’s, just before Morris and Whitcombs, Genesis Flood.

Ramm coined the descriptive, Progressive Creationist, a type of day-age creationist. The Biological sciences, that time in the 1970’s, were beginning to explode with new discoveries. If I were to label myself back then, I’d be a progressive creationist. But I wasn’t satisfied with the way scripture integrated with the theory.

I read everything I could on the topic, even going so far as learning Hebrew to grasp even more of the meanings behind the revelation God gave us about his creation.

it wasn’t until recently, after reading John H. Walton’s book called, The Lost World of Genesis One and Two, that I began to rest in my understanding of the topic.

Walton effectively separates science from the scriptures. Walton is a six-day creationist (24 hours/day if you wish). But he makes a strong case that the days describe the function of each item rather than its material creation.

John Walton opens up the creation passages in ways that allow for a wide range of scientific hypothesis. He has continued to write broadly on various topics including Adam and Eve, the Flood of Noah, Joshua’s entrance into Canaan and even Scripture itself, as well as a volume on Old Testament Theology.

I would encourage those of you who so strongly condemn evolutionists, calling them all sorts of vile names and questioning their salvation, to pick up a copy of Walton’s book and understand his argument. I’m not asking you to agree with it, merely begin to understand where others are coming from and how we think.

Rob

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Horse manure.
people don't get famous in science for maintaining the status quo. They get famous by overturning the prevailing ideas.
Einstein got famous for showing where Newton got it wrong.
Alfred Wegener revolutionized Geology when he came across plate tectonics (no one in geology wanted that idea to be true.. lol)
And Darwin altered Creationism..
You dont make your mark in history agreeing with everyone else.. You get your butt in a lab and prove them wrong with EVIDENCE until they have no choice but to accept it.. Just as Alfred Wegener did..

This argumentation contradicts your points and is thus ill-advised, as it will seem to undermine your own thesis. People do get famous in science by maintaining a status quo of atheism, e.g., Dawkins; and can be attacked or ostracized by other scientists for breakthrough ideas, e.g., Einstein and Galileo.

Also, some have gone from famous to infamous because of hoaxes and falsifying data, and this has certainly been the case in the field of evolution. So, let's not pretend all scientists are fair or honest.

Darwin did not originate his hypothesis, nor did he establish its validity as a theory. He cited cases, such as finch beak variations, that proved nothing; admitted a very faulty fossil record; and considered dubious the success of establishing the human mind based on an ape's. In other words, Darwin's doubts proved far more valid than his evidence for his hypothesis.

Many scientists attempt to illegitimately extrapolate the success of genuine scientific discovery to usurp the role of philosophy and theology. This is where the real contention lies and why the reputation of scientists is called into question. Atheist scientists should stick to their own field of expertise, but will not because they have an agenda besides science.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Now, as for your claim that i’m “Ignoring the supernatural” ,,
Of course I am,, because once you invoke miracles to explain away all these mountains of evidence, then you are no longer conducting science.
Your conducting religious apologetics.
You’re making the evolutionists case for them..
If you want creationism to be accepted as “science”, then you need to follow the rules of science..
so NO MIRACLES.. and without miracles YECism implodes.

There are two points that render the task you have set for yourself nigh impossible. First, the hypothesis of "evolution" was illegitimately declared an indisputably established theory long before modern DNA evidence. Second, it is generally so closely bound to atheism by its main proponents that it is pitted against every premise that God could have had something to do with it, aka, "creation."

 

[KeyserSoze]

This argumentation contradicts your points and is thus ill-advised, as it will seem to undermine your own thesis. People do get famous in science by maintaining a status quo of atheism,.

Oh good grief. More nonsense..
There is no "status quo of atheism" in science.
There's only methodological naturalism which of course has nothing at all to do with atheism.
Newton wasn't an atheist, but you wont find God anywhere in his laws of motion.
Newton was smart enough to grasp that if your endeavor is to explain how the natural world operates, then you don't stop in the middle of your equations to say, "oh.. and then a miracle happened".. lol

 

[KeyserSoze]

There are two points that render the task you have set for yourself nigh impossible. First, the hypothesis of "evolution" was illegitimately declared an indisputably established theory long before modern DNA evidence. Second, it is generally so closely bound to atheism by its main proponents that it is pitted against every premise that God could have had something to do with it, aka, "creation."

Evolution was accepted before DNA evidence because there was already a mountain of evidence for it even without that DNA.. The fossil record, comparative anatomy, zoology, embryology, biogeography, etc etc.. DNA was simply the sledgehammer that put the final nail in creationisms coffin.
Now, if you desire to believe that God had "something to do with it", then knock yourself out..
Just don't pretend that such a belief is scientific.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Now, if you desire to believe that God had "something to do with it", then knock yourself out.. Just don't pretend that such a belief is scientific.

Oh good grief. More nonsense..
There is no "status quo of atheism" in science.
There's only methodological naturalism which of course has nothing at all to do with atheism.
Newton wasn't an atheist, but you wont find God anywhere in his laws of motion.
Newton was smart enough to grasp that if your endeavor is to explain how the natural world operates, then you don't stop in the middle of your equations to say, "oh.. and then a miracle happened".. lol

But this is precisely what is going on with your abiogenesis "just so" story. It is the atheistic, or as you prefer, methodological naturalism, equivalent of appeal to miracle. 'The existing energy' somehow
wrought as necessary. Scientists must do much better than that for a hypothesis to truly be called scientific.

Also, Newton recognized the intricate design in the universe, including the scientific laws, and naturally attributed them to God.

 

[JonC]

Thread is closed.