Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Right.
Speculation is more of a personal thought that may include a combiniation of things.
My point is freedom of thought and freedom of religion go hand and hand.
Eight objections to evolution
- Thread starter Jericho
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Right.
Speculation is more of a personal thought that may include a combiniation of things.
My point is freedom of thought and freedom of religion go hand and hand.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Was it a unified theory that the earth was round? Unified worldwide thought, even with scholars never existed.
But I will say that Greek scholars proposed the atom and that the world was round a few centuries before Yeshua but it was just an idea that did not reflect any map of the world.....as I pointed out. And a lot of Christians think that Greek scholars were demonic.
To understand Galileo's observations of ships on the horizon, proving the curvature of the earth.
- Galileo used a telescope to observe distant ships, noting their gradual appearance.
- He discovered that ships disappear hull-first when sailing away, not all at once.
- This phenomenon supports the idea of a curved Earth rather than a flat one.
- His observations challenged the prevailing geocentric model of the universe.
- Galileo's work laid the foundation for modern astronomy and physics.
- These findings contributed to the scientific revolution and changed perceptions of the cosmos.
Isn't that what I did? I provided eight reasons what evolution is not tenable. It's only a few reason among many. Regardless, evolution is antithetical to creation. There's certainly no scriptural support for it.
The Barbarian
Active Member
When Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth (very accurately, BTW), the issue was over. Pretty much everyone in the Roman world knew it. Supposedly, China resisted for a while. By Columbus, no educated person doubted it.
Democritus inferred atoms by various evidence and reasoning. But it was Dalton in the early 1800s who provided evidence that made the existence of atoms pretty much necessary.
Sailors, before Christ was born, observed this with mountains as they approached land.
Aristotle: Antipodes and the Spherical Earth
Aristotle, in De Caelo (On the Heavens), reinforced the spherical-Earth model and used the concept of antipodes as evidence. He reasoned that:- the curvature of Earth’s shadow on the Moon
- the behaviour of objects falling toward the centre
- and the observation of different stars at different latitudes
His acceptance of a spherical Earth became foundational for later Greek, Roman, and Islamic geography.
The Ancient Greek Origins of the Word “Antipode”
Explore the Ancient Greek origins of the word “antipode.” Learn how Greek philosophers coined the term, how it evolved through Latin and medieval scholarship, and how it became the modern geographic concept of opposite points on Earth.
antipode.com
Excuse my pedantry; I taught history and philosophy of science for a time.
Wick Stick
Well-Known Member
No. You stated it either had to be one or the other.
You didn't give any answer at all to the idea that evolution might have been a means of creation. You probably ought to, because I think a lot of people hold that view.
Is it though? To my eyes, the idea of ex nihilo creation looks odd. That isn't how humanity creates things. Nor do I observe things simply popping into existence around me.
Creating something by forming it out of something else, or by combining things... that I'm familiar with.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
I have already noted that the Greeks came up with concepts of the atom and round earth a couple century before Christ. But there were no maps reflecting their theories. No one has been documented using global charts in the antient world. Columbus did not have global charts, 15th century. The big change was with Galileo in the 17th century
Eratosthenes (c. 276 BC – c. 194 BC) was an Ancient Greek polymath known for his contributions to mathematics, geography, astronomy, and poetry. He is best known for being the first to calculate the circumference of the Earth using a method based on the angles of shadows cast by sticks in different locations. Eratosthenes also served as the chief librarian at the Library of Alexandria.
The Barbarian
Active Member
There was not death until sin.
That pretty much seals the deal for me, regarding what the Bible tells us.
Much love!
Wick Stick
Well-Known Member
The Barbarian
Active Member
The argument depends on revising what God said in Genesis. God says that Adam will die the day he eats from the tree. But Adam eats and lives on for many years thereafter. If we can trust God, the death was not a physical one, but a spiritual one.
The distribution of fossils depends on "differential escape": the assumption that the swift sloths could outrun the slow velociraptors and maple trees were able to outrun conifers.
Wick Stick
Well-Known Member
I'm not much of a science guy, but I've got common sense. That sentence didn't make much sense to me.
If that's so, what's to stop us from making the whole story spiritual? You know, the way Ezekiel treats it. ::ducking::
The Barbarian
Active Member
The creationist concept of differential escape is that slower organisms would have been overcome by the flood first, and then faster animals later. I was being sarcastic. Sorry.
God's word. Indeed, in Genesis 3, God confirms that the death is spiritual, and that Adam might live forever if he remained in the Garden and had access to the tree of life.
Wick Stick
Well-Known Member
If the death is spiritual, how do we know the tree isn't spiritual too? And the whole garden, too
The Barbarian
Active Member
What if it was? The point is, we know from God's word that the death was. He did not tell us if the tree was. However, I would think that a tree that gave one the ability to know good and evil certainly had to be at least partly spiritual.
God didn't tell us that, either. What if it was?
But humanity didn't create the universe and everything in it. Only God can create something from nothing. This is exactly what the Bible says: He spoke it into existence and created man from the dust of the ground. If you truly are a Christian, then there is no middle ground to be had. You say I haven't given any answer to why evolution might have been a means of creation when I have given many reasons why it cannot. There's simply no observational evidence of something changing from one kind to another kind as Darwin suggested. There's nothing in the fossil record to support it either. That's why it remains an unproven theory. Conversely, you haven't provided any reasons why evolution might have been the means of creation.
Does this notion of evolution qualify as a "theory"? My understanding of a scientific theory is that you can repeat experiments that show your hypothesis to be correctly predictive.
Much love!
The Barbarian
Active Member
Speciation is a fact. Even most creationists have conceded that fact, now. Most of them now say that evolution is limited to something like genera or families.
Well, let's ask some knowledgeable YE creationists...
Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.
YE creationist, Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.
I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution... Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason.
YE creationist Dr. Todd Wood, The Truth About Evolution
Wick Stick
Well-Known Member
Why would I?
I don't need to understand exactly HOW creation was accomplished, to point out that the dichotomy you set up of Creation vs Evolution is an oversimplification. There are more options than the 2. I just pointed out one which seems to be fairly common.
If I'm going to argue FOR something, then I'd rather speak to something I know better, and actually believe. Like... the creation accounts in Genesis and Job seem to say that the creation was a matter of putting-order-to-chaos, rather than creating-something-from-nothing.
Wick Stick
Well-Known Member
Similar threads
