I thought the name of the Article was “How Not to Argue Against Evolution”. Based on comments, maybe the point was missed?
LOL…yes, truly the “fundamentalistic” discovery of certainty! Thanks for the analogy…good laugh.
You might update your thinking:
you can open the pdf of the full paper.
Have you ever read anything from this guy:
He is at least an honest creationist. I still think he is wrong, but at least he soldiers on in his quest to reconcile his conservative Christian narrative and modern science.
Small red dwarfs will hang in there (at nearly constant output) for trillions of years. The Universe is barely getting started.
Faith is belief despite contrary evidence. There is a mountain of contrary evidence to creationism. Therefore believe in creationism takes faith. There is NO contrary evidence to either evolution or even abiogenesis. There is plenty of LACK of evidence for elements of evolution and abiogenesis. But since so much evidence is in favor of evolution, accepting it as likely is simply the most accurate view, given the evidence. No faith involved at all.
We could find that the geologic column consisted of a fully formed ecosystem of remarkable species all buried in a common layer of rock worldwide (the preflood world) the oldest elements of which dated to about 6Kya and the youngest dating to about 4kya (time of the flood), and then above that layers that date from the flood to the present. We would find that dendrochronology showed a gap of living trees across the flood boundary, and we would find that all the oldest trees alive today started growing just after that date. The date of the flood would be the most well defined date in science. The date of creation before that, and the date of the Fall would also show up. Imagine if science had these three spectacularly obvious dates, that would then confirm to the Glory of God, the story of Genesis. Further the fossil record wold support the notion of stasis of species, i.e. the modern horse would be found pre-flood, post flood, and now, with nothing else like it. Same for all other species. All extant species would be found all the way back to Eden. In that case, it would take no faith to believe in the story of Creation as described in Genesis, because the evidence would support it. It would then take enormous faith to believe in evolution because there would be lots of evidence against it.
But that is not what we see is it?
Why don’t you instead ask yourself why the Odontocetes fossils don’t show up from 100mya or all the way back to the Cambrian for that matter.
Your argument is that you can’t understand how they evolved that quickly, but if they didn’t evolve, they must have stayed the same all the way back, so where are they?
I’ll buy lunch for any Creationist who can produce, using scientific methods, a date for a universal flood that is approximately in agreement with Ushers Chronology (or any Biblical variant thereof). I’d prefer three different methods that converge to say within 100 years, since the Flood is only 4kya. Something like an isochron, using three independent elements to arrive at a similar date.
Actually, my comment was intended as a general precaution to every side since all sides project assumptions backwards into the extended past where such assumptions cannot be verified in repeatable first-person observations. Therefore, all sides take on faith, these assumptions that are projected backwards into prior ages based on some presumed facts in evidence.
I find the lack of humility somewhat humerous (though, also sad) that is audaciously displayed by most apologists for whatever crusade they happen to be pursuing.
As modern science has developed, why hasn’t the picture that has emerged as a result of our increased knowledge, converged on the story told in Genesis? It certainly could have IF the evidence pointed in that direction.
Is it because scientists are in rebellion against God, and Satan is leading them astray, or are they being led astray themselves by assumptions they are projecting backwards into the extended past where such assumptions cannot be verified in repeatable first-person observations?
Agree with all that you say. The main issue tends to be that most “sides” feel that there is only one “right” way…which usually means their own.
Itcertainly destroys Usshers dating and also Ellen White does nothing to support evolution.
Darwin was reacting to the nonsence of the churchmen of his day. They believed in a lot of nonsence. So he threw everything out. The birds and the iguanas hooked him. But what he didn’t see was iquanas becoming birds.
"But what he didn’t see was iquanas becoming birds."
That was because Darwin couldn’t possibly live long enough to see that type of change.
You asked, hawaiiTF, if I have read anything from “Todd’s Blog.” You described him as an honest creationist, and I hope that is, indeed, true. I hope he knows his stuff, too; I most respect the combination of honesty and knowledge. I’ve opened his blog but can’t really get to it tonight. Thank you for sharing!
For those who don’t know me, I’m all for a 6-day Creation, but deplore much of Creationism. I want to believe the Biblical narrative, but I struggle to reconcile it with good science–which in some cases does offer support–and accept it largely as a matter of faith in other portions of scripture. I have many questions, but I can wait to get answers when I hopefully get to heaven. Frankly, I’m much more concerned about getting that opportunity than getting answers.
Ussher being wrong does nothing to support evolution.
1). Open up a dictionary and look up definitions for humility, arrogance, and irony
2). Read what you’ve written above again.
I really don’t understand the necessity for religious enterprise to attempt to make science faith-based. Science is driven by observable facts of reality. Whatever theories there are, there are models of unseen reality, and pointing out lack of first-hand experience for these models is somewhat redundant in light of “theoretical” part that’s there to communicate that whatever model is there, it’s merely how we think reality works by connecting the dots between what we can observe. The status of “theory” is elevated for models that are accepted as more likely explanation of reality, which evolution is.
The difference between science and religion is functional application of either. Religion should serve as moral context to ground science. It shouldn’t be there to limit and deny factual observation by means of presupposing answers and making sure that these assumptions are maintained as unquestionable truth.
I have not read all the 100+ opinions, so if I repeat what’s already been dealt with - I apologize.
We witness “evolution” every time a baby is born. Even a casual look at comparative embryology tells us there is a commonality that runs through physical life. That’s not surprising since life, of all kinds, was created by one Creator. A baby “evolves” through various stages as it grows; and at each stage is “normal and complete” for the stage of development it’s at.
Early (unscientific) societies believed that sperm contained little complete human babies; and women were incubation chambers to help the baby grow. The entire OT social and religious system was based on this concept. Out of it comes the genealogies (men only); divorce laws (only men could divorce - usually because the wife couldn’t produce heirs) - which gives the woman at the well a whole new identity. This was also the reason masturbation was a sin (of sorts) because seed (little humans) were spilled on the ground. This was also why Sarah was helping Abraham by offering her handmaid to be the “incubator”. Abraham’s seed had nothing to do with Sarah, per se, or her handmaid, it was believed.
As it turns out, life didn’t take aeons to “evolve”. Life “exploded” on the scene. Why is it so impossible to believe that God directed which way the cells divided and what their end product would be - just like they do when a baby develops in the womb…
If we (Adventists) believe that nature is God’s second book, (I argue it’s His first book), then the study of nature (called science) can tell us much that scriptures are unable to tell us, having been written by people who knew no science. This is, of course, why the Bible is not a book of scientific principles or laws. The Bible deals with what’s IN our brains; not how we GOT brains.
SDA views on evolution do not come from an honest, unbiased study. All considerations about creation have to end up with a literal 6 days because we can’t do “sabbath” without it - not matter that those 24 hour periods were somehow calculated without the sun or earth’s rotations and revolutions; or, the fact that time, calculated outside the solar system is a moot point here on earth (and vice versa).
Do I rightly sense that you are charging me with Arrogance?
My caution comes from my own life experience & observation of many things ‘certain’ at one point in time but being later ‘revised’ in the face of additional or contrary evidence. I’m sure that is not a unique experience on my part. Although (to me) that ought to provide a level of humility, it seems that some believe the ‘revised’ perception is NOW ‘certain’ and go forward with their attacks on others who have a different evaluation of 'the facts".
These type arguments (of Science vs Religion - which one has claim to superior knowledge) is often myopically addressed on a point where the ‘other’ appears weakest.
It’s sort of like claiming a checkerboard is BLACK! Adamantly, BLACK! And if myopically examined at the proper locations (that is, restricting the examination), it can be proven to be BLACK, with no RED mixed in.
(I’m happy to leave the debate to others.)