Forum

What if the creationist and evolutionist ideas are both wrong?

https://youtu.be/7PD0iXgu_S8

(30) J. Warner Wallace: Tampering with Evidence - 2018 Xenos Summer Institute - YouTube Evidence for creation discussed by a cold case detective.

(100) Stephen C. Meyer: Church Talk State of the Art [Talbot Chapel] - YouTube The God Hypothesis does it make sense when we look around us.

First, to be clear the purpose of this post is NOT to debate whether religion and science have ever clashed. There are times when they obviously have. The purpose is to correct erroneous myths and legends that have been used to advance the "ignorant, superstitious "Dark Ages vs. the rational modernists," and the "religion vs. science" Post-Enlightenment narratives that are so ingrained in modern society today. And while there is *some* truth to it, in many ways it is a false dichotomy. Real life (and history) is almost always far more messy and complicated than simple "Bad Guys vs. Good Guys" stories would have us believe. But everyone loves an underdog story. They love to get outraged at injustice on the little guy. And let's be honest, it makes for a more exciting, interesting story. Which is why so many Hollywood renditions are "based on" or "inspired" by actual events, rather than the actual events. But some of the most well-known "facts" presented in science classes are myths and legends that just keep getting retold generation after generation. Let's start with probably the most popular: The Galileo Myth that the Catholic Church "science deniers" refused to look through Galileo's telescope (they actually did and financed a lot of his work), and that they stubbornly refused to accept the triumph of facts and science and reason over their religious superstition, and persecuted Galileo. Thus, forever turning Galileo into a martyr for science and poster boy for Post-Enlightenment values vs. the tyrannical, ignorant church. * The truth is, Galileo was more like a scientist today would be if he/she went against Darwinism (with the difference that Darwinism has weathered the test of time). The Church accepted the prevailing scientific evidence of the time: the long standing 1,400 year geocentric view of Aristotle and Ptolemy that the earth was at the center and that the planets and sun orbited the earth. The bottom line is that Galileo did not have the scientific evidence to prove Copernicus' heliocentric theory. He didn't have enough scientific evidence to even show the earth moved (the proof simply wasn't there yet, and paradigm shifts don't happen unless substantial evidence exists to overturn the prevailing, accepted view). Also, some of the "science" he used in support was actually wrong and unconvincing to other scientists. So it was not convincing to the Church either, which didn't just point to scripture, but also to what almost all the scientists of the day were saying. It would be like the church supporting scientists today for some accepted theory that centuries later turned out to be wrong. Today we would honor such affirmation, but change the narrative (and what actually happened) and you have an instant, more appealing "David (Science) vs. Goliath (Religious science deniers)" story that makes for great propaganda. The truth is that with Galileo, the Catholic Church wasn't denying science, but affirming the consensus scientific position (geocentrism) of the day To further kick off the discussion, here's some additional reading on the Galileo Myth and similar myths like it (note: a couple links are to Catholic sources. For the record, I'm not Catholic, but I liked their succinct presentation, so chose to include): Debunking the Galileo myth & other myths UCLA- The-truth-about-galileo-and-his-conflict-with-the-catholic-church The enduring Galileo myth Everything your friends know about Galileo is wrong Forbes- Galileo and the myth that won't go away

I would say yes. If we evolved from monkeys and are just part of a natural process then why have morals at all? I mean lots of animals eat there babies and eat each other so what makes us better? This has nothing to do with whether evolution is true or not, it's just to talk about what it would mean for our moral systems if it was.

Anyone can, of course, comment, but this is especially directed towards Christians of all viewpoints, whether evolutionist, theistic evolutionist, evolutionary creationist, progressive creationist, old earth creationist, young earth creationist, etc. Ironically, evolution is not the main problem that creationists have with evolution, but "Death before the Fall." If that is impossible, then millions of years of evolution (or even just life existing) is ruled out as a matter of course. *But here's the problem: it is undeniable that the fossil record attests to death, predation, parasitism, disease, and even cancer before humans were even around (regardless of whether one believes in an old or young earth). This means that like it or not, there was "Death before the Fall," and no amount of saying you don't believe that will change it. Denial is not the answer. The issue must be addressed and wrestled with, and in fact, there are many extensive treatments on the subject, but I'm curious to know how others deal with the issue. *So Christians, how do you or how would you explain "Death before the Fall"?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519320302071#ab010 At what point can it be said, an undirected process without intent could cause all there is from the fine-tuning of the universe and now the fine-tuning of life itself?

A probability of one. I was thinking about the belief some have that given enough time abiogenesis would happen, making the equation 100% certainty given enough time. I don't recall the odds on someone accurately predicting the order of a deck of cards after the deck was thoroughly shuffled. I could work it out, but don't care enough. I know the odds are very high against that from occurring, but given enough time that would occur is the argument. There are only 52 cards, unlike all of the variables that have to be right for life, so the cards are a small little test of can something happens that needs to be given enough time. With the cards we know when they are shuffled there are 52 cards, the choices are limited to just that nothing else. The first being 1/52, the second being 1/51, and on and on. Now I have heard someone once say (not here) the deck is always going to have a sequence no matter what we say it is going to be in some order and that order is there period so the odds are 100%, but that isn't the question. Shuffling the cards will always put them in order but it doesn't mean someone can predict or guess that order, they may read it if cards are face-up, but that is ID in the query and has nothing to do with guessing the order. Moving through time with a chance to get it right with a new start each time there is a failure will not increase the odds of getting it right. You can flip a coin twice looking for heads two times in a row, but each coin flip no matter what the odds are getting it right never changes from 50, 50. It is much easier to get two heads than predicting 52 cards. Life is much more complex, more things have to be right for a chance to even make the attempt on getting all of the material in the right order let alone anything else. Another thing in with Abiogenesis is having all the right material, that isn't a certainty if we are only looking at odds because chemical reactions are always taking place, what might be required could arrive somewhere with the proper reaction but it could turn into something else a moment later or get contaminated with something not friendly to life. Time doesn't help, having lots of time doesn't help, having it all possible at a moment somewhere at some time is the only thing that matters and that is just when we can legitimately say we can see that the dice are thrown for just an opportunity at life, without all of the variables in place at the same time, in the same place there is no opportunity for it to occur at all.

And why it is definitely one.

Saying (1) the Bible presents Noah's flood as universal/global/cosmic in extent, and (2) the fossil record is primarily the result of Noah's flood, are two completely different claims. Claim #1 is true. The Bible does, in fact, depict Noah's flood as not merely global in extent but in almost cosmic proportions as a reversal of creation itself and a regression from order back to a pre-creation chaotic state where the 'waters above' and 'below' are no longer separated as they are on Day 2 of the Genesis creation account. Now whether this is meant to be taken literally or is hyperbole and purposeful exaggeration to make a theological point is a separate matter of debate. Either way, Genesis does not depict Noah's flood as a local flood, but as a global, universal catastrophe on an epic, cosmic scale. That said, however, the Bible does not equate the fossil record with Noah's flood. The Bible doesn't even mention the fossil record, so claim #2 is an assumption that YECs often make without critical assessment. This distinction is important to avoid potential misunderstanding, because this OP is not disputing claim #1, only claim #2. That is, it is not the Bible's depiction of Noah's flood that is being disputed, it is only the unfounded YEC assertion that the fossil record is mostly the result of Noah's flood that is being disputed. This topic is of further importance because YECs commonly maintain that 'flood geology' is just a different, equally valid interpretation of the *same data* used by modern geologists. But this is simply untrue. 'Flood geology' is not an equally valid interpretation of the 'same data', but a forced interpretation based on isolated, cherry-picked examples that ignore a mountain of incongruous data to the contrary. There are, in fact, biblical and scientific problems with the YEC claim that the fossil record is mostly the result of Noah's flood. The purpose of this OP, then, is to present some of these problems, while welcoming anyone who disagrees to present their case for claim #2.

A common mantra among YECs is to say they believe in evolution, but only limited, "horizontal" evolution "within kinds" and not "vertical" large-scale evolution between or above "kinds." But the problem with such statements is that they are entirely subjective. I have yet to see a YEC provide a clear answer on this. What exactly constitutes a "kind"? How much evolution is too much? Where exactly do YECs draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable evolution and on what rigorous, scientific basis do they do so? YECs will often cite the polar extremes but fail to rigorously define where exactly the dividing line is between possible and impossible evolution. Instead, from what I can tell, YECs base their beliefs on subjective feelings of what seems or "feels" like too much evolution. For example, these two skulls have similarities but also distinct differences. Are the differences too much for YECs to acknowledge that they are related? Comparative anatomy and genetics both support the conclusion that these two are in fact closely related, but YECs will still reject the evidence if they subjectively feel like the differences are too great. Similarly, comparative anatomy (including sophisticated computer measurements and analysis) and genetics supports the conclusion that all these skulls are related. YECs often dismiss such things out of hand (despite the evidence) saying that such changes in morphology are too great, but they have no objective basis for doing so and instead dismiss arbitrarily and based on subjective "gut" feelings of what seems like too much change. So how much is too much? Are the skulls above, for example, too different in their range of size and morphologies to be related through common ancestry?

I think that underlying much of the disagreement in various threads are a few simmering fundamental questions. "How can we gain knowledge about the past" seems to be one of them. Obviously, we can't see into the past--we can't just look and see what's true about the past. For recorded human history, we can at least look at documents written by human beings--at least, the documents we've found. But once we get past recorded human history, how do we gain knowledge about the past?

This is a rather general question. Why would anyone deliberately disagree with the consensus of experts--on anything? Now, if you yourself are an expert in the same field, and if you see good reason to disagree--oh, OK. You've looked at the information on the basis of which the consensus has been formed and you've formed a different view. No problem. But I'm not an expert in everything. In almost nothing am I an expert. Why, then, would I disagree with the consensus of economists about the Law of Supply and Demand? Why would I disagree with the consensus of life scientists about evolution's having occurred? Why would I disagree with the consensus of physicists that the universe is expanding? It's different where there's no broad consensus. There *is* a reason for the joke, "If you laid all the economists in the world end-to-end, they'd point in different directions." On some matters, there is no broad consensus of the experts. But on others, there is; and where there is, why would anyone who was not himself an expert disagree with it? You might choose to withhold belief--OK. But why would anyone who was not an expert *disagree with it*? Expert opinion--the consensus of experts--gives us our best, most likely to be accurate, picture of the world. Is it correct in every detail? Probably not. For any given detail, is it more likely to be correct than any alternative view? Of course. So why disagree with it?

Anyone can respond, of course, but I thought of you in particular @TruthMuse for this OP: I imagine that like me, you too have run into your fair share of Christians on the fringe who believe the 'clear', 'plain' teaching of the Bible is that the earth is flat and at the center of the cosmos, and that the sun, moon, and stars are fixed features in a solid firmament dome that slowly turns causing the sun, moon, and stars to go from east to west across the sky. These individuals believe that any attempt to say otherwise is heresy against the plain teaching of Scripture. They believe the Bible teaches a geocentric, not heliocentric view. They wholeheartedly believe that no aircraft has traveled above a certain altitude. This would be impossible, after all, because they would crash into the solid firmament! Correspondingly, they believe no spacecraft have ever gone into space and that all such claims, including things like the space shuttle, satellites, and the moon landing, are fakes and conspiracies conjured up by depraved men who are determined to lead us astray from the clear teaching of God's Word. They insist that there is no proof, no scientific evidence that the earth is round and goes around the sun, and that 'atheistic' science is a fallible product of depraved men who are hell bent and determined to brainwash us with their ungodly ways and false beliefs in contradiction of the clear teaching of Scripture. They further insist that Christians who have bought into the round-earth, heliocentric 'lies' of 'atheistic' science are heretics and sell-outs who put their faith in foolish, fallible man more than they do God, and elevate evil, depraved 'atheistic' science above the clear teaching of God's infallible Word. How do you even begin to reason with such people? (Rhetorical question, because I'm not sure you even can). Now it's hard not to notice some parallels between these flat earth Christians and young earth creationists. One need only swap out the flat earth terms and replace them with YEC terminology, and we practically have the YEC platform complete with the same types of rhetoric about 'evil' 'atheistic' science with its depraved lies about evolution and an old earth that Christian sell-outs have bought into by putting their faith in fallible men more than God and elevating 'atheistic' science above the clear teaching of God's Word, etc., etc., etc. But let me lay that aside for the moment, and take things in a different direction with a thought experiment I'd like to try. Imagine for a moment that the flat-earthers were correct in saying a geocentric, flat-earth is what the Bible actually teaches. Now scientifically we know that a geocentric, flat-earth view is flat-out wrong (pardon the pun). But imagine if the Bible still taught this scientifically erroneous view. How would you, as a Bible-believer, reconcile the two? (This is a thought experiment, so feel free to be creative) (There is only *one rule*: you're not allowed to say they can't be reconciled. You must find a solution. You must find a way for science and the Bible to coexist without *directly* contradicting each other; an *apparent* contradiction is OK but not a real, outright one) (No, I don't have any prizes for successful completion. Sorry).

I was just told that when people get a shot for measles that they can shed measles and give it to others because they received the shot. I had never heard of this before and wonder if it is true.