- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Found this to be an interesting read:
Similar to the historicity of forensic science is the study of the age of the earth and the science of origins. Like a forensic investigator is not capable of observing a criminal act first-hand, neither are evolutionists or young-earth creationists able to observe the beginning of life. Each side begins with a worldview or bias from which they evaluate the evidence. Evolutionists must rely on their faith in a secular worldview. This belief system is founded upon the study of current, naturalistic processes to develop assumptions of how the origin of the earth and mankind originated. Evolutionists rely exclusively on the ability of man to interpret science and formulate assumptions regarding processes they have never observed. Further, they have no eyewitness testimony to consult for observational details. As seen above in the exoneration rates of criminal misidentifications, mankind is often flawed in their assumptions and conclusions. Therefore, when evaluating evidence, an individual should consider the source. Was there an eyewitness to the event? And more specifically, is the eyewitness confident in their observation?
https://answersingenesis.org/what-is-science/can-forensic-science-trace-worlds-origins/
@dj2becker saidAn interesting dichotomy is the idea that contrasts evolution with creation based on eyewitness testimony. It is uncontested that evolution has no basis of evidence by observation. An evolutionist must take it by faith that energy and chance brought matter and life into existence based on scientific theoretical assumptions, with no eyewitness testimony.
Found this to be an interesting read:
Similar to the historicity of forensic science is the study of the age of the earth and the science of origins. Like a forensic investigator is not capable of observing a criminal act first-hand, neither are evolutionists or young-earth creationists able to observe the beginning of life. Each side begins with a worldview or bias from ...[text shortened]... ervation?
https://answersingenesis.org/what-is-science/can-forensic-science-trace-worlds-origins/
Not so is it with creationism. Creationists have the eyewitness testimony of the creator. God, who cannot lie, tells us exactly how the universe came into existence in a way that's easy to understand and believe.
Faith is not challenged beyond comprehension when one simply believes what God has spoken. Unlike with evolution where one must stretch faith further and further in an attempt to encompass an ever changing theoretical process.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29599
@secondson saidEvolution has nothing to do with how matter and life came into existence. (But rather how it evolved after it did so). Eye witness accounts are not necessary to prove evolution so I absolutely contest your assertion that it has no basis of evidence by observation. Sure, we can't observe evolution as it happens (live) due to the amount of time it takes, but we can certainly observe conclusive evidence in the form of fossils and the like.
An interesting dichotomy is the idea that contrasts evolution with creation based on eyewitness testimony. It is uncontested that evolution has no basis of evidence by observation. An evolutionist must take it by faith that energy and chance brought matter and life into existence based on scientific theoretical assumptions, with no eyewitness testimony.
Not so is it with ...[text shortened]... t stretch faith further and further in an attempt to encompass an ever changing theoretical process.
And no, creationists do not have eye witness accounts either. All you have I'm afraid is a series of man written books compiled by other men into one. And it's worse than that. These ancient writings, far from departing divine wisdom, actually inhibit your ability and willingness to accept verifiable evidence provided by science.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Evolution has nothing to do with how matter and life came into existence.
So it has nothing to with the origin of species ?
It has to do with origins whether it likes is or not. And some evolutionists don't like it because they realize the unsurmountable difficulties in the concept.
So they fed people like you with a mantra - "Oh, Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life."
It would more honest for them just to say it does, but they do not know how, yet.
How did Natural Selection receive its kickstart to begin ?
What was the first instance of biological natural selection ?
Go To - "Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life."
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
@dj2becker
Interesting. But I think it would go for YEC and OLC equally if really true as well as Evos.
What do you think of this verse where Solomon says God has it so that no one can tell what He has done from the beginning? Do you think it is relevant to the matter inconclusive musings on time and space beginnings ?
Ecclesiastes 3:11
English Standard Version
He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man’s heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end.
Berean Study Bible
He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men, yet they cannot fathom the work God has done from beginning to end.
New American Standard Bible
He has made everything appropriate in its time. He has also set eternity in their heart, yet so that man will not find out the work which God has done from the beginning even to the end.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29599
@sonship saidCreation and evolution are 2 separate things. Any difficulty with that is entirely your own.
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
Evolution has nothing to do with how matter and life came into existence.
So it has nothing to with the origin of species ?
It has to do with origins whether it likes is or not. And some evolutionists don't like it because they realize the unsurmountable difficulties in the concept.
So they fed people like you with a mantra ...[text shortened]... f biological natural selection ?
Go To - "Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life."
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
That's a standard retreat used selectively.
Realizing the darling theory fell flat in explaining origin of life they introduced the manuevor - go to Evolution does not concern that.
You bought into it.
Interestingly, WHEN a thoery comes with some hopeful prospects to it, SUDDENLY NPR or Time Magazine assuress us Evolution may have the answer to how life started.
So it depends on the viability of new Evolutionary theories to EXPLAIN origin of life.
When they are clueless - it has nothing to do with origin of life. When a hopeful new paper comes out from some Phd. hoping to inch closer to the problem - then it has something to do with origins.
Then after some hype they usually to go back to the standard safe retreat - "Evolution has nothing to do with what we are at a total loss to explain. "
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
@Proper-Knob
Take the final versions of my edited posts to be how I wish to write.
If not and if editing revisions you reject, then I don't mean to be impolite (most of the time).
@ghost-of-a-duke saidGeez Ghost! You nailed me good with that. I'm speechless. 😶
Evolution has nothing to do with how matter and life came into existence. (But rather how it evolved after it did so). Eye witness accounts are not necessary to prove evolution so I absolutely contest your assertion that it has no basis of evidence by observation. Sure, we can't observe evolution as it happens (live) due to the amount of time it takes, but we can cert ...[text shortened]... om, actually inhibit your ability and willingness to accept verifiable evidence provided by science.
Not! Ok, so maybe I'm a little confused. "Evolution has nothing to do with how matter and life came into existence".
So what you're saying is science does not speak to the question of the origin of things. That evolution only deals with how matter and life developed over time.
If I said that correctly, and that agrees with your assertion, then logically the origin of life, and any discussion about it, is outside the purview of scientific evolutionary inquiry.
The matter of the origin of life is strictly within the domain of the supernatural, which is undetectable by science, apparently.
The dichotomy I spoke of above holds true. There are no common grounds between evolution and creationism that facilitates rational discourse relative to the question of the origin of life and matter, that evolution has no basis with which to engage in such discourse, and only creationism can answer the question.
@proper-knob saidYes, I can understand your conundrum relative to the concept of a creator God that has spoken to certain men by His Spirit revealing the truth about the origin of life.
@SecondSon
Not so is it with creationism. Creationists have the eyewitness testimony of the creator. God, who cannot lie, tells us exactly how the universe came into existence in a way that's easy to understand and believe.
There are really no words to describe this. Quite incredible stuff SecondSon.
And since, according to what the Ghost has posted, evolution doesn't speak to the question about origins, so the assertion that it was God that done it is better than no answer at all.
And, quite frankly, it's a whole lot more fun believing in a creator than knowing nothing at all.
Now we're back full circle to the question about the existence of God. More fun! 🙂
@SecondSon
I have a 'conundrum' in relation to the concept of a Creator God? Tell me more, i was unaware of this.
@proper-knob saidSee what I mean? Two posts in and you're off topic already.
@SecondSon
I have a 'conundrum' in relation to the concept of a Creator God? Tell me more, i was unaware of this.
@SecondSon
Nope, i don't know what you mean. Sorry. Maybe you could elaborate and explain yourself a little better?