There is no “wave of opposition” from scientists who have actually investigated the evidence.
No. Remarkable preservation of some fossils in no way compromises evolution.
No. Nobody here has called anyone an idiot. We (many of whom are former Young Earth Creationists)
have observed that those who promote a young earth view are merely misinformed and in many cases convinced by various ministries to ignore evidence in favor of a particular brand of hermeneutics.
So, with truckloads of data to support it from many different disciplines, evolution is unconvincing, and yet the elegance that comes from sudden creation is convincing? What is convincing about it? That it is simple? Requires no proof or evidence at all? That any child can understand that God magically poofed something into being in order to support your particular interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis?
Is a computer just a box with a spirit in it? To break it down to its systematic components is terribly complex. Is it more elegant to just understand that someone named Siri lives in my phone?
If you are going to be a free thinker, you need to give more effort than mere reliance upon simplicity disguised as elegance as your explanation.
Science may have collected large sums of data, but bias leads to unwarranted conclusions like “Darwinian gradualism is no longer in question”.
Here you demonstrate that you do not understand elegance. Simplicity, which you demean, is a fundamental of elegance. A child’s ability to understand a proposal would serve to reinforce elegance, not negate it.
Your response is confused and out of control since you know God does not answer to me. You sound angry.
Again, you misunderstand elegance. Simplicity is a requirement of elegance. And any effort needs to come from your side. Your replacement model in its current form is not credible.
How dan you deride data-driven conclusions as unwarranted? What data do you present in response. I never stated what you quoted above.
I absolutely understand elegance. I showed that in suggesting that simplicity was inherent in it. I also suggested a child’s ability to understand it as a potential reason for you to prefer elegance. So, what you have said here shows either a lack of understanding on your behalf, or a desire to not understand.
I did not misconstrue elegance. I questioned how elegance serves as a solution to the issue we are discussing.
I’m not angry, I’m distraught. Every month another expert who knows nothing of the subject arrives to parrot information he does not understand, gleaned from dubious sources, and then proclaims, as you have, that the onus is upon everyone else but him to provide the evidence. This, in itself, is not an issue, because all of the evidence comes from the lab, not from anyone else.
You cannot continue to claim that the replacement model is not credible without providing reasons that it is not credible. That something may be more simple is not a reason. And it is the only “evidence” you have provided. You have an ethical challenge. If you wish to converse in an honorable way, then do so by providing evidence in the form of actual reasons why a theory is not valid.
To simply proclaim that others don’t know and don’t understand without explaining why is not responding honorably.
Feel free to explain elegance and why it is a better explanation than “the current replacement model.” Clearly you know much about elegance, because you stated several times that I don’t understand the concept.
What is credible, considering its content, is the fact that even after multiple postings @Greg has given us no response to the following. Would you, please? (Remember, these are clocks that God engineered into creation which validate each other!):
Several times I have pleaded with you to actually work with the evidence. So far, you have chosen to brush off the need to work with the evidence. Consequently you have exhibited exactly zero understanding of the evidence.
Zilch.
Nada.
Rien.
Nichts.
You can shout from the rooftops all day long that the evidence is unconvincing. You can shout from the rooftops that 99% of scientists, of whom tens of thousands are devout Christians, are biased as they interpret the evidence.
Until you can show that you have obeyed God’s Word in Proverbs 18:17, and have actually worked hard at understanding what the evidence is, then here’s how much credibility you have:
Zilch.
Nada.
Rien.
Nichts.
I’m willing to listen, if you’re willing to deal with evidence and the inferences that can be made from it.
Are you up to the challenge? So far, you have shown no inclination to do anything other than express opinions without evidence.
Best regards,
Chris
Not deep. I’m not going to answer, because I don’t think you’re actually interested.
I’ve seen claims like this more often than I can remember, but not one claimant has ever followed up with the consequence that if this is true, and all theists and all atheists were created with the ability to think logically, then why do we not only come to very different conclusions, but some of us conclude that we weren’t created? That’s a contradiction.
Whereas if we did evolve, and are thus (quoting Greg) not necessarily “capable of making accurate conclusions from the evidence”, it would follow that some of us are better at thinking logically than others, and that individually we often (some more than others) come to incorrect conclusions. No such contradiction here.
The point was that you should have tried that yourself, instead of posting another bunch of unsupported and unconvincing opinions.
It sure does.
The Virginia opossum is not 100 million years old, only 100 thousand. Nor does it have the same anatomy as preceding species - among other differences, it has a shorter tail, it has more body fat, and it can grow to twice the size of other opossums.
This has been pointed out to you before, but to no avail.
My emphasis:
We know no such thing. There is no problem with some species having little morphological change over many millions of years. We are not engaged in spin.
You have just called everyone who accepts living fossils on an old earth (including most Christians) not merely mistaken, but lying. Yet it is you that persists in spreading falsehoods.
You don’t deserve a polite response.
Well, it seems that, while we have not seemingly changed anyone’s opinions here, this thread illustrates exactly why YEC maintains such traction. In a word, persistence.
I’ll allow Greg to respond and then shut this one down. It seems to have run its course.
Logical thinking about the history of our existence would be wise to consider other philosophical categories that build the logic other than just materialism. There are smart people on both sides of this history of life theorizing. Being smart is not enough. Being wise is better. For guys like me who believe in God and the Bible, wisdom tells us that some of the things we make judgements on within a purely materialistic perspective are fools because God, by definition, is supernatural and involved in the interworkings of life on this planet.
And to reiterate: if you think that it is justifiable to accept the conclusions and judgements by those scientists who do so out of a fully materialistic frame of mind, then they must be held to account to that standard with the question,"How can you know that you are not just a product of a material paradigm incapably inept for true determiming of anything at all? How do you know that you are not just a cog in a machine spitting out other machine parts that have no true reasonable value for understanding that which is transcendent and true?
Fortunately for us all, this is not true of humankind at all! We were all created by God as in His image and God has not only made Himself aware to all thru creation, but He has also placed eternity into the hearts of man. The problem is is that we suppress this with desires for self glory, pride and a tendancy to avoid accountability to our Creator for holy living. Christian scientists will tell me, “well i am different than that and i believe we evolved.” I challenge them to then consider the sacrifice of going against the worlds mainstream philosophical naturalism that is that towards a creation model upheld by God in Scripture!
Jesus himself addressed false judgementalism in his most famous sermon in Mt 5 thru 7. In that ch 7 Jesus speaks on “judging” He tells us that the basis or measurement one bases judgement upon will actually be used against them. (The people group from whom Jesus was born missed Jesus for this bery reason of accessing Jesus through the wrong measurements) I personally fear for those scientists who claim faith and make judgements about our existence and thus about God Himself from a basis or “measurement” within a philosophical materialism camp because they will be held to the same standard when they are judged. For me, of course i have questions about why the earth fossils, dna have certain appearances that both support an omniscient God as well as the intracacies within the natural which God created, but i choose to allow what God says of these be the main judgement and not my opinion. I am just a dot in the scheme of things afterall. Ultimately, the basis of judgement upon my soul rests upon “The Word” who is Jesus, God in the flesh, “Through whom all things were made, without him nothing was made that has been made.” (Jn 1:3) When i am held to account before our Great God, it will be the righteousness of Jesus that i hold as my own alone. There is nothing good in me, in the cross of calvary is where i stand!
Reopened by request… or back by popular demand…
@Chris_Falter actually sent a PM and thought that noUCA was not given an appropriate response time, so I did so. Chris, feel free to respond and I’ll close it down.
Never mind, Chris… see that it has been moved… See the link above. Mike
Oops, I lost Chris Falter’s post, and noUCA’s reply doesn’t make sense without it. — I have a task that needs my attention, then I’ll be back to fix this.
/fnord
I got it. Moved it. MC