Hi everyone. I stumbled across this site quite by accidence, though I’m terribly glad I did. It’s a lively and open site in which one may expound one’s views, and may hear myriad other opinions.
Reading many of the discussions however, something shocked me: the number of members who seem to believe in evolution/long-age earth and yet call themselves Christians. I’m new to the site, so maybe this issue has been explicitly dealt with elsewhere (if so, please inform me); but if not, it’s one I would like to raise. I’m a Christian, and only a young one at that (eighteen-years-old). The world constantly bombards us with long-age earth points of view, and I must choose whether to believe these or not. I choose to base my thinking upon the infallible Word of God—that God said what He meant to say. If God meant to say He used evolution and millions of years, He would have written Genesis very differently.
Below I’ve given just a few reasons (there are many more) why I believe that to be a Christian on MUST believe in a literal Genesis to be a Christian.
I would just like to hear what others think about this topic. What are your views, beliefs, &c?
Some people say that the Genesis account of Creation is only an allegory or a metaphor. If this is so, a new translation of the Bible is necessary:
‘Then the Lord God formed the metaphor from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the metaphor became a living creature’ Genesis 2.7
‘Through one Metaphor sin entered the world…’ Romans 5.12
‘Enoch, seventh from a Metaphor’ Jude 14
‘The son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli… Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Metaphor, which was the son of God.’ Luke 3.23-28
‘Thus it is written, “The first Metaphor became a living being; the last Metaphor became a life-giving spirit.”’ 1 Corinthians 15.45
Would you consider such a translation to be accurate? I hope your answer is no. So if the Bible doesn’t say this, why do some Christians?
Without a literal belief in Adam, there is no literal belief in Jesus, which is absolutely necessary to be saved. The truths of the Gospel are reliant upon the HISTORY of Genesis 1-11. Without a first Adam, there can be no last Adam! An allegorical or metaphorical reading of Genesis is incompatible with the Gospel. And anyway, how metaphorical could we be? If you don't take 'the first man Adam' literally, how is it you can take 'GOD CREATED the first man Adam' literally?
Millions of years and evolution place death before the Fall. But death cannot have occurred before the fall, otherwise (yet again) the Sacrifice od Christ is negated.
As Christians, we must follow the example of Christ. But Christ was not an evolutionist (I know, it didn't exist then as it does now). Also, he wasn't a long-earther (they did exist then). When Jesus was asked about marriage (Matt. 19.3-6), he quoted Genesis 1.27 and 2.24. Jesus knew that without the history of Genesis, then there was no foundation for His teaching--and without the teachings of Christ, there is no Christianity.
Many read the Bible by reading into it. They put thoughts between the lines, thoughts that are not in God’s Word. And as a result there are evolutionists who call themselves Christians.
So please let’s read the Word for what it says, not what we want or expect it to say. Let’s allow the Bible to shape our view of the world, and not let the world shape our view of the Bible. Let’s keep in mind the words that first deceived Man, the words of Satan in the Garden, ‘Did God really say…?’ If we try to add to God’s Word as did Eve, then we too will fall. Remember Paul’s plea in 2 Corinthians 11.3, ‘But I’m afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ.’
Here’s an exercise to try: First, read Proverbs 1.5-6, ‘Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not in your understanding; in all your ways acknowledge Him…’ Then, read the Creation account in Genesis, but lay aside all outside thoughts, all your own ideas and notions. Read it, not INTO it.
Thank you for bearing with me so long (if you made it this far). I know it’s a long post, but I thought it necessary, and still there’s so much I’ve left out. I want to hear your thought and opinions on this matter. Thank you.
Creation OR Evolution
Moderator: Moderators
Post #61
This response is to Titan, ENIGMA, and Aximili23:
I recommend reading this article: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs200 ... cience.asp
Ignore the quotes from evolutionists and focus on the definitions of operational science and origin science.
Both evolution and creation fall into the category of origins science. Both are driven by philosophical considerations. The same data (observations in the present) are available to everyone, but different interpretations (stories) are devised to explain what happened in the past.
Also, this is in reference to the GTE. Let’s be clear that we are discussing the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ (GTE), which was defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.
So, in short, I agree that evolutionary theory contains operational science, like germ theory and biological mutations and such. However, we should define the science that we are referring to when we claim that it's "falsifiable".
So, a better definition would be: Evolution Origins Science and Creation Origins Science are the same.
Comments, thoughts, death threats?
I recommend reading this article: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs200 ... cience.asp
Ignore the quotes from evolutionists and focus on the definitions of operational science and origin science.
More specifically:However, we can make a valid distinction between different types of science: the distinction between origins science and operational science. Operational science involves discovering how things operate in today’s Creation—repeatable and observable phenomena in the present. This is the science of Newton. However, origins science deals with the origin of things in the past—unique, unrepeatable, unobservable events. There is a fundamental difference between how the two work. Operational science involves experimentation in the here and now. Origins science deals with how something came into existence in the past and so is not open to experimental verification / observation (unless someone invents a ‘time machine’ to travel back into the past to observe). Studying how an organism operates (DNA, mutations, reproduction, natural selection etc.) does not tell us how it came into existence in the first place.
Both evolution and creation fall into the category of origins science. Both are driven by philosophical considerations. The same data (observations in the present) are available to everyone, but different interpretations (stories) are devised to explain what happened in the past.
Also, this is in reference to the GTE. Let’s be clear that we are discussing the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ (GTE), which was defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.
So, in short, I agree that evolutionary theory contains operational science, like germ theory and biological mutations and such. However, we should define the science that we are referring to when we claim that it's "falsifiable".
So, a better definition would be: Evolution Origins Science and Creation Origins Science are the same.
Comments, thoughts, death threats?
Post #62
My only comment is that evolution per se does not claim anything about 'origins' in terms of the beginnings of life on this planet - whereas that is the base claim of creationist model.seventil wrote: So, a better definition would be: Evolution Origins Science and Creation Origins Science are the same.
Comments, thoughts, death threats?
Post #63
First of all, I should point out that you haven't addressed the objections that I have raised towards so-called creation science. You should demonstrate, for example, how creationism is falsifiable, or at least explain why it doesn't have to be falsifiable. In the absence of such arguments, I will consider my own objections unassailed.
Now, I've looked at the article you posted, although in the interest of full disclosure I will admit I have not read it beginning to end (I don't currently have the time). I do have numerous objections regarding what I have read, but I will focus on what you posted:
In other words, just because something happened in the past does not mean that it is impervious to experimental verification. A good example is forensics: just because we did not observe how a murder took place in a locked room does not mean that we couldn't examine the evidence to figure out what happened. (Just watch any episode of CSI). These methods of experimental verification can be rigid and based on sound scientific principles. So admittedly, there is a limit to what we can discover about the past: for example we can't track the detailed genetics of the dinosaurs. But as long as we work within the limits of good science, i.e. critically examine the fossil record, we can discover a great deal about past events.
Also, your statement "both are driven by philosophical considerations" is an empty statement that implies that both are on an equal footing. But one must examine what these considerations are, as well as what evidence each looks at, what methods and techniques each uses, the quality of logic that each applies, and the conclusions derived from each. One of the "philosophical considerations" applied by creationists seems to be that God can be used to fill in gaps in our knowledge. This in itself already greatly weakens the reliability of creation science. Another philosophical consideration is that a book uncorroborated by evidence (in fact, contradicted by evidence) is somehow unassailably accurate. This consideration defies all logic and reason. But the worst philosophical consideration of creation science, in my book, is that we already have the answers. One of the wonderful things about real science is that our understanding of the world keeps changing and getting refined as we collect more data and perform more experiments.
Now, I've looked at the article you posted, although in the interest of full disclosure I will admit I have not read it beginning to end (I don't currently have the time). I do have numerous objections regarding what I have read, but I will focus on what you posted:
While there is a difference between studying current and past events, the labels "origins science" and "operational science" falsely exaggerate the distinction between the two. For one, the processes that took place in the past are the same as those that take place in the present, whether they be gravity, erosion, chemical oxidation, or genetic mutation. And second, events that took place in the past can be studied by evidence that they leave behind and which are observable today. Thus, both are subject to rigid, evidence-based examination and empirical analysis.However, we can make a valid distinction between different types of science: the distinction between origins science and operational science. Operational science involves discovering how things operate in today’s Creation—repeatable and observable phenomena in the present. This is the science of Newton. However, origins science deals with the origin of things in the past—unique, unrepeatable, unobservable events. There is a fundamental difference between how the two work. Operational science involves experimentation in the here and now. Origins science deals with how something came into existence in the past and so is not open to experimental verification / observation (unless someone invents a ‘time machine’ to travel back into the past to observe). Studying how an organism operates (DNA, mutations, reproduction, natural selection etc.) does not tell us how it came into existence in the first place.
In other words, just because something happened in the past does not mean that it is impervious to experimental verification. A good example is forensics: just because we did not observe how a murder took place in a locked room does not mean that we couldn't examine the evidence to figure out what happened. (Just watch any episode of CSI). These methods of experimental verification can be rigid and based on sound scientific principles. So admittedly, there is a limit to what we can discover about the past: for example we can't track the detailed genetics of the dinosaurs. But as long as we work within the limits of good science, i.e. critically examine the fossil record, we can discover a great deal about past events.
Science is far, far more than just interpreting the data. Interpretation as used in your statement sounds like little more than guesswork or story-telling. When scientists interpret data, a lot of critical examination goes on, and experimental controls are used to eliminate possibilities. Thus, when a good scientific article comes out which passes peer review, the conclusion is usually the only interpretation that logically flows from the data. Not so in so-called creation science, where the interpretation (story, as you said) is made even before the evidence has been looked at.Both evolution and creation fall into the category of origins science. Both are driven by philosophical considerations. The same data (observations in the present) are available to everyone, but different interpretations (stories) are devised to explain what happened in the past.
Also, your statement "both are driven by philosophical considerations" is an empty statement that implies that both are on an equal footing. But one must examine what these considerations are, as well as what evidence each looks at, what methods and techniques each uses, the quality of logic that each applies, and the conclusions derived from each. One of the "philosophical considerations" applied by creationists seems to be that God can be used to fill in gaps in our knowledge. This in itself already greatly weakens the reliability of creation science. Another philosophical consideration is that a book uncorroborated by evidence (in fact, contradicted by evidence) is somehow unassailably accurate. This consideration defies all logic and reason. But the worst philosophical consideration of creation science, in my book, is that we already have the answers. One of the wonderful things about real science is that our understanding of the world keeps changing and getting refined as we collect more data and perform more experiments.
Oooh, this is a very pervasive creationist misconception. I don't know where evolutionist Kerkut derived that idea, but evolution is the theory that explains how species arise (hence "Origin of Species), it is NOT the theory of abiogenesis. There may be valid scientific objections to the current model of how abiogenesis occurred, but attacks on evolution do not count. Nor do quotes from the bible.Also, this is in reference to the GTE. Let’s be clear that we are discussing the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ (GTE), which was defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.
As I have already explained, theories regarding the past are falsifiable by the evidence they leave behind. In the case of evolution, a single fossil in the wrong geological strata would often do the trick.So, in short, I agree that evolutionary theory contains operational science, like germ theory and biological mutations and such. However, we should define the science that we are referring to when we claim that it's "falsifiable".
Last edited by Aximili23 on Sat Feb 19, 2005 5:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post #64
Certain models do, bernee, but I'll concede that a working evolutionary model not asserting abiogenesis claims is indeed available, and even the 'mainstream' view of most evolutionists.bernee51 wrote:My only comment is that evolution per se does not claim anything about 'origins' in terms of the beginnings of life on this planet - whereas that is the base claim of creationist model.seventil wrote: So, a better definition would be: Evolution Origins Science and Creation Origins Science are the same.
Comments, thoughts, death threats?
I'll assume that no evolutionist/atheist thinks that the abiogenesis or any evolutionary origin theory can be falsified or is indeed empirical. How is unfair that Creationists rely on a faith based explanation while evolutionists/atheists rely on no explanation or one that cannot be falsified either?
Post #65
You assume wrongly.seventil wrote: I'll assume that no evolutionist/atheist thinks that the abiogenesis or any evolutionary origin theory can be falsified or is indeed empirical.
Find a T-Rex fossil in the precambrian and "evolutionary origin theory" (which I assume includes the notion of common descent) as we know it is dead. Or a human fossil in the Triassic period. Or any of a massive number of fossils significantly out of place from where evolution would place them.
Find a species with a radically different genetic code on Earth and common descent gets a significant setback.
Just because we can't rewind history in a lab doesn't mean that we can't rule out various causes from happening.
So, I have asked this numerous times and have yet to recieve a sufficient response, so I'll ask again.
What would it take to kill creationism as we know it?
Last edited by ENIGMA on Thu Feb 17, 2005 6:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
Gilt and Vetinari shared a look. It said: While I loathe you and all of your personal philosophy to a depth unplummable by any line, I will credit you at least with not being Crispin Horsefry [The big loud idiot in the room].
-Going Postal, Discworld
-Going Postal, Discworld
Post #66
Abiogenesis is supported by empirical evidence. All sorts of experiments have been performed on the spontaneous formation of biological molecules of varying degrees of complexity (read up on the RNA hypothesis, for one). I'll admit, the true and ultimate cause of life on earth can probably never be known with absolute certainty. But science doesn't pretend that it knows what it cannot: it simply puts forth the best theory based on the available evidence. (That's why abiogenesis, like evolution, is a theory). But creationists rely on an explanation that is not only completely unsupported by evidence, but asserts a supernatural cause that defies known physical and chemical laws. As faith and religion goes this is fine, but don't call an explanation like this science.I'll assume that no evolutionist/atheist thinks that the abiogenesis or any evolutionary origin theory can be falsified or is indeed empirical. How is unfair that Creationists rely on a faith based explanation while evolutionists/atheists rely on no explanation or one that cannot be falsified either?
Post #67
I'd like to first point out that most evolutionists do not include abiogenesis in their model.Aximili23 wrote: Abiogenesis is supported by empirical evidence.
Secondly, please post references to 'empirical evidences" for abiogenesis. I'm sure myself and every other reader out there is looking forward to seeing them.
em·pir·i·calAll sorts of experiments have been performed on the spontaneous formation of biological molecules of varying degrees of complexity (read up on the RNA hypothesis, for one). I'll admit, the true and ultimate cause of life on earth can probably never be known with absolute certainty.
1. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
2. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.
Shouldn't you be relatively certain of something if you are going to support it with evidence and hypothesis?
And this I agree with. I'll wait to see your evidences of abiogenesis before I comment further.But science doesn't pretend that it knows what it cannot: it simply puts forth the best theory based on the available evidence. (That's why abiogenesis, like evolution, is a theory).
I'm standing firm on this one. I contend that you are basing the belief of abiogenesis on faith, and not 'physical and chemical' laws. We need a way to explain why we are here. I'll consent that your idea of abiogenesis is just a "theory" - but I'm banking on it's going to defy reason, logic, and natural and physical laws that science supports today.But creationists rely on an explanation that is not only completely unsupported by evidence, but asserts a supernatural cause that defies known physical and chemical laws. As faith and religion goes this is fine, but don't call an explanation like this science.
Post #68
All right, to avoid me searching through tons of archoelogical crap - please post your references for cambrian fossils that show empirical and falsifiable evidence of the evolution of "T-Rex" from or into any other kind, species, or whatever.ENIGMA wrote:You assume wrongly.seventil wrote: I'll assume that no evolutionist/atheist thinks that the abiogenesis or any evolutionary origin theory can be falsified or is indeed empirical.
Find a T-Rex fossil in the precambrian and "evolutionary origin theory" (which I assume includes the notion of common descent) as we know it is dead. Or a human fossil in the Triassic period. Or any of a massive number of fossils significantly out of place from where evolution would place them.
Find a species with a radically different genetic code on Earth and common descent gets a significant setback.
Just because we can't rewind history in a lab doesn't mean that we can't rule out various causes from happening.
That is completely off the topic, and I ask that you ask in a different thread or refrain from useless comments such as this.So, I have asked this numerous times and have yet to recieve a sufficient response, so I'll ask again.
What would it take to kill creationism as we know it?
Post #69
You think I don't know that? Abiogenesis and evolution are different theories/models; nevertheless both are currently being studied by scientists. I will concede, however, that abiogenesis is not nearly as well studied or understood as evolution.I'd like to first point out that most evolutionists do not include abiogenesis in their model.
Spontaneous Generation and the Origin of LifeSecondly, please post references to 'empirical evidences" for abiogenesis. I'm sure myself and every other reader out there is looking forward to seeing them.
Modern Origin of Life references
chapter 14 abiogenesis (pdf)
I'll admit just posting these links without any further explanation is a low-handed blow; as is bombarding you with that list of articles in the second link. But I'm afraid I don't have time to paraphrase or summarize in my own words; I'm really quite busy. I also found this site:
Abiogenesis—Origins of Life Research
but it doesn't look like a very reliable resource. If get some more free time and find better links, I'll let you know.
more links
Post #70Here are some others:
The Origin of Life on Earth
Prebiotic Chemistry and the Origin of the RNA World
Pre-biotic Earth
Origins of life
How did life originate?
Origin of Life Studies
I apologize for bombarding you with all of these links, while presenting no arguments or summaries myself. As you can see, the info in these links are quite extensive; I don't reasonably expect you to read all of it (probably not even half). I myself have no time to learn and summarize all of this info for you, much less defend their scientific merits in a debate.
But I think I've sufficiently demonstrated that abiogenesis is a topic of scientific study, and that there are experiments as well as well-founded biochemical principles that support the various models of the origin of life. If you're interested in learning more about the matter I suggest you do research on the RNA world hypothesis, which I think is currently the most widely accepted model.
I would also like to point out that, while we cannot absolutely know how life started on earth, the theories put forth by the scientific method, by virtue of experimentation, analysis, and adherence to observable biochemical principles, appear to have greater weight than the simple God-did-it faith-based theory of creationism. At least with the former, an attempt has been made to use evidence and experimentation to determine the knowable parts of an unknowable truth.
The Origin of Life on Earth
Prebiotic Chemistry and the Origin of the RNA World
Pre-biotic Earth
Origins of life
How did life originate?
Origin of Life Studies
I apologize for bombarding you with all of these links, while presenting no arguments or summaries myself. As you can see, the info in these links are quite extensive; I don't reasonably expect you to read all of it (probably not even half). I myself have no time to learn and summarize all of this info for you, much less defend their scientific merits in a debate.
But I think I've sufficiently demonstrated that abiogenesis is a topic of scientific study, and that there are experiments as well as well-founded biochemical principles that support the various models of the origin of life. If you're interested in learning more about the matter I suggest you do research on the RNA world hypothesis, which I think is currently the most widely accepted model.
I would also like to point out that, while we cannot absolutely know how life started on earth, the theories put forth by the scientific method, by virtue of experimentation, analysis, and adherence to observable biochemical principles, appear to have greater weight than the simple God-did-it faith-based theory of creationism. At least with the former, an attempt has been made to use evidence and experimentation to determine the knowable parts of an unknowable truth.
