Creationists vs. Big Bang Theory at NASA

Uh-oh, I can tell we're going to get into the definition of a theory again. . .

In scientific parlance, a theory is a model that accurately describes many diverse pieces of information. Theories may be refined, but they are rarely discarded. The only major theory I can think of that has been discarded is the geocentric model of the solar system, but that was notably based upon religious and philosophical reasoning rather than the evidence.

The theory of evolution explains the appearance and age of fossils and the pattern of morphological and genetic differences among related species. It can be used to predict futher changes in gene distribution in a population. It can be tested in a lab by observing and manipulating bacteria and viruses.

Young earth creationism, however, cannot be used to explain or predict any observation. Its only basis is an overly strict interpretation of Genesis that has been by no means universally held through history.

It is far more reasonable to believe evolution than young earth creationism.

 

No.

When Atheist Darwinist Evolutionists use the term "Evolution" to claim that living things popped out of nowhere (non living) and that higher orders of species came from lower ones -- they do so while no one is asking what you just asked.

In answer to YOUR question they scale the entire bogus storyline of atheist darwinian evolutionism down to the point of "micro mutations" and minor variation to squeek out a misleading and weak "yes".

At the point of "actual science" they want to claim "rain fell today so that proves the world evolved from gas to a living biosphere".

And their proof "rain fell"! They assume the salient points of their argument every time they are held under the microscope for review.

How "suprising" that an atheist belief system like Darwinist evolutionism would do that.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Amen, Bob.

Where have you been? Haven't you read about microbes evolving resistance to antibiotics? Viruses evolving into newly pathogenic strains? </font>[/QUOTE]Perhaps, but they're still microbes and viruses. Nothin' has turned into somthin' else. So the answer is "No." Which means it's not proven, which means it's a theory. Well, I have one too. Except it's fact. It's called the inerrant Word of God.

 

Alas, we seemed to be doing so well. . .

Are you under the opinion that your interpretation of the Bible is inerrant?

 

Things reproduce "after their kind." Reptiles don't "turn into" birds, Viruses don't "turn into" flowers, and monkeys don't "turn into" people with eternal souls.

 

Well, you're right about the virii and the monkeys, but you're wrong about the birds!

Sorry, but if you want to try to debate YE/theistic evolution here you're going to have to put more effort into it than saying, "I just don't think it can happen."

 

Genesis says things reproduce "after their kind." And, as established, no one's seen it happen. That's good enough for me.

 

"No one's seen it happen" is a rather inane reason for rejecting evolution of one species to an entirely new one, considering in order to see it happen a person would have to live hundreds of thousands to millions of years. . .

We have seen gradual changes in fossils trending over time towards new species--a small, toed mammal's descendants became horses, the descendants of a terrestrial quadruped became whales. Have you done much research into these fossil lineages? What's your alternate explanation?

 

If I may...

I have a few short items.

The first is that I think that it is important to restate something that Petrel said earlier and seems to have been missed. There is a contention being made that nothing has evolved into something new while we have been watching. If this is your assertion, then it is a much larger problem for YECism than it is for OEC. Let's look at why.

The data that supports evolution shows that it generally takes tens of thousands of years or hundreds of thousands of years or millions of years for the process to take place that you are asking to see. So by pointing out that we do not see it happening on a shorter time scale is immaterial because it does not suppose that it should happen on such a time scale.

Now YEers on the other hand have been forced for various reasons into supposing that the variety of species that we see today are the product of "micro"evolution from some original set of "kinds." So in the case of YECism, we should EXPECT major changes on human timescales. At least new species and perhaps even new genera or even families depending on your YE source material. Yet we do not and never in the recorded history of man have we. Yet YECism DEMANDS that such must have taken place.

My second point regards the phrase that things reproduce "after their kind." No where in evolution will you see someone assert that this is not true. Off spring are always of the same species as their parents. It is a fallacious argument to say otherwise. In the end, it is populations that evolve, not individuals. So things ALWAYS reproduce "after their kind." Relating this back to my first point, even YECism demands that new species and genera and perhaps families (or higher!) can evolve. Yet you do not tell us that this is not "after their kind."

Finally, and most impotantly, could you please tell us what kinds of evidence that you would expect to see IF evolution over billions of years were true. This is not a trick question. Just suppose for a moment that evolution is true as the theory currently describes it. Please tell us what kinds of data that you would expect us to be able to collect that would support this history.

This last question is very important to figuring out where the gulf between our opinions lies. Please try at least a brief answer. The more detailed the better.

 

No missing links.

 

No missing links...

OK. Let's explore that.

What is it that you mean by "no missing links?" Do you mean that every organism thatever lived has been fossilized AND found?

Do you mean that at least one member of every species that has ever lived has been fossilized AND found?

Genus?

Family?

Do you want to see transitions between significant groups? Say the evolution of humans? Or the evolution of mammals from reptiles? Of birds from reptiles? Of reptiles from amphibians? Of amphibians from fish?

I need to know what you mean here.

I also need to point out that fossilization is a rare process. Even fossils that form can be destroyed by things like erosion and subduction. Plus, to be found, the fossil bearing rock must be brought to the surface and found before it is weathered away or otherwise lost.

Fossils are expected to be rare. Evolution does not say that you should be able to find everything so you are putting a burden upon the science that the science does not put upon itself. You will need a good justification for doing so.

A couple of final questions.

First, does this mean that if we can settle the issue of missing links then you will accept evolution? You did not list any thing else that you would expect to see.

Second, and again this is important, could you please tell us some of the links that you think are missing? And it would be good if you avoided things that rarely or never fossilize. If you don't, then you are building a strawman.

So the two most important things we need to explore this is what level of detail you would expect to suffice for there to not be "missing links" and what links it is that you think are missing.

 

I'm not taking a stance either way, but the problem with the issue fo missing links is this:

When there is similarity between fossil 1 and fossil 2, it is met with the argument that the link between the two of them is missing.

When fossil 1.5 is discovered that fits between 1 and 2, the argument becomes that of there being no link between fossil 1 and fossil 1.5.

When fossil 1.25 is discovered that fits between 1 and 1.5, the argument becomes that of there being no link between fossil 1 and fossil 1.25.

When fossil 1.1 is discovered that fits between 1 and 1.25, the argument becomes that of there being no link between fossil 1 and fossil 1.1.

When fossil 1.05 is discovered that fits between 1 and 1.1, the argument becomes that of there being no link between fossil 1 and fossil 1.05.

Etc, etc etc. I'm not arguing a case against YECism or for evlution (or vice versa for that matter), but it cannot be denied that the bar is consistently moved upon new discovery. This fact must, in the very least, be acknowleged here.

 

Oh, and there was a recent thread on one transitional species.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/127.html

 

I was really hoping Debby would continue her inquiry. I was very curious to know how she defined missing links and what links she thought were missing.