Thread:TheSquidychicken/@comment-31308946-20170525193032/@comment-31308946-20170530123553

Here we go time for some better grammar :P

Ok so it seems almost paradoxical at first that both creationists and evolutionists would appeal to the very same evidence in support of opposing positions. We might be inclined to think that creationists would use line of evidence, and evolutionists would use another but this just s not the case. Both sides appeal to the fossil records and genetics. Both appeal to rock layers and canyons. Both appeal to the methods and procedures of science. In some cases, the two camps may appeal to exactly the same evidence in support of their competing positions. What is going on here?

Obviously, the origins debate cannot be about different lines of evidence, because we all observe the same evidence. Creationists and evolutionists have the same fossils the same rock layers and access to the same genetic code. In other words we have the same world. The difference is how the two sides interpret that evidence. Thy disagree on what the evidence ''means. ''The evolutionist takes similarities in DNA of different kinds of organisms to be indicative of common ancestry; whereas the creationist takes those same similarities to be evidence of their common Creator and similar purpose. Creationists and evolutionists do not disagree on the evidence itself. (Both agree that organisms have similarities in DNA); rather they disagree on how evidence should be'' interpreted. ''They have different views of the world.

The origins debate therefore is really a debate over competing worldviews (if you dont know this means copeting ways of understanding the world . The biblical creationist uses the history recorded in the Bible to help understand the evidence. The evolutionist rejects biblical history, and uses other standards instead. Often the evolutionists standard is naturalism (the belief that nature alone can account for the origin of the universe and life) Putting it another way the creationists and evolutionists use a different ultimate standard by which they judge  various claims. Consequently they come to different conclusions about the same evidence.

Therefore, scientific and historical evidence--by itself-- cannot logically settle the origins debate. Each party will interpret the evidence in light of his or her worldview. The creationist will honestly believe that the evidence confirms creation whereas he volutionistwill honestly believe that the very same evidence is consistent wth evolution. Consider this example

C-14 is an unstable isotope of crabon created in the upper atmospheere which naturally with time spontaneously decays ("changes") into nitrogen with time. this happens on a timescale of thousands of years. Now, C-14 has been found deep down in rock layers  that evolutionists believe to be millions of yers old, they should not contain even one atome of C-14, because it would have all decayed into nitrogen. This certainly seems to support the biblical historical claiim that the earth was made thousands  (not billions) of years ago, and that many of the upper rock layers were deposited during the global flood described in "Genesis 6-8".