Evolutionary Propoganda - A True Story

For the most part, I don't have a problem with the "appearance of age" argument. I guess it's the artist in me -- I like the artistic illusion of a history outside the scope of the immediate story.

The reason I don't subscribe to this view is this: if God chose to create with the appearance of age, why make it look like evolution and cosmology happened as the evidence shows? In other words, if God made it look like the earth is old and evolution happened, there must be some meaning associated with that artistic illusion. It then seems incumbent on me as a scientist to proceed as if the illustion were true and learn more about it.

That is to say, I apply Occam's razor...

-Neil

 

I belive God on how he made the world . in the book of genesis God made the world in 6 days and rested for one. read this from http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4179.asp

Email to a friend Printer-friendly version
For more information, visit Q&A: Apologetics
Creation: ‘Where’s the proof?’
by Ken Ham
First published in:
Creation Ex Nihilo 22(1):39–42,
December 1999 – February 2000

Over the years, many people have challenged me with a question like:

‘I’ve been trying to witness to my friends. They say they don’t believe the Bible and aren’t interested in the stuff in it. They want real proof that there’s a God who created, and then they’ll listen to my claims about Christianity. What proof can I give them without mentioning the Bible so they’ll start to listen to me?’

Briefly, my response is as follows.

Evidence
Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.

The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.

Past and present
We all exist in the present—and the facts all exist in the present. When one is trying to understand how the evidence came about (Where did the animals come from? How did the fossil layers form? etc.), what we are actually trying to do is to connect the past to the present.

However, if we weren’t there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events.

Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a ‘time machine’. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.

On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.

Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.

Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions.

That’s why the argument often turns into something like:

‘Can’t you see what I’m talking about?’

‘No, I can’t. Don’t you see how wrong you are?’

‘No, I’m not wrong. It’s obvious that I’m right.’

‘No, it’s not obvious.’ And so on.

These two people are arguing about the same evidence, but they are looking at the evidence through different glasses.

It’s not until these two people recognize the argument is really about the presuppositions they have to start with, that they will begin to deal with the foundational reasons for their different beliefs. A person will not interpret the evidence differently until they put on a different set of glasses—which means to change one’s presuppositions.

I’ve found that a Christian who understands these things can actually put on the evolutionist’s glasses (without accepting the presuppositions as true) and understand how they look at evidence. However, for a number of reasons, including spiritual ones, a non-Christian usually can’t put on the Christian’s glasses—unless they recognize the presuppositional nature of the battle and are thus beginning to question their own presuppositions.

It is of course sometimes possible that just by presenting ‘evidence’, you can convince a person that a particular scientific argument for creation makes sense ‘on the facts’. But usually, if that person then hears a different interpretation of the same evidence that seems better than yours, that person will swing away from your argument, thinking they have found ‘stronger facts’.

However, if you had helped the person to understand this issue of presuppositions, then they will be better able to recognize this for what it is—a different interpretation based on differing presuppositions—i.e. starting beliefs.

As a teacher, I found that whenever I taught the students what I thought were the ‘facts’ for creation, then their other teacher would just re-interpret the facts. The students would then come back to me saying, ‘Well sir, you need to try again.’

However, when I learned to teach my students how we interpret facts, and how interpretations are based on our presuppositions, then when the other teacher tried to reinterpret the facts, the students would challenge the teacher’s basic assumptions. Then it wasn’t the students who came back to me, but the other teacher! This teacher was upset with me because the students wouldn’t accept her interpretation of the evidence and challenged the very basis of her thinking.

What was happening was that I had learned to teach the students how to think rather than just what to think. What a difference that made to my class! I have been overjoyed to find, sometimes decades later, some of those students telling me how they became active, solid Christians as a result.

Debate terms
If one agrees to a discussion without using the Bible as some people insist, then they have set the terms of the debate. In essence these terms are:

‘Facts’ are neutral. However, there are no such things as ‘brute facts’; all facts are interpreted. Once the Bible is eliminated in the argument, then the Christians’ presuppositions are gone, leaving them unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts. Their opponents then have the upper hand as they still have their presuppositions — see box below.

Truth can/should be determined independent of God. However, the Bible states: ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom’ (Psalm 111:10); ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge’ (Proverbs 1:7). ‘But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned’ (1 Corinthians 2:14).

A Christian cannot divorce the spiritual nature of the battle from the battle itself. A non-Christian is not neutral. The Bible makes this very clear: ‘The one who is not with Me is against Me, and the one who does not gather with Me scatters’ (Matthew 12:30); ‘And this is the condemnation, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the Light, because their deeds were evil’ (John 3:19).

Agreeing to such terms of debate also implicitly accepts their proposition that the Bible’s account of the universe’s history is irrelevant to understanding that history!

Ultimately, God’s Word convicts
1 Peter 3:15 and other passages make it clear we are to use every argument we can to convince people of the truth, and 2 Cor. 10:4–5 says we are to refute error (like Paul did in his ministry to the Gentiles). Nonetheless, we must never forget Hebrews 4:12: ‘For the word of God is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing apart of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.’

Also, Isaiah 55:11: ‘So shall My word be, which goes out of My mouth; it shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall certainly do what I sent it to do.’

Even though our human arguments may be powerful, ultimately it is God’s Word that convicts and opens people to the truth. In all of our arguments, we must not divorce what we are saying from the Word that convicts.

Practical application
When someone tells me they want ‘proof’ or ‘evidence’, not the Bible, my response is as follows:

‘You might not believe the Bible but I do. And I believe it gives me the right basis to understand this universe and correctly interpret the facts around me. I’m going to give you some examples of how building my thinking on the Bible explains the world and is not contradicted by science. For instance, the Bible states that God made distinct kinds of animals and plants. Let me show you what happens when I build my thinking on this presupposition. I will illustrate how processes such as natural selection, genetic drift, etc. can be explained and interpreted. You will see how the science of genetics makes sense based upon the Bible.’

One can of course do this with numerous scientific examples, showing how the issue of sin and judgment, for example, is relevant to geology and fossil evidence. And how the Fall of man, with the subsequent Curse on creation, makes sense of the evidence of harmful mutations, violence and death.

Once I’ve explained some of this in detail, I then continue:

‘Now let me ask you to defend your position concerning these matters. Please show me how your way of thinking, based on your beliefs, makes sense of the same evidence. And I want you to point out where my science and logic are wrong.’

In arguing this way, a Christian is:

Using biblical presuppositions to build a way of thinking to interpret the evidence.

Showing that the Bible and science go hand in hand.1

Challenging the presuppositions of the other person (many are unaware they have these).

Forcing the debater to logically defend his position consistent with science and his own presuppositions (many will find that they cannot do this).

Honouring the Word of God that convicts the soul.

Remember, it’s no good convincing people to believe in creation, without also leading them to believe and trust in the Creator/Redeemer, Jesus Christ. God honours those who honour His Word. We need to use God-honouring ways of reaching people with the truth of what life is all about.

Naturalism, Logic and Reality
Find answers to the 20 most-asked questions about Creation, Evolution, and the book of Genesis!
The Answers Book - Revised & Expanded
Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland, Ed. Don Batten

This book addresses the most common questions that Christians and non-Christians alike ask regarding creation/evolution and Genesis. Answers twenty of the most-asked questions, such as: 'Where did Cain get his Wife?' and 'What about continental drift?'

MORE INFO / PURCHASE ONLINE

Those arguing against creation may not even be conscious of their most basic presupposition, one which excludes God a priori, namely naturalism/materialism (everything came from matter, there is no supernatural, no prior creative intelligence).2 The following two real-life examples highlight some problems with that assumption:

A young man approached me at a seminar and stated, ‘Well, I still believe in the “big bang”, and that we arrived here by chance random processes. I don’t believe in God.’ I answered him, ‘Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness. So you don’t know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. Young man, you don’t know if you’re making correct statements or even whether you’re asking me the right questions.’

The young man looked at me and blurted out, ‘What was that book you recommended?’ He finally realized that his belief undercut its own foundations —such ‘reasoning’ destroys the very basis for reason.

On another occasion, a man came to me after a seminar and said, ‘Actually, I’m an atheist. Because I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in absolutes, so I recognize that I can’t even be sure of reality.’ I responded, ‘Then how do you know you’re really here making this statement?’ ‘Good point,’ he replied. ‘What point?’ I asked. The man looked at me, smiled, and said, ‘Maybe I should go home.’ I stated, ‘Maybe it won’t be there.’ ‘Good point,’ the man said. ‘What point?’ I replied.

This young man certainly got the message. If there is no God, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality? How can one even rationally believe that there is such a thing as truth, let alone decide what it is?

Ed. Note: for more information on formal logic and the Christian faith, see Loving God With All Your Mind: Logic and Creation.

Notes
In fact, science could avoid becoming still-born only in a Christian framework. Even secular philosophers of science are virtually unanimous on this. It required biblical presuppositions such as a real, objective universe, created by one Divine Lawgiver, who was neither fickle nor deceptive — and who also created the mind of man in a way that was in principle capable of understanding the universe. [Ed. note: Refuting Evolution, Ch. 1, discusses this in more detail] Return to text.

This assumption is even defended, as a ‘practical necessity’ in discussing scientific things including origins, by some professing Christians who are evolutionists

 

more ansewrs in genesis ita a great web site got anwers about the dinosaurs and everything from a biblical veiw
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp

How long were the days of Genesis 1?
What did God intend us to understand from the words He used?
by Russell Grigg
First published in:
Creation 19(1):23–25
December 1996–February 1997

Were the days of Creation Week of 24 hours duration or were they long periods of time? This article will discuss the Hebrew 'time' words which the author had available to him and what meaning he intended to convey by his choice of the specific words he used1.

Meaning of yôm
When Moses, under the inspiration of God, compiled the account of creation in Genesis 1, he used the Hebrew word yôm for 'day'. He combined yôm with numbers ('first day', 'second day', 'third day', etc.) and with the words 'evening and morning', and the first time he employed it he carefully defined the meaning of yôm (used in this way) as being one night/day cycle (Genesis 1:5). Thereafter, throughout the Bible, yôm used in this way always refers to a normal 24–hour day2,3. There is thus a prima facie case that, when God used the word yôm in this way, He intended to convey that the days of creation were 24 hours long.

Let us now consider what other words God could have used, if He had wanted to convey a much longer period of time than 24 hours.

Some Hebrew ‘time’ words
There are several Hebrew words which refer to a long period of time 4. These include qedem which is the main one—word term for 'ancient' and is sometimes translated 'of old'; olam means 'everlasting' or 'eternity' and is translated 'perpetual', 'of old' or 'for ever'; dor means 'a revolution of time' or 'an age' and is sometimes translated 'generations'; tamid means 'continually' or 'for ever'; ad means 'unlimited time' or 'for ever'; orek when used with yôm is translated 'length of days'; shanah means 'a year' or 'a revolution of time' (from the change of seasons); netsach means 'for ever'. Words for a shorter time span include eth (a general term for time); and moed, meaning 'seasons' or 'festivals'. Let us consider how some of these could have been used.

1. Event of long ago
If God had wanted to tell us that the creation events took place a long time in the past, there were several ways He could have said it:

yamim (plural of yôm) alone or with 'evening and morning', would have meant 'and it was days of evening and morning'. This would have been the simplest way, and could have signified many days and so the possibility of a vast age.

qedem by itself or with 'days' would have meant 'and it was from days of old'.

olam with 'days' would also have meant 'and it was from days of old'.

So if God had intended to communicate an ancient creation to us, there were at least three constructions He could have used to tell us this. However, God chose not to use any of these.

2. A continuing event from long ago
If God had wanted to tell us that creation started in the past but continued into the future, meaning that creation took place by some sort of theistic evolution, there were several ways He could have said it:

dor used either alone or with 'days', 'days' and 'nights', or 'evening and morning', could have signified 'and it was generations of days and nights'. This would have been the best word to indicate evolution's alleged aeons, if this had been meant.

olam with the preposition le, plus 'days' or 'evening and morning' could have signified 'perpetual'; another construction le olam va-ed means 'to the age and onward' and is translated 'for ever and ever' in Exodus 15:18.

tamid with 'days', 'days' and 'nights', or 'evening' and 'morning', could have signified 'and it was the continuation of days'.

ad used either alone or with olam could have signified 'and it was for ever'.

shanah (year) could have been used figuratively for 'a long time', especially in the plural.

yôm rab literally means 'a long day' (cf. 'long season' in Joshua 24:7, or 'long time' in the New American Standard Bible). This construction could well have been used by God if He had meant us to understand that the 'days' were long periods of time.

Thus, if God had wanted us to believe that he used a long–drawn–out creative process, there were several words He could have used to tell us this. However, God chose not to use any of these.

3. Ambiguous time
If God had wanted to say that creation took place in the past, while giving no real indication of how long the process took, there were ways He could have done it:

yôm combined with 'light' and 'darkness', would have signified 'and it was a day of light and darkness'. This could be ambiguous because of the symbolic use of 'light' and 'darkness' elsewhere in the Old Testament. However, yôm with 'evening and morning', especially with a number preceding it, can never be ambiguous.

eth ('time') combined with 'day' and 'night' as in Jeremiah 33:20 and Zechariah 14:7 could have been ambiguous. Likewise eth combined with 'light' and 'darkness' (a theoretical construction). If any of these forms had been used, the length of the 'days' of creation would have been widely open for debate. However, God chose not to use any of these.

Author’s Intention
The following considerations show us what God intended us to understand:

1. The meaning of any part of the Bible must be decided in terms of the intention of the author. In the case of Genesis, the intention of its author clearly was to write a historical account. This is shown by the way in which the Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul regarded Genesis—that is, they quoted it as being truth, not symbolic myth or parable5, 6. It was plainly not the author's intention to convey allegorical poetry, fantasy, or myth. And so what God, through Moses, said about creation in Genesis should not be interpreted in these terms.

Moses did, in fact, use some of the above 'long–time' words (italicized in the examples below, with root Hebrew words in square brackets), although not with reference to the days of creation. For example, in Genesis 1:14, he wrote, 'Let there be lights ... for seasons [ moed]'; in Genesis 6:3, 'My spirit shall not always [olam] strive with man'; in Genesis 9:12 'for perpetual generations [olam dor]'; in Leviticus 24:2, 'to burn continually [tamid]'; in Numbers 24:20 'that he perish for ever [ad]'; in Deuteronomy 30:20, 'He is thy light and the length of thy days' [yôm orek]'; in Deuteronomy 32:7, 'Remember the days of old [yôm olam]'; and so on.

Why did God not use any of these words with reference to the creation days, seeing that He used them to describe other things? Clearly it was His intention that the creation days should be regarded as being normal earth-rotation days, and it was not His intention that any longer time–frames should be inferred.

Professor James Barr, professor of Hebrew at Oxford University agrees that the words used in Genesis 1 refer to 'a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience', and he says that he knows of no professor of Hebrew at any leading university who would say otherwise7.

2. Children have no problem in understanding the meaning of Genesis. The only reason why other ideas are entertained is because people apply concepts from outside the Bible, principally from evolutionary/atheistic sources, to interpret the Bible.

3. The Bible is God's message to mankind and as such it makes authoritative statements about reality. If one removes any portion of the Bible from the realm of reality, God may still be communicating truth to us, but the reader can never be sure that he understands it as the author intended. Furthermore, if God's communication to us is outside our realm of reality, then we cannot know whether any account in the Bible means what the words actually say or whether it means something entirely different, beyond our understanding. For example, if we apply this criterion to the accounts of the resurrection of Jesus, perhaps the words could mean that Jesus did not rise from the dead physically, but in a way beyond our comprehension. When these sorts of word–games are played with the Bible, the Bible loses its authority, we lose the divine perspective on reality, and Christianity loses its life–changing power8.

4. If the 'days' really weren't ordinary days, then God could be open to the charge of having seriously misled His people for thousands of years. Commentators universally understood Genesis in a straightforward way, until attempts were made to harmonize the account with longs ages and then evolution.

Conclusion
In Genesis 1, God, through the 'pen' of Moses, is going out of His way to tell us that the 'days' of creation were literal earth–rotation days. To do this, He used the Hebrew word yôm, combined with a number and the words 'evening and morning'. If God had wanted to tell us it was an ancient creation, then there were several good ways He could have done this. If theistic evolution had been intended, then there were several constructions He could have used. If the time factor had been meant to be ambiguous, then the Hebrew language had ways of saying this. However, God chose not to use any construction which would have communicated a meaning other than a literal solar day.

The only meaning which is possible from the Hebrew words used is that the 'days' of creation were 24–hour days. God could not have communicated this meaning more clearly than He did in Genesis 1. The divine confirmation of this, if any is needed, is Exodus 20:9-11, where the same word 'days' is used throughout:

'Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, not thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.'

References and notes
The author is indebted to James Stambaugh, 'The Days of Creation: A Semantic Approach', Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 5(1):70–78, 1991, for much of the material in this article, and to linguist Dr Charles Taylor of Gosford, NSW, Australia for his advice and help regarding the Hebrew. When we say 'days of 24 hours duration' we merely indicate that they were ordinary earth-rotation days, not that they were necessarily precisely 24 hours in length (the earth's rotation rate is gradually slowing down). Return to text.
M. Saebo, in his Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament 6:22, says that yôm is: 'the fundamental word for the division of time according to the fixed natural alternation of day and night, on which are based all the other units of time (as well as the calendar).' Cited from Ref. 1, p. 72. Return to text.
For a further discussion of the meaning of yôm, see Charles Taylor, The first 100 words, The Good Book Co, Gosford, NSW, Australia, 1996, p. 21. Return to text.
The Hebrew words, anglicized spellings, and biblical references are cited from Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible. Return to text.
See Mark 10:6; 13:19, for example. Return to text.
See Romans 5:12; 1 Corinthians 15:21–22, 45; 2 Corinthians 4:6; 1 Timothy 2:13–14.1. Return to text.
Source: letter from Prof. James Barr to David C.C. Watson, dated 23 April 1984. Note that Prof. Barr does not say that he believes that Genesis is historically true; he is just telling us what, in the unanimous opinion of the world's leading Hebrew-language professors (including himself), the Hebrew words used were intended to convey. Return to text.
Adapted from Ref. 1, p. 76. Return to text.

Email to a friend Printer-friendly version

About our site | Free newsletter | Contact us | Donate | To AiG home | Q&A | Store | Museum | Events | Media | Other
Chinese | Danish | French | German | Greek | Italian | Japanese | Korean | Russian | Spanish
Copyright 2003 Answers in Genesis

 

Hi Paul of Eugene,

Your wrote:

My response:

My understanding of Humphreys" model is that by day five of the creation the matter in the original "white hole" had been expelled creating the universe; also, the original event horizon, therefore, does not exist anymore. This all means that the gravity well near the center (which our solar system is near) is not large enough to cancel out the red shift in the incoming light reaching earth from outside our solar system to produce a net blue shift. My understanding is that Humphreys' model would indicate that the almost infinite time dilatation during the early stage of the expansion does not exist now. There is still some time dilatation near localized matter widely scattered around the universe. My understanding is that we do observe blue shifted light already significantly blue shifted by other dense areas of matter in the universe. The red shift in that blue shifted light that heads our way from the dense matter areas is not enough to cancel out the blue shift and leave a net red shift when it reach earth.


A brother in Christ,
David C. Geminden

[email protected] and [email protected]

"Jackelope Logic" & "Weak Conscience Christians and Legalism"
http://www.geocities.com/davidgeminden/index.html

 

Dawna,

Thanks for the articles. I really like Ham. He has a way of putting his finger on the heart of an arguement. I've been meaning to check out his website, but when I'm online, I forget. So, thanks for the link, too.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

trotter i am glad to help!!


Nice to met you too

your sister in christ,
dawna

 

Hello dawna! Welcome to the fray.

You do not have many posts to your name, yet you have already found this thread and posted a couple of times. I take that to mean you are interested in this subject. Our moderators have recently promised that the forum dedicated to this subject will be back up and running shortly and I would like to invite you to come participate when it happens. There are a few related threads floating around, but I and others seem to be avoiding most of them until the proper forum reopens.

On to your post. I have to be honest and say I did not read them in entirety simply because long copy and pastes don't really interest me. But I did muddle through enough to get the gist of the first post. Ham's main point seems to be that the different interpretations of the data comes from differing presuppositions.

It is my opinion that there is a fatal flaw in his reasoning. The flaw is that it does nothing for explaining how people come to accept evolution who do not have a presuppostition that it is true.

The first example has to be the first people to see the evidence for an old earth or for an old universe or for evolution were challenging the paradigm of the day. They did not have a preconceived notion of billions of years, they had quite the opposite. It was the data that led them to their conclusions despite the presuppositions of the day.

Second, you do nothing to explain enigmas like myself. I grew up and entered adulthood with the belief in a young earth and a strong suspicion of these people who proclaimed an old earth. But when I, even with my strong bias towards the YEC position, looked at the evidence I was quickly conviced of the reality of an old universe and of the overwhelming evidence for evolution to be a fact. There are many people like me. People who are Christians and yet come to accept the evidence when examined. And plenty of people who are Christians who actually work in the fields of biology amd paleontology and astonomy and geology and who accept the paradigms of their field.

Ham made a startling confession in what you posted. "Once the Bible is eliminated in the argument, then the Christians’ presuppositions are gone, leaving them unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts." From my perspective, the same thing happens once you accept the creation story as true but not literal. At that point you have no evidence for a young earth! What an addmission by Ham. He tries to dismiss it, but the truth is that the acceptance for an old earth falls out of the evidence. If you are unable to provide a better interpretation of the evidence, which Ham admits cannot be done, then all the protestations are meaningless and useless.

 

There was another point regarding Ham's disparaging of presuppositions I forgot to make in my haste.

There is nothing wrong with what he calls presuppostions. Let me put it this way. Almost everything in life that you can learn about require a learning curve. You do not start out knowing all of the facts. Instead, you build new knowledge upon what you have already learned.

But Ham is saying that science should not operate like that. Despite the fact the the current acceptance of an old earth, an old universe and evolution grew out of observation of the evidence at a time when these things were NOT accepted, Ham says that all these things should be thrown out the window. Each new fossil discovered must be judged all by itself, it cannot be related to other fossils or to modern animals. Diseases should be studied in a vacuum and how evolution may shape the course of diseases today should not be considered. Each astronomical object should be judged based on how it is right now with no attempt to see what processes may have acted to give it its properties nor should it be compared with other like objects. Geology finds should not use other geology finds to try and understand what happened or how something formed, we should just accept things as they are. How devestating to the ability to do scientific work.

I do clean coal research. Should I not be able to build on what other people have done before? Is there something wrong with accepting the results of what they have learned and trying to build upon it? Should I be forced to reinvent everything I do?

Put differently...Is there something wrong in expecting that when I get into my car that putting the key into the slot on the steering column will start the car, that the right most pedal will supply gas to the engine, that the gas will combust in the engine to move me, that the middle pedal will slow the car and so? All things I have learned either from being told or from empirical testing. Is it wrong to expect the sun to come up in the east just because it did yesterday? There has been nothing shown to indicate that there is anything wrong with presuppositions. In fact, we would all be clueless if we could not use our presuppositions.

 

Science is knowledge gained by observation, which you seem to infer in the above statement, that you know at least this much. It is knowledge gained by observation, then sorted and classified. There is no science without observation; scientism (a cult), but not science. So where were you when evolution was taking place? How much of evolution have you personally observed? In regards to evolution specifically who was there to observe the origin of the universe, and the origin of this earth, and the origin of man himself? Were you? Did you happen to observe the evolutionary big bang in your travels.
The Bible and evolution do not mix. Science needs an observer, something evolution does not have. Evolution is not science. It is a religion; it requires just as much faith, if not more, than any other religion including Christianity. The object of my faith is Jesus Christ. The object of the evolutionist's faith is either the Big Bang theory (ultimately), or simply a non-belief in God. Belief in God, and evolution are incompatable. Evolution is an escape route for those who don't want to believe in God. It has nothing to do with science at all. Again, science requires an observer, but no one has ever seen evolution taking place.
DHK

 

So I was out on a holiday visiting the Oregon Coast Museum and I observed a whale skeleton hanging from the ceiling, and I observed these vestiges of former hind limbs, evidence that the whales of today descended from creatures that had hind legs.

Yes, there is observation in the science of evolution.

http://www.epud.net/~richmond/science/vbones.jpg

 

1. Whale skeletons are very common. Most anyone, if they look in the right place can observe one. We have plenty of whales that roam the waters today. So, that has nothing to do with evolution.

2. You said you observed vestiges of former hind limbs. What you observed is anybody's guess. Who said they were vestiges of former hind limbs, and did they discount all the evidence of what else they might have been? What proof do you have that they were vestiges of hind legs, and if hind legs are you sure that they were the hind legs of that "whale" or just hind legs attached from some other animal. Or, perhaps the animal was another animal completely which you haven't recognized due to the inadequacy of science. There are many possibilities that haven't been ruled out, but the evolutionist is too quick to jump the gun and immediately concludes that this is evolution.

Your conclusion: "They descended from creatures that had hind legs." If that is true it should be going on today. Please point to such a creature today, and point to the process that goes on today. The fact is that it doesn't. There is no evidence, no observation, nothing. It is all guess work on your part. Evolution is not a science it is a religion, a faith. It takes more faith to believe in the religion of evolution, a religion without fact, then it does to put faith in the God of Christianity, a religion totally based on fact--the historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Christ believed in the historicity of the literal creation story.
DHK

 

1. Since I believe in God and in evolution, a belief in God and in evolution are not incompatible.

2. Since I want to believe in God and I do believe in evolution, evolution is not for me an escape route from a belief in God. It is an honest response to the evidence after years of formal and informal study.

3. Only someone with professional training in science, or the equivalent, is qualified to make the judgement as to whether evolution is or is not science. Persons with these qualifications have discussed this issue in mainstream journals. The consensus view is that the study of evolution is science.

4. Evolution has been observed in the wild and in the laboratory. Evidence of past evolution has been observed in fossils and in genes. The genetic and mathematical factors governing evolution are becoming understood at a theoretical level. Even YEC's admit that evolution to the level of speciation occurs.

-Neil

 

Nor, as far as I can tell, does your point number one.

LOL! You think my one visit to the museum is the only observation anybody has ever made about whale limbs? Normal whales have on occasion been found to have whole limbs remaining, although the norm is of course to only have the scraps of bone. Additionally, a nice set of fossils have been discovered with limbs intermediately on the way to vanishing as whales evolved to become what they are today.

These discoveries, of course, are all observations.

When I was a child, I told my mother the clock hands weren't moving. I could tell, because I looked at them and they appeared to be holding still. She smiled and told me they were moving, but to slowly to be seen. I didn't believe her. I was wrong. You should be past the age to keep making the same mistake.

Another classic case of projection on your part. Your beliefs are not science, they are faith based religion. Evolution is not religion, it is evidence based science.

Christ was careful to follow the example of His Heavenly Father and be vague about the details of creation.

When you've said everything you can say - it all comes out like your point number one. Completely beside the point, having nothing to do with the actual evidence, the actual science that shows evolution really did happen.

 

An observation concerning whale appendages is not empirical evidence.

What might approach empirical evidence is if we had the fossilized remains of the creature from whence the whale sprang and several of the “missing link” fossils of said creature on the way to being a whale.

If a single observation is evidence from which conclusions concerning evolution are to be drawn what conclusions can be drawn from the platypus (for instance)?

Not vague but specific:

Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

No genetic mutations here.

Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female

We were sexual not asexual "at the beginning".

HankD

 

The only excuse you hear from the evolutionist camp. But…but…given enough time.

Assumption based science, theory based science... Sounds rock soild to me. I'll dismiss the Word of God for a bunch of assumptions! NOT!

Since one has to have 'faith' in these assumptions taught as 'facts', then who possibly can the god of this religion of evolution be? Hmmm, Time?

 

What an admission. We can do some of our science observation by looking at these things in the past in stark contrast to DHK's statement that this cannot be done.

By the way, we do have what you are asking for. From the land dwelling ungulates through various stages of evolution, right up to our current mix of cetaceans. Would you like for me to detail some of the fossils for you? Some of the newer whale fossils are outstanding.

 

By all means, show us which assumptions and what parts of the theory are wrong, detailing in scientific terms why they are wrong. Otherwise you are only asserting your opinion on the matter and without any supporting evidence. And if you can only assert, why should we take your assertions over those of people who have studied the science in great detail?

 

Yes but just one.
The one that decided to go from the land to the water.

HankD

 

I’m sure he can find some poor archeologists who fabricated some fossils just to keep that money that’s being funneling in from the National Geographic, which supports his digs.