|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Former Evolutionists who became Creation Scientists - 8/11/2008 9:53:52 AM
|
|
|
Consecrated2God
Posts: 4913
Joined: 4/4/2005
From: Formerly Jesus Land
Status: offline
|
Sorry about that. Here's the article I meant to link to. LINK
From the article:
quote:
A massive blow to catastrophism came during the years 1830 to 1833, when Charles Lyell (1797–1875), a lawyer and former student of Buckland, published his influential three-volume work Principles of Geology. Reviving and augmenting the ideas of Hutton, Lyell’s Principles set forth the principles by which he thought geological interpretations should be made. His theory was a radical uniformitarianism in which he insisted that only present-day processes of geological change at present-day rates of intensity and magnitude should be used to interpret the rock record of past geological activity. In other words, geological processes of change have been uniform throughout Earth history. No continental or global catastrophic floods have ever occurred, insisted Lyell.
(Bolding added by me--this is where the billions of years theory started.)
_____________________________
<--Plantation house in Louisiana
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Former Evolutionists who became Creation Scientists - 8/11/2008 10:48:27 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3159
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
Better yet, TRY THIS ONE!
THIS LINK is also very relevant.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Former Evolutionists who became Creation Scientists - 8/11/2008 12:15:59 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1084
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Consecrated2God
Sorry about that. Here's the article I meant to link to. LINK
From the article:
quote:
A massive blow to catastrophism came during the years 1830 to 1833, when Charles Lyell (1797–1875), a lawyer and former student of Buckland, published his influential three-volume work Principles of Geology. Reviving and augmenting the ideas of Hutton, Lyell’s Principles set forth the principles by which he thought geological interpretations should be made. His theory was a radical uniformitarianism in which he insisted that only present-day processes of geological change at present-day rates of intensity and magnitude should be used to interpret the rock record of past geological activity. In other words, geological processes of change have been uniform throughout Earth history. No continental or global catastrophic floods have ever occurred, insisted Lyell.
(Bolding added by me--this is where the billions of years theory started.)
Previously, you stated "The whole reason for the billions [of] years theory is because it takes time--lots of it--to evolve something from nothing."
But your most recent post credits Lyell, who published his works on geology before Darwin published his evolutionary theory.
Lyell wasn't exactly the first, but it's true that an old earth is a result of uniformitarian thinking. But this had nothing to do with biological evolution, it stems entirely from the science of geology.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Former Evolutionists who became Creation Scientists - 8/13/2008 11:32:34 AM
|
|
|
ianz
Posts: 281
Joined: 12/22/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Consecrated2God
An athiest cannot argue for a young earth based soley on evidence, because he doesn't believe in God. If he admits the earth is young, he has no explanation for how it came into being. The only theories out there that do not involve either God (or some other deity) or billions of years involve aliens or computer simulation games from other planets.
I'm atheist, and I can't see a problem with accepting evidence if it was put forth showing that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Over the years humans have accepted evidence which has dramatically changed our view on many things (including the age of the Earth and universe). Tough challenge though, given that so much evidence points to a very old Earth. Proving a young Earth gives more than Evolution theory a headache - it would throw out virtually all we have come to know in most of the other scientific disciplines as well. YECs just pick on Evolution Theory because by nature it has more holes in it to play with.
I too would be far more impressed with YEC science if it happened to have some proponents who are not also YEC.
Otherwise it's one heck of a coincidence that all YE science I've ever seen is written by self-professed YEC. Real horse and cart stuff!
Regards, Ian
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Former Evolutionists who became Creation Scientists - 8/13/2008 12:56:07 PM
|
|
|
Consecrated2God
Posts: 4913
Joined: 4/4/2005
From: Formerly Jesus Land
Status: offline
|
quote:
I'm atheist, and I can't see a problem with accepting evidence if it was put forth showing that the Earth is 6,000 years old.
What would be your theory if you accepted a young earth?
quote:
Otherwise it's one heck of a coincidence that all YE science I've ever seen is written by self-professed YEC
Why is it a coincidence that those who believe in a young earth are promoting it, and those who don't are not?
The thing is, it's more than a theoritical question. Many scientists have come face to face with evidence that compells them to believe the earth is young, and in their spiritual journey they also come to believe in God. I believe that the ones that still refuse to believe in God simply ignore the evidence.
_____________________________
<--Plantation house in Louisiana
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Former Evolutionists who became Creation Scientists - 8/13/2008 1:13:30 PM
|
|
|
ianz
Posts: 281
Joined: 12/22/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Consecrated2God
quote:
I'm atheist, and I can't see a problem with accepting evidence if it was put forth showing that the Earth is 6,000 years old.
What would be your theory if you accepted a young earth? Hello
I don't know. Whatever evidence put forward would probably need to be so compelling as to offer an explanation for that as well.
quote:
quote:
Otherwise it's one heck of a coincidence that all YE science I've ever seen is written by self-professed YEC
Why is it a coincidence that those who believe in a young earth are promoting it, and those who don't are not?
Well, it's a coincidence that all YE supporters are YEC. There are no YE supporters who are not also YEC. (At least, none I've come across - correct me if I am wrong.)
quote:
The thing is, it's more than a theoritical question. Many scientists have come face to face with evidence that compells them to believe the earth is young, and in their spiritual journey they also come to believe in God.
I was under the impression that it doesn't happen in this order. My impression is that one is YEC before one undertakes science to prove the Earth is young. Are there examples of scientists (from a relevant field, i.e. one for which the age of the Earth is relevant) who accept that the Earth is very young, and who are not Christian?
quote:
I believe that the ones that still refuse to believe in God simply ignore the evidence.
I think you're confusing two matters here:
1 is the Earth young or old.
2 does God exist.
This thread is about the age of the Earth. It is not relevant to know whether or not God exists to answer this question. The Earth might be billions, thousands, or a few hours old. The evidence before us strongly suggests it is about 4.5 billion years old.
Regards, Ian
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Former Evolutionists who became Creation Scientists - 8/13/2008 1:28:42 PM
|
|
|
Consecrated2God
Posts: 4913
Joined: 4/4/2005
From: Formerly Jesus Land
Status: offline
|
quote:
My impression is that one is YEC before one undertakes science to prove the Earth is young.
I'm sure that many creation scientists were creationists before they were scientists, but there are also many who were athist evolutionist scientists, and then became convinced by the evidence that (a) evolution could not be true, (b) there is compelling evidence for a young earth and (c) therefore God must exist.
quote:
Are there examples of scientists (from a relevant field, i.e. one for which the age of the Earth is relevant) who accept that the Earth is very young, and who are not Christian?
There are a few people that have alternative explanations (aliens, computer simulations) but most scientists who accept a young earth also accept the existance of God.
_____________________________
<--Plantation house in Louisiana
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Former Evolutionists who became Creation Scientists - 8/13/2008 1:47:45 PM
|
|
|
ianz
Posts: 281
Joined: 12/22/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Consecrated2God
quote:
This thread is about the age of the Earth. It is not relevant to know whether or not God exists to answer this question. The Earth might be billions, thousands, or a few hours old. The evidence before us strongly suggests it is about 4.5 billion years old.
Actually, this thread is about former evolutions who became Christian scientists. 
Oh - I guess I lost track. My bad (it's late).
I am sure there are some evolutionists who later accepted YEC and in so doing rejected evolution theory.
However what I'd be interested to know is whether there are any scientists who interpret the evidence before us and are not Christian. YECs tell us that the evidence points to a young Earth. If so, then it should not matter whether one is Christian or not - so it stands to reason that there must be non-Christian scientists who have interpreted the evidence and also found the Earth to be 6,000 years old.
Regards, Ian
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Former Evolutionists who became Creation Scientists - 8/13/2008 1:50:35 PM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 528
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Consecrated2God
quote:
I'm atheist, and I can't see a problem with accepting evidence if it was put forth showing that the Earth is 6,000 years old.
What would be your theory if you accepted a young earth?
I can't accept an young earth when so much evidence from different fields points to the earth and the universe being very old. There would have to be some evidence for young earth as well as some explanation as to why all the evidence from different fields indicating an old earth should be dismissed.
What would your theory of gravity be if you accepted that apples fly off into space instead of falling to the ground?
quote:
I believe that the ones that still refuse to believe in God simply ignore the evidence.
No. It is the YECs who ignore all the evidence that goes against their religious beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Former Evolutionists who became Creation Scientists - 8/13/2008 2:33:14 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Consecrated2God
I'm sure that many creation scientists were creationists before they were scientists, but there are also many who were athist evolutionist scientists, and then became convinced by the evidence that (a) evolution could not be true, (b) there is compelling evidence for a young earth and (c) therefore God must exist.
I don't think I've ever once seen an atheist/evolutionist convert to Christianity over the age of the earth. Generally, the norm seems to be that they convert to Christianity first, then acquire the creationists beliefs and discard evolutionary theory as a consequence of the conversion. I havent seen any that strictly felt compelled by evidence of a 6k year old earth and decided to convert to Christianity.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Former Evolutionists who became Creation Scientists - 8/13/2008 4:07:34 PM
|
|
|
Consecrated2God
Posts: 4913
Joined: 4/4/2005
From: Formerly Jesus Land
Status: offline
|
Here's a good example of the thought processes of an evolutionist who begins to doubt evolution, but does not want to accept that God exists. He finds there aren't any good alternatives.
quote:
Are there any scientific alternatives to evolution?
<snip>
Let me say right off that for me creation/intelligent design...does not fit with my understanding of G-d. But given that I can't accept (the arguments for God)...do I have a viable alternative hypothesis?
I'm starting to feel like I don't. Not that there couldn't be, but that there aren't. Which is not to say that there aren't lots of alternative hypothesis with regards to evolution. Darwin probably had it right, and natural selection probably has played a big role in the evolution of life that we see today. But how large a role have random events probably played in evolution. What would happen if we could rewind and start it all over again? I don't know- its something worth thinking about and maybe even investigating experimentally. Does the fossil record show gradual evolution? Or has is it really better described by punctuated equilibrium? And has that evolution proceeded in small gradual steps? Or have they been big leaps? Do you believe in hopeful monsters? (I don't.)
These are all interesting questions, I think. They are certainly all active areas of research in evolution. But none of them deny that evolution has occurred. Is this really a problem? Am I dealing with an outdated or unrealistic notion of how science works? Is this just more proof of what Kuhn says... Could someone help me out here? I'm beginning to feel like I'm having a crisis of faith... (emphasis mine)
LINK
_____________________________
<--Plantation house in Louisiana
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Former Evolutionists who became Creation Scientists - 8/13/2008 4:37:12 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1084
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Consecrated2God
Here's a good example of the thought processes of an evolutionist who begins to doubt evolution, but does not want to accept that God exists. He finds there aren't any good alternatives.
quote:
Are there any scientific alternatives to evolution?
<snip>
Let me say right off that for me creation/intelligent design...does not fit with my understanding of G-d. But given that I can't accept (the arguments for God)...do I have a viable alternative hypothesis?
I think you're misreading the poster.
"Let me say right off that for me creation/intelligent design is not a valid alternative for two reasons. First, I'm not sure how these alternatives are falsifiable, an important part of any scientific theory. But more crucially, these ideas do not work for me because this notion of creation does not fit with my understanding of G-d. If they work for you, than I don't need to disabuse you of this notion. (Its not that I don't care, its just that its none of my business what you believe.) But given that I can't accept them, and don't see how they are scientific, do I have a viable alternative hypothesis? "
The person is not rejecting arguments for god, just creationism and ID. The person seems to actually have a particular "understanding of G-d" that suggests to me that the person accepts the existence of G-d.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Former Evolutionists who became Creation Scientists - 8/13/2008 9:34:18 PM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 1931
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Fledgling
http://www.doesgodexist.org/AboutClayton/PastLife.html
Dr. Robert Clayton is one and his theory of why he changed is very compelling.
Eh, not quite. While his study of science directed him towards believing in God, his study of science has also directed him away from believing in a young earth and Noah's flood.
LINK
-Dan.
Link fixed by moderator
< Message edited by Consecrated2God -- 8/14/2008 8:43:15 AM >
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
