Evolutionary Science-v- Creationism

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

IOW, until you have personal understanding and proof of the nature of the last billion years, you'll believe that all this was set up by an invisible man.

No, I'll believe that an Omnipotent Creator God that believes that Free Will and Personal Responsiblity are the keys to returning to a perfect world one day made the heavens and the earth in 6 sets of 24-hour periods called days.

I believe that there is an opposing force to this Creator God, a Destroying force, and that he is a liar and a cheat and well, a destroyer. He tricks people into turning away from the Creator God, and he's using this made up bogus fake theory that all humans simply spontaneously generated from a non-living soup of acid, and that we're all just animals, and that one "race" of humans are more evolved than another, and that there is no Creator God at all, and everything is random chance, there's no after life, you're just here for a miserable so many years, and then you're gone.

Well I don't believe the Liar, and I think that all the science that some people use to "prove" millions of years can be reinterpreted to "prove" a young earth of about 6000 years or so.

And I believe that no one has to agree with me or my interpretation of my beliefs.

I believe that my children should NOT have to listen to some schmuck with a 4 year teaching degree (in some cases less) tell them that they came from acidic muck billions of years ago when NO ONE can prove that ANY MORE than they can prove my Creator God exists.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by jinx

The thing that always gets me is the difference between the vertebrate and the cephalopod eye. Why would the creator have created the eye 2 different ways? Why would squids have a superior eye if man was created in gods image?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i1/retina.asp

Talks all about the eyes.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

And our DNA is 98% identical to a chimpanzee's.

And that means what?

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Kitsune

many creationists, in argument, indicate that humans are so vastly different from other species in the animal kingdom that we should be effectively removed from the catagory entirely. Why is this? The accomplishments of civilization aside, we really aren't much different when you get down to it. We bleed, we eat, we reproduce, we die.

Well, I can't speak for all creationists, (there are differing opinions even within the Creationist circles) but Genesis tells us that Adam actually named all the animals and was given dominion over all the animals. (The hebrew verbage is important here, specifically, the word nephesh, which indicates an animal with a soul, ie NOT insects.) This gets rather complex, so I'll refer you to the AIG site I go to alot when I think about stuff like that.

http://www.answersingenesis.org

[jinx]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i1/retina.asp

Talks all about the eyes.

So they're saying that the blind spot isn't that big of a deal for most people most of the time, and because we have flashlights and microscopes, our eyes are just as good as they need to be. Huh.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

Which one?

Which one?

The hebrew text of the old testament and the (mostly) greek text of the new. Yes, there are some minor changes between different translations, and when they differ completely in mean from one to another, I consult the hebrew text and dictionaries, and use the translation most closely matching that.

[Undertoad]

OK, not one invisible man but two, which makes for a better narrative.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

OK, not one invisible man but two, which makes for a better narrative.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by jinx

So they're saying that the blind spot isn't that big of a deal for most people most of the time, and because we have flashlights and microscopes, our eyes are just as good as they need to be. Huh.

ok, here is a better link

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...2/chapter7.asp

The first one was more focused on retinal photoreceptors, this one is more general.

The highlights: (with snippage)

Kenneth Miller, the Roman Catholic evolutionist who is featured prominently on PBS 1, claims that the eye has ‘profound optical imperfections,’ so is proof of ‘tinkering’ and ‘blind’ natural selection.

Someone who does know about eye design is the ophthalmologist Dr George Marshall, who said:

The idea that the eye is wired backward comes from a lack of knowledge of eye function and anatomy.

He explained that the nerves could not go behind the eye, because that space is reserved for the choroid, which provides the rich blood supply needed for the very metabolically active retinal pigment epithelium (RPE). This is necessary to regenerate the photoreceptors, and to absorb excess heat. So it is necessary for the nerves to go in front instead. The claim on the program that they interfere with the image is blatantly false, because the nerves are virtually transparent because of their small size and also having about the same refractive index as the surrounding vitreous humor. In fact, what limits the eye’s resolution is the diffraction of light waves at the pupil (proportional to the wavelength and inversely proportional to the pupil’s size), so alleged improvements of the retina would make no difference.

It’s important to note that the ‘superior’ design of Miller with the (virtually transparent) nerves behind the photoreceptors would require either:

The choroid in front of the retina—but the choroid is opaque because of all the red blood cells, so this design would be as useless as an eye with a hemorrhage!

Photoreceptors not in contact with the RPE and choroid at all—but the photoreceptors would be slow to regenerate, so it would probably take months before we could drive after we were photographed with a flashbulb.

Some evolutionists claim that the cephalopod eye is somehow ‘right,’ i.e., with nerves behind the receptor, and the program showed photographs of these creatures (e.g., octopus, squid) during this segment. But no one who has actually bothered to study these eyes could make such claims with integrity. In fact, cephalopods don’t see as well as humans, and the octopus eye structure is totally different and much simpler. It’s more like ‘a compound eye with a single lens.’

The program also alleges that the retina is badly designed because it can detach and cause blindness. But this doesn’t happen with the vast majority of people, indicating that the design is pretty good. In fact, retinal detachment is more due to the vitreous (‘glassy’) humor liquefying from its normally fairly rigid gel state with advancing age. Then the remaining gel pulls away from the retina, leaving tiny holes, so the other liquefied humor can lift off the retina. So one recently devised treatment is draining the liquid and injecting magnetized silicone gel, which can be moved into place with a magnetic field, to push the retina back and block the holes.3 The occasional failures in the eye with increasing age reflect the fact that we live in a fallen world—so what we observe today may have deteriorated from the original physically perfect state, where, for example, deterioration with age didn’t occur.

Related evolutionary arguments are used to attack so-called vestigial organs (see appendix), the panda’s thumb, and so-called ‘junk’ DNA.

More than that, Kent Hovind (www.drdino.com) has a segment in his downloadable seminars that has to do with this very question, (and is quite a bit simpler about it), and basically, if the human's eye was constructed like the squid's eyes, we'd all be blind within a very short period of time, because of the inverted nature of the anatomy in the human eyes block certain light waves that underwater creatures dont need to worry about. Thus, the cephalopod eye was made just right for underwater life, and humans eyes were made just right for land dwelling.

I wish I had a more detailed answer on this, but I just don't know enough about it, other than topical information.

[jinx]

But why are there 2 designs? If the creator created it right the first time - why the need for a new design, regardless of which one is "right"?

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

OK, not one invisible man but two, which makes for a better narrative.

Although I recognize you're trying to be funny, no, not "one invisible man, but two". No men. Men have nothing to do with it. Omnipotent Creator and to a lesser extent, Destroyer.

Not men.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by jinx

But why are there 2 designs? If the creator created it right the first time - why the need for a new design, regardless of which one is "right"?

Because one type lives underwater, and would REQUIRE a different anatomy than the other, who lives above water?

Edit:
Just like respiratory systems. One type "breathes" water, while the other "breathes" air. Same thing.

I don't understand your confusion on this?

[Undertoad]

Invisible is the more operative word; you don't require any proof of your story at all, right?

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

I only require the exclusion of magic from science classes. And I fully expect that many Sunday School classes will exclude science. And I have no problem with that. You don't go to a science class to learn about magic, and you don't go to Mass to learn about science. It's real easy.

Monkey, it comes down to this:

You can postulate that God (et al) made it like the bible says he did. You have no proof of that.

and

You can postulate that by happy random chance, non-life spontaneously erupted into primitive life, and from that life, all different life forms mutated and speciated and added a bunch of genetic information and split and over billions of years, the human race, as we know it, evolved. You have no proof of that either.



So why teach either in public school? Leave it out and teach SCIENCE.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Invisible is the more operative word; you don't require any proof of your story at all, right?

Wrong.

Could it have happened the way the bible says it did? Is it possible the earth is only about 6,000 years old?

Yes.

OK, prove it.

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.

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.

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!

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 Naturalism, logic and reality.

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!