Quote Originally Posted by total relism View Post
It is sad to see what indoctrination can produce.

“The western world have never had the chance to learn creation thinking and know only evolution. Naturalism enjoys a virtual monopoly in today's classrooms, while instructors who have been schooled only in naturalistic worldview play the part of evolutionary evangelist.”
-John D Morris and Frank J Sherwin The Fossil Record 2017


see post 39- General information about creation and science such as noahs flood, natural selection, mutations etc
Post 39 is absolutely riddled with holes. It's got intellectual woodworm. Where to start?
Both creation and evolution are religions based on our worldview, we cannot test a monkey evolving into man, complex structures evolving, the big bang, the origin of life or fish turning into amphibians. Nor can we test Noah flood or the creation week. These are both religious worldviews competing for how to understand the world around us in our time. One is based on the belief that this world created itself, mother nature created us no outside intelligence was needed only the laws that govern the universe and normal processes. The other is outside intelligence was needed to create the world, catastrophe both are not scientific beliefs but religious worldviews.
Nobody is arguing that a monkey evolves into a man or that a fish turns into an amphibian. That would be magic.
We can test the "Noah flood" simply by observing and measuring that there isn't enough water in the world for it to have happened, the change in the atmosphere needed to support the stated volume of water in the stated time would have made the air unbreathable and it would have been impossible to gather so many species in such a short time.
Nobody is arguing that the World created itself, creation implies agency and the World is not seen as an agent - unless you are one of the more extreme advocates of the Gaia hypothesis.
This is why creation scientist and evolutionary scientist can look at the same evidence and come to completely different conclusion. For example there are trillions of dead plant and animals laid down by water fossilized all over the earth that is a fact that is observable. Based on the belief system of the researcher one says look, it must have taken billions of years to create all these fossils, uniformitarnism, slowly over millions of years. One animal fall in a lake and was buried and fossilized than later another was caught in a local flood, than another by a surging river etc evidence for billions of years it had to take that long to create all these fossils what more evidence do you need for millions of years. Than another researcher says wow, look trillions of fossils rapidly laid down by water all over the earth, just what you would expect from a global flood, what more evidence do you need the bible is true. The evidence is the same the conclusion is different based on their worldview.
No, your conclusion is reliant on your world view. When geology was in its infancy, people did not set out to use it to prove the World was very old, this conclusion was drawn from the evidence. In order to reject the conclusion, you must believe that geology is wrong, that geology is pseudoscience, for which of course, you cannot provide any proper evidence.
“The point is, however, that an organism can be modified and refined by natural selection, but that is not the way new species and new classes and new phyla originated”
Yes, it is.
Evolutionist claim that evolution is the cause of the origin of all life and the genetic information of organisms through history. They say the original organisms were simple life forms that evolved into greater complexity over time. Originally there was no genetic information for complex systems such as wings, brains, ears etc the genetic code for these evolved over time.
No, they don't and no they don't. It looks like that to you, because you still have a the mediaeval "chain of being" view of living creatures, descending from God from complexity to simplicity. Evolution does not say organisms become "more complex" only that genetic mutation is inherited according to the environment. Most of the rest of the post makes the same mistake.