Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

2 Bumps

From Evolution to Creation: A Personal Testimony

Quotes from the article (link is below):

"In one graduate class, the professor told us we didn't have to memorize the dates of the geologic systems since they were far too uncertain and conflicting. Then in geophysics we went over all of the assumptions that go into radiometric dating. Afterwards, the professor said something like this, "If a fundamentalist ever got hold of this stuff, he would make havoc out of the radiometric dating system. So, keep the faith." That's what he told us, "keep the faith." If it was a matter of keeping faith, I now had another faith I preferred to keep."

 "In The Genesis Flood, I had heard that paraconformity was a word used by evolutionary geologists for fossil systems out of order, but with no evidence of erosion or overthrusting. My heart really started pounding when paraconformities and other unconformities came up in geology class. What did the professor say? Essentially the same thing as Morris and Whitcomb. He presented paraconformities as a real mystery and something very difficult to explain in evolutionary or uniformitarian terms. We even had a field trip to study paraconformities that emphasized the point."

Much more at the link...

http://www.icr.org/article/95/

Hmmm.  Some things for me to consider in this.  Thoughts?

 
Mom2Just1Kiddo

Asked by Mom2Just1Kiddo at 12:19 PM on May. 15, 2012 in Religious Debate

Level 28 (36,632 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (17)
  • Evolution and creation were by God. No one else could create such magnificent beauty. The beauty
    of children, nature, everything is created in His image.
    onelove1982

    Answer by onelove1982 at 12:54 PM on May. 15, 2012

  • Evolution and creation are NOT mutually opposed. I believe in BOTH, and anyone who doesn't believe God could create an evolving changing system is not giving Him enough credit.
    gdiamante

    Answer by gdiamante at 12:31 PM on May. 15, 2012

  • I'm one of those who feels that evolution and Divinity are not mutually exclusive. I have more Deistic beliefs about God anyway, when it comes to how hands on He is, so the idea that He would arrange for a self sustaining and adapting system capable of producing life and higher consciousness, and then leaving it to do just that on its own, makes more sense to me than a God Who directly interferes with the nature of the world He created by planting species into it, if you get what I mean. So I not only accept the theory of evolution, but I do so without it contradicting at all my religious beliefs or convictions.
    bandgeek521

    Answer by bandgeek521 at 3:38 PM on May. 15, 2012

  • What I perceive of this writer is that he equates science with a fundamentalist religion, taking evolutionary theory as an absolute. While scientific theory is more grounded on evidence than the layman term, our understandings of it have not been completely proven.

    He took some perceived 'flaws' in the current methods of analyzing evidence to mean it cannot be absolutely true and pretty much dismissed the whole theory in favor of creationism, his faith telling him that must be true and using the scientific exceptions of measuring evolution to 'prove' it. He went from one extreme to the other.

    I have seen this first-hand in other born-agains.
    anng.atlanta

    Answer by anng.atlanta at 3:55 PM on May. 15, 2012

  • The link it to a CREATIONIST website to begin with so I would highly doubt the validity of the article or it's claims. The reason "creationists" have a fun filled field day with radiometric dating is NOT because of the inaccuracy of the dating, but because it leaves "presumably" large gaps or "errors", for example being able to date within 50-100 years oupwards of thousands of years depending on WHICH radioisotope is being tested and how long the half-life is for that isotope. The longer the half-life the more "room for error" but in Scientific terms these "errors" are not incorrect or false "assumptions" but rather because it is based on a broad mathematical equation. Not to mention many people mistake Carbon Dating for all forms of Radiometric dating and Carbon has a much shorter half-life and is therefore only accurate within 50,000 years at which time OTHER isotopes are also tested some with half-lives of 50 BILLION years
    KristiS11384

    Answer by KristiS11384 at 2:26 PM on May. 15, 2012

  • MamaK88

    Answer by MamaK88 at 6:08 PM on May. 15, 2012

  • Interesting. While this is not my issue, I find this article intriguing. I personally don't care how we got here, I just know God started whatever process we came to be by.Thanks for sharing this article op.
    adnilm

    Answer by adnilm at 2:35 PM on May. 15, 2012

  • My husband and I both agree with Creation as in the Genesis account. We believe in the inspired word of God.

    I've done a little research on this topic but not much. I've read some of Josh McDowell's material. I follow Dr. Georgia Purdom's blog on creation science as well as Ken Ham's work.
    HHx5

    Answer by HHx5 at 1:44 PM on May. 15, 2012

  • The minor points of contention within these disciplines do not refute the overwhelming evidence of the evolution of life. I am reading Richard Dawkin's The Blind Watchmaker right now. It is a terrific read of the scientific theories of and the evidence for the evolution of biological complexities.
    riotgrrl

    Answer by riotgrrl at 2:09 PM on May. 15, 2012

  • OMG gimme a break. I mean... yeah, there are lots of blanks to be filled in regarding many things in science, but they continue to get filled in, new discoveries are always made. and really, this is misleading. If there were a great flood, the corpses of the animals of all kids would have been pushed into areas and in places with mounds of soil that would be out of line with the "normal" geologic lines. Problems were discovered using uranium dating, and something more accurate was then put in place, etc. it is not at all what it is being made out to be. nor is the beginning of the universe (which has been recently discovered to be finite in all probability). however, scientists will tell you what is proven and what has not, percentage of possible error, and connections are based on logic and patterns of life and geology, not leaps of faith.

    as if the Bible is somehow a more accurate account just because you say so.
    figaro8895

    Answer by figaro8895 at 5:15 PM on May. 15, 2012