When exactly did the scientific shift between creation and evolution happen?

(I'm new here. Please forgive me if this seems like a silly question.)

When exactly did the scientific shift between creation and evolution happen?

As a child, I remember seeing the space video of William Anders, Jim Lovell and Frank Borman read Genesis on the Apollo 8 lunar mission, and while I'm way too young to have experienced it first hand, I don't remember a controversy with what they said (if that happened today, it would be front page news, and the astronauts would probably be fired). Highly educated, scientific men on a NASA mission to the moon were not only quoting scripture but scripture about God creating the earth.

Darwin's paper was published in 1859. The Scopes Trial was in 1925, and Apollo 8 was in 1968. When exactly did it become 'silly' and 'uneducated' to believe there was a god involved in the origin of the earth?

Views: 1149

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Margaret, from what scientists do there are a few real science and a lot of void speculation. Engineers make the discerning between the two by tests. They also do a lot of research on their own without the need for scientists.

Margaret said:

Alexander, someone who sets himself up as an expert on science should really know the difference between science and engineering.

However, you clearly need educating, as you have said yourself previously.

A scientist studies the natural world.

An engineer applies that knowledge.

Alexander Martin said:

Please enlighten us... and while you're doing that, go ahead and give us your credentials that establish your scientific expertise.

Margaret said:

Brian, Alexander, I would have thought you would know the difference between science and engineering by now.

It's the fossils not found in order of complexity and the mixed sedimentary strata that falsify your assertion.

Margaret said:

Yes.

There are countless examples of unmixed sedimentary strata.

My wife is a geneticist and senior scientist for her company. She oversees the sequencing of DNA for various outside companies. She doesn't do any new research on DNA or publish any new research but "applies" contemporary science already developed to perform the work for customers.

  

By your "expert" understanding of what scientist are or are not, is she a scientist or an engineer?

  

Again, give us your credentials that establish your scientific expertise since you have claimed to be a scientist.

Margaret said:

Alexander, someone who sets himself up as an expert on science should really know the difference between science and engineering.

However, you clearly need educating, as you have said yourself previously.

A scientist studies the natural world.

An engineer applies that knowledge.

Carolyn Reeves said:

It blew my mind that no one had ever presented the kind of factual information I was reading.

Margaret said:

Carolyn, do a hydraulic engineer and a theology professor count as credible scientists in the fields of cosmology / geology / biology / archaeology, etc?

Brian Guiley said:

Margaret,

Since "The Genesis Flood" dealt with 'Genesis', a theology degree would be valuable.  And since it deals with a flood, a hydraulic engineer would also be valuable.  In fact, for the topic of said book, it would be hard to find more pertinent fields for these men to have studied.

No, the claim was about the factual information.  Implying the physical evidence of the flood.  Studying the Bible won't tell you about real evidence out in the world.  And a hydraulic engineer won't have the expertise to identify, let alone understand the significance of an aeolian deposit vs a fluvial deposit.

Brian Guiley said:

Margaret,

So by your definition, an engineer has to be a scientist (to have the knowledge) and then apply it.  I'd take an engineer over a scientist by that definition any day.

No, an electrical engineer can utilize knowledge gained from physicists without actually understanding the details of atomic theory.  Would you trust an electrician to explain nuclear fission?  electricity and fission are just as related as hydraulics and geology.

Alexander Martin said:

It's the fossils not found in order of complexity and the mixed sedimentary strata that falsify your assertion.

I challenge you t find a single example of layers "out of order"  They are occasionally upside down (the surface continues to move they are sideways sometimes too) but they still remain in their relative order.  and some areas don't collect every single layer.  Which you wouldn't expect either (oceans weren't present over the entire Earth all at once).  Layers "out of order" would be something along the lines of mammals in the Precambrian or a Palaezoic layer in between Mesozoic and Caenozoic layers.

Alexander, there are thousands of well-qualified scientists out there. You already claim to know more about their specialist subjects than they do. What difference does one more make?  Everything I have posted on this site (apart from my Christian beliefs) is 100% conventional science. You could take any one of my posts and show it to a university professor from Japan, Russia, or Germany, and they would say "She's perfectly correct, what's your problem?" 

So what is your problem?

As your wife is a geneticist, I would be very interested to know her views on your claim that all of the variation in the human genome has evolved in the space of around 200 generations.

Alexander Martin said:

My wife is a geneticist and senior scientist for her company. She oversees the sequencing of DNA for various outside companies. She doesn't do any new research on DNA or publish any new research but "applies" contemporary science already developed to perform the work for customers.

  

By your "expert" understanding of what scientist are or are not, is she a scientist or an engineer?

  

Again, give us your credentials that establish your scientific expertise since you have claimed to be a scientist.

Margaret said:

Alexander, someone who sets himself up as an expert on science should really know the difference between science and engineering.

However, you clearly need educating, as you have said yourself previously.

A scientist studies the natural world.

An engineer applies that knowledge.

Margaret, I believe it is possible to have a rational discussion about this topic without getting sidetracked about who's a real scientist.  I directed this question to you earlier, because it clarifies what you might be assuming about the scientific evidence for the age of the earth. This may seem off-topic, but evidence for the age of the earth (such as radiometric dating) was a big part of the more recent shift in what we find in textbooks about creationism and evolution.  

My question was:

Do you believe the scientific evidence provides strong support that the earth is billions of years old, and those of us who believe the earth is thousands of years are clinging to bare faith with no scientific evidence to stand on?



Yashin Nashi said:

Carolyn Reeves said:

It blew my mind that no one had ever presented the kind of factual information I was reading.

Margaret said:

Carolyn, do a hydraulic engineer and a theology professor count as credible scientists in the fields of cosmology / geology / biology / archaeology, etc?


 

 

Carolyn, you're right, the real scientist question is a side issue.

I'm not aware of any scientific evidence in favour of a young earth, and I'm aware of mountains of scientific evidence from multiple disciplines for an age of billions of years.

That said, it isn't necessarily the case that the earth must be young.

Accepting a literal interpretation of the Bible as your primary source of knowledge is a perfectly valid, rational position.

Accepting a literal interpretation of the Bible as your primary source of knowledge whilst claiming to also accept science is not. 

Carolyn Reeves said:

Margaret, I believe it is possible to have a rational discussion about this topic without getting sidetracked about who's a real scientist.  I directed this question to you earlier, because it clarifies what you might be assuming about the scientific evidence for the age of the earth. This may seem off-topic, but evidence for the age of the earth (such as radiometric dating) was a big part of the more recent shift in what we find in textbooks about creationism and evolution.  

My question was:

Do you believe the scientific evidence provides strong support that the earth is billions of years old, and those of us who believe the earth is thousands of years are clinging to bare faith with no scientific evidence to stand on?



Yashin Nashi said:

Carolyn Reeves said:

It blew my mind that no one had ever presented the kind of factual information I was reading.

Margaret said:

Carolyn, do a hydraulic engineer and a theology professor count as credible scientists in the fields of cosmology / geology / biology / archaeology, etc?


 

 

You didn't answer my inquiries:

  

By your "expert" understanding of what a scientist is or is not, is my wife a scientist or an engineer?

  

Again, give us your credentials that establish your scientific expertise since you have claimed to be a scientist.



Margaret said:

Alexander, there are thousands of well-qualified scientists out there. You already claim to know more about their specialist subjects than they do. What difference does one more make?  Everything I have posted on this site (apart from my Christian beliefs) is 100% conventional science. You could take any one of my posts and show it to a university professor from Japan, Russia, or Germany, and they would say "She's perfectly correct, what's your problem?" 

So what is your problem?

As your wife is a geneticist, I would be very interested to know her views on your claim that all of the variation in the human genome has evolved in the space of around 200 generations.

From Morris and Witcomb, "The Genesis Flood" (1961)

  

"The large central region of the United States, known as the Great Plains, stretching roughly from the Rockies to the Mississippi and from Canada to Mexico, consists largely of remnants of a single great fluviatile plain or alluvial slope."

  

He then quotes N. M. Fenneman. "Physiography of Western United States" (1931) in describing the origin of these plains before continuing:

 

"There is no reason to question the general correctness of the nature of the geomorphic origin of these plains, as attributable to widespread and overlapping alluvial fans formed by heavy-laden rivers coming down from the recently uplifted mountains to the west. The significant thing, however, is that here again one must visualize a phenomenon for which there is no parallel in the modern world except on a much smaller scale. The principle of uniformity is misnamed if, to interpret ancient phenomena on the basis of the present, the expedient of extrapolation must so continually be employed and to such a great degree. The example chosen is one taken almost at random from many similar deposits around the world. It seems that almost everywhere one looks, he can find evidence of widespread deposition, either alluvial or deltaic in nature, of magnitude quite beyond that of any deposits being formed in the present."

  

The point I'm making here is that whether he was trained as a geologist or not or whether he would be able to recognize the difference between "an aeolian deposit vs a fluvial deposit" becomes moot if you can reference geologists who DO recognize the difference and who's empirical work directly support the theory that one's scientific expertise led one to develop.

  

I will quote from http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j24_1/j24_1_56-64.pdf in regard to your challenge.

  

"A second type of anomaly in the fossil record is the situation in which “older” fossils are found above rocks that contain “young” fossils. These out-of-order fossils are the opposite of the evolutionary hypothesis. Out-of-order fossils are considered “impossible” by evolutionists, and so are dismissed as the result of overthrusting. An overthrust involves “older” strata being pushed over “younger” strata at an angle less than 45°.

  
Robinson claimed that overthrusts are based on geophysical evidence and not out-of-order fossils. This is true for some, but the Lewis overthrust in Montana and Alberta (figures 9–11) was identified based on fossils. In the Lewis “overthrust”, Precambrian rocks supposedly slid tens of kilometers eastward up a low slope over “Cretaceous” rocks. There is a 900 Ma out-of-order time gap at the Lewis “overthrust”, and this time gap was first based on out-of-order fossils. Bailey Willis first hypothesized the “overthrust” in 1902 after he found “Precambrian crustacean shells” in the upper block above the “Cretaceous” strata. The Lewis Overthrust may or may not be a true overthrust, but the determination should be made by geological and geophysical methods and not by fossils.

  

The fact is that there are hundreds of alleged overthrusts and they seem to occur in most mountain ranges of the world. Yet mountains are usually the few places to observe a thick vertical sequence and so one is forced to conclude that out-of-order strata are common. A real overthrust should show abundant physical evidence. Relying just on fossils is unreasonable. If these strata cannot be tied to a real overthrust, then the fossil distribution in the geological column is contrary to evolutionary predictions."

  

My second reference comes from P. Garner. "The New Creationism" (2009):

  

"Evolutionary biologists seek to establish how groups of organisms are related by studying the shared characteristics they are thought to have inherited from a common ancestor. From this, they can determine the order in which they think the groups diverged from one another and, therefore, the order in which they ought to appear in the fossil record. However, when the actual order of first appearance of the major fossil groups is compared with the order in which they are expected to have appeared, there seems to be little correspondence. In a study by paleontologist Kurt Wise, only five out of 144 test cases showed a significant agreement between the fossil order and the predicted evolutionary order. The sequence of the fossils does not seem to fit the expected evolutionary pattern."

  

These are not "upside down" layers like you suggest. The point I'm making here is that evolutionist MUST assume over-thrusting in every case of out-of-order sedimentary layers if they don't want to admit that their theory of fossil order has been falsified. This results in the fallacy of confirmation bias.



Yashin Nashi said:

No, the claim was about the factual information.  Implying the physical evidence of the flood.  Studying the Bible won't tell you about real evidence out in the world.  And a hydraulic engineer won't have the expertise to identify, let alone understand the significance of an aeolian deposit vs a fluvial deposit.

Alexander Martin said:

It's the fossils not found in order of complexity and the mixed sedimentary strata that falsify your assertion.

I challenge you t find a single example of layers "out of order"  They are occasionally upside down (the surface continues to move they are sideways sometimes too) but they still remain in their relative order.  and some areas don't collect every single layer.  Which you wouldn't expect either (oceans weren't present over the entire Earth all at once).  Layers "out of order" would be something along the lines of mammals in the Precambrian or a Palaezoic layer in between Mesozoic and Caenozoic layers.

Margaret, I am not aware of any scientific evidence for billions of years for the age of earth. All I have hear about are void speculations. From those mountains of evidence can you present at least one which have really been observationally tested?

Margaret said:

Carolyn, you're right, the real scientist question is a side issue.

I'm not aware of any scientific evidence in favour of a young earth, and I'm aware of mountains of scientific evidence from multiple disciplines for an age of billions of years.

That said, it isn't necessarily the case that the earth must be young.

Accepting a literal interpretation of the Bible as your primary source of knowledge is a perfectly valid, rational position.

Accepting a literal interpretation of the Bible as your primary source of knowledge whilst claiming to also accept science is not. 

Carolyn Reeves said:

Margaret, I believe it is possible to have a rational discussion about this topic without getting sidetracked about who's a real scientist.  I directed this question to you earlier, because it clarifies what you might be assuming about the scientific evidence for the age of the earth. This may seem off-topic, but evidence for the age of the earth (such as radiometric dating) was a big part of the more recent shift in what we find in textbooks about creationism and evolution.  

My question was:

Do you believe the scientific evidence provides strong support that the earth is billions of years old, and those of us who believe the earth is thousands of years are clinging to bare faith with no scientific evidence to stand on?



Yashin Nashi said:

Carolyn Reeves said:

It blew my mind that no one had ever presented the kind of factual information I was reading.

Margaret said:

Carolyn, do a hydraulic engineer and a theology professor count as credible scientists in the fields of cosmology / geology / biology / archaeology, etc?


 

 

Alexander, as Carolyn and I agreed, the distinction between scientist and engineer is not important.

If you can point out any of my (non-religious) posts that aren't 100% conventional science I'd be happy to let you know my qualifications, otherwise the question is irrelevant.

To date everything I have said would be accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists the world over, and that isn't about to change.

Which of course means that you're not really arguing with me, you're arguing with the whole scientific establishment.

I take it your wife is not in full agreement with your worldview?

Alexander Martin said:

You didn't answer my inquiries:

  

By your "expert" understanding of what a scientist is or is not, is my wife a scientist or an engineer?

  

Again, give us your credentials that establish your scientific expertise since you have claimed to be a scientist.



 

Alexander, life is too short to point out all the errors in your longer post.

I'll just ask a simple question.

How do any of your examples provide evidence for a young earth?

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Resources

follow us on Twitter

© 2014   Created by Creation Conversations.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service