Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"The point we make to people is [that] the origins issue is different from empirical science that built Space Shuttles or put man on the moon. The origins issue is an issue regarding history -- and you don't have the history; you only have the present. We want people to distinguish those two things. If I wanted to illustrate gravity, I stand here, I hold a pen, and you watch it drop. You can't deny that that happens. But if said to you, 'Show me that hundreds of millions of years ago life arose from non-life,' you can't show me that. All you can do is look at the evidence in the present and try to interpret it in relation to the past." - Ken Ham, Pres., AiG
Where's the creationist model mams? The scientific community uses old earth, old universe and evolutionary models in its studies and in developing technology. What has been developed using a creationist model? What is the creationist model? The theory of evolution makes numerous predictions - a requirement for scientific theory - which have been tested and verified. What predictions does creationism make? How would we test a prediction made by the creationist model?
"The point we make to people is [that] the origins issue is different from empirical science that built Space Shuttles or put man on the moon. The origins issue is an issue regarding history -- and you don't have the history; you only have the present. We want people to distinguish those two things. If I wanted to illustrate gravity, I stand here, I hold a pen, and you watch it drop. You can't deny that that happens. But if said to you, 'Show me that hundreds of millions of years ago life arose from non-life,' you can't show me that. All you can do is look at the evidence in the present and try to interpret it in relation to the past." - Ken Ham, Pres., AiG
Some people have argued that anything fundamentally historical cannot be a science. After all, you can't repeat experiments. How would you repeat Julius Caesar? What lab has built a planet?
Those arguments misunderstand science. Repeatable experiments are important, but the Big Bang is not an experiment. A measurement about the Big Bang is an experiment. If others can repeat and verify my measurement, then I have a repeatable experiment about the Big Bang.
Society agrees that it is possible to become very certain about past events. We hold murder trials, although the jury was not at the murder.
In any case, prediction is much more important than repeatability. Theories about history are scientific if they make predictions that can be tested.
Examples range from the murder mystery and astronomy to geology.
Einstein proved that time was much different than anyone could have imagined. It's not an ongoing function that happens in the absence of everything else. Before the big bang there was no time because nothing existed. I'll be the first to admit that we're completely clueless about what process could have caused the big bang and explain the beginnings of the universe. I don't know if that's something we'll ever be able to determine and we might not even be able to comprehend it. We do know something about the nature of time though and can rule out the idea of a time before the big bang.
How do we know that there's not another universe somewhere outside the boundaries of our own universe?
If there was another universe, even if that too was started with another Big Bang in a sequence distinct from our own, does that mean that there was still no concept or existence of time just because our own big bang didn't occur yet?
Also, even if actual time didn't exist yet because there wasn't any Big Bang anywhere, the fact that the concept of time existed prior to the Big Bang, as an idea, as in the essence of a form, independent of reality, doesn't that mean that time has always existed in the pure form of pure thought, or in God's light?
For instance, doesn't the purely theoretical concept of the Big Bang have to exist before the Big Bang could even occur? Through the truth of pure logic, the concept of the Big Bang must have existed before the Big Bang could occur, or else there wouldn't have been any logical or theoretical foundation for it to have occurred in reality.
Doesn't the concept or theory exist or preceed every reality? So, just maybe time did exist before reality, and another whole universe existed before reality too. So there was time before our universe. Just as we breath, and stop, and breath again. They are not just single independent breaths, but a sequence of breaths that sustain life. Maybe it's like a repetitive cycle of Big Bangs and science can't see the forest due to all of the trees, because of its lack of perspective and the arbitrary isolation of seemingly singular events, rather than studying an entire, complete series of events. Just because known science is lacking the bigger picture, doesn't mean that a much bigger picture doesn't exist.
Even the concept of Christ was prophesied before He was actually born into this world.
For instance, doesn't the purely theoretical concept of the Big Bang have to exist before the Big Bang could even occur?
No, nature doesn't have thoughts or concepts, those are human qualities. The thought of the big bang is just as mind boggling to me as it is to you. Studies in astronomy do indicate the our universe expanded outwards from a single point and time and even space itself came into being. I've also heard people discuss the possibilities of other universes that might exist other than our own and physics has all sorts of theories about parallel universes and the like but they're purely speculation at this point. The point I was trying to make about time is that it's not a stand alone function that continues to operate in the absence of everything else. It just doesn't work that way as Einstein proved.
"The point we make to people is [that] the origins issue is different from empirical science that built Space Shuttles or put man on the moon. The origins issue is an issue regarding history -- and you don't have the history; you only have the present. We want people to distinguish those two things. If I wanted to illustrate gravity, I stand here, I hold a pen, and you watch it drop. You can't deny that that happens. But if said to you, 'Show me that hundreds of millions of years ago life arose from non-life,' you can't show me that. All you can do is look at the evidence in the present and try to interpret it in relation to the past." - Ken Ham, Pres., AiG
So, by Ken Ham's logic, we cannot prove that christianity is true. After all, nobody currently alive was actually in Judea during the lifetime of Christ, so all we have is some hearsay. Not provable, just some writings that could very well be fiction.
So, by Ken Ham's logic, we cannot prove that christianity is true. After all, nobody currently alive was actually in Judea during the lifetime of Christ, so all we have is some hearsay. Not provable, just some writings that could very well be fiction.
No one currently alive and no one alive at all are two totally different things, I would think. But I've read a lot of strange posts here, so you very well may disagree with that.
No one currently alive and no one alive at all are two totally different things, I would think. But I've read a lot of strange posts here, so you very well may disagree with that.
But in either case, we are looking at current evidence to try and determine past events.
For christianity, we are looking at the bible, older manuscripts such as the dead sea scrolls, some archaelogical evidence, etc. These are all things that exist in our current time, but we need to determine their veracity and provenance in order to make decisions as to what we think happened in the past.
For evolution, geology, cosmology, etc, we are similarly looking at things that exist in our current world, such as DNA, fossils, varves, ice cores, oil deposits, radiometric dating evidence, maps of tectonic plates and faults, pictures of supernova and nebulas,......
In either case, we simply have the present evidence by which we can extrapolate past history. The difference is that for the sciences we can perform experiments and observations. If those experiments show that current theories are incorrect, then evolution, etc will need to be discarded and a new theory developed.
For christianity, there is no means of experimenting or observing. We simply need to accept historical documents at face value, disregarding anything contrary to them.
For christianity, there is no means of experimenting or observing. We simply need to accept historical documents at face value, disregarding anything contrary to them.[/quote]
But in either case, we are looking at current evidence to try and determine past events.
For christianity, we are looking at the bible, older manuscripts such as the dead sea scrolls, some archaelogical evidence, etc. These are all things that exist in our current time, but we need to determine their veracity and provenance in order to make decisions as to what we think happened in the past.
For evolution, geology, cosmology, etc, we are similarly looking at things that exist in our current world, such as DNA, fossils, varves, ice cores, oil deposits, radiometric dating evidence, maps of tectonic plates and faults, pictures of supernova and nebulas,......
In either case, we simply have the present evidence by which we can extrapolate past history. The difference is that for the sciences we can perform experiments and observations. If those experiments show that current theories are incorrect, then evolution, etc will need to be discarded and a new theory developed.
For christianity, there is no means of experimenting or observing. We simply need to accept historical documents at face value, disregarding anything contrary to them.
My post was in direct response to you stating that Ken Hamm's logic takes apart Christianity which, in my opinion and as evidented by my response, is apples to oranges.
That being said and in response to your most current post, quoted above, if we had any written evidence validating evolution, we should look at it. However, the only think I can think that we have are cave drawigs dating back many years and, with the exception of maybe a wooly mammoth, all the animals look like they do today. And so do the humans, for that matter.
My only point was that evidence written by humans shouldn't, in my opinion, be compared to geological and biological assumptions based on apparent physical evidence. But again, it's certainly anyone's perogative to do whatever they please, but Ken Hamm's logic is sound.
EDIT: A quick google check puts the oldest cave drawings at about 40K years. I personally think they aren't that old <wink wink> but that's what I found.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.