What are the problems with your theory?

[Twonky]

Creationists/Evolutionists -

I think another thing to be aware of during a debate is the weaknesses of your argument. Certainly there are things the creationist and evolutionist can't answer, and I would suspect that they know what those are.

Play devil's advocate for your belief and ask the tough questions you can't answer yet. This should be relatively simple for those interested in complete truth and not just their belief.

For example, if you're a Bible believing YEC, there seems to be an overwhelming amount of evidence that points to an old earth. How would a YEC reconcile this other than the standard 'the dating method is flawed' argument?

[smugg]

Is there something that makes you think science doesn't know there are questions it can't answer yet?

Isn't the topic at hand the questions science has answered?

I know you've been led to believe differently, but scientists accept the theories they accept because the evidence led them there. There are areas where what research has been done hasn't led to much in the way of answers. This is well known and accepted. While science would like to answer every question, nobody who's looked into it would be foolish enough to say we're even close. Does this somehow mean that what research has been done can't be used yet?

[Twonky]

Originally posted by smugg
Is there something that makes you think science doesn't know there are questions it can't answer yet?

Not sure what you're getting at here? The purpose of my new post is to get from both sides the weaknesses of their arguments? I'm completely aware that both sides have questions yet to be answered. The point was to find out what those questions are as they relate to the debate in question.

Isn't the topic at hand the questions science has answered?

No. The topic I just started was the questions science hasn't answered yet as it relates to the evolution/creation debate.

I know you've been led to believe differently, but scientists accept the theories they accept because the evidence led them there.

Hmmm... How do you 'know' I've been led this way?

There are areas where what research has been done hasn't led to much in the way of answers. This is well known and accepted.

I know. The whole point of my new post was to see if each side is aware of the questions that haven't been answered.

While science would like to answer every question, nobody who's looked into it would be foolish enough to say we're even close. Does this somehow mean that what research has been done can't be used yet?

No it doesn't mean that and in no way am I suggesting that it does. I would however suggest that this is completely off the topic of what I was asking.

Let me see if I can rephrase it:

We all know there are a lot of questions yet to be answered in the great debate of creation/evolution.

I am simply asking the creationist to play devil's advocate for their position and post questions they can't seem to reconcile and asking the evolutionist to do the same on their position.

Does that make more sense?

[smugg]

Originally posted by Twonky
Not sure what you're getting at here? The purpose of my new post is to get from both sides the weaknesses of their arguments? I'm completely aware that both sides have questions yet to be answered. The point was to find out what those questions are as they relate to the debate in question.

No. The topic I just started was the questions science hasn't answered yet as it relates to the evolution/creation debate.


Hmmm... How do you 'know' I've been led this way?

You're right, it was an unfair thing to write. I'm sorry.

I know. The whole point of my new post was to see if each side is aware of the questions that haven't been answered.

No it doesn't mean that and in no way am I suggesting that it does. I would however suggest that this is completely off the topic of what I was asking.

Let me see if I can rephrase it:

We all know there are a lot of questions yet to be answered in the great debate of creation/evolution.

I am simply asking the creationist to play devil's advocate for their position and post questions they can't seem to reconcile and asking the evolutionist to do the same on their position.

Does that make more sense?

Yes, I think I understand it better. I'm having trouble answering, though, because I just don't see much of it as problems for evolutionary theory -- insofar as it goes, evolution has proven to be accurate. Even though I'm a complete amateur, I'll take a crack at it:

1. Steady change or Punctuated Equilibrium? Punctuated Equilibrium (PE) was put forth by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould to explain the appearance of species in the fossil record. As I understand it, the idea is that changing environmental pressures cause life forms to undergo rapid change after a long period of stability -- which is then followed by another long period of stability. While this does a nice job of explaining the appearance of the fossil record, it is not necessarily predicted by Darwin's theory of evolution.
   
   This brings us to my second point:
   
2. Holes in the fossil record. It's completely unavoidable: not everything which lived on the earth can leave remains after it dies. There will always be gaps. If this weren't true, would the fossil record still support a PE model?
   
   and...
   
3. Time. Large changes (or <shudder> macroevolution) are very difficult to observe because of the time scale on which they take place. It appears life has been present and changing on our planet for billions of years and we've been studying the changes seriously for something like only 150 years. There's probably much to learn from just more observation. It doesn't help that the human life span is tiny on this kind of scale.

That's what comes to me right away. If I can think of more I'll post them later.

[Cephas]

Holes in the fossil record. It's completely unavoidable: not everything which lived on the earth can leave remains after it dies. There will always be gaps. If this weren't true, would the fossil record still support a PE model?

But yet, you want every 'I' dotted when it comes to explaining God's revealation. Your faith astounds me.

[smugg]

Originally posted by Cephas


But yet, you want every 'I' dotted when it comes to explaining God's revealation. Your faith astounds me.

Care to be more specific, or are you just getting some exercise jumping to conclusions?

Look, the original topic of this thread was a request that each of us look at the account we accept and talk about that. There are plenty of other threads where you can bash science and revel in your straw-man presentation of my views.

I am interested in where Twonky intends for this thread to go. It's been a while now and there is a conspicuous absence of Creationist input -- other than this opportunistic shot at my post.

[Twonky]

I'm looking for things like this from creationists.

Distribution of animals from the ark
If all the animals were on the ark, how did koala bears get to Austrailia and nowhere else? How did other animals make it over the oceans to their respective place?

How did carnivores survive without wiping out herbivores?
Wouldn't the lions and other meat eaters have eaten all the herbivores before they had a chance to repopluate the earth?

[Cephas]

Look, the original topic of this thread was a request that each of us look at the account we accept and talk about that. There are plenty of other threads where you can bash science and revel in your straw-man presentation of my views.

Well, that is exactly what I am asking you to do. You seem to so easliy dismiss some whole in a therory with a pacth work explaination of ‘not everything which lived on the earth can leave remains after it dies.’ How can I debate you on this point if you accuse me of building a straw man?

[Twonky]

Originally posted by Cephas
How can I debate you on this point if you accuse me of building a straw man?

You can start by beginning a new thread.

This thread isn't for debating the points, it's just for saying what the points are.

I'm just trying to get to the real questions we should be asking on both sides.

[Cephas]

This thread isn't for debating the points, it's just for saying what the points are.

I missed that in your first post. My apologies to you and smugg.

From a Evolutionary point of view:

• I have difficulty with chemicals coming together to form life by mere chance and then being complex enough to evolve.
• How does evolution account for a caterpillar metamophosizing into a butterfly? Or, any winged creature.
• A siders web
• How does the venus fly trap know there are flys to catch? It seems like it was designed to do that.

From a Creationist point of view:

• Why do bats or moles have eyes? It seems like the eyes have lost their function through evolution.
• Snakes seem to have the remnants of a hind leg. Some snakes even have claws!
• I have seen people that actually look like gorillas!
• Dinosaur fossils seem to dismiss the young earth therory.

[GRANTM]

Hi guys, up until now I have followed but stayed away from posting, because my beliefs , would only convolute ideals, as although a creationist, I am not a Christian.

But the mention, of the "Great Flood" I have pondered, there is scientific evidence that a great Food did take place, in that area of the word, mid east. but i am very skeptical that it encompassed the whole world. that would explain the lack of bio-diversity when that region is compared with other areas, mostnotably Bhutan,and would explain why there is such an abundance of oil beneath the crust. for to have oil deposits, implys, a rich and abundant life form. Just something to ponder
upon.

[Debbiek]

Watch Sky Angels' "Creation Network" & see scientists who are Christians prove that the earth is 6,000 yrs old & prove a global flood happened, etc. AN atheist uses atheist scientists, I believe they don't stand a chance against a Christian scientist or geologist. Some of the scientists even convert to Christianity after being debunked.

[countrymouse]

OK, I'll bite! I take a creationist position, in that I firmly believe God did create the universe.

However, I do see some problems with interpreting the creation material in Genesis in a literal manner, as though it's "newsprint narrative."

For instance, if we are 100% literalistic about the creation material, we have to defend not only a young earth and special creation of each species, we also have to retreat to the position that the material universe is geocentric after all. Sorry 'bout that, Gallileo! The RCC must have been right, after all!

And then there are those 24-hour days, and division between day and night, preceding God's creation of the sun.

Could it be that the creation literature is not a science lesson, but a kingdom lesson???

[Debbiek]

I don't see the problem with Genesis being taken literally. In the Nt Jesus quoted scripture from Genesis as it were literal. There are Christian geologists who can account for the earth being 6000 yrs old and the rest of it. It can be proven by Christians with degrees in science, geology, etc. An atheist scientist has a different view but why should a Christian take the word of an atheist over a Christian who also has degrees? Evolution, big bang, etc doesnt hold up scientifically, but God's Word can be proven & has been by scientists.

[countrymouse]

Except...

What about Galileo? The RCC forced him to recant or face excommunication (and maybe death, but I can't remember) over what? They were upset because Galileo discovered (actually, cofirmed earlier theory) that the earth revolves around the sun, and he had the unmitigated gall to make his discovery public! Why did that bother the church? Because a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 absolutely opposes what Galileo confirmed.

Try sitting down and drawing a picture of the universe the way Genesis 1 represents it when read literally. Can you still tell me that science has proven it to be true?

In fact, no respectable scientist will ever claim to have proven anything, only to have added to the body of evidence for or against a theory.

Blessings,
cm

[Debbiek]

You have to get the satellite system "Sky Angel" it's a Christian satellite system. They have a show called "creation" that will convince you through scientific evidence, by degreed professionals with proof even concerning the speed of light. It's only $10. a month for 35 CHristian channels.

[countrymouse]

But Debbie...!

Are you telling me that you believe the sun revolves around the earth?

[Debbiek]

Give me a Bible verse when you have time.

[countrymouse]

NAS Genesis 1:6-8
6. Then God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
7. God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so.
8. God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

The Hebrew word for "heaven" in verse 8 (as well as throughout Genesis) primarily means "sky," and is translated both ways.


NAS Genesis 1:14-19
14. Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years;
15. and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so.
16. God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; {He made} the stars also.
17. God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,
18. and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.
19. There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

It's important to remember that when Moses wrote all this down for the people, they had no concept of a huge expanse of space dotted with stars as big as the sun, or even that they lived on a moving ball of rock, rather than on a flat expanse. Moses didn't know, either; if he had told them they wouldn't have believed him. (Shucks, they had enough trouble with what he did tell them).


NAS Amos 9:6
6. The One who builds His upper chambers in the heavens And has founded His vaulted dome over the earth,

NAS Joshua 10:13
13. So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, Until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies. Is it not written in the book of Jashar? And the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go {down} for about a whole day.

Even late into Old Testament history, the physical concept of heaven was of a dome in which the sun, moon, and stars moved over a stationary earth.


Then there's just the nature of the literature itself, which is revelatory. It sets the pattern for prophetic symbolism throughout the rest of the Bible!


There are plenty of believers who do not agree with this, and I'm not offended by that. But those are some of the reasons behind the way I see the creation material in Genesis.

Blessings,
cm

[Debbiek]

I read it in the KJV. I couldnt find anything in Genesis & when I read what you quoted from genesis I still see nothing that contradicts science.
As for the Amos quote, a chamber is usually vaulted. That doesn't deny science.
NOw the statement in Joshua is different it is "implying" that the earth was stopped at a certain point. BUt it doesnt say that. Even the BMV sets the law for turning on our headlights as "30 minutes before sun down". well it's common saying "sunrise" sun set". we dont correct everyone when they say it. maybe i will start. lol.
so joshua didnt know How the earth revolved around the sun, but when he told the sun not to move from his sight, it didnt.
God answered his prayer by stopping the earth. And no one fell off. What happened to gravity? Maybe, God made the sun follow Joshua.