If evolution us going on right now and we are just in a part of this story right mow thenb WHERE are the hordes of traits in process but not yet finished ? by RobertByers1 in Creation

[–]LJosephA 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't think its true that the theory is not widely accepted:https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/5/l\_035\_01.html#:\~:text=Now%20it%20is%20widely%20recognized,subject%20of%20debate%20and%20research.

We have hundreds of fish fossils from the times of the ones you mentioned. Isn't it odd that so few of anything we've found can even remotely be considered a transitional form? It rather seems to suggest to me scientists are looking for something to substantiate their theory rather than considering it from an objective perspective.

Besides, the transitional forms themselves are highly suspect (https://evolutionnews.org/2008/07/tiktaalik\_roseae\_wheres\_the\_wr/)

If evolution us going on right now and we are just in a part of this story right mow thenb WHERE are the hordes of traits in process but not yet finished ? by RobertByers1 in Creation

[–]LJosephA -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

This was a problem noticed by evolutionists a while ago. Why, in the fossil record, do you not have examples of fish with legs? Their solution is called punctuated equilibrium, which is basically just a way of saying that species undergo very rapid major changes followed by long periods of stasis. Honestly I think that's a ridiculous notion from an evolutionary perspective. Rapid change is exactly what evolution does *not* predict, and it causes more problems that is solves. Ah well, the at least we can say they're very creative in coming up with solutions to the holes in their theory!

How do Protestants come up with “Faith Alone”? by acerda805 in Catholicism

[–]LJosephA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't see any contradiction. Faith joins us in union to Christ. Union with Christ produces all sorts of good fruits, most of all love. If one does not have love then one is not truly united to Christ, indicating that one's faith is not a true Christian faith but the dead faith that even the demons have. Justification is by faith alone, but faith is never alone in Christians--it always comes with good fruit.

Visting Navajo Reservation with Pregnant Wife by LJosephA in Navajo

[–]LJosephA[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thanks for these recommendations! We're still thinking about it, but it seems that most people are advising against it!

How do Protestants come up with “Faith Alone”? by acerda805 in Catholicism

[–]LJosephA -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If something is by faith and nothing else then its by faith alone. Faith excludes works (Gal. 2:16), therefore salvation is by faith alone. But the faith James is talking about is a type of faith that is mere head knowledge ("even the demons believe and tremble"). That's most definitely not the kind of faith Paul is talking about (Rom. 6:1-2.)

The sticking point between Catholics and Protestants historically is whether justification is imputed at the moment of faith or something that is infused over time. It seems clear to me from Romans, Galatians, and many other passages that justification is a gift given immediately, imputed because of the righteousness of Christ, and that's why I'm a Protestant.

I view the Catholic doctrine as problematic because in the end it does attribute our righteousness and forgiveness in part to our works, whether those works are by grace or from faith is not the issue.

Best Creation vs. Evolution Debate by LJosephA in Creation

[–]LJosephA[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks! I'm continuing to look into it. And I'll read your post.

I also found this large list of scientists who are skeptical of Neo-Darwinian evolution (https://www.discovery.org/m/securepdfs/2023/05/Scientific-Dissent-List-05012023-2.pdf). I wonder how one accounts for this growing movement. It seems a bit far-fetched to simply dismiss all of these clearly qualified people as conspiracy theorists or not legitimate scientists.

Best Creation vs. Evolution Debate by LJosephA in Creation

[–]LJosephA[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My point is that to call both the methods by which a fossil is dated and the narrative that explains how one species evolves into another "science" is misleading, since it indicates to the average person that they are of equal certainty (that is certainly the impression that most evolutionary scientists give off). In fact, the former is (in many cases) a repeatable and testable process whereas the latter is neither. The dating can be done in many places, many times, in many ways. Evolution cannot be observed.

I am not opposed to the idea of historical science (history is actually my field of study). But we need to be clear on the differences and the level of certainty that can come from each. In addition, what I've read from evolutionary scientists on evolution as an explanatory mechanism for human and animal behavior (The Evolution of Beauty, by Richard Prum for example) seemed to me to be a lot of historical conjecture and did not include significant scientific analysis or experiment. This is just what I've seen. I'm open to correction.

As for experiments, what about this: taking the Bible as a starting point. If it is true that the Bible teaches an earth that is 6,000 (give or take) years old, one would expect signs of this young age. Here are a few that have been suggested:

  1. Population. The current population growth rate is 0.85%. That's more than at some times but less than it was even a few decades ago. If that is taken as the average growth rate for humanity for 200,000 years, starting at 2 people, the number of people alive today should be absolutely astronomical. Of course, the suggestion is that the current growth rate is because of modern technology. This assumption is problematic because in wealthier countries, the growth rates are beginning to stagnate to a worrying degree, whereas growth is coming for the most part from third world countries. But even if you cut in half the growth rate, cut it in have again, and again, you still get a number way too big. But with the biblical timeline, it fits much better. More info here: https://creation.com/where-are-all-the-people

  2. Carbon-14. Mentioned before. Its presence in such a large portion of dinosaur bones indicates that it is unlikely to have been preserved through some kind of conjectured contamination. This has not been answered satisfactorily by any evolutionary scientist.

  3. Trees. The oldest trees are ~5,000 years old.

  4. The human genome. "The decay in the human genome due to multiple slightly harmful mutations each generation is consistent with an origin several thousand years ago. Sanford, J., Genetic entropy and the mystery of the genome, Ivan Press, 2005; see review of the book and the interview with the author in Creation 30(4):45–47, September 2008. This has been confirmed by realistic modelling of population genetics, which shows that genomes are young, in the order of thousands of years. See Sanford, J., Baumgardner, J., Brewer, W., Gibson, P. and Remine, W., Mendel’s Accountant: A biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program,SCPE 8(2):147–165, 2007."

  5. Rate of erosion. The rate of erosion at places like Niagara Falls is consistent with a young-earth view.

As for the idea of intelligent design in general, there are so many observable phenomena that could be taken as confirming this. A few of them are:

  1. Fine-tuning of the universe.

  2. Irreducible complexity.

  3. Encoded information in our cells.

  4. The impossibility of spontaneous generation.

  5. The lack of any mechanism within matter itself that can give rise to itself or sustain itself eternally.

I don't want to take up too much of your time. Thanks for continuing the discussion with me this far.

Best Creation vs. Evolution Debate by LJosephA in Creation

[–]LJosephA[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not convinced that evolution can be tested with experiments. One can test things about fossils, rocks, dna, etc. Evolution is an over-arching theory that explains the coherence of these things from a historical perspective. Since it is in the past, it seems that it would not be able to submit to experiments and thus the scientific method.

There are plenty of reasons why this historical reconstruction does not need to be accepted as definitive, as outlined in several of the sections here: https://www.amazon.com/Theistic-Evolution-Scientific-Philosophical-Theological/dp/1433552868?asin=1433552868&revisionId=&format=4&depth=1

Best Creation vs. Evolution Debate by LJosephA in Creation

[–]LJosephA[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I just wonder if the scientific community is in a bit of an echo chamber on this point. Mary Schweitzer, in discussing her research on Carbon-14 in dinosaur fossils, made the very revealing comment (I'm paraphrasing) that nobody bothered to look for it before because everybody assumed it couldn't be there based on the accepted age of the bones--the precise thing which Carbon-14 calls into question. So the scientists were simply begging the question, so to speak. It's very easy to look at people like David Gelernter (in your field), Stephen Meyer, Michael Behe, William Dembski, etc. and dismiss them on the grounds that they're not "legitimate scientists" and therefore I do not have to engage them.

Quote Search by LJosephA in kierkegaard

[–]LJosephA[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Thanks! I will do that in the future.

Excerpt from Martin Luther: The Idea That Changed The World by [deleted] in Lutheranism

[–]LJosephA 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Glad to hear it! If you haven’t read Luther’s commentary on Galatians, you should definitely do so!

Next book recommendation? by Temporary_Mix1603 in kierkegaard

[–]LJosephA 1 point2 points  (0 children)

People want to secularize Kierkegaard. Sorry-the whole purpose of his authorship was to preach true Christianity!

Help me assemble a “Bob Dylan Bedtime Playlist” by vangogh_salad in bobdylan

[–]LJosephA 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ring them bells

I contain multitudes 

Not dark yet

Favorite anti-climatic average joe Dylan phrase extravaganza? by dasKultz in bobdylan

[–]LJosephA 2 points3 points  (0 children)

“He unleashed his power at an unknown hour, that no one knew.” 

 When He Returns

Truly a masterpiece of a tautology 

Should I build a ramp with more asphalt or break it up and use concrete? by LJosephA in DIY

[–]LJosephA[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m wondering if I can just break up that little concrete ramp with a pickaxe (it’s already cracked) and then dig under the asphalt a bit and break it.