In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood-The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview.

[LittleNipper]

That error is that there is no GOD.

No science starts with that assumption. Where do you get this absurd nonsense? Take my advice: never, ever talk about science ever again.

I never said that SCIENCE starts with any assumption. Science is only a tool. Scientists can and most certainly have disregarded GOD as a starting point. They often begin at the point of a personal hunch.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's the secular reasoning that is wrong because such assumptions begin with with an error of thought. That error is that there is no GOD.

That is you, saying that science is secular reasoning, and that it begins with the erroneous assumption that there is no God. In plain english. You say the science is not wrong, and then you disagree with the science. Nice two-step you are trying there, but you are only fooling yourself, bud.

 

[LittleNipper]

It's the secular reasoning that is wrong because such assumptions begin with with an error of thought. That error is that there is no GOD.

That is you, saying that science is secular reasoning, and that it begins with the erroneous assumption that there is no God. In plain english. You say the science is not wrong, and then you disagree with the science. Nice two-step you are trying there, but you are only fooling yourself, bud.

Let me make an explain! Creationism is another scientific study and a creationist can be a scientist. If you disagree, you've only proven my point.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Creationism is another scientific study and a creationist can be a scientist

Creationism is not a scientific study. There is no such thing as creation science.

A creationist can be a scientist... and? So what? Creationists can do a lot of things. That doesn't mean their belief in creationism informs anything they do in science.

 

[LittleNipper]

Creationism is another scientific study and a creationist can be a scientist

Creationism is not a scientific study. There is no such thing as creation science.

A creationist can be a scientist... and? So what? Creationists can do a lot of things. That doesn't mean their belief in creationism informs anything they do in science.

Okay, thanks for totally agreeing that Creationism is scientific and that those investigating that scientific endeavor are scientists. I thought you disagreed---clearly I was wrong.

 

[LittleNipper]

So to recap:12 Unscientific Arguments Evolutionists Should Avoid
For years, we’ve maintained a list of arguments creationists should avoid. There are enough good arguments for biblical accuracy and a young earth that dubious claims can safely be discarded. Now we want to address a similar topic: arguments evolutionists should avoid.

Argument 1: “Evolution Is a Fact”
When our core beliefs are attacked, it’s often easy for humans to retreat to statements such as this: “My belief is a fact, and yours is wrong.” That’s exactly why we cannot trust mere human understanding to explain the unobservable past—emotion and pride get in the way. Evolution is not a fact, no matter how many times evolutionists say it is. It’s a framework built on assumptions about the past—assumptions that will never have direct, first-hand, observational proof.

Argument 2: “Only the Uneducated Reject Evolution”
Besides the arrogance of such statements, this argument has no footing and should be cast off. Mainly, those who make this claim usually define “educated people” as those who accept evolution. Anyone who disagrees fails the test, no matter what their background (e.g., if we follow this ideology, Isaac Newton must have been uneducated). There are many lists of well-educated scholars who look to the Bible for answers and we could point out Darwin’s own deficit of formal education (he earned a bachelor’s in theology). But the bigger issue is that education—or lack—does not guarantee the validity of a person’s position.

Argument 3: “Overwhelming Evidence in All Fields of Science Supports Evolution”
The irony, of course, is that for centuries prior to Darwin’s publication of On the Origin of Species,the majority of scientists found the opposite to be true: the “evidence” supported creation. What changed? Not the evidence. Rather, the starting point changed (i.e., moving from the Bible, God’s Word, to humanism, man’s word). Creationists continue to see everything in light of God’s Word and all evidence as supporting the biblical account. In reality, there is no “neutral” starting point; everyone—whether they acknowledge it or not—interprets the “facts” according to a particular way of thinking (i.e., worldview).

Argument 4: Doubting Evolution Is Like Doubting Gravity
Why does this argument fail? We’ll show you. Take a pencil or pen. Hold it in the air. Then drop it to the floor. That’s gravity. Next, make a single-celled organism—like an amoeba—turn into a goat. Go ahead. We’ll wait. . . . No? As you can see, there’s a fundamental difference between operational science, which can be tested through repeatable experimentation, and historical science, which cannot.

Argument 5: Doubting Evolution Is Like Believing the Earth Is Flat
Ironically, the Bible describes the earth as round and hanging in space—long before this could have been directly observed (Job 26:10; Isaiah 40:22). The appeal of this claim is that it stereotypes creationists as stuck in the past, since the common assumption is that people once universally believed the earth was flat before science “proved” otherwise (which wasn’t the case—only a few bought into the idea that the earth was flat). Direct, repeatable observation shows us the earth is round and orbiting the sun. Evolutionary stories about fossils are not direct observations; they’re assumption-based beliefs.

Argument 6: It’s Here, So It Must Have Evolved
A conclusion does not prove the premises are true. That is, if the answer is “four,” we could arrive at that any number of ways: 2 + 2, 5 - 1, etc. In the same way, evolutionists often assume that since certain species or traits exist, this is proof of evolution because that’s how it must have happened. This argument, however, is self-reflexive and useless. The Bible offers another (and more sound) framework for how those traits and species came to be.

Argument 7: “Natural Selection Is Evolution”
This is likely the most abused argument on the list—and most in need of being scrapped. Often evolutionists bait people into showing them a change that is merely natural selection and then switch to say this proves molecules-to-man evolution. However, this is quite misleading. Natural selection, even according to evolutionists, does not have the power to generate anything “new.” The observable process can only act upon existing characteristics so that some members of a species are more likely to survive. In fact, it’s an important component of the biblical worldview.

Argument 8: “Common Design Means Common Ancestry”
Historical common descent is not and cannot be confirmed through observation. Rather, certain observations are explained by assumptions about the past. These observations, we might add, have alternative explanations. Common body plans (homology), for example, do not prove common descent—that’s an assumption. A common Designer fits the evidence just as well, if not better.

Argument 9: “Sedimentary Layers Show Millions of Years of Geological Activity.”
Sedimentary layers show one thing: sedimentary layers. In other words, we can—and should—study the rocks, but the claim that rocks prove the earth must be billions of years old ignores one important point: such an interpretation is built upon a stack of assumptions. When we start from the Bible and examine the rocks within the framework of a global Flood, the need for long ages vanishes.

Argument 10: “Mutations Drive Evolution.”
Perhaps because of movies and fiction, the popular idea is that mutations make evolution go. Given enough time, shifts in the genetic code will produce all the variety of plants and animals on earth—and beyond. The problem? Mutations cannot produce the types of changes evolution requires—not even close. Some may benefit an organism (e.g., beetles on a windy island losing wings), but virtually every time mutations come with a cost.

Argument 11: The Scopes Trial
Misconceptions about the Scopes trial run rampant. Often, accounts sound something like this: Fundamentalist Christian bigots arrested an innocent biology teacher fighting for scientific freedom, and while they won the court case, they ultimately lost the public perception battle to the well reasoned presentation of the defense. Thanks to the play Inherit the Wind, this common—though completely flawed—perception of the event continues to be used against creationists. But real history presents a much different story.

Argument 12: “Science vs. Religion!”
News stories thrive on conflict and intrigue, and one common theme presents science and religion as opposing forces—reason struggling to overcome draconian divine revelation. It grabs attention, but it's untrue. Many atheists and humanists oppose biblical Christianity, but science does not. After all, the truth of a risen Savior and an inerrant Bible puts quite the damper on the belief that God cannot exist. However, science, as a tool for research, works quite well within (and, in fact, requires) a God-created universe. Otherwise, there’d be no reason to do science in the first place.

Why address these arguments?
Most of the attacks against the Bible and those who trust in it are based on flawed premises and faulty logic, which is why we point out the arguments above as just a sampling.

Beliefs about the past—and arguments against what God says—have real consequences. If we do demolish such strongholds, it’s because we want as many as possible to experience the fullness of God in Christ.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Okay, thanks for totally agreeing that Creationism is scientific

I clearly do not agree and said exactly the opposite. How bizarre...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So to recap:12 Unscientific Arguments Evolutionists Should Avoid
For years, we’ve maintained a list of arguments creationists should avoid. There are enough good arguments for biblical accuracy and a young earth that dubious claims can safely be discarded. Now we want to address a similar topic: arguments evolutionists should avoid.

Argument 1: “Evolution Is a Fact”
When our core beliefs are attacked, it’s often easy for humans to retreat to statements such as this: “My belief is a fact, and yours is wrong.” That’s exactly why we cannot trust mere human understanding to explain the unobservable past—emotion and pride get in the way. Evolution is not a fact, no matter how many times evolutionists say it is. It’s a framework built on assumptions about the past—assumptions that will never have direct, first-hand, observational proof.

Argument 2: “Only the Uneducated Reject Evolution”
Besides the arrogance of such statements, this argument has no footing and should be cast off. Mainly, those who make this claim usually define “educated people” as those who accept evolution. Anyone who disagrees fails the test, no matter what their background (e.g., if we follow this ideology, Isaac Newton must have been uneducated). There are many lists of well-educated scholars who look to the Bible for answers and we could point out Darwin’s own deficit of formal education (he earned a bachelor’s in theology). But the bigger issue is that education—or lack—does not guarantee the validity of a person’s position.

Argument 3: “Overwhelming Evidence in All Fields of Science Supports Evolution”
The irony, of course, is that for centuries prior to Darwin’s publication of On the Origin of Species,the majority of scientists found the opposite to be true: the “evidence” supported creation. What changed? Not the evidence. Rather, the starting point changed (i.e., moving from the Bible, God’s Word, to humanism, man’s word). Creationists continue to see everything in light of God’s Word and all evidence as supporting the biblical account. In reality, there is no “neutral” starting point; everyone—whether they acknowledge it or not—interprets the “facts” according to a particular way of thinking (i.e., worldview).

Argument 4: Doubting Evolution Is Like Doubting Gravity
Why does this argument fail? We’ll show you. Take a pencil or pen. Hold it in the air. Then drop it to the floor. That’s gravity. Next, make a single-celled organism—like an amoeba—turn into a goat. Go ahead. We’ll wait. . . . No? As you can see, there’s a fundamental difference between operational science, which can be tested through repeatable experimentation, and historical science, which cannot.

Argument 5: Doubting Evolution Is Like Believing the Earth Is Flat
Ironically, the Bible describes the earth as round and hanging in space—long before this could have been directly observed (Job 26:10; Isaiah 40:22). The appeal of this claim is that it stereotypes creationists as stuck in the past, since the common assumption is that people once universally believed the earth was flat before science “proved” otherwise (which wasn’t the case—only a few bought into the idea that the earth was flat). Direct, repeatable observation shows us the earth is round and orbiting the sun. Evolutionary stories about fossils are not direct observations; they’re assumption-based beliefs.

Argument 6: It’s Here, So It Must Have Evolved
A conclusion does not prove the premises are true. That is, if the answer is “four,” we could arrive at that any number of ways: 2 + 2, 5 - 1, etc. In the same way, evolutionists often assume that since certain species or traits exist, this is proof of evolution because that’s how it must have happened. This argument, however, is self-reflexive and useless. The Bible offers another (and more sound) framework for how those traits and species came to be.

Argument 7: “Natural Selection Is Evolution”
This is likely the most abused argument on the list—and most in need of being scrapped. Often evolutionists bait people into showing them a change that is merely natural selection and then switch to say this proves molecules-to-man evolution. However, this is quite misleading. Natural selection, even according to evolutionists, does not have the power to generate anything “new.” The observable process can only act upon existing characteristics so that some members of a species are more likely to survive. In fact, it’s an important component of the biblical worldview.

Argument 8: “Common Design Means Common Ancestry”
Historical common descent is not and cannot be confirmed through observation. Rather, certain observations are explained by assumptions about the past. These observations, we might add, have alternative explanations. Common body plans (homology), for example, do not prove common descent—that’s an assumption. A common Designer fits the evidence just as well, if not better.

Argument 9: “Sedimentary Layers Show Millions of Years of Geological Activity.”
Sedimentary layers show one thing: sedimentary layers. In other words, we can—and should—study the rocks, but the claim that rocks prove the earth must be billions of years old ignores one important point: such an interpretation is built upon a stack of assumptions. When we start from the Bible and examine the rocks within the framework of a global Flood, the need for long ages vanishes.

Argument 10: “Mutations Drive Evolution.”
Perhaps because of movies and fiction, the popular idea is that mutations make evolution go. Given enough time, shifts in the genetic code will produce all the variety of plants and animals on earth—and beyond. The problem? Mutations cannot produce the types of changes evolution requires—not even close. Some may benefit an organism (e.g., beetles on a windy island losing wings), but virtually every time mutations come with a cost.

Argument 11: The Scopes Trial
Misconceptions about the Scopes trial run rampant. Often, accounts sound something like this: Fundamentalist Christian bigots arrested an innocent biology teacher fighting for scientific freedom, and while they won the court case, they ultimately lost the public perception battle to the well reasoned presentation of the defense. Thanks to the play Inherit the Wind, this common—though completely flawed—perception of the event continues to be used against creationists. But real history presents a much different story.

Argument 12: “Science vs. Religion!”
News stories thrive on conflict and intrigue, and one common theme presents science and religion as opposing forces—reason struggling to overcome draconian divine revelation. It grabs attention, but it's untrue. Many atheists and humanists oppose biblical Christianity, but science does not. After all, the truth of a risen Savior and an inerrant Bible puts quite the damper on the belief that God cannot exist. However, science, as a tool for research, works quite well within (and, in fact, requires) a God-created universe. Otherwise, there’d be no reason to do science in the first place.

Why address these arguments?
Most of the attacks against the Bible and those who trust in it are based on flawed premises and faulty logic, which is why we point out the arguments above as just a sampling.

Beliefs about the past—and arguments against what God says—have real consequences. If we do demolish such strongholds, it’s because we want as many as possible to experience the fullness of God in Christ.

What a bunch of irrelevant, self-soothing pap. Evolution is a fact and is the most well supported scientific theory in history. It provides accurate amd useful predictions and makes sense of all of biology. It is supported by all of the evidence, and all of the evidence is mutually supportive. You young earth weirdos will never be anything but bloggers shouting into an echo chamber. Just stay out of the way of real scientists.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I wonder if Little Nipper knows that all breeds of dog that we have, from the Chihuahua and Tea Cup Poodles, all the way up to the St. Bernards, Rottweilers and Austrian Wolf Hounds all came from the wolf? Selective breeding by mankind is what gave us the myriad varieties that we have today.

Same thing happened with cats.

And, the same thing has been done with birds. Ever been to a pigeon show? They have so many different varieties that all look way different from each other. Some can puff up their necks, some look like miniature turkeys, some look like they are headless. And all of them came from the selective breeding of the humble rock pigeon.

Those are all examples of things evolving into different varieties. And, it was done by a higher power than the animals, which is mankind.

Doesn't the Bible say that God wanted to create man in His own image? If we can evolve things, then yeah, God can as well.

 

[Wuwei]

Creationism is another scientific study and a creationist can be a scientist

Creationism is not a scientific study. There is no such thing as creation science.

A creationist can be a scientist... and? So what? Creationists can do a lot of things. That doesn't mean their belief in creationism informs anything they do in science.

Okay, thanks for totally agreeing that Creationism is scientific and that those investigating that scientific endeavor are scientists. I thought you disagreed---clearly I was wrong.

You are purposely misunderstanding him and then declaring yourself the winner. C'mon. That's the way trolls work. You want to stoop that low?

 

[LittleNipper]

Okay, thanks for totally agreeing that Creationism is scientific

I clearly do not agree and said exactly the opposite. How bizarre...

So you now understand that evolutionists begin from a premise the excludes GOD and that creationists begin from a premise that includes GOD. They both consider themselves scientists and science is but a tool.

 

[LittleNipper]

Creationism is another scientific study and a creationist can be a scientist

Creationism is not a scientific study. There is no such thing as creation science.

A creationist can be a scientist... and? So what? Creationists can do a lot of things. That doesn't mean their belief in creationism informs anything they do in science.

Okay, thanks for totally agreeing that Creationism is scientific and that those investigating that scientific endeavor are scientists. I thought you disagreed---clearly I was wrong.

You are purposely misunderstanding him and then declaring yourself the winner. C'mon. That's the way trolls work. You want to stoop that low?

He's the troll, and I'm just giving the little mind midget a taste of his own peculiarity.

 

[idb]

Creationism is another scientific study and a creationist can be a scientist

Creationism is not a scientific study. There is no such thing as creation science.

A creationist can be a scientist... and? So what? Creationists can do a lot of things. That doesn't mean their belief in creationism informs anything they do in science.

Okay, thanks for totally agreeing that Creationism is scientific and that those investigating that scientific endeavor are scientists. I thought you disagreed---clearly I was wrong.

I think I can see what you tried to do there...you're really not very good at it though.

 

[LittleNipper]

I wonder if Little Nipper knows that all breeds of dog that we have, from the Chihuahua and Tea Cup Poodles, all the way up to the St. Bernards, Rottweilers and Austrian Wolf Hounds all came from the wolf? Selective breeding by mankind is what gave us the myriad varieties that we have today.

Same thing happened with cats.

And, the same thing has been done with birds. Ever been to a pigeon show? They have so many different varieties that all look way different from each other. Some can puff up their necks, some look like miniature turkeys, some look like they are headless. And all of them came from the selective breeding of the humble rock pigeon.

Those are all examples of things evolving into different varieties. And, it was done by a higher power than the animals, which is mankind.

Doesn't the Bible say that God wanted to create man in His own image? If we can evolve things, then yeah, God can as well.

Variety is not the formation of an additional KIND. God created KINDS.Dogs didn't become cats or visa versa. There are big humans and small humans, hairy humans and bare humans, light humans and dark humans, Some humans have fat lips, some thin. Some humans have curly hair and some have straight. Some have pattern baldness and some retain a full head of hair. No one is suggesting that Jews are subhuman ----- unless of course one believes that evolution is at work transforming humans into some more superior species................ Is that what Hitler thought and Darwin? It seems to me that the founder of Planned Parenthood felt the very same way!

 

[Wuwei]

The irony, of course, is that for centuries prior to Darwin’s publication of On the Origin of Species,the majority of scientists found the opposite to be true: the “evidence” supported creation. What changed? Not the evidence. Rather, the starting point changed.

How can you say that? A tremendous amount of evidence occurred since "centuries prior to Darwin." Radioactive dating. DNA, more and more ancient specimens of life.... etc.

Mutations cannot produce the types of changes evolution requires—not even close. ... virtually every time mutations come with a cost.

Often young earthers cite the development of the eye as an impossible mutation. But these and other aspects of evolution are now understood as a continuum that can be explained by small mutations.

However, science, as a tool for research, works quite well within (and, in fact, requires) a God-created universe.

If you want to say God created the big bang, so be it, but it does not add anything to science. If you want to pray to your entity you think created the universe, go ahead, but that changes the game. Praying to an entity that you hope will micromanage events on earth is nowhere near science.

 

[Wuwei]

God created KINDS.Dogs didn't become cats or visa versa.

Nobody believes that strawman. Mammals like dogs and cats evolved along separate lines from a common non-dog, non-cat ancestor.

 

[LittleNipper]

God created KINDS.Dogs didn't become cats or visa versa.

Nobody believes that strawman. Mammals like dogs and cats evolved along separate lines from a common non-dog, non-cat ancestor.

Which was what exactly?

 

[LittleNipper]

God created KINDS.Dogs didn't become cats or visa versa.

Nobody believes that strawman. Mammals like dogs and cats evolved along separate lines from a common non-dog, non-cat ancestor.

I do, and I do not consider myself a nobody.

 

[LittleNipper]

The irony, of course, is that for centuries prior to Darwin’s publication of On the Origin of Species,the majority of scientists found the opposite to be true: the “evidence” supported creation. What changed? Not the evidence. Rather, the starting point changed.

How can you say that? A tremendous amount of evidence occurred since "centuries prior to Darwin." Radioactive dating. DNA, more and more ancient specimens of life.... etc.

Mutations cannot produce the types of changes evolution requires—not even close. ... virtually every time mutations come with a cost.

Often young earthers cite the development of the eye as an impossible mutation. But these and other aspects of evolution are now understood as a continuum that can be explained by small mutations.

However, science, as a tool for research, works quite well within (and, in fact, requires) a God-created universe.

If you want to say God created the big bang, so be it, but it does not add anything to science. If you want to pray to your entity you think created the universe, go ahead, but that changes the game. Praying to an entity that you hope will micromanage events on earth is nowhere near science.

There are simply many assumptions that evolutionists are taking for granted! Please see:
Radioactive Dating: Questions Answered

 

[Wuwei]

Which was what exactly?

I have no idea. It's the general principles of evolution. Many non-believers in evolution think the scientists believe that man descended from apes. That is false. They both also descended from a common ancestor. The origins of the various ancestors are becoming clearer as more fossils are discovered.