Evolution doesn't disprove that "God did it". If God does in fact exist, then evolution is one way of showing us HOW "God did it".
If you want to know "how" God did it, you can't rule out evolution.
Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.
by hooberus 282 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Lion Cask
Who is to say there will not be another paradigm shift in biology that alters the scientific story surrounding the history of life at some point?
It would be astonishing if there is not a paradigm shift like you describe, slimboyfat. There have been, after all, several since Darwin's time. There will yet be others and we will just be closer to understanding the history of life. We will never understand it completely. It is simplistic and easy to assign the creation of life in all its complexity to an all powerful supreme being, but of all the stories available to us, that one is the least likely.
There are laws that govern the universe, many of which mankind has yet to discern, let alone comprehend. God made man and all the other higher animals instantaneously? He fabricated and placed the billions of galaxies with their billions of stars and trillions of planets and asteroids and nebulae and quasars and pulsars and black holes and dark matter and all the other stuff that makes up the universe in position and set them to expanding at great speed? And then, only then, he put in place laws that govern it all so that he would not need to intervene further? (Except that he did intervene and broke his own laws whenever he wanted to, according to the OT.) I don't know how sound minded people can accept this story, frankly, but I'm ok with it. To each his own.
Let's just say there is a God, for arguments sake. Would it not make eminently more sense that a mere 14 billion years ago, after the equivalent of trillions and trillions and trillions etc. of years of boring eternal existence, He said to Himself (since there would be nobody else around) "I shall create the Universe. Let there be a Big Bang" and He set it all in motion? 14 billion years, compared to eternity, is less than a dust mote of time. We all get so tied up in our puny human perspectives.
-
agonus
LC,
Just curious, and no offense intended, but WHY exactly is the idea of a supreme being creating the universe - according to scientific laws that we now know and understand - "unlikely"?
What if a higher intelligence/power always has been and is still creating via evolution and natural and scientific laws?
-
jaguarbass
THere are many scientific writings to support a young biblical earth.
Please do list them.
Go to the institute for creation research and get on their mailing list and they will send you
their literature.
-
cofty
Go to the institute for creation research and get on their mailing list and they will send you their literature.
That's theological literature, not scientific literature
-
Lion Cask
No offense taken at all, agonus. The hypothetical is that God established both the universe and the laws that govern it and that He set things in motion 14 billion years ago. I perceive you are on that page, and it is by far more logical and observable even with the limited ability we have than the supposition of an instantaneous (dare I say magical) creation of enormous complexity.
If God is the absolute alpha - ie nothing came before Him and he therefore always was - what did He do with Himself for the eternity that preceeded His momentous act of creation? If we suppose He created all the other supernatural beings before He decided to set off the Big Bang, even if He did that trillions of years before, then what did He do with Himself the trillions upon trillions of years before that? Did He just float around keeping Himself company?
The unliklihood of a supreme being having created the universe goes immediately to the unliklihood of the existence of a supreme being in the first instance. Chicken and egg all over again.
-
jaguarbass
I know there are books written by scientist that explain the fossil record from a young earth flood perspective. THere are many scientific writings to support a young biblical earth. - jagaurbass
No there isn't
"The Earths Catrostophic Past, Geology, Creation and the Flood" by Andrew Snelling.
"THe Genesis Flood" by John Whitcomb and Henry Morris.
" In 6 Days Why 50 Scientist choose to believe in Creation" By John Ashton.
"In the begining Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. By Walter Brown.
"Taking Back Astromony the Heavens Decalare Creation" Jason Leslie
-
jaguarbass
Go to the institute for creation research and get on their mailing list and they will send you their literature.
That's theological literature, not scientific literature.
If the people that work there are doctors and Phd's in scientific fields then I accept it as scientist wriiting scientific literature.
Obviously we both have an agenda.
Everybody has the same facts, its how you want to interpret them.
Which is fine I can accept that.
But I maintain there are scientific
writings to support a young earth and they are written by scientist who
believe in God and the bible and your saying no there is not does not make them disappear.
So you are trying to miss lead people who dont know any better to put forward your agenda.
-
cofty
The Earths Catrostophic Past, Geology, Creation and the Flood" by Andrew Snelling
OK let's look at your first witness for young earth creationism. Andrew Snelling is a hypocrite. He is a director of CSF and regular contributor to, and sometime editor of, the CSF's quarterly magazine, Ex Nihilo.
The rest of the time he is a consulting geologist who works on uranium mineralisation and publishes in refereed scientific journals.
Let me refer to one of his papers as quoted by one of his colleagues Dr Alex Ritchie
During Early Proterozoic times (from 1688-1600 million years ago) the area was covered by thick, flat-lying sandstones.
2. At some later date (but after the reverse faulting) the Koongarra uranium mineral deposit forms, perhaps in several stages, first between 1650-1550 million years ago, and later around 870 and 420 million years.
3. The last stage, the weathering of the primary ore to produce the secondary dispersion fan above the No 1 orebody seems to have begun only in the last 1-3 million years.
When he writes for his theological pseudo-science magazine he never makes mention of his acceptance of "millions of years". When he writes peer reviewed papers he never owns up to his young earth creationism.
Dr Ritchie concludes..
One Dr Snelling is a young-earth creationist missionary who follows the CSF's Statement of Faith to the letter. The other Dr Snelling writes scientific articles on rocks at least hundreds or thousand of millions of years old and openly contradicting the Statement of Faith. The CSF clearly has a credibility problem. Are they aware they have an apostate in their midst and have they informed their members?
Of course there may well be a simple explanation, eg that the two Drs Snelling are one and the same. Perhaps the Board of the CSF has given Andrew Snelling a special dispensation to break his Statement of Faith. Why would they do this? Well, every creation 'scientist' needs to gain scientific credibility by publishing papers in refereed scientific journals and books and the sort of nonsense Dr Snelling publishes in Creation Ex Nihilo is unlikely to be accepted in any credible scientific journal.
Shall we go on to look at the rest of your "sources"?
-
jaguarbass
Thats fine if you want to criticize my sources, at least that's keeping you honest. I have no problem with your criticizing them.
You said they didnt exist. They have to exist if your going to criticize them.
Everybody has the same facts we are all free to interpret them according to our agendas.