New Scientist: 24 myths on evolution

This forum is for the discussion of the evidence for evolution. Anyone is welcome to post, however, scripture is not allowed. As the title says, Science Only please!

Moderator: Moderators

New Scientist: 24 myths on evolution

Postby Chris Sergeant » Fri Apr 18, 2008 12:42 pm

The New Scientist has an article on the above topic.
Some of the comments in response to the article are quite familiar.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/lif ... tions.html
Chris Sergeant
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 12:26 pm

Postby Peter Henderson » Fri May 09, 2008 12:55 pm

Response to the above from AiG:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... -arguments

Once again, the issue here is not what facts we have; the issue is how one interprets those facts. Steno, for example, saw the same facts and interpreted them within the framework of Scripture (modern day young-earth creationists do the same). Others later imposed their own interpretation to get the Bible out of it. It is also interesting to point out that 90% of the dating methods that we have available to us do not yield the billions-of-years age for the earth. These are not obscure methods of dating, but ones that are readily testable (though various “rescuing devices” are employed to get around the implications
).

If the Flood is a real historical event (which the Bible says it is, and which science supports), then the need for billions of years is completely washed away.


Claim 10:
Genesis says light was created before the sun.
Genesis 1:3 shows this is true. So, how is this a contradiction? The author apparently believes that the sun is required for this particular light of Genesis 1:3 that is hitting the earth. Thus, light could not have existed before the sun. The writer should know that light sources, besides the sun, can exist. Just as God said that He will provide light without a sun after His return (Revelation 22:5), God provided the light of Genesis 1:3. If someone doesn’t believe in God or denies His power, then it is not surprising that this topic would be problematic. Creating light, with or without a sun, is just another reason for His greatness


Now that we have rebutted the author’s claims, we note with irony that he wrapped up his article by stating:

However, there are far too many errors, inaccuracies and contradictions to dismiss them all. The only rational and reasonable conclusion is that the Bible is not inerrant. [emphasis added]
This, of course, assumes that rationality and reason exist in an evolutionary worldview
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4351
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Postby Michael » Fri May 09, 2008 2:53 pm

Peter Henderson wrote:Response to the above from AiG:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... -arguments

Once again, the issue here is not what facts we have; the issue is how one interprets those facts. Steno, for example, saw the same facts and interpreted them within the framework of Scripture (modern day young-earth creationists do the same). Others later imposed their own interpretation to get the Bible out of it. It is also interesting to point out that 90% of the dating methods that we have available to us do not yield the billions-of-years age for the earth. These are not obscure methods of dating, but ones that are readily testable (though various “rescuing devices” are employed to get around the implications
).

If the Flood is a real historical event (which the Bible says it is, and which science supports), then the need for billions of years is completely washed away.


Claim 10:
Genesis says light was created before the sun.
Genesis 1:3 shows this is true. So, how is this a contradiction? The author apparently believes that the sun is required for this particular light of Genesis 1:3 that is hitting the earth. Thus, light could not have existed before the sun. The writer should know that light sources, besides the sun, can exist. Just as God said that He will provide light without a sun after His return (Revelation 22:5), God provided the light of Genesis 1:3. If someone doesn’t believe in God or denies His power, then it is not surprising that this topic would be problematic. Creating light, with or without a sun, is just another reason for His greatness


Now that we have rebutted the author’s claims, we note with irony that he wrapped up his article by stating:

However, there are far too many errors, inaccuracies and contradictions to dismiss them all. The only rational and reasonable conclusion is that the Bible is not inerrant. [emphasis added]
This, of course, assumes that rationality and reason exist in an evolutionary worldview


They haven't convinced you , have they , Peter!
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Postby jon_12091 » Fri May 09, 2008 3:47 pm

It is also interesting to point out that 90% of the dating methods that we have available to us do not yield the billions-of-years age for the earth. These are not obscure methods of dating, but ones that are readily testable (though various “rescuing devices” are employed to get around the implications).


That’s because most dating methods won't measure that far back - and when attempts are made to use these methods incorrectly whether through incompetence or deceit they give spurious results. You wouldn't try and measure a mile with a 30cm ruler would you? Though of course creationists would measure it with a wooden rod divided marked off in cubits and then compain at the end that the 'mile' is an invention of Godless aethistic science!

I can't help but note the little discussion about inherency v's literalism, personally I think the NS article's author made a poor choice in their use of langauge, but can't help but snigger at the massive irony of AiG's comments
User avatar
jon_12091
 
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Postby Peter Henderson » Fri May 09, 2008 5:14 pm

They haven't convinced you , have they , Peter!


'fraid not Michael.

After watching Sunday's "the sky at night" (one of the best programmes in the series) I was more convinced than ever that YECism is a load of hogwash. It's the fact that we don't know everything that makes science so interesting. Some really interesting questions on cosmology were brought up and it really is amazing how little we know. Cosmology is one of those subjects that the more we discover, the more questions there are. I really can't understand how people who claim to be "a card crrying evolutionist" can fall for the Ham nosense", I really can't:

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroun ... s-portico/

This is amazing. Not so long ago I was a card carrying evolutionist. AIG, ICR, CSE, etc., have all played a part in my re-education and wearing my biblical glasses. Thank you for your ministry and thank you to all the people involved in this ministry. You’re on the winning team.


Great science from the BBC and as always, some really interesting guests. I just hope they don't drop this when Sir Patrick retires. Hopefully Chris Lintott will find the time to take over the reigns.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4351
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland


Return to Science Only

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron