Young Earth/Old Earth

[GeneZ]

I'm less concerned or interested about the politics of the situation and more concerned about the body of scientific evidence. I would also say that there has been no censoring of ID, who can publish peer reviewed research. The real problem was with ID's poor showing during the 2005 Kitzmiller vs Dover case. ID really did a poor job proving/arguing their case (before a conservative Christian Republican Bush-appointed judge, no less!). The evidence clearly demonstrated a religious agenda of ID/the Discovery Institute that was tied to YEC. Thats what effectively "killed" the movement.

Take one in depth look at your body and its internal functions.

Some were wanting to say that such a functioning organism had to be designed by great intelligence. Can not help but bring in religion. And, science was the one that brought forth such data that declares that biological life could not have been "assembled" by random chance.....

​

Since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. ​

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature​

—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. ​

​

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking ​

became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.​

Romans 1:19-21

YEC to the naive appears to be working for God. But their refusal to acknowledge correction and anything in Scripture beyond their traditional erroneous thinking is heading to destroy Christianity's chance for viability and a firm place to stand. That is, unless there
arises a next reformation and Word of God revival to wash us off, and put on us new clothes of righteousness.

That was the real problem.

 

[Sereni-tea]

I think we can all agree that if it had been His purpose that God could have blinked and all would have come innto being without pause.

Agreed.

Genesis 1 has told us that in 6 days (or as I prefer creation periods) All came into existence as created. 144 hours.

But where in Genesis have we been told that this 144 hours ran consecutively? The only suggestion of this has nothing to do with the actual creation but when we get into Gen2 and the author brought up about the Sabbath.

If Genesis 2 had not been written?????????

If you look at the translation from

NASB 1995 Gen 1:5
God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
then
NASB 1995 Gen 1:8
God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

This does not say 48 hours. IT DOES SAY 2 separate days... but there is no notice that these were even in the same week. (Except if you want to add in Gen 2 Sabbath )

Even Young's Litereal Translation says about day 2 this way

Young's Literal Translation
And God calleth to the expanse 'Heavens;' and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day second.

This is one potential reading of the text that some Christians hold, and I held this view for some time.

But not to belabor how long creation week was or may have been there is something that has bugged me for a very long time that no one... old earth or young believers has answered satisfactorily.

I was also bugged by this and similar questions and was never satisfied with the answers that I was given from both YEC and OEC sides of the debate. It wasn't until I learnt about the literary style of the account and the historical context of the account that I discovered that Genesis 1 is not saying anything about science but it teaching us about theology.

In Gen 1:3 Then God said, “Let there be light” on day 1. In gen 1:14 Then God said, “Let there be lights on day 4.

Light was created on day 1 then 72 hours later light again ((albeit for a different purpose) light was created again.

I...( but I am not God) , would have assumed that when creation started He knew what He wanted to accomplish by creation... or am I off base thinking this??? That it was not decision made as He went.

Why then not do the day 4 lighting on day one and then proceed with everything else?

I cannot prove this... yet... but it would make sense to me if God created light on that day one that served the purposes to light things through day 3 to be available for however long it took for these 3 days/periods to be completed with potential time between each and then as creation was advancing He then


and the rest of creation was completed.

Any thoughts?

I believe that the days of creation week is about God ordering creation to function the way He wants it to. The structure is very important and there is also a lot of similarities between Genesis 1 and other ancient near eastern literature that the Israelites would have been familiar with.

I recommend you have a read of this thread "Scientific Concordism vs Divine Accommodation". It is long, but well worth reading.

 

[CrowCross]

I'm less concerned or interested about the politics of the situation and more concerned about the body of scientific evidence. I would also say that there has been no censoring of ID, who can publish peer reviewed research. The real problem was with ID's poor showing during the 2005 Kitzmiller vs Dover case. ID really did a poor job proving/arguing their case (before a conservative Christian Republican Bush-appointed judge, no less!). The evidence clearly demonstrated a religious agenda of ID/the Discovery Institute that was tied to YEC. Thats what effectively "killed" the movement.

I agree. They did a poor job....I would have asked....how did an assembly line of organelle evolve?

But don't worry, when the ET's arrive...after we're properly prepped with the "disclosure" that's been happening...they'll tell us.

 

[TB2]

I agree. They did a poor job....I would have asked....how did an assembly line of organelle evolve

Interesting fact, we actually have a ton of evidence for serial endosymbiogenesis (including observational, experimental, real-time in labs) that ID now recognizes too:

Buratovich, Michael. "The Serial Endosymbiosis Theory: Cellular Origins and Intelligent Design Theory." Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 57.2 (2005): 98-113.

 

[David1701]

True, but my point was more that even if God "updated" Genesis and explained in modern scientific terms it would still have to be "dumbed down" to our level. If God gave us truly "perfect" accurate scientific information we would not have the capacity to understand it. Even just the use of imperfect human language requires that God stoop down and accommodate to our level.

I've already agreed that God accommodates our limited knowledge and understanding; but, everything that he tells us is still true, just not the full picture.

 

[CrowCross]

Interesting fact, we actually have a ton of evidence for serial endosymbiogenesis (including observational, experimental, real-time in labs) that ID now recognizes too:

Buratovich, Michael. "The Serial Endosymbiosis Theory: Cellular Origins and Intelligent Design Theory." Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 57.2 (2005): 98-113.

When anti-IDers try to disprove ID, they always need to take the "long way home"
They may mention the "components" may have had a previous use. For example they may claim the components of the flagellum...the propellor, universal joint, bushing, driveshaft, rotor, stator, etc. had a different purpose....never explaining how the individual components evolved then were assembled to create the flagellum.

They also never explain how the assembly line of complex orgenelle were established that make the individual components.....let alone the genetic DNA code that instruct for their construction.

 

[TB2]

When anti-IDers try to disprove ID, they always need to take the "long way home"
They may mention the "components" may have had a previous use. For example they may claim the components of the flagellum...the propellor, universal joint, bushing, driveshaft, rotor, stator, etc. had a different purpose....never explaining how the individual components evolved then were assembled to create the flagellum.

They also never explain how the assembly line of complex orgenelle were established that make the individual components.....let alone the genetic DNA code that instruct for their construction.

The ID movement/Discovery Institute took a big blow with the 2005 Kitzmiller vs Dover case, which really killed their credibility as a legit science organization. The case demonstrated their non-scientific religious motivations (before a conservative Christian Bush appointed Republican judge no less!). And there's nothing wrong with religious motivations as long as it's billed this way, but they tried to bill it as educational science curricula (when it contained Judeo-Christian statements; good for us, but a first ammendment no-no).

Where the ID case is strongest is with the origin of life. The sum total current scientific evidence to date suggests that it is impossible for life to naturally emerge from nonlife. Now science still assumes abiogenesis a priori as the working hypothesis and the farthest science can ever go is say "we don't know, we don't have an empirically verified explanation." But philosophers can go where scientists can't and use this to build an argument for God's existence like atheist-turned theist renowned philosopher Antony Flew did.

 

[CrowCross]

The ID movement/Discovery Institute took a big blow with the 2005 Kitzmiller vs Dover case, which really killed their credibility as a legit science organization. The case demonstrated their non-scientific religious motivations (before a conservative Christian Bush appointed Republican judge no less!). And there's nothing wrong with religious motivations as long as it's billed this way, but they tried to bill it as educational science curricula (when it contained Judeo-Christian statements; good for us, but a first ammendment no-no).

Where the ID case is strongest is with the origin of life. The sum total current scientific evidence to date suggests that it is impossible for life to naturally emerge from nonlife. Now science still assumes abiogenesis a priori as the working hypothesis and the farthest science can ever go is say "we don't know, we don't have an empirically verified explanation." But philosophers can go where scientists can't and use this to build an argument for God's existence like atheist-turned theist renowned philosopher Antony Flew did.

As I said above...they have taken the "long way home"

I've presented this before...perhaps you may want to watch this video. It's only 3-1/2 min long.

 

[TB2]

As I said above...they have taken the "long way home"

I've presented this before...perhaps you may want to watch this video. It's only 3-1/2 min long.

Signature in the Cell is a great movie. I was at the banquet release of that movie. It overstates the case in some parts (or more accurately, fails to adequately delineate between scientific vs philosophical arguments). But yes, as I noted, the origin of life is the best case for ID (and for all theists against naturalism)

 

[CrowCross]

Signature in the Cell is a great movie. I was at the banquet release of that movie. It overstates the case in some parts (or more accurately, fails to adequately delineate between scientific vs philosophical arguments). But yes, as I noted, the origin of life is the best case for ID (and for all theists against naturalism)

The video petty much shows evolutionism is a farce.

I'm still waiting for an explaination of how organelle assembly lines evolved.

Of course the code writer is amazing.

 

[TB2]

The video petty much shows evolutionism is a farce.

I'm still waiting for an explaination of how organelle assembly lines evolved.

Of course the code writer is amazing.

The video is mainly about the origin of life not biological evolution

 

[CrowCross]

The video is mainly about the origin of life not biological evolution

I don't know if I agree with that. The process being shown is well beyond the origin of life...and so far evo-ism can't explain it.

The way I see it, it points directly at ID as seen on the cellular level.

 

[TB2]

I don't know if I agree with that. The process being shown is well beyond the origin of life...and so far evo-ism can't explain it.

The way I see it, it points directly at ID as seen on the cellular level.

If you mean the irreducible bacterial flagellar motor that has been explained

 

[CrowCross]

If you mean the irreducible bacterial flagellar motor that has been explained

If you say so.

 

[TB2]

If you say so.

It was a key part of testimony in the 2005 Kitzmiller vs Dover case

 

[GeneZ]

The video petty much shows evolutionism is a farce.

I'm still waiting for an explaination of how organelle assembly lines evolved.

Of course the code writer is amazing.

And, I would like to know what came first.

The digestive juices in the stomach?

Or, the protective coating that keeps the stomach from being digested by those digestive juices?

The demands having a planning, Intelligent Designer!

 

[EarlyActs]

I'm less concerned or interested about the politics of the situation and more concerned about the body of scientific evidence. I would also say that there has been no censoring of ID, who can publish peer reviewed research. The real problem was with ID's poor showing during the 2005 Kitzmiller vs Dover case. ID really did a poor job proving/arguing their case (before a conservative Christian Republican Bush-appointed judge, no less!). The evidence clearly demonstrated a religious agenda of ID/the Discovery Institute that was tied to YEC. Thats what effectively "killed" the movement.

We now know the Bush factor means nothing. Nor Republican.

 

[TB2]

We now know the Bush factor means nothing. Nor Republican.

The point is no one could accuse the case outcome of being the result of an activist liberal judge (even though some people still said that)

 

[GeneZ]

We now know the Bush factor means nothing. Nor Republican.

Hardly anyone is what they are supposed to be anymore...

Tradition freezes last week's bread.

 

[TB2]

Hardly anyone is what they are supposed to be anymore...

Tradition freezes last week's bread.

The simple fact is ID did not prove it's case