Do Evolutionary Theory And Scripture Contradict Each Other?

@J.E.S

The recent posting on 100 Reasons from geology actually answers the flip side of your Question!

https://ageofrocks.org/100-reasons-the-earth-is-old/

#23) “Modern oceans are too salty to have been formed only ~6,000 years ago. We know this salt was delivered slowly to the oceans mainly via rivers (i.e. as opposed to being created in situ), because the relative abundance of salts in the ocean is related to their relative solubilities and abundance in the Earth’s surface.”

@jammycakes

Just saying: @pevaquark seems to think that the speed of light has always been constant in the past…

That’s not a blind assumption. There are some very good reasons, both theoretical and observational, to support this one. The speed of light is one of the most fundamental constants of nature, and if it changed, everything would change, right down to even the chemical properties of the elements. We also know that it has been the same through astronomical observations. For example, if it had ever been different in the past, we would see daily changes in the frequencies of millisecond pulsars in other galaxies. We don’t.

The rate of change of salt in the sea, on the other hand, is highly dependent on factors such as climate.

Basically, there are some things that can not realistically have changed in the past. There are others that can not realistically have always have been the same in the past. YECs generally do not make that distinction, or when they do, they get it the wrong way round.

1 Like

Pevaquark has no idea what he’s talking about either! Har har. I do appreciate the shoutout and it turns out that those scientists actually do challenge everything and hold fast to what is good! It turns out that scientists don’t blindly assume things are constant… they figure out how to measure them!!

Some good ones to note is the fine structure constant which is equal to e^2/hc (or the charge of an electron squared divided by the planck constant times the speed of light).

A nice paper examines the upper limit on if it’s changed: Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 010801 (2013) - Limits on the Dependence of the Fine-Structure Constant on Gravitational Potential from White-Dwarf Spectra. Also, a separate paper as you can see the link on the wikipedia page referenced is that this constant has changed by less than one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000 each year. That’s pretty constant! That is very good evidence that the speed of light has never changed and it’s not an assumption!

The gravitational constant is similar: [1504.00662] Testing Theories of Gravitation Using 21-Year Timing of Pulsar Binary J1713+0747… it changes by less than one part in 600,000,000,000 each year. Also pretty constant.

The proton to electron mass ratio… also constant. It goes on and on with real measurements, no strange philosophy here!

The weak nuclear force that governs radioactive decay - also constant. How do we know? The smashingly good success of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis which is based upon the mass of the neutron, proton, expansion rate and radioactive decay rate which perfectly predicts which elements would have been created in the first 20 minutes of our universe. Turns out that’s not changed either.

Also, if you change ‘c’- you also change the energy mas relationship E=mc^2… so to get light here from billions of light years away on say day 4 of Genesis - you would accidentally increase the energy contained in matter by a factor of a million trillion - instantly creating blackholes in every planet and star in the universe, ironically killing everything that would have existed at the time.

There is no evidence of anytime of any of these ever changing as @jammycakes stated.

3 Likes

@pevaquark
I see.

@cwhenderson[quote=“J.E.S, post:198, topic:36364”]
Personally, that’s what bothers me about EC. It just THROWS OUT (or “reinterprets” to use the euphemism) so much of the Bible. When all’s said and done, Christ may never have risen from the dead, by your numbers. He has to be in the tomb for a few billion more years. I don’t think he’s even been there a day yet.

With all of the reinterpreting done in EC, what’s left?

(Now, a quick disclaimer: If I have neglected to speak the truth in love, or have offended anyone, I sincerely apologize. But I do hope that you all see the points that I am trying to make.)
[/quote]

Since the dinosaurs topic is now closed (quite sad about where that one went), can we continue this discussion here?

Does it reinterpret?

Is your Biblical interpretation traditional?

Is it shared by a majority of Christians in the world today?

Has it been shared by a majority of Christians in the world over the last ~2000 years?

1 Like

I hope I haven’t said anything that led to this conclusion. I take it as fact that Christ died roughly 2,000 years ago, giving up His life for the sake of mankind. He rose again triumphant over death to offer new life to those that accept Him. My interpretation of Genesis 1-11 may not be acceptable to some Christians, but I absolutely do not “throw out” any parts of the Bible, especially those dealing with my Savior and Lord.

Let me share a passage of the Bible that I find inspiring and influential in my life:

28 And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?” 29 Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” 32 And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him. 33 And to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” 34 And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And after that no one dared to ask him any more questions. (Mark 12:28-34, ESV)

Part of why I love science (and biology, in particular) so much is that it is what God commands me to do. God wants me to study and learn more of what He has done to place life on this planet. I believe that science and scripture are both true! Sometimes, our understanding of science and our understanding of scripture may seem to conflict, and a figurative interpretation of Genesis allows me to hold onto the truth of both.

4 Likes

@J.E.S

It would be a great start if you retract your “circular argument” argument. You wrote this:

“Now I can better understand why . . . @gbrooks9 utilizes the circular reasoning of “since dinosaurs died out millions of years before humans came on the scene then, if we find evidence that dinosaurs and humans lived together, the evidence must be fake since dinosaurs died out millions of years ago.” Not impressed. Case is still open as far as I’m concerned!”

I suppose you would have a point if all I ever mentioned were dinosaurs and humans. But there’s a whole systematic differentiation between your view of a circular argument … and the available facts:

  1. we NEVER find marine dino-period reptile fossils in the same layers as we find whale fossils !
  2. we NEVER large land-based mammals (giraffes, elephants, rhinoceros, etc.) in the same layers as we find land-based dinosaurs ! … and
  3. we NEVER find marine dinosaur fossils in more recent layers than we find large mammals of ANY kind (whales or elephants) !
  4. we find fossilized rocks showing patterns of rain flow … right in the middle of a supposed Flood layer!
  5. and never do we find late-evolution flowering plants mixed in with the grasses that characterized the earliest plant life.

This keeps my position from becoming circular … while your whole discussion with the rocks is rock drawings made on rocks known to be faked.

To refute my ‘multi-branched system of circles’ you are going to need to have rocks with pictures of prehistoric plants, rocks with dinosaur teeth embedded in elephant bodies, and so much more than what you single-mindedly pursue as some kind of plausible evidence.

@gbrooks9

To be honest, I’m not sure that we never find these things. If we have found so few transitional forms (of which many, many, SHOULD exist) this stuff may be forthcoming.

Pardon me, but I don’t really know what this means in light of dinosaurs and humans… : (could you show me some pictures and articles etc?)

I’m beginning to resent people constantly asserting this without carefully and with an open mind examining all of the evidence.

Is this meant to be an insult?

@J.E.S, And why would that statement be an insult?

What I think is a little insulting is that you reduce my presentation of a complex set of interlocking evidences into a “mere circular argument” … while you defend yourself against all possible refutations with inexplicable carvings of prehistoric creatures that do not fit any known paradigm for how they could be authentic - - while at the very same time - - all the other things that would also have to be true have zero supporting or corroborating evidence.

And so while I invoke such variables as different life forms, different methods of comparing patterns of fossilization and different methods of dating them, you invoke a single line of evidence, along your own circular template: there are unexplained engravings of dinosaurs, so there must be truth to dinosaurs being witnessed by humans, so the engravings must be true. I find your analysis to be pretty ironic.

If you check the BioLogos archives, you will find this topic rarely explored, almost certainly because so few YEC’s are bold enough to delve into a soup so thin.

And just how many is “so few”? There are enough of them to have got Answers in Genesis to admit that they are a thing.

But the admissions of fakery by the people who faked them are all the evidence! Everything else that you’ve cited has been nothing but unsubstantiated assertions!

Do we really have to turn this thread into a Monty Python dead parrot sketch too? The Ica stones are a parrot which is no more. It has ceased to be. It’s expired and gone to meet its maker. This is a late parrot. It’s a stiff. Bereft of life it rests in peace. If you hadn’t nailed it to the perch it would be pushing up the daisies. It’s rung down the curtain and joined the choir invisible! This is an ex-parrot!

3 Likes

I think we have to define evidence. Perhaps that word does not mean what you think it means. If there is demonstrable evidence that something is true, it can be reproduced or confirmed by others, and can be quantified in some way. Sort of the old saying, if you can’t put a number on it, it is just an opinion.

3 Likes

@jpm @gbrooks9 @jammycakes

On that front, there is even more evidence for dinosaurs and humans coexisting than there is for the opposite. The coelocanth was said to be extinct. everyone thought we had a lot of evidence for that…until we discovered a good population of them living off the coast of Africa. The ginkgo plant was thought to be extinct…until it was discovered in Japan!

“Never” arguments really don’t seem to be the best. You can say, “we never have” or “x never has”…but there’s always the until!

As for demonstrable evidence…has anyone ever been able to recreate macroevolution in a laboratory?

@gbrooks9
you can check this out too:

The Ica stone may not be the best evidence (they are certainly not the least controversial) for dinosaurs and humans, but as, this article seeks to show, they are not alone in their testimony to the history of dinosaurs and man.

Jonathan, I would encourage you to examine what you are calling evidence. We have a tremendous amount of “evidence” for Bigfoot. Eye witness accounts, footprints, blurry photographs. Also for aliens: photographs around Roswell , eye witness accounts, abductions. And for the Loch Ness Monster. But, really?

As for “macroevolution” by definition it takes thousands to millions of years. Some researchers have been around awhile, but not that long. We also have not been able to create a supernova in the laboratory, thank goodness, but have little doubt that they exist.

2 Likes

@J.E.S.

Even if they did, I doubt if you would agree to its relevance. We’ve had any number of YEC’s come through here taunting their correspondents by asking the same thing. But as soon as someone starts showing that some microscopic life has been altered in such a way as to make them less reproductively compatible with an ancestral population (though not completely incompatible) - - the next refrain is:

“…But that’s just the same ‘kind’ … what about macro evolution which leads a hippo to become a whale!?!”

How does one prove anything to someone who thinks that even Common Descent is a false doctrine? It’s like saying nuclear DNA isn’t really in the nucleus of the cell - - the real DNA is hiding in supernatural pockets invisible within the cell.

The closest thing to demonstrating that populations can develop increasingly less reproductive compatibility (the very foundation of speciation) are the various Ring Species around the world. Give the Wiki article a look and learn something about how populations and biology can do unusual things!

1 Like

@J.E.S

But your evidence is a hot-house.

What do I mean by that? It’s a single species flower that stands all by itself, like most frauds do. For the Ica stones to be true, thousands of other things would need to be true … and we have zero evidence for even hundreds of these thousands.

It’s a fable. It’s a fake. And the solitary nature of this category of evidence is the best proof of that … even with various dragon stories around the world.

2 Likes

Neither the coelacanth nor the ginkgo plant are evidence that dinosaurs and humans coexisted.

I know your point is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but there are a number of key differences between the coelacanth and dinosaurs that mean you’re comparing apples and oranges here:

  1. The coelacanth is a marine animal. Dinosaurs were mainly land animals. Land is far, far more accessible to study, and even today there is a vast amount that we don’t know about the oceans.
  2. Dinosaurs were far, far larger than the coelacanth.
  3. The coelacanth was rediscoverd in 1938. That is seventy-nine years ago. At the time, what was known about the oceans was a tiny fraction of what is known today. As for dinosaurs and humans coexisting – we’re still waiting for any definitive evidence of that.

These differences mean that if dinosaurs really had coexisted with humans, evidence for them would have been far more abundant and far more accessible than the coelacanth. It’s not impossible that dinosaurs could have survived to modern times, but given the lack of evidence, it is extremely unlikely.[quote=“J.E.S, post:246, topic:36218”]
As for demonstrable evidence…has anyone ever been able to recreate macroevolution in a laboratory?
[/quote]

Ah, the good old “were you there?” fallacy. Evidence does not work that way and doing everything end to end in a lab is not a criterion for its validity.

3 Likes

@jpm

Those are also somewhat fascinating topics (which would make for an interesting discussion if they applied to the Creation v. Evolution debate…) but I digress.

Many consider the Loch Ness monster to be a living plesiosaur. I would encourage you all to research that a little too (and then there’s the “surgeon’s photograph.” I’m sure you are all going to tell me that there is absolutely nothing to the monster because of one supposedly fake photograph. However, I’m on the fence about that picture. A “deathbed confession” is what discredited it in the first place, but, upon reading further, I stumbled upon the interesting reasons to lie that existed in those interesting circumstances…but I digress again).

As for demonstrable evidence, are you agreeing with me that there is no “demonstrable evidence” (yet) for evolution?