Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
You Forget That I Am A Creationist

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard Ruquist on May 15, 2002 13:32:47 UTC

but that I also believe in conventional science at least in its broad principles. So there is much room for god to guide the creation of new species. However, my belief is that he has operated over billions of years, not six days.

I claim that your post supports 'old earth creationism' because you quote from sources that talk about millions of years as in the following:

***Seymouria, a commonly touted intermediate between amphibians and reptiles. But this creature is dated (by evolutionary dating methods) at 280 million years ago, about 30 million years younger than the earliest true reptiles Hylonomus and Paleothyris. Also, it was probably completely amphibian in its reproduction - the jump from amphibian to reptile eggs requires the development of a number of new structures and a change in biochemistry."
***

If you are a 'young earth creationist' you cannot talk about millions of years and maintain credibility.
--------------------------------------

The basic reason I am a creationist is that I see god in such control of my life that he or she must exert similar control on the rest of his/her creation. Yet I do not think that god breaks hiser own laws of physics. So that god's creation of new species is gradual on a generation to generation basis, yet happens so quickly on a million yaer basis that the likihood of finding transitional species is very small.

It seems that only recently the archaelogists found a 6 million year old femur (think that's what it's called) bone which suggests that humans are descended from tree dwelling primates that like the orangatun learned to be upright from living in trees. That means that Lucy and most of the other similar pre-human fossils were actually deadends and not pre-human. All this from a single bone. So one should one expect to find transitional fossils when the fossil record over millions of years is so barren.
-------------------------------

On a different note. The best way that creationists can criticize science is to point out that science for almost all of us is a belief system just like religion. Only the specialists in any one speciality actually can determine what is called scientific truth. And even they are laymen who rely on belief outside of their speciality.

The specialists in any one subfield are usually a small group of very bright people who all know each other and together they establish what is deemed to be scientific truth. Fortunately we also have experimental and observational data to keep them all honest- like the fine structure data for example.

Regards,

Richard

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins