Red Blood Cells 70 Million Years Old?

[NormF]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

There are actually thousands of scientists with PhDs throughout the world that disagree with evolution on a scientific basis.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Who are these scientists, and where are they? Are they currently active professionally? Who numbered them? And what verification is there of the accuracy of this characterization and the headcount?

There are scientists who believe in God, even a creator God. That can be granted. However, they do not make belief in a literal 7-day creation an a priori assumption.

"The Bible teaches how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."

Regards,

Norm

[Dr. Shane]

Here are 170 Creation Scientists

Of course that is just AiG's list. Christian univeristies around the world are filled with scientists that disagree with evolution.

Here are a few more: Doubts Over Evolution Continue to Mount ...arwin's Theory

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

"Darwin's shrillest defenders continue to claim there is no scientific debate and no legitimate scientists who question neo-Darwinian evolution and yet again that claim is shown to be false," said John West, associate director of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture. "Just last week we highlighted 40 scientists in Texas alone who have joined the national list of scientists skeptical of Darwin."

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

[bevin]

It is not the conclusions that are different. The creation scientists simply can not come up with a plausible explanation of the evidence.

Bottom line what matters is

[:"blue"]

What experiments have been described that yields a result that can not be explained by the theory of evolution? [/]

The answer: None

[:"blue"]

What experiments have been described that yields a result that can not be explained by the theory of short-age creation? [/]

The answer: Hundreds - see my recent posting in the Origins forum for just a handful.

Here is where the rubber meets the road. The short-age creation model does not describe the world we see around us. It is a failed theory.

If it ends up being discussed in a science class, it will be as failing to describe the world we see around us.

Is that what you want your kids taught in science class? It is bad enough that the class includes a description of an opposing theory that does work, now you want them taught that short-age creationism as a failed theory?

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

You know that feeling you get when you think you are standing on the edge of the cliff but the edge was five feet ago? While E Coyotee knew that feeling well. That is the feeling more and more evoltionists are learning about. Their house of cards is falling.

Will you also question Dr. Stanley Salthe, author of the textbook Evolutionary Biology (1972) who is now a critic of evolution? Wow! Maybe one doesn't have to be a wacko, fundamentalist Christian to question evolution.

I stand on the Rock and am not too concerned about it. Critics come and go but the Rock refuses to move. Of course, I am not a scienctist. I do however know enough not to believe that everything came from nothing. Paul tells us that creation testifies of the eternal power of God so that no one is without excuse (Rom. 1:19, 20) God has two books: the written Word and the book of nature; the two cannot contradict themselves anymore than God can contradict Himself.

[Ron Lambert]

Bevin said:

Quote:

---

"is there a well-formed experiment which produces results which are contrary to evolutionary theory?"

---

Let's turn that around. Is there a well-formed experiment which produces results which confirm evolutionary theory?

The answer is none.

It is all a matter of what people (scientists, etc.) want to believe, and absolutely nothing more. Let the tide turn, and the mainstream could very well come to be Creationist. Fashions in thought change, and Bible prophecy (Daniel 11:40) indicates that a watershed is coming in which exactly this change in majority thinking will occur. It will be a decisive change, and secularism, atheism, agnosticism, and evolutionism will never again dominate human society. There will yet be a final "push" or "attack" by secularism, etc., against the popular religious viewpoint; but that will only provoke an overwhelming counter-attack that will end secularism's power forever.

No one can defeat Bible prophecy. This is what God has stated He will do and allow and bring about. No human agency can prevent God from this. It will all happen very shortly.

[Bravus]

Basic assumptions. Under the naturalistic assumption (i.e. the assumption that there are no miraculous (i.e. breaking natural laws) events), evolution is our best explanatory framework. Under the supernaturalist assumption (i.e. the assumption that miracles can occur and have occurred), questions are not susceptible to scientific analysis, since naturalism is a fundamental assumption of scientific methods.

Two implications:

(1) if we fail to state our assumptions - and to recognise that these two sets of assumptions are essentially incommensurable - then we can argue around in circles and talk past each other forever, and never get anywhere

(2) those who believe in a miraculous creation should be very careful about the way they appeal to scientific evidence, since the miracle itself is not susceptible to the methods of science. (Example: a doctor could have examined Lazarus after he was resurrected by Jesus. The evidence would tell him that Lazarus was alive, but would tell him nothing about whether Lazarus had truly been dead and been resurrected.)

[Ron Lambert]

Bravus, what naturalistic assumptions can explain the origin of the universe? Here is all naturalism can say: "In the beginning was nothing, and suddenly it exploded."

Evolution apologists of any stripe who pretend that only they are the ones who use the scientific method, are such hypocrites!

[Bravus]

But that's exactly what science says right now: "From all the evidence we have (naturalistically interpreted) we infer that there was a Big Bang that began this universe. We can describe what happened from very close to the beginning of the Big Bang, but we have no conception of what caused it, or of what might have existed before it." That is the scientific consensus, and that is appropriate: science does not conjecture about things for which it has no empirical evidence.

My Lazarus analogy responds to your second paragraph: anyone can use the scientific method on the current evidence, but when trying to argue backward from that evidence in a cause-and-effect manner, miracles break the chain of cause and effect, by definition. That is no bad thing: we just have to recognise it, and recognise that belief in miracles takes us outside the domain of science. That doesn't have to discredit miracles, and it doesn't have to discredit science: the two things just have nothing useful to say to each other.

[Dr. Shane]

Your point is that if a super natuural power created the universe, science would never be able to come to that conclusion.

Paul, aparently, didn't believe science could have concluded otherwise. That is why he stated that creation itself testified of God's eternal power. The big bang theory obviously comes up short of answering where did the matter that blew up come from. However as we advance more in science, the big bang theory continues to come up short in many other areas too. It is getting more and more difficult for even the most educated minds to accept.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

Is there a well-formed experiment which produces results which confirm evolutionary theory?

---

An experiment can not prove a theory. Scientific theories are never proven, just disproven.

There are many experiments that test various aspects of evolutionary theory, from predictions of where particular fossils will be found to predictions about how the DNA of various organisms will compare. The theory of evolution PASSES all these tests.

There is no known experiment that produces results that invalidate the fundamental concepts of long ages and genetic mutation.

The creationist theory has apparently been DISPROVEN. No creationist has come up with a plausible explanation for the many facts I described in the Origins forum.

Evolution is compatible with the world around us.

Short-age Creationism apparently is not.

And this is what will be taught in Science Class if the 'get creationism into the science curriculum' adherents "win". If they win, they will lose - big time.

/Bevin

[Bravus]

I hate to nag about this, but you do need to add an 'under the naturalistic assumption' to your points above, bevin (I'm saying this is a private citizen making a philosophical suggestion, not as a moderator). All those facts assume the predictable operation of natural laws over time without divine intervention. That's perfectly appropriate to science, but it can't 'disprove' in any final sense the idea of supernatural creation.

[bevin]

The short-age creation scientists can't explain why, even with God involved and doing supernatural things, there are fossils in rocks that appear to be millions of years old.

The simplest explanation is "God deliberately made the world appear to have had death in it for millions of years". This runs into two big issues (a) death in Eden, and ( why God would create such a huge lie.

/Bevin

[Robert]

Quote:

---

science does not conjecture about things for which it has no empirical evidence.

---

Then "science" must naturally conclude that there is no God.

• More was lost in the Flood, in many ways, than men today know. Looking upon the world, God saw that the intellect He had given man was perverted, that the imagination of his heart was evil and that continually. God had given these men knowledge. He had given them valuable ideas, that they might carry out His plan. But the Lord saw that those whom He designed should possess wisdom, tact, and judgment, were using every quality of the mind to glorify self. By the waters of the Flood, He blotted this long-lived race from the earth, and with them perished the knowledge they had used only for evil. When the earth was repeopled, the Lord trusted His wisdom more sparingly to men, giving them only the ability they would need in carrying out His great plan (Letter 175, 1896).

[Robert]

Quote:

---

why God would create such a huge lie.

---

Jer 17:9 "The heart [mind] is deceitful above all things

and beyond cure."

John 8:4 "When he [Lucifer - the Lord of this world] lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies."

1 Cor 1:27 "But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him."

[Ron Lambert]

Given the fact that we are all alive, and that the universe exhibits vast and profoundly complex organization, why is it not a part of the naturalistic, empirically demonstated paradigm that the miraculous activity of a Divine Creator is the only sane, possible, truly scientific explanation for existence, and that all scientific inquiry must start here, or be hopelessly, insanely ignorant? According to quantum theory, existence itself requires a Mind to know it.

What evolutionists are really doing is saying, let's suppose there is no God, and proceed from there. Anything else we will call unscientific. What a scam this is! When are scientists in the mainstream going to wake up and stop buying this foolish con job?

And no Bevin, the facts do not contradict Creationism, even short-age Creationism, they give support far better than the claimed evidence for evolution and vast ages. Nor do the fossils in rocks appear to be vastly old. That is only a product of the prejudiced view of evolutionists, who ignore the far superior Creationist explanation for the geological column. The many numerous exceptions and outright contradictions to evolution provided by fossils that are assumed to be from animals that have been extinct for hundreds of millions of years, only for it to be discovered that living specimens still exist in the world today, totally destroys the evolutionist/gradualist geological column. If a coelecanth (or any one of dozens more species once claimed to be long extinct) can exist today, then all the assumptions about all the evolutionist geological column are wrong. There are supposed to be no coelecanth in the evolutionist geological column after 65 million years ago, and there are none evident--yet they still are alive today. This can only mean that the evolutionist geological column is utterly false and totally worthless. But such in turn poses no difficulty at all for the Creationist version and explnanation of the geological column; indeed, it fits right in with what Creationist theory predicts.

Then of course there is the existence of DNA still largely intact in fossils--and in non-petrified soft tissue specimens that are best described as mummified--of organisms such as T-Rex which are supposed to be at least 65 million years old. DNA cannot last that long! It hardly even remains intact in Egyptian mummies only a few thousand years old. And how can mummified soft tissues remain intact for millions of years?

[Dr. Shane]

James Irwin was a creationist. Do you know who he was? Some wacko, fundamentalist Christian? Well, maybe. He took the Bible to the moon. That's right. To the moon. James Irwin was an astronaut - a man of science.

[Bravus]

AAAARRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

I am NOT, repeat NOT, ever saying that people who are creationists are wacko, that it's impossible to be a scientist and a creationist, that it's impossible to be a scientist and a believer!

What I'm saying is that it's an abuse of both science and religion to combine them. Robert: of course science cannot measure the existence of God: that's part of God's transcendence!

The point, the whole point and nothing but the point: God exists (I believe) but the evidence for his existence and his (supernatural) actions is from other places than science. Science is *defined* as the study of what happens naturally. God set up the natural world with its laws and effect, but He can choose to break those laws. When He does, science is lost.

But please, it's projection of the worst sort to say that making this statement disses either science or religion. On the contrary, it shows appropriate *respect* for both. There are definitely thousands of scientists who believe in God and in creation (some of them in recent and some in other forms of divine creation), and it's scientism (as has been said in this thread) to say that these people are 'not real scientists'.

[bevin]

When you appeal to people and authorities, you are simply showing that there are many Christians who have decided to go against the evidence.

Yes, there are many such christians. There are also many christians who have accepted the long-age model. Thus you are simply selecting members from the group you have decided you want to belong to.

To me what matters is that there is no solid short-age explanation for any of the many phenomona I listed in the Origins forum. I make my choices based on understanding the issues, not based on what other people choose.

This is a significant difference between us emotionally. My experience is that when I think (A) and the group thinks (, then the group is usually wrong. This has encouraged me to be brave about being independent. I suspect your experience is the opposite, that you find joining a good group and then going along with the group's decisions has increased your likelyhood of being right.

I understand why you have chosen to be in the group you are in (conservative SDA). I understand why you adhere to that group's choices. However, in this particular instance, your group is probably wrong - and doing a lot of damage by being wrong.

/Bevin

[Bravus]

Just tagging on from my earlier post (and please pardon the outburst, I'm calmer now!)

I have zero problem with science: I'm a scientist myself and I believe it's an awesome thing (and a complex one, more complex than we often assume).

I have zero problem with creationism: the belief that God exists and is the Creator.

I have huge problems with scientism: it bolts inappropriate metaphysical claims about the nature of reality onto science, and it makes science the measure of all things, which impoverishes our human experience of the world.

I have huge problems with creation science/scientific creationism: it's neither good science nor good creationism, for the reasons I've tried to explain above. In particular, this approach is dangerous, as bevin has so kindly pointed out, because it starts to cede some of the claims of scientism. It starts to make science the measure of all things, by appealing to scientific evidence in a metaphysical question. I believe it is mistaken and deeply dangerous, and that it tends to lead more people out of belief rather than into it.

I'm willing to listen to those, on all sides, who disagree with these perspectives, but perhaps laying it out like this makes my understanding of this a little clearer. I'm a scientist and a creationist, but never a creation scientist.

[Dr. Shane]

When you have already made up your mind you cannot hear reason. The "group" I am in is not conservative SDA but rather "Bible believing Christians". The Bible is clear about the matter. Creation is evidence of God (Romans 1:20) God's final call to the inhabitants of the Earth is to worship the Creator (Rev. 14:6-12)

Creation scientists take into account God's miraclous ability. Yet there are many scientists that are not professing Christians that now doubt evolution. The house of cards is falling. The last chapter in Darwin's book dwealt with problem with the theory. He believed that as science advanced more and more questions would be answered. However the opposite is true. As science advances more and more questions arise.

Professing Christians clinging to evolution have their fingers in their ears singing "I can't hear you".

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Shane said:

Your point is that if a super natuural power created the universe, science would never be able to come to that conclusion.

---

EXACTLY!!! NOW you are beginning to get the picture!!!!

HEBREWS 11:3 says as much.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

Creation scientists take into account God's miraclous ability. Yet there are many scientists that are not professing Christians that now doubt evolution. The house of cards is falling. The last chapter in Darwin's book dwealt with problem with the theory. He believed that as science advanced more and more questions would be answered. However the opposite is true. As science advances more and more questions arise.

---

In this case you should

(a) be able to state an experiment which gives results that evolutionary theory can't answer - but you can't.

( be able to give a solid recent-creation explanation for the combination of continental drift, aligned impact craters, and fossil distribution - but you can't.

Bottom line here. I repeatedly point to solid data and ask for explanations. You repeatedly point to people and emotions.

Short-age creation can't explain the data EVEN BY INVOKING GOD'S MIRACULOUS ACTS.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

There are scientific explanations but you need to pull your fingers out of your ears. You can't hear because you don't want to. Saddly there are non-believers that are closer to the truth.

What science is your PhD in anyway? I am just curious. Did you get it from a secular university or a Christian school?

[Dr. Shane]

Sister Nico, while science cannot provide proof of creation, it doesn't provide evidence against creation either. God's book of nature does not contradict His written Word.

Paul clearly tells us that creation provides enough evidence of God that everyone is without excuse for not believing in Him. If that is true, then science cannot lead us away from God - unless the Bible isn't true. If science leads us away from God then indeed unbelievers have an excuse for not believing.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

There are scientific explanations but you need to pull your fingers out of your ears.

---

You remind me of other conservative short-age SDA I have talked to about this issue. They keep telling me that the solid explanations exist, but they can never actually produce one.

I AM LISTENING. I have been listening for a solid short-age explanation ever since, in my teens, I discovered that the explanations I was being given then were wrong.

All I ever hear is empty promises and argumentum-an-hominem. The short-age model never actually delivers, it just keeps promising that it will next time...

Oh yes, and a continuous barrage of spiritual attacks when they realize they have no actual solid argument.

[:"red"]

All I want you to provide is one solid experiment whose results are contrary to the theory of evolution *or* one solid explanation for continental drift in a short-age world.

[/]

Heck - even provide any plausible experiment and we can discuss it...

/Bevin