Darwin's evolution theory?

[tall73]

Their claims make sense. I don't need to know the technical stuff if I can look at something it is logical and consistant. What's the alternative? To believe that 6000 years ago (give or take) God just said "poof" and everything showed up? That may suffice for some, but it doesn't make sense, it isn't logical, and it's not consistant.

then skip God and go right for materialistic origins. Because you have bought all the theory that matters for it. If God cannot create from nothing, then why could He create at all?

And when a scientist sees that there is more we don't know, he goes out, does some tests, asks some questions, and keeps on it until he does know. A creationist sees something he doesn't understand and says "God made it that way". I'll go with option 1.

not all, no. Some do research as well. And not all evolutionists go out and figure it out--if it doesn't meet their presuppositions. They dismiss alternatives that more easily explain things to fit their theories.

Again, what's the alternative? At least one side is TRYING to figure it all out, as opposed to throwing up their hands and saying "God did it". And, no, science is not simply another leap of faith...there is evidence to support it. We may come up with faulty conclusions, granted, but it's not just taking it on faith. Observing something, doing tests, making comparisons, those are the tools of science. The tools of "faith" is "God did it, so I don't have to understand".

If you don't have evidence that the changes could occur in the given time, then it is faith. And again, some creationists do in fact do research.

That is one theory, yes. I've just recently read another theory that takes single celled organisms to multi-celled organisms without requiring mutation. I want to look at it more closely, but it's very interesting, to say the least.

so post it so we can all look at it. And of course, if it were "scientific" we would all know about it right? Isn't that what we are always told?

And when it turns out that a mistake has been made somewhere, they go back and find out why and try to figure out the right answer, something that creationists don't do. Don't have to do, really...God made it that way.

When donkeytron referred my post to the professionals they said my source was unscientific. But the problem was my source listed MORE possibilities than theirs did for a given phenomenon. Why? Because they couldn't even accept one of the possibilities because it went againt their experience. Now is that science? When I pointed it out they had nothing to say.

They had been saying the creationists were professional liars, distorting everything. But the truth is my article had every single one of the possibilities they listed. Why? Because they were being honest with it. They were not distorting anything.

I think your problem is you have not seen the right kind of scientists who do believe in a young earth theory. ANd perhaps you haven't seen the evolutionary scientists who also fabricated or distorted for their cause. It happens on both sides. So how does only one side have the truth?

Which you really can't do, hence the emphasis on having faith. Creationism simply doesn't make sense. It flies in the face of logic and reality as we know it. That's why you have to just take it on faith. It is unprovable. How do you prove something that is impossible? It should be, by its very nature, impossible to prove. I'm not saying God can't do what is impossible to us, but how do you test something, when you only have the natural laws as tools, that goes against natural law?

a. who said we can't? In fact all of the evolutionists who asked me to post evidence have totally failed to account for it once I gave it. Why would that be?

b. Why would God be tied to natural law? And if you want just natural, again, why bother with God?

c. ANY origins are unprovable because we cannot see the original event or re-create it. Now evidence, that is what you are looking for. But what you haven't looked at is that there is evidence on both sides. Both are interpreting the same data to make it fit their theory. This is why some naturalists have given up on spontaneous generation of life and have gone for alien seeding. Their is no direct evidence that it could happen, and a fair amount it couldn't . So either God did it or aliens. And aliens is the same reasoning applied to evolution. "If it isn't possible then extend the years and circumstances and it becomes possible." All aliens do is make it conditions on another planet that would be more plausible.

d. Nor can we re-create the whole process of evolutiuon to study it. We can only infer its reality from existing evidence. The same evidence that others use to show that their theory is right. The same evidence that this new theory you are speaking of employs.

That is a healthy attitude to a point. But to simply throw out all experts and everything outside of the Bible on this position is taking it to an unhealthy extreme. Science isn't sure about something, so you reject all of science...how is that different from someone finding some discrepency in the Bible and wanting to throw out the whole book?

No one said throw out sience. We said DON'T throw out the Bible. Which you have in fact done for all practical purposes. If Science is unsure about things, then why are all the evolutionists on here so sure? Why was donkeytron saying that every single bioligist agrees with him? Which is hardly true to start with.

If you base your life on a discipline which does not claim to have abosolute answers then you cannot make absolute claims as some here have done. Especially when one (Donkeytron) didn't even seem to understand the process of natural selection. And here he is telling Christians they are wrong because he can link to a website like talkorigins.

I am not saying dismiss experts. I am saying that when you read the actual experts, and not the hacks who make a hobby out of debunking you find that they are far less certain, far less dogmatic, and far more scientific than some of their supporters. Which is why I can go a lot further disproving evolutionist's claims by using their own literature than I can using creationist literature. Because on the scholarly level the literature often admits that it doesn't understand, it doesn't all fit, and sometimes what they thought fit turns out not to.

It is one thing to say they will find the answer. But sometimes the new answer supports their thoery less than the old one did.

So tell me, why is it that when creationists can't explain something it is a proof of evolution. And when evolutionists cannot it is just a temporary situation which will be remedied by time and increased knowledge?

It is just your perspective.

 

[dunkel]

Hello dunkel,

Actually, there are many explainations put forward by atheists to defeat this point that you brought up:

"Well, the problem with leaving God out of natural law is that if we go strictly by natural law, none of this should exist. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, so none of this could simply pop up out of nowhere. So, at the very least, God created whatever ball of junk that blew up to cause the Big Bang."

Some atheistic proponents assert that quantum mechanics can create something from nothing. Others yet try to explain this by using various infinitely old universe explanations such as the yo-yo theory and others, thus avoiding the implication of a creator.

These theories have flaws, but the atheists may be using newer explanations. I'm not quite sure, my information is a little out dated.

May God bless you,
MC80a CRS.

At some point, something had to be created out of nothing. This is where God comes in. Yes, there are blind atheists who won't accept that there is a God no matter what. Just like there are blind Christians who won't accept science no matter what.

 

[dunkel]

You said a lot, so I'll only reply to a few of your points.

then skip God and go right for materialistic origins. Because you have bought all the theory that matters for it. If God cannot create from nothing, then why could He create at all?

If nothing else, God created that first singularity out of nothing. I am not attemping to take anything away from God...I'm only applying those things to him that simply cannot be explained in any other way, the true impossiblities.

not all, no. Some do research as well. And not all evolutionists go out and figure it out--if it doesn't meet their presuppositions. They dismiss alternatives that more easily explain things to fit their theories.

This is called bad science. It is also what creationists do. Which is more likely, that a supernatural force created the world in 6 days or that it has gradually turned into what we see today, over many, many years? Based on the reality which we know and can actually observe, I have to go with number 2.

so post it so we can all look at it. And of course, if it were "scientific" we would all know about it right? Isn't that what we are always told?

I'll see if I can find a link that talks about it. Basically, the idea is that it wasn't necessary for a single celled organism to mutate into a multi-celled organism. Perhaps, the theory goes, one single celled organism "ate" another, smaller one. Now you have one cell inside another cell, interacting. The concept of symbiotic relationships is well established, so this is just another interesting twist on it, I guess. As I said, I've only recently started reading about it and am not sure of all the particulars, but it seems that it would cut years off the necessary time for these more complex organisms to show up. But it doesn't necessarily follow that if it's scientific that we should all know about it...why would you make such a perposterous claim?

They had been saying the creationists were professional liars, distorting everything. But the truth is my article had every single one of the possibilities they listed. Why? Because they were being honest with it. They were not distorting anything.

I'm not sure what discussion you're referring to, so I can't comment on that. I can say that I don't think creationists are liars. They just have their version of the truth and nothing can shake them from it.

I think your problem is you have not seen the right kind of scientists who do believe in a young earth theory. ANd perhaps you haven't seen the evolutionary scientists who also fabricated or distorted for their cause. It happens on both sides. So how does only one side have the truth?

Maybe that's my problem, yeah. Show me some real scientists who believe in a young Earth. Here's an extra challenge...show me one that isn't trying to prove Creation. Show me one that started from scratch, looked at the available evidence, and came up with a 6000 year old Earth, or however old you'd like it to be.

Sure I'm aware that scientists have fabricated evidence. I also know that we know about it because they get found out, because the scientific community is all about things like peer review. You can't just publish any old thing and expect to get away with it. There is a system of checks and balances, something that does not exist with Creationism. The only check is check the Bible and balance? If it ain't from God, it ain't so...very balanced.

a. who said we can't? In fact all of the evolutionists who asked me to post evidence have totally failed to account for it once I gave it. Why would that be?

Again, maybe I came in late to the discussion, because I have no idea what you're talking about.

b. Why would God be tied to natural law? And if you want just natural, again, why bother with God?

I've said it several times now...natural law only takes you back so far before you need the "unmoved mover".

c. ANY origins are unprovable because we cannot see the original event or re-create it. Now evidence, that is what you are looking for. But what you haven't looked at is that there is evidence on both sides. Both are interpreting the same data to make it fit their theory. This is why some naturalists have given up on spontaneous generation of life and have gone for alien seeding. Their is no direct evidence that it could happen, and a fair amount it couldn't . So either God did it or aliens. And aliens is the same reasoning applied to evolution. "If it isn't possible then extend the years and circumstances and it becomes possible." All aliens do is make it conditions on another planet that would be more plausible.

I've heard about the extra-terrestial origins of life. Maybe not aliens per se, but maybe some passing comet dropped some organic matter that got it all started. You're still stuck with the problem of figuring out where the organic matter on the comet came from. If the idea is that actual aliens are responsible, you're stuck with two problems...one, trading one "higher being" with another...not appealing to me. Two, those aliens had to come from somewhere, also. Bit too far fetched for my tastes, but at least they are attempts at explaining it without having to resort to breaking the laws of physics.

No one said throw out sience.

That's exactly what you're saying...if it disagrees with the Bible, throw it out.

We said DON'T throw out the Bible. Which you have in fact done for all practical purposes.

This is simply an untrue statement. Nowhere in any of my posts will you find me saying to throw out the Bible, or even parts of the Bible. Especially Genesis. Every part of the Bible serves a purpose...where we disagree here is what that purpose is. You believe it's purpose is to be a literal account of whatever, creation, history of the Israelites, whatever. I think that if you focus on the details and the form of the stories, you're missing the important messages, the content.

If Science is unsure about things, then why are all the evolutionists on here so sure? Why was donkeytron saying that every single bioligist agrees with him? Which is hardly true to start with.

How should I know? Ask him and ask all these other evolutionists. I never said I was sure of anything. The only thing I'm reasonably sure of is that we don't know the whole story. All I'm saying is that I think science has a better chance of explaining things than a 3000 year old story written by bronze age, nomadic, goatherds. Call me crazy...

Speaking of which, what is the difference between this particular story of creation written by these particular bronze age goat herders and the other stories of creation written by other bronze age goat herders? Oh yeah, the only difference is that THIS one is true, right?

If you base your life on a discipline which does not claim to have abosolute answers then you cannot make absolute claims as some here have done. Especially when one (Donkeytron) didn't even seem to understand the process of natural selection. And here he is telling Christians they are wrong because he can link to a website like talkorigins.

Great, take it up with Donkeytron. Why are you insisting that I speak for him? Personally, I find many anti-Christians to be as ignorant and annoying as many of the Christians they are trying to debate. Harsh, but true.

So tell me, why is it that when creationists can't explain something it is a proof of evolution. And when evolutionists cannot it is just a temporary situation which will be remedied by time and increased knowledge?

Because when the evolutionist, the actual scientists, not the Bible bashers you see here, can't explain something, they go back to the drawing boards, figure out where they went wrong, and try again, building on prior knowledge. When creationists can't explain something, they say "uh, God made it that way, don't question the Bible". It is the ability to say "damn, we were wrong after all, let's try again" that seperates scientists from creationists.

 

[MC80a]

Hi dunkel,

Of course, it depends on what you define "science" as to see whether these so-called "blind Christians" accept it.

 

[a0bigboss]

All in all. I don't believe in darwinism. I tear down all the details and piece together the truth within the Bible. I strongly believe there is some Truth in nearly everything, higher percentages in some things than others of course. Though I don't over look anything, I analyse everything, and seek Truth | with God being on my heart, Christ being in my heart, and the Holy Ghost being my compass. Hope that explains it in a way atlease some may understand .

 

[a0bigboss]

All in all. I don't believe in darwinism. I tear down all the details and piece together the truth within the Bible. I strongly believe there is some Truth in nearly everything, higher percentages in some things than others of course. Though I don't over look anything, I analyse everything, and seek Truth | with God being on my heart, Christ being in my heart, and the Holy Ghost being my compass. Hope that explains it in a way atlease some may understand .

Hey, why do I have a face saying arrrgh in my message?

 

[tall73]

You said a lot, so I'll only reply to a few of your points.

If nothing else, God created that first singularity out of nothing. I am not attemping to take anything away from God...I'm only applying those things to him that simply cannot be explained in any other way, the true impossiblities.

and here is the point. Why do you feel anything in an impossibility?

This is called bad science. It is also what creationists do. Which is more likely, that a supernatural force created the world in 6 days or that it has gradually turned into what we see today, over many, many years? Based on the reality which we know and can actually observe, I have to go with number 2.

Ok, you have two points here that are separate.

1. It is less likely for God to do it one way or the other. That part is not true. God could do it anyway He likes, or else, there is no point in stipulating that God did any of it.


2. there is more evidence for one or the other. Well now that would be a more probable statement. But then again, some of that conclusion is simply due to not seeing that there is evidence on both sides of the question.


3. Yes it is bad science when evolutionists discount evidence based on presuppositions. But they wouldn't say so. THey would say it is interpreting it according to what they already know. But that is exactly the point. Once you assume you know something you discount evidence that would speak to the other side. And that is what we see.

I'll see if I can find a link that talks about it. Basically, the idea is that it wasn't necessary for a single celled organism to mutate into a multi-celled organism. Perhaps, the theory goes, one single celled organism "ate" another, smaller one. Now you have one cell inside another cell, interacting. The concept of symbiotic relationships is well established, so this is just another interesting twist on it, I guess. As I said, I've only recently started reading about it and am not sure of all the particulars, but it seems that it would cut years off the necessary time for these more complex organisms to show up. But it doesn't necessarily follow that if it's scientific that we should all know about it...why would you make such a perposterous claim?

I agree! It is a proposterous claim. And it is exactly the claim that evolutionists make when they say that there is no evidence for short earth theories. A. there is evidence, but it is not taught where most people learn--school. B. Since it is not as widely believed many say it doesn't exist. So I am simply extending the same argument to you that evolutionists do to us.

Moreover, even if an organism ate another you still have to have modifications to the first one's genome to do anything. It is still a mutation. And clearly this doesn't work at the later levels, so if anything this is not taking off much time.

I'm not sure what discussion you're referring to, so I can't comment on that. I can say that I don't think creationists are liars. They just have their version of the truth and nothing can shake them from it.

Does that not apply to both? The question is not what presuppositions they have, but can they admit to both sides of the question. Since creationists are the minority they frequently present both sides of the equation. But evolutionists do not, because they dismiss the one side as simply not a possibility. So which is more likely to get at the truth? Perhaps neither because in fact both are presenting their side chiefly. But the facts are there are points on both sides to be made.

Maybe that's my problem, yeah. Show me some real scientists who believe in a young Earth. Here's an extra challenge...show me one that isn't trying to prove Creation. Show me one that started from scratch, looked at the available evidence, and came up with a 6000 year old Earth, or however old you'd like it to be.

I can do that. in fact Sophia (who happens to be my wife) linked to his web site earlier. He was a lecturer at a secular school in Australia, and was a firm adherent to evolution before changng around. Now he continues to teach at the same school, but from a creationist standpoint.

www.amazingdisscoveries.org


You can find some limited articles by him, as well as his conversion story etc. on his site. His videos are more in depth an quite good. I don't have his book yet, but hope to get it.

As to scientists who acknowledge both sides, though they do promote creation, try this site:

http://www.grisda.org/origins/ndx-yr.htm

Moreover there are scientists employed in many fields who simply do their job, but still maintain both Christian and creationist views.

Sure I'm aware that scientists have fabricated evidence. I also know that we know about it because they get found out, because the scientific community is all about things like peer review. You can't just publish any old thing and expect to get away with it. There is a system of checks and balances, something that does not exist with Creationism. The only check is check the Bible and balance? If it ain't from God, it ain't so...very balanced.

Fabricating, yes. But slanting, not always. You see there is the data, then how you interpret the data. Fabricated data is bound to be found out at some point. BUt slanting is often accepted as just fine. Moreover, any creationist statement is immediately run through the mill by the many evolutionist proponents who encounter them. So besides the fact that they may have peer review, they certainly have review.

I've heard about the extra-terrestial origins of life. Maybe not aliens per se, but maybe some passing comet dropped some organic matter that got it all started. You're still stuck with the problem of figuring out where the organic matter on the comet came from. If the idea is that actual aliens are responsible, you're stuck with two problems...one, trading one "higher being" with another...not appealing to me. Two, those aliens had to come from somewhere, also. Bit too far fetched for my tastes, but at least they are attempts at explaining it without having to resort to breaking the laws of physics.

Yes, there is also the extra-terrestial seeding by comets etc. But that fails to account for the environment present which would reduce the necessary chemical reactions, destroying the whole process. So the aliens, while I agree they have problems, eliminate the biggest problem for abiogenesis by removing the known conditions of the earth which would have limited the process. Moreover , we see no fossilized collection or gathering or pools of the early earth composition that many scientists stipulate for the Urey experiments. If the earth was covered with the stuff we would expect some remnants to be left.
[/quote]

That's exactly what you're saying...if it disagrees with the Bible, throw it out.

No, I am saying that I would rather leave a disputable question undecided than to throw out the literal application of the Bible. If I felt that the evidence was overwhelming for evolution, then I would just not bother with God. Once you discount what He revealed, why try to hang on to the rest? Once you posit that the Bible is allegorical in nature then it is you that decides what truth is, rather than receiving what God has given. Therefore you never get any more of God than what you will stomach. To me that is not a viable approach. If God saw fit to reveal something I should take it seriously. If I can't take it seriously I should just pack it in and go look for something else to take seriously.

This is simply an untrue statement. Nowhere in any of my posts will you find me saying to throw out the Bible, or even parts of the Bible. Especially Genesis. Every part of the Bible serves a purpose...where we disagree here is what that purpose is. You believe it's purpose is to be a literal account of whatever, creation, history of the Israelites, whatever. I think that if you focus on the details and the form of the stories, you're missing the important messages, the content.

See above. Once you make your own judgement the basis for deciding truth you have no means to say anything emphatically from the Bible.

How should I know? Ask him and ask all these other evolutionists. I never said I was sure of anything. The only thing I'm reasonably sure of is that we don't know the whole story. All I'm saying is that I think science has a better chance of explaining things than a 3000 year old story written by bronze age, nomadic, goatherds. Call me crazy...

And here is my main point. Those goat herders claim to be inspired by God. If they are, then it makes no difference what era they are from. ANd if they are not, why read them at all? If you are not sure, why would you throw out what is proported to be God's revelation to us on insufficient data?

Speaking of which, what is the difference between this particular story of creation written by these particular bronze age goat herders and the other stories of creation written by other bronze age goat herders? Oh yeah, the only difference is that THIS one is true, right?

I see a number of differences. But the question is , if you don't, then why do you try to hold on to the Bible? Why not consign it to the mythos of the greeks, vedas, etc. ?

Great, take it up with Donkeytron. Why are you insisting that I speak for him? Personally, I find many anti-Christians to be as ignorant and annoying as many of the Christians they are trying to debate. Harsh, but true.

fair enough. I am not asking you to speak for him actually. I am pointing it out because some were cowed by his definitive statements when he had no basis to be definitive.

Because when the evolutionist, the actual scientists, not the Bible bashers you see here, can't explain something, they go back to the drawing boards, figure out where they went wrong, and try again, building on prior knowledge. When creationists can't explain something, they say "uh, God made it that way, don't question the Bible". It is the ability to say "damn, we were wrong after all, let's try again" that seperates scientists from creationists.

So what you accept is the scientific theory. Fine. There is nothing wrong with it. But to accept the claims of the theory when they themselves admit to less than perfect knowledge seems less than advisable. If they change their mind after you are dead, and you rejected much of what you could have understood from God, who lost out in the end?

 

[dunkel]

and here is the point. Why do you feel anything in an impossibility?

Um...what? That's why we have a concept of God...to explain things that we think are impossible...

1. It is less likely for God to do it one way or the other. That part is not true. God could do it anyway He likes, or else, there is no point in stipulating that God did any of it.

If you're just going to argue that God COULD do anything, so he necessarily DID do one thing or another, this whole discussion is pointless. Yes, God COULD come down and turn my house into solid gold if he felt like it, but this doesn't mean that he WILL.

2. there is more evidence for one or the other. Well now that would be a more probable statement. But then again, some of that conclusion is simply due to not seeing that there is evidence on both sides of the question.

Um, ok.

3. Yes it is bad science when evolutionists discount evidence based on presuppositions. But they wouldn't say so. THey would say it is interpreting it according to what they already know. But that is exactly the point. Once you assume you know something you discount evidence that would speak to the other side. And that is what we see.

Being wrong about something does not mean that you arrived at your faulty conclusion through bad science.

I agree! It is a proposterous claim. And it is exactly the claim that evolutionists make when they say that there is no evidence for short earth theories. A. there is evidence, but it is not taught where most people learn--school. B. Since it is not as widely believed many say it doesn't exist. So I am simply extending the same argument to you that evolutionists do to us.

So you were trying to make a point or something? Alrighty then.

Moreover, even if an organism ate another you still have to have modifications to the first one's genome to do anything. It is still a mutation. And clearly this doesn't work at the later levels, so if anything this is not taking off much time.

Wow, it must have taken brilliant scientists years of research to come up with this theory and you utterly destroyed it in 5 seconds using three sentences. You're good.

Does that not apply to both? The question is not what presuppositions they have, but can they admit to both sides of the question. Since creationists are the minority they frequently present both sides of the equation.

The only time I've heard creationists "present both sides" is if they're trying to tell me that fossils are the result of the flood or were put here to make the earth LOOK old or were put here as a test of our faith or whatever.

BTW, I live in the south...I would argue your contention that creationists are a minority.

But evolutionists do not, because they dismiss the one side as simply not a possibility. So which is more likely to get at the truth? Perhaps neither because in fact both are presenting their side chiefly. But the facts are there are points on both sides to be made.

Once again, the difference is that science can say "oops, we got it wrong, let's try again", whereas Creationists can't do this. Science starts with a question and tries to answer it and Creationism (is that word?) starts with the answer and tries to find the question to fit it.

I can do that. in fact Sophia (who happens to be my wife) linked to his web site earlier. He was a lecturer at a secular school in Australia, and was a firm adherent to evolution before changng around. Now he continues to teach at the same school, but from a creationist standpoint.

You can find some limited articles by him, as well as his conversion story etc. on his site. His videos are more in depth an quite good. I don't have his book yet, but hope to get it. [/QUOTE]

Pointing out that "s" only appears in "discoveries" twice would be petty, so I won't do it.

I'll take a look at the site. From what I can tell it's just another defence of the Biblical account of creation, but you say that he started out as an objective scientist, so I'll take a closer look, I guess.

As to scientists who acknowledge both sides, though they do promote creation, try this site:

I'll take a look.

Moreover there are scientists employed in many fields who simply do their job, but still maintain both Christian and creationist views.

WHAT?? I thought all scientists were out to destroy the Bible at the behest of their master, Satan.

Oh, sorry, I was just borrowing your technique of using a perposterous argument against the people that originally made the argument.

Fabricating, yes. But slanting, not always. You see there is the data, then how you interpret the data. Fabricated data is bound to be found out at some point. BUt slanting is often accepted as just fine. Moreover, any creationist statement is immediately run through the mill by the many evolutionist proponents who encounter them. So besides the fact that they may have peer review, they certainly have review. [/QOUTE]

You said fabricating, so that's what I addressed. Yes, bias is a problem for any field in which ideas are communicated. Ever watch CNN for the love of God? People in every field write within the context of their own belief system, whether it's scientific research or writing for a newspaper. But if we were to throw out everything related to a subject simply because some of the information on the subject was slanted, we'd have to throw out pretty much everything we know about anything. That's not very appealing.

Yes, there is also the extra-terrestial seeding by comets etc. But that fails to account for the environment present which would reduce the necessary chemical reactions, destroying the whole process. So the aliens, while I agree they have problems, eliminate the biggest problem for abiogenesis by removing the known conditions of the earth which would have limited the process. Moreover , we see no fossilized collection or gathering or pools of the early earth composition that many scientists stipulate for the Urey experiments. If the earth was covered with the stuff we would expect some remnants to be left.

I think they did find some meteorite fragments that contained biological matter on them...is this what you meant?

No, I am saying that I would rather leave a disputable question undecided than to throw out the literal application of the Bible. If I felt that the evidence was overwhelming for evolution, then I would just not bother with God. Once you discount what He revealed, why try to hang on to the rest? Once you posit that the Bible is allegorical in nature then it is you that decides what truth is, rather than receiving what God has given. Therefore you never get any more of God than what you will stomach. To me that is not a viable approach. If God saw fit to reveal something I should take it seriously. If I can't take it seriously I should just pack it in and go look for something else to take seriously.

So you're an all or nothing kinda guy. Ok, fair enough. I'm not. Now what?

See above. Once you make your own judgement the basis for deciding truth you have no means to say anything emphatically from the Bible.

Hm, now we're getting somewhere.

And here is my main point. Those goat herders claim to be inspired by God. If they are, then it makes no difference what era they are from. ANd if they are not, why read them at all? If you are not sure, why would you throw out what is proported to be God's revelation to us on insufficient data?

Well, we certainly must not dispute claims made by bronze age goat herders. Can I claim that I was inspired by God to not believe a literal interpretation of Genesis? Or do only 5000 year old goat herders have that privelege? Do you see the craziness of what you just said? We should believe them because they claimed to be inspired by God. I seem to recall a few other people making that claim throughout history, right up to today...should we believe them all? Or just the ones YOU want to believe?

I see a number of differences.

I see some as well, of course, but am curious as to what you think they might be.

But the question is , if you don't, then why do you try to hold on to the Bible? Why not consign it to the mythos of the greeks, vedas, etc. ?

Yes, moving right along, aren't we. Ok, you got me...I see value in those other mythologies, as well. Human nature has changed very little over the last several thousand years. Because of this, the themes in our stories have changed very little, as well. The details always change, of course, the the basic themes stay the same. When the ancient Hebrews were creating their own myths, they were just trying to convey the same ideas as when the Greeks or anyone else created their stories. My culture uses the Bible to the same effect as the Greeks used their own mythologies, so that's what I use.

Now before you go bonkers over my use of "myth", let me clarify that. Myth doesn't equal fiction or a made up story. People use myth to explain events that, well, are unexplainable using any other method available to them. Hell, I would classify the Big Bang theory as myth in some regards. There is very often some grain of truth to a myth, however. I believe that there was some sort of flood event, even if I don't believe the Biblical account of Noah. Too many other cultures have a flood myth to simply dismiss it as some ancient fiction.

The hard part is figuring out what inspired a myth, so you can get to the message that it is trying to convey. In the case of Genesis, it's obvious...where did we all come from? That is the most question that anyone can ask, so it's no wonder that pretty much every culture from every time period and region of the world has some creation myth. In other cases, such as the myth of Prometheus, it's harder to figure out, but the truth is in there somewhere...perhaps people got tired of their kids asking the question "daddy, who invented fire?" and came up with the idea of a god who came down and gave man the secret of fire.

So what you accept is the scientific theory. Fine. There is nothing wrong with it.

Unless you consider burning in hell for not believing in a literal Genesis to be something wrong with accepting scientific theory. That is the claim that many creationists make...don't accept the Bible? Have fun roasting, baby.

But to accept the claims of the theory when they themselves admit to less than perfect knowledge seems less than advisable. If they change their mind after you are dead, and you rejected much of what you could have understood from God, who lost out in the end?

So it's to be Pascal's wager, is it? Okie dokie.

Now, what if you get to the Pearly Gates and God says to you, "um, ya know that whole Genesis thing? Yeah, you weren't supposed to take that literally, ya know...I tried explaining evolution to those guys and they just didn't get it..."

See, we can both play this game.

 

[Sophia7]

Sorry to have to correct my own husband , but Professor Veith is from South Africa (Chair of the Zoology Department, University of Western Cape), not Australia. As far as the misspelled link, try these instead:

http://www.amazingdiscoveries.org/index.htm
http://www.amazingdiscoveries.org/beginning_walter_veith_lifestory.htm
http://www.amazingdiscoveries.org/beginning_main.htm

 

[dunkel]

Sorry to have to correct my own husband , but Professor Veith is from South Africa (Chair of the Zoology Department, University of Western Cape), not Australia. As far as the misspelled link, try these instead:

http://www.amazingdiscoveries.org/index.htm
http://www.amazingdiscoveries.org/beginning_walter_veith_lifestory.htm
http://www.amazingdiscoveries.org/beginning_main.htm

Thanks. It took me a second to realize why it was coming up link not found.

 

[dunkel]

That was an interesting website. I'm still looking through some of it. It offers some interesting theories. It kinda lost me, though, when I got to the part offering proof of the existence of Christ. He uses the same tired arguments used by many apologists before, and as unconvincingly.

Tacitus? Good lord, if I hear someone else say that Tacitus is proof that Jesus was a historical figure, I'm going to cry. The Talmud, dating from the 3rd century? Crestus? Lord save me.

I'm not going to throw out the rest of his website because of that, however. I'll take a good look at it and, who knows? Maybe I'll learn something.

Edited to add my favorite "proof" of the validity of Christianity and the Bible:

[font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Throughout the centuries, the Bible has been a book of comfort and strength to millions. Thousands have died in support of its claims, and their blood shed in the sand and soil of time speaks, as a mute reminder of the verity of its words.

I guess only Christian martyrs count, huh? I guess the Koran hasn't "been a book of comfort and strength to millions", huh?

This is amatuer apologetics at best, and if he wants the rest of his work to be taken seriously, by intelligent people, he would do well to avoid it.
[/font]

 

[dunkel]

I'm starting to be a bit sceptical:

Wings on birds that do not fly?

There are at least three possibilities as to why ostriches, emus, etc have wings:

a) They derived from smaller birds that once could fly. This is possible in the creationist model. Loss of features is relatively easy by natural processes; acquisition of new characters, requiring new DNA information, is impossible.

b) The wings have a function. Some possible functions, depending on the species of flightless bird, are: balance while running, cooling in hot weather, warmth in cold weather, protection of the rib-cage in falls, mating rituals, scaring predators (I've seen emus run at perceived enemies of their chicks, mouth open and wings flapping), sheltering of chicks, etc. If the wings are useless, why are the muscles functional that allow these birds to move their wings?

c) It is a result of ‘design economy’ by the Creator. Humans use this with automobiles, for example. All models might have mounting points for air conditioning, power steering, etc. although not all have them. Likewise, all models tend to use the same wiring harness, although not all features are necessarily implemented in any one model. In using the same embryological blueprint for all birds, all birds will have wings.

I'll buy the second explanation. But if you replace "derived" in the first explanation with "evolved", you'd have an argument for evolution. A sparrow and an ostriche are two totally different species...does creationism allow for speciation? And where are the intermediate species in this creationist "derivation"? Now he's running into the same problems as evolutionists...where's the missing link? Isn't that one of the rallying cries against evolution?


The third explantion is so silly that it hardly need comment. Comparing creation to building cars? This is his argument? Ford and Chevy use "design economy" to save money and time on the assembly line. What could possibly be God's reason for using this technique?


I am trying really hard to have an open mind about this guy, but when he starts comparing God to Ford...it makes it hard for me to take it seriously.

Edited to add something else I found:

[font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Natural selection is an ELIMINATOR. In other words, if there are two variations of a creature, the theory goes that natural selection chooses the “fittest” or “best”, and allows the “unfittest” or “weakest” to become extinct.

No one said that the "weakest" has to go extinct. If you have a group of animals and some[/font][font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] of these animals wander into new territory that requires different characteristics, the seperated group will develop these characteristics and turn into a different type of animal.

This goes against the evolutionary concept of more and more varied species evolving through natural selection, as natural selection creates less and less varied species. Without a pre-existing variation of species, evolution by natural selection would be impossible.So, natural selection CANNOT explain the abundance of species we currently see on our planet if it is seen as stemming from a single ancestral organism.

[/font][font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Neither group in my above example is eliminated. They each just had different environmental pressures to respond to and, though they started out the same, they ended up quite different over however many generations. Where you had one species, now you have two, albeit with a common ancestor.

And, anyway, he's contradicting his explanation a) from above pertaining to flightless birds.

Perhaps his scientific explanations are more compelling, but his logic seems to be somewhat lacking.
[/font][font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/font]

 

[WAB]

CaiperLane has it right. Moses wrote of the creation, and the Lord Jesus Christ said that Moses wrote about Him (the Creator) and then asked the question: If you do not believe what Moses wrote, how will you believe what I tell you?
WAB

 

[tall73]

That was an interesting website. I'm still looking through some of it. It offers some interesting theories. It kinda lost me, though, when I got to the part offering proof of the existence of Christ. He uses the same tired arguments used by many apologists before, and as unconvincingly.

Well let's say that his area of expertise before conversion, probably still is.

In any case, glad you are looking over it.

 

[A. believer]

Donkeytron claims that Intelligent Design theorists have invented an inappropriate definition of science to support their theory. He wrote earlier,

I'll leave you with some testimony from michael Behe in the Dover trial. You know, the one where he says that the definition of science would have to change for ID to be considered science. And astrology would be considered scientific under his definition:


​

What he fails to point out is that the definition Behe is using was already accepted as the standard prior to the popularity of the ID theory, as we see here.


We know that dogmatic evolutionists are getting desperate when they resort to Michael Moore tactics of trying to discredit the opposition with deliberate and dishonest misrepresentations.

 

[Silent Bob]

We know that dogmatic evolutionists are getting desperate when they resort to Michael Moore tactics of trying to discredit the opposition with deliberate and dishonest misrepresentations.

So didn't Behe say that astronomy is a scientific theory under his definition of a scientific theory? Did he not agree that what he calls theory the National Academy calls it hypothesis?

 

[A. believer]

So didn't Behe say that astronomy is a scientific theory under his definition of a scientific theory? Did he not agree that what he calls theory the National Academy calls it hypothesis?

Astronomy is a field of science, not a scientific theory or hypothesis. But I'm not aware of the subject of astronomy coming up in Behe's testimony.

 

[WAB]

The proper definition of "Christian" is: one who belongs to Christ. One who belongs to Him and is a new creation in Him will not doubt His Word when it declares that He created everything that exists.
WAB

 

[Donkeytron]

Astronomy is a field of science, not a scientific theory or hypothesis. But I'm not aware of the subject of astronomy coming up in Behe's testimony.

I think he meant to type "Astrology" in place of "Astronomy". In fact I posted the testamony a while back and you ignored it.

 

[tall73]

While he is an example of an evolutionist turned creationist I will not defend him in every point. But I will clarify a few things about these responses, having watched some of his videos.

I'm starting to be a bit sceptical:


I'll buy the second explanation. But if you replace "derived" in the first explanation with "evolved", you'd have an argument for evolution. A sparrow and an ostriche are two totally different species...does creationism allow for speciation? And where are the intermediate species in this creationist "derivation"? Now he's running into the same problems as evolutionists...where's the missing link? Isn't that one of the rallying cries against evolution?

If you read his views in his published works or watch his videos he sees a much larger amount of diversity. The diversity is already present. So no transitional forms are needed. Plus, in this example he is speaking of non-expressed genes.

For instance, when cave fish are introduced into the cave environment it takes only a few generations in most cases for them to develop sightless traits. Now is this evolution? Highly unlikely. This would mean the same random mutation happens all the time. Rather, it is likely it is an unexpressed gene still present. The timeline matches this possibility far closer.


Explanation three, I assume he includes this because some believe it, but it does seem a bit odd. I think the biblical account was that God spoke, not that He worked an assembly line! But perhaps he has some more reasoning behind this that I am unaware of . I suppose you could always email him for more information, as that seems to be where these questions came from.


Edited to add something else I found:

No one said that the "weakest" has to go extinct. If you have a group of animals and some[/size][/size][/font][font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] of these animals wander into new territory that requires different characteristics, the seperated group will develop these characteristics and turn into a different type of animal.

Yes, he is giving a very basic summary of the concept. I wish if he were going to answer questions he would give some longer readings on the basics, because his whole view does not come across here very well. Technically weakest is all about the environment one is present in, so you are correct about that. However, the environment does not in fact develop characteristics, nor do animals develop them because they are needed. Changes to the genome ONLY HAPPEN BY MUTATION. So they must first occur through random mutation and then be SELECTED. Hence, natural selection, not the concept that a giraffe can stretch its neck until it meets the need of its environment.

His overall point is that it is an eliminator. It eliminates those expressions at the phenotype level that cannot adapt in their environment. But all changes must come from the genotype, the gene, level. So natural selection serves the purpose of selecting, not steering, change.

[/font][font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Neither group in my above example is eliminated. They each just had different environmental pressures to respond to and, though they started out the same, they ended up quite different over however many generations. Where you had one species, now you have two, albeit with a common ancestor.

And, anyway, he's contradicting his explanation a) from above pertaining to flightless birds.

Perhaps his scientific explanations are more compelling, but his logic seems to be somewhat lacking.
[/font]

Actually, again, he is simply saying that there is a large amount of diversity present at creation.

You see, you have two competing theories. One is that there is already pre-existing variety. Now Darwin saw this to some degree.

The other is that the immense variety we see is actually derived from mutation.

Moreover, you do wind up with whole lines dying off because they cannot adapt. And you have no means to change but through mutation. So if you do have two different lines, due to different pressures, it is only because random mutations caused it.

This is where many evolutionists experience problems, because they don't understand the true mechanism for change in their model. It is only by mutation. Natural selection tends to CUT DOWN diversity, because those who can't hack it are selected for destruction. The mutations on the other hand are the only means for diversity.

I hope this clarified what he was saying.