The Truth of Genesis

[Justadude]

What the observe is the aftermath of the crime, and then work backwards. It is still minute observation.

So scientists can study events they didn't see happen.

 

[reformed1689]

So scientists can study events they didn't see happen.

Not definitively, no.

 

[Enoch111]

So scientists can study events they didn't see happen.

No, they cannot. Evolution was a hypothesis which should have been established through observation. But it could not be established for the simple reason that what was observed in the fossil record CONTRADICTED evolutionary theory.

There was no evidence of transition from lower to higher forms as expected: "These difficulties and objections may be classed under the following heads:-Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" Darwin in The Origin of Species.

And once that was established evolution should have been thrown into the garbage. Even Darwin had serious reservations about his own theory, but did that stop anyone including Darwin?

"That many and grave objections may be advanced against the theory of descent with modification through natural selection, I do not deny. I have endeavoured to give to them their full force. Nothing at first can appear more difficult to believe than that the more complex organs and instincts should have been perfected not by means superior to, though analogous with, human reason, but by the accumulation of innumerable slight variations, each good for the individual possessor...

...On this doctrine of the extermination of an infinitude of connecting links, between the living and extinct inhabitants of the world, and at each successive period between the extinct and still older species, why is not every geological formation charged with such links? Why does not every collection of fossil remains afford plain evidence of the gradation and mutation of the forms of life? We meet with no such evidence, and this is the most obvious and forcible of the many objections which may be urged against my theory. Darwin in The Origin of Species.

 

[reformed1689]

No, they cannot. Evolution was a hypothesis which should have been established through observation. But it could not be established for the simple reason that what was observed in the fossil record CONTRADICTED evolutionary theory.

There was no evidence of transition from lower to higher forms as expected: "These difficulties and objections may be classed under the following heads:-Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" Darwin in The Origin of Species.

And once that was established evolution should have been thrown into the garbage. Even Darwin had serious reservations about his own theory, but did that stop anyone including Darwin?

"That many and grave objections may be advanced against the theory of descent with modification through natural selection, I do not deny. I have endeavoured to give to them their full force. Nothing at first can appear more difficult to believe than that the more complex organs and instincts should have been perfected not by means superior to, though analogous with, human reason, but by the accumulation of innumerable slight variations, each good for the individual possessor...

...On this doctrine of the extermination of an infinitude of connecting links, between the living and extinct inhabitants of the world, and at each successive period between the extinct and still older species, why is not every geological formation charged with such links? Why does not every collection of fossil remains afford plain evidence of the gradation and mutation of the forms of life? We meet with no such evidence, and this is the most obvious and forcible of the many objections which may be urged against my theory. Darwin in The Origin of Species.

Exactly. The whole thing is to try and dismiss God. Plain and simple. It is NOT science by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Enoch111]

Exactly. The whole thing is to try and dismiss God. Plain and simple. It is NOT science by any stretch of the imagination.

Absolutely correct. It is pseudo-science, or "science falsely so called". And indeed it is an attack on (1) the veracity of the Bible and (2) on the power of God to create the universe out of nothing -- merely by speaking things into existence.

There is no doubt that (1) there is a fossil record, (2) dinosaur bones are found in great abundance, and (3) dinosaurs have essentially been extinct since the Flood. But that does not prove evolution at all, neither does it prove that subterranean oil is "fossil fuel". What it does prove is that there was a universal flood which destroyed all living creatures and their bones remained in the earth.

 

[Justadude]

So if what you all are saying is true (scientists can't study events they didn't see happen), what do forensic scientists do? Should we tell them to quit their jobs? Should we immediately release prisoners who were convicted via forensic evidence?

I've seen Christians make some strange arguments about science before, but this one is really out there.

 

[reformed1689]

So if what you all are saying is true (scientists can't study events they didn't see happen), what do forensic scientists do? Should we tell them to quit their jobs? Should we immediately release prisoners who were convicted via forensic evidence?

I've seen Christians make some strange arguments about science before, but this one is really out there.

No, this is a strawman argument.

 

[Justadude]

No, this is a strawman argument.

How?

 

[reformed1689]

How?

When have we ever said you can't study an event you did not see happen? That has not been stated here. And forensics is not an apples to apples comparison. Forensics are based on what is actually known about what happens in those events based on events that HAVE been observed. It's a completely different category.

 

[Justadude]

When have we ever said you can't study an event you did not see happen? That has not been stated here.

You did. The Truth of Genesis

And forensics is not an apples to apples comparison. Forensics are based on what is actually known about what happens in those events based on events that HAVE been observed. It's a completely different category.

You may think that's so, but I'll repeat that I'm content to let scientists decide what they can and can't study.

 

[reformed1689]

You did. The Truth of Genesis

I think you need to re-read that post you referenced. There are three words, not one.

You may think that's so, but I'll repeat that I'm content to let scientists decide what they can and can't study.

Then you are being willfully ignorant of the facts. And again, DOUBLE STANDARD. You pick and choose who you listen to based on your belief then decry others that do the same. Very hypocritical.

 

[Justadude]

I think you need to re-read that post you referenced. There are three words, not one.

Then you do agree that scientists can study events they didn't see happen.

Then you are being willfully ignorant of the facts. And again, DOUBLE STANDARD. You pick and choose who you listen to based on your belief then decry others that do the same. Very hypocritical.

I listen to scientists when it comes to science. Apparently you see that as problematic.

 

[reformed1689]

Then you do agree that scientists can study events they didn't see happen.

Yes, but without certain observations they cannot come up with definitive answers. That being said, this is a red herring to the topic. We are not talking about whether or not scientists can study aspects of origins. We are asking whether they can study the origin itself. They cannot. They can study the impact and after effects, but not the event itself.

 

[reformed1689]

I listen to scientists when it comes to science. Apparently you see that as problematic.

You listen to SOME scientists. You pick and choose. And you dismiss some scientists as not real because of your bias.

 

[Justadude]

Yes, but without certain observations they cannot come up with definitive answers. That being said, this is a red herring to the topic. We are not talking about whether or not scientists can study aspects of origins. We are asking whether they can study the origin itself. They cannot. They can study the impact and after effects, but not the event itself.

I'll repeat, I'm content to let scientists decide what they can and cannot study.

You listen to SOME scientists. You pick and choose. And you dismiss some scientists as not real because of your bias.

I dismiss those who work at places like ICR because they are not doing science, and are instead engaging in Christian apologetics. That's not bias on my part, it's a result of them requiring all their employees to agree to work under the rule where anything that goes against their interpretation of the Bible is automatically wrong. That's not science, it's apologetics, therefore they are not doing science, therefore they are not scientists, therefore when I dismiss them I am not dismissing science from scientists but am instead dismissing apologetics from a Christian apologetics organization.

 

[reformed1689]

I'll repeat, I'm content to let scientists decide what they can and cannot study.


I dismiss those who work at places like ICR because they are not doing science, and are instead engaging in Christian apologetics. That's not bias on my part, it's a result of them requiring all their employees to agree to work under the rule where anything that goes against their interpretation of the Bible is automatically wrong. That's not science, it's apologetics, therefore they are not doing science, therefore they are not scientists, therefore when I dismiss them I am not dismissing science from scientists but am instead dismissing apologetics from a Christian apologetics organization.

Your dishonesty is clearly on display.

 

[Justadude]

Your dishonesty is clearly on display.

How?

 

[reformed1689]

How?

You say you listen to scientists, but deny that you are choosy about which scientists, then try to say some scientists aren't real scientists. It's just dishonesty and bias. You have no credibility.

 

[Justadude]

You say you listen to scientists, but deny that you are choosy about which scientists, then try to say some scientists aren't real scientists.

People who work under the rule "anything that disagrees with our interpretation of the Bible is automatically wrong" are not doing science and therefore aren't scientists. I don't even understand how you can dispute that obvious fact. Please explain your thinking here.

It's just dishonesty and bias. You have no credibility.

That makes zero sense. Do you think anyone who calls themselves "scientists" are automatically scientists? Is that all it takes, just to call oneself a "scientist"? Or are there requirements and standards one must follow before the label "scientist" can be accurately applied? Please explain.

 

[Truth OT]

Carbon dating that makes assumptions?

Carbon dating is but 1 form of radiometric dating and it is very accurate for more recent (<50,000 years if memory serves). There are many other radiometric dating methods.