The Full Spectrum of Christian Belief on Origins - where are you?

[Vance]

While it is true that we human "civilization" (as is usually defined), goes back to around 5,000 b.c. or so, that does not mean that is the limit of evidence we have about the humans living on earth. That is just when they formed up into groups large enough to meet the qualification of "civilization". We have a solid record of evidence of human activity and groups going back tens of thousands of years. We know roughly how many folks lived in Europe, for example before and during the last ice age, how they lived, what they ate, a bit about their social structure and we have their artwork.

A great book called "After the Ice" chronicles the various population groups around the world from the last ice age (about 20,000 years ago) up to the the first "civilizations".

Now, what I do not find surprising at all is that the Bible has genealogies going back just about as long as actual "civilizations" have been around. That would make a lot of sense. But that was not at all the beginnings of our evidence for humanity. Our knowledge of humanity in, say, 10,000 b.c. is very detailed and rich.

As for the "ape-like" fossils, what is interesting is that we have a progression of fossils. Starting from very ape-like, but NOT apes, since they have some features that only modern humans have today, all the way to very human-like, but NOT human, since they have features that only apes have today. And a steady progression of this transition in between. What I find very interesting is that the creationist scientists like to say that the fossils we have are all clearly either ape or human. BUT, there are some fossils that are such a mix of features that the creation scientists themselves disagree over whether they are ape or human!

 

[Ben12]

While it is true that we human "civilization" (as is usually defined), goes back to around 5,000 b.c. or so, that does not mean that is the limit of evidence we have about the humans living on earth. That is just when they formed up into groups large enough to meet the qualification of "civilization". We have a solid record of evidence of human activity and groups going back tens of thousands of years. We know roughly how many folks lived in Europe, for example before and during the last ice age, how they lived, what they ate, a bit about their social structure and we have their artwork.

A great book called "After the Ice" chronicles the various population groups around the world from the last ice age (about 20,000 years ago) up to the the first "civilizations".

Now, what I do not find surprising at all is that the Bible has genealogies going back just about as long as actual "civilizations" have been around. That would make a lot of sense. But that was not at all the beginnings of our evidence for humanity. Our knowledge of humanity in, say, 10,000 b.c. is very detailed and rich.

As for the "ape-like" fossils, what is interesting is that we have a progression of fossils. Starting from very ape-like, but NOT apes, since they have some features that only modern humans have today, all the way to very human-like, but NOT human, since they have features that only apes have today. And a steady progression of this transition in between. What I find very interesting is that the creationist scientists like to say that the fossils we have are all clearly either ape or human. BUT, there are some fossils that are such a mix of features that the creation scientists themselves disagree over whether they are ape or human!

I have no problem with what you’re saying; especially carbon dating has put a lot of light on this subject. Creationist would have nothing; if it was not for evolutionist; because they would of never addressed the creative world until their dogma was challenged. Ill I still believe God is the creator of all things; I just do not limit it with time.

 

[gluadys]

What I mean is Genesis is the foundation, the beginning of the Bible; it was divinely written by men inspired by God’s Spirit. So if you have some doctrine, creed or idealism and you cannot glean the example in Genesis; then it is error.

Interesting. So you are saying if there is no reference to the virgin birth of Christ in Genesis, that doctrine is in error. btw, is there a reference to the virgin birth in Genesis? I haven't checked, but none comes to mind off the top of my head.

If you want to correct me thank you, but common names start a capital letter. [/SIZE]

True, but forum usernames often don't. Like mine. I usually spell it gluadys, not Gluadys. I copied his usage.

Besides I do not waist my time reading about some long dead church members opinion; God’s Word is progressive.

He's not dead. Unless it is his ghost making the posts.

Do you have a problem with even looking at something anyone other than yourself has to say?

 

[Ben12]

Interesting. So you are saying if there is no reference to the virgin birth of Christ in Genesis, that doctrine is in error. btw, is there a reference to the virgin birth in Genesis? I haven't checked, but none comes to mind off the top of my head.





True, but forum usernames often don't. Like mine. I usually spell it gluadys, not Gluadys. I copied his usage.




He's not dead. Unless it is his ghost making the posts.

Do you have a problem with even looking at something anyone other than yourself has to say?

That is so easy reference the virgin birth; the first Adam was created by God and was not defiled by man’s flesh; that is about as virgin as you can get.
I do not look for truth in the Babylonian harlot church system; I look for God’s anointing. You see there are two kinds of anointing those who come from God Spirit and those who come from religion.

He may not be dead physically; but he is dead.

I believe in God’s anointing; in reference to who I am led to follow; I mean David had an anointing and so did Saul; I follow David’s anointing.

My wife is Methodist and we do share many deep things in God; she jokes that all I ever read are staple. You see the men of God I follow do not sell God’s Word; they freely give it away and quite often the message maybe ten or eleven pages stapled together. .

 

[Ben12]

I believe there is a real spiritual Church; I also believe there are also carnal churches, intercultural churches, and intellectual churches and the list goes on. God is a spirit not a brain. BUT what does the Bible say how God choices his anointed?

David was king; He was God’s anointed King; not like Saul who was also anointed by God; but chosen by the people; like many ministries in the church (little c) realm today. David was one of those special people God called, anointed and was anointed as child. Today’s ministry is chosen by men. I have found men of God that I know anointed by the deepness of their understanding not because they have been voted in or out by some church committee. David walked for many years and knew He had an anointing; but he kept it to himself and understood that Saul was God’s anointed; that is until the appointed time. I think we are better off to wait for God to anoint God’s chosen vessel then to anoint our own. Also let us not forget Solomon who was also anointed of God; but because of his marring and turning his heart to false idols he became corrupt. Reminds me of all the different religions out there that man has married into; there is only one way; Christ with in.

 

[Mikey68]

answers in genesis dot com is a good reference for this thread topic.

 

[artybloke]

It would be if it wasn't full of lies...

 

[Mikey68]

It would be if it wasn't full of lies...

please explain what you mean as lies?

 

[artybloke]

I mean, deliberate distortions of science, quote-mining, no actual original research, misdirection and misunderstanding of science, utter disregard for scientific method, misleading biblical interpretation etc etc etc...

 

[clmanning]

Going back to the "origins" of this thread, I would have to enter in by stating that based on my very limited understanding of Scripture, then I must qualify myself as a Young Earth Creationist. I truly believe that Creation occured in 6 literal days as stated in Genesis. I base this on the belief that Scripture is the inerrant Word of the one true and living God Yehweh. I believe God created the earth as it is.

Reading these posts, I see many people talking about evidence, however, I do not see them providing any evidence for any belief. My only evidence is simply what Scripture says.

Being able to think, I allow that everyone has the right to believe whatever they want to believe. However, I was not there when God laid the foundation of the Universe. I do not know when or how He did it. I do know that He did it. I know that the "Big Bang" theory is false. That I can prove scientifically. Just try blowing up a forest and see if a house will be standing there when the dust settles. That is the kind of logic that is needed to believe in the "Big Bang" theory. Also, I know that "evolution" as in macroevolution, or everthing evolved from a common ancestor, is also false, and can be disproved scientifically. Evolution can only be based on genetic mutation. Even today, genetic mutation occurs. However, when these mutations occur, they are either unable to reproduce or are disabled, not improved.

 

[Mick116]

Going back to the "origins" of this thread, I would have to enter in by stating that based on my very limited understanding of Scripture, then I must qualify myself as a Young Earth Creationist. I truly believe that Creation occured in 6 literal days as stated in Genesis. I base this on the belief that Scripture is the inerrant Word of the one true and living God Yehweh. I believe God created the earth as it is.

Reading these posts, I see many people talking about evidence, however, I do not see them providing any evidence for any belief. My only evidence is simply what Scripture says.

Being able to think, I allow that everyone has the right to believe whatever they want to believe. However, I was not there when God laid the foundation of the Universe. I do not know when or how He did it. I do know that He did it. I know that the "Big Bang" theory is false. That I can prove scientifically. Just try blowing up a forest and see if a house will be standing there when the dust settles. That is the kind of logic that is needed to believe in the "Big Bang" theory. Also, I know that "evolution" as in macroevolution, or everthing evolved from a common ancestor, is also false, and can be disproved scientifically. Evolution can only be based on genetic mutation. Even today, genetic mutation occurs. However, when these mutations occur, they are either unable to reproduce or are disabled, not improved.

There is plenty of evidence for evolution.

The theory of evolution predicts that groups of organisms isolated by geography over many millions of years should evolve along different trajectories, resulting in unique communities of plant and animal species. Australia is a prime example of an isolated island continent with a very unique assemblage of creatures. Supposed post-flood animal migrations do not seem to adequately explain this observation.

Artificial selection is seen when humans intentionally breed for certain characteristics in dogs, for example. Canine variation is a result of mutation and evolution (and, incidentally, such mutations are not obviously detrimental).

Darwin lamented that the fossil record of his day was so incomplete. Since then, as predicted by his theory, a wealth of transitional forms have been discovered in the fossil record. There have existed creatures somewhere between fish and amphibians, for example. Recently discovered in China were a plethora of feathered dinosaurs - intermediates between dinosaurs and birds. Even today, we see fascinating examples of living "intermediates". Egg-laying mammals (the platypus and echidna), and the lungfish, a creature with both lungs and gills.

Finally there is the observation of morphological, and, more recently, genetic similarities between groups of organisms. Even a child can see that a wallaby is more closely related to a kangaroo than a dog. A pumpkin is closer to a watermelon than an apple tree. A cat is closer to a horse than to an ostrich. We are closer in form to a gorilla than to a goldfish. Draw any conclusion from this you will, but to me this indicates shared biological heritage.

 

[halstonwilliasm]

That was a good read, god bless you.

 

[piglet17]

There is plenty of evidence for evolution.

Then my guess would be that you'd be able to provide even one bit here. Let's see

The theory of evolution predicts that groups of organisms isolated by geography over many millions of years should evolve along different trajectories, resulting in unique communities of plant and animal species. Australia is a prime example of an isolated island continent with a very unique assemblage of creatures. Supposed post-flood animal migrations do not seem to adequately explain this observation.

Except that Australia and its inhabitants existed a long time before Darwin. So that isn't "predicting."
Instead, it is post-hoc theorizing.
Nor, as with anywhere not just Australia, is the existence of diverse life evidence of evolution of that life. Instead, it's simply direct evidence that that life exists, and where it exists.

Artificial selection is seen when humans intentionally breed for certain characteristics in dogs, for example. Canine variation is a result of mutation and evolution (and, incidentally, such mutations are not obviously detrimental).

Incidentally also, breeding isn't mutation. Nor are any different dog breeds nondogs. Instead, one species contains all sorts of populations and variations, yet without passing the species' boundary. Even with all man's help possible.

Again, for the umpteenth time, since many Evolutionists appear to be either dense or intentionally dense on the subject: mere conclusory use of the word "evolution" as in "Canine variation is a result of evolution"
doesn't constitute evidence, much less proof, of Evolution

Darwin lamented that the fossil record of his day was so incomplete. Since then, as predicted by his theory, a wealth of transitional forms have been discovered in the fossil record.

This is also an example of Evolutionist ignorance or self-deceit (no offense, just calling 'em as i see 'em).
Forms aren't transitional between other forms unless they're proven to be. For example, merely because an ape kinda looks like a person, and a sloth does so less, doesn't, as a matter of fact, make apes transitions between sloths and people.

Lives are similar, in many ways, as well as being diverse. These facts, in themselves, don't constitute evidence of Evolution. No matter how fervent the faith of any given Evolutionist in their theory.

There have existed creatures somewhere between fish and amphibians, for example. Recently discovered in China were a plethora of feathered dinosaurs - intermediates between dinosaurs and birds.

The fact that there evidently were feathered dinosaurs is evidence of the fact that there are feathered dinosaurs. This doesn't need Evolution to be true. This in itself is no evidence of Evolution, that is: it's no evidence of dinosaurs and birds either having common ancestors, nor evidence that dinosaurs generated birds, nor evidence that birds generated dinosaurs. Absent actual proof of reproductive descent.

A common Evolution shortness and failing is the statment of one's conclusion before one's offered any support for it. Feathered dinosaurs aren't "intermediates" between dinosaurs and birds by way of generation unless dinosaurs and/or birds actually generated either each other or their hypothesized "intermediaries"

Even today, we see fascinating examples of living "intermediates". Egg-laying mammals (the platypus and echidna), and the lungfish, a creature with both lungs and gills.

These "living intermediaries" are "intermediaries" only when and if they're shown to be related by birth to the lives which they're supposedly inbetween.

For instance, someone may look very much like a combination of my grandfather and me. But unless and until that individual can in any way be demonstrated to have descended from my grandfather, and generated me, he is hardly my "intermediary"

Finally there is the observation of morphological, and, more recently, genetic similarities between groups of organisms. Even a child can see that a wallaby is more closely related to a kangaroo than a dog.

Does the nonchild who wrote the above comment mean "similar" rather than "closely related" ?
Does the nonchild understand the difference between the 2 phrases ?
Even a child can see that a wallaby is more similar to a kangaroo than a dog.
Or a lizard more similar to a brontosaurus than a human.
But that doesn't constitute evidence of generation, of relation by birth.
The fact that all life has genes doesn't mean that all life has one common ancestor! Such a theory or notion is, at best (or at worst, depending on how you look at it)...........a leap of faith

A pumpkin is closer to a watermelon than an apple tree. A cat is closer to a horse than to an ostrich. We are closer in form to a gorilla than to a goldfish. Draw any conclusion from this you will, but to me this indicates shared biological heritage.

To me it indicates a shared Creator. For sure it doesn't constitute direct evidence of Evolution (shared biological ancestor). Much less fact of Evolution. Which is why it's so sad that Evolutionists not only often overstate their case, but even deceive concerning their case, presenting their theory as fact, or unassailable.

 

[gluadys]

Except that Australia and its inhabitants existed a long time before Darwin. So that isn't "predicting."
Instead, it is post-hoc theorizing.

"prediction" in science is not about foretelling the future. It is about drawing logical consequences from the theory. It is used in two ways:

1. to derive known observations from the theory, and
2. to hypothesize new observations given the theory.

The latter provide a testing ground for the accuracy of the theory.

Neither has anything to do with when the theory was first proposed.

Nor, as with anywhere not just Australia, is the existence of diverse life evidence of evolution of that life. Instead, it's simply direct evidence that that life exists, and where it exists.

Incidentally also, breeding isn't mutation. Nor are any different dog breeds nondogs. Instead, one species contains all sorts of populations and variations, yet without passing the species' boundary. Even with all man's help possible.

Again, for the umpteenth time, since many Evolutionists appear to be either dense or intentionally dense on the subject: mere conclusory use of the word "evolution" as in "Canine variation is a result of evolution"
doesn't constitute evidence, much less proof, of Evolution

This is also an example of Evolutionist ignorance or self-deceit (no offense, just calling 'em as i see 'em).
Forms aren't transitional between other forms unless they're proven to be. For example, merely because an ape kinda looks like a person, and a sloth does so less, doesn't, as a matter of fact, make apes transitions between sloths and people.

Lives are similar, in many ways, as well as being diverse. These facts, in themselves, don't constitute evidence of Evolution. No matter how fervent the faith of any given Evolutionist in their theory.

The fact that there evidently were feathered dinosaurs is evidence of the fact that there are feathered dinosaurs. This doesn't need Evolution to be true. This in itself is no evidence of Evolution, that is: it's no evidence of dinosaurs and birds either having common ancestors, nor evidence that dinosaurs generated birds, nor evidence that birds generated dinosaurs. Absent actual proof of reproductive descent.

A common Evolution shortness and failing is the statment of one's conclusion before one's offered any support for it. Feathered dinosaurs aren't "intermediates" between dinosaurs and birds by way of generation unless dinosaurs and/or birds actually generated either each other or their hypothesized "intermediaries"

These "living intermediaries" are "intermediaries" only when and if they're shown to be related by birth to the lives which they're supposedly inbetween.

For instance, someone may look very much like a combination of my grandfather and me. But unless and until that individual can in any way be demonstrated to have descended from my grandfather, and generated me, he is hardly my "intermediary"

Does the child who wrote the above comment mean "similar" rather than "closely related" ?
Does the child understand the difference between the 2 phrases ?
Or if the poster isn't a child, what's his excuse ?
Even a child can see that a wallaby is more similar to a kangaroo than a dog.
Or a lizard more similar to a brontosaurus than a human.
But that doesn't constitute evidence of generation, of relation by birth.
The fact that all life has genes doesn't mean that all life has one common ancestor! Such a theory or notion is, at best (or at worst, depending on how you look at it)...........a leap of faith

To me it indicates a shared Creator. For sure it doesn't constitute direct evidence of Evolution (shared biological ancestor). Much less fact of Evolution. Which is why it's so sad that Evolutionists not only often overstate their case, but even deceive concerning their case, presenting their theory as fact, or unassailable.

As is the case with many creationists, you are unable to evaluate the evidence for evolution because you do not actually know or understand what evolution is or what the theory of evolution states.

You have no way of explaining the geographical or paleontological distribution of species, of accounting for species with intermediate characteristics, or for the pattern of genetic distribution across species, yet you claim they are not evidence for evolution.

Since evolutionary theory does predict these patterns, how can they not be evidence for evolution?

You ask for proof, indicating you are not familiar with scientific method, which never supplies absolute proof. But does, in some cases, supply so much evidence for one conclusion it becomes intellectually perverse not to accept that conclusion.

When you are willing to unlearn the nonsense you think is evolution, you may be ready to learn enough about evolution to understand and appreciate this evidence.

 

[piglet17]

"prediction" in science is not about foretelling the future. It is about drawing logical consequences from the theory.

Is 414 teaching us that future is NOT a logical consequence of present ?

In that case, perhaps "science" can learn English before "science" calls itself science. (If that's okay to say, Stumpjumper. Do i have permission to use a little sarcasm ? How much ? How little ? Or does that constitute "flaming and baiting" ? What exactly are the political correctness, Orwellian double-speak, antifreespeech, rules for censorship here ?
Would you prefer i submit all my potential posts to you first for editing or rewriting according to your preferences ? Thanks)

"prediction" in science is not about foretelling the future. It is to hypothesize new observations given the theory.
The latter provide a testing ground for the accuracy of the theory.

Except that kangaroos and wallabies were old observations. Not new ones. Kangaroos, wallabies, human observers, and Australia were old when Darwin was new

Neither has anything to do with when the theory was first proposed.

To the contrary: observations' and theories' newness and oldness relative to one another is a matter of time. That's what the words "new" and "old" signify

As is the case with many creationists, you are unable to evaluate the evidence for evolution because you do not actually know or understand what evolution is or what the theory of evolution states.

To the contrary of the above falsehood from 414 (if i'm permitted to use the word "falsehood," Stumpjumper; may i please ? Just this once. Since i'm not "flaming" or "baiting" but rather really feel she's speaking falsely; do i have your permission Stumpjumper ?) :

Evolution teaches that species generated, generate, or will generate different species

You have no way of explaining the geographical or paleontological distribution of species,

Why not ? What's "wrong" with where species are ? Should they not be there ? Should they be somewhere else ?
Should some species be extinct ? Are some ? Are others not ? Are some apparently or possibly older than others ?

...of accounting for species with intermediate characteristics,

To the contrary: "intermediate" characteristics, like all characteristics, are created by our Creator. But only we're in His image and likeness. Next time, why not try asking me if i have any "way of explaining...or accounting," rather than simply telling me i don't.
Fair ? Reasonable ? Scientific ? Intelligent idea ?

...or for the pattern of genetic distribution across species, yet you claim they are not evidence for evolution

U, apparently, claim they are. Again, i'm not sure what you find "wrong" about genes. How SHOULD God have done it if He's real or Creator ? Mere existence or distribution of genes of different species hardly constitutes evidence that they're related ! Just like ears hardly constitute evidence that elephants and humans had a common ancestor

Since evolutionary theory does predict these patterns, how can they not be evidence for evolution?

Do u mean the prediction that similar animals have similar genes ? At best that's circumstantial evidence for evolution. Just as it's evidence of a Creator. i suspect your argument may be reduced to the form: Because things are the way they are, they evolved.
That's not particularly nor strong evidence for Evolution. Rather it's merely conclusory, and also abusive of the common English word "predict"

You ask for proof, indicating you are not familiar with scientific method, which never supplies absolute proof.

What's "absolute proof" "s'pose to mean ? No doubt. You doubt you wrote your post ? Did your post evolve by itself ? Could it have ?
(Watch out: i may be about to be reported by another Anonymous Coward for "flaming" and "baiting." Warning. Warning. Only nonevolutionists "flame" and "bait." Evolutionists have evolved beyond that point.)

Does 414's "scientific method" consist of NOT asking for proof ? Not asking for anything ? Just being a yes-man ?

But does, in some cases, supply so much evidence for one conclusion it becomes intellectually perverse not to accept that conclusion.

"Intellectually perverse." You mean "ignorant" ? An Anonymous (to me) Coward whined to the censors about my use of the word "ignorant" in another thread post. He (or she) didn't whine about any Evolutionists' denigrations or rejections of Creationist/Designist views. But did make it a point to whine about my use of "ignorant" and "liar" (the latter for an Evolutionist's insistence that Evolution's fact).

Many many conclusory statements about Evolution do not rise to anything more than conclusory statements. No matter how many they are, and no matter how they're deceitfully, or ignorantly, mislabelled "evidence." (Watch out. Warning. Censorship may be approaching. Political Correctness "Christian Faith" forum may not tolerate disrespect of Evolution or its censors' biases)

When you are willing to unlearn the nonsense you think is evolution, you may be ready to learn enough about evolution to understand and appreciate this evidence.

So Evolution doesN'T teach that all life came from a common biological ancestor ?
Then what DUZ Evolution teach (Stumpjumper: am i permitted to misspell the word "does" ?)
Thanks

 

[Mick116]

Sometimes I wonder why we argue as we do.

Piglet is convinced that evolution is false.

Gluadys and I are convinced that the theory of evolution is sound.

Stalemate.

For the next couple of posts, let us provide some words of praise for the Creator in which we, all of us, believe.

 

[gluadys]

Is 414 teaching us that future is NOT a logical consequence of present ?

Have you ever noticed that posts are indentified by the username of the poster, piglet? A little friendlier to use names, no? Reminds us we are talking to people.

What exactly are the political correctness, Orwellian double-speak, antifreespeech, rules for censorship here ?

I wouldn't call it a rule, but it is more tactful and less distracting to keep to the substance of a post and deal with the mods in private messages.

Except that kangaroos and wallabies were old observations. Not new ones. Kangaroos, wallabies, human observers, and Australia were old when Darwin was new

So they fit use #1 of a scientific prediction: derivation of known observations by logic from the theory.

Evolution teaches that species generated, generate, or will generate different species

Not so much what evolution teaches (evolution can't really "teach" anything since it is not a person) as what can be predicted on the basis of the theory of evolution. Under certain circumstances the process of evolution in a species will lead to the formation of new species. This prediction has been verified by observation and so is now considered a fact.

Why not ?

Because you have no way to show why species are where they are. Example: monkeys are found in Africa, India, South America and a few other places (not counting zoos or other unnatural placements). But monkeys with prehensile tails are found only in South America. Why should this characteristic be found only on monkeys on that continent and never on an African or Indian monkey? What kept that particular characteristic penned to that continent when monkey-type characteristics in general were not?

What's "wrong" with where species are ?

Never said there was anything wrong with where they are. Just that, without evolution, you have no explanations for patterns like the one in the monkey example above.

To the contrary: "intermediate" characteristics, like all characteristics, are created by our Creator.

And why did the Creator make species with intermediate features? Especially if the Creator wanted us not to conclude that they are part of an evolutionary sequence? Why are they placed in a chronological sequence, as one would expect if evolution is the case?

U, apparently, claim they are. Again, i'm not sure what you find "wrong" about genes.

Again, no one is saying anything is wrong with them. Only that the pattern of distribution is predictable if evolution is the case, but not predictable otherwise.

I know on another thread that you were shown the fused chromosome in humans that matches two chromosomes in other apes, and the phylogenic pattern of endogenous retroviruses in the hominid family. These patterns are logical consequences of evolution. What alternate logical explanation is there?

Mere existence or distribution of genes of different species

We are not talking about mere existence or distribution. We are talking about very specific patterns of distribution. If you cannot think in terms of patterns, you will have a very difficult time understanding evolution.

Just like ears hardly constitute evidence that elephants and humans had a common ancestor

Ah, but elephants and humans did have a common ancestor; just far more remote than our common ancestor with other primates. Just because you and your neighbour (presumably) don't share the same grandfather doesn't mean you don't share the same great-great-great-great-great-grandfather.

Do u mean the prediction that similar animals have similar genes ?

No, I mean that they have similar patterns of unique character combinations and that these patterns are consistent whether one is studying morphology, genetics, or biogeography or a dozen other approaches. As I said, if you can't think in terms of patterns, you will have difficulty with the concept of evolution.

At best that's circumstantial evidence for evolution.

Nothing wrong with circumstantial evidence. Especially if you have a lot of it all pointing to the same conclusion. If you have only one bit of circumstantial evidence suggesting Mr. X is embezzling funds from your company, you proceed with caution. But if you gather a dozen bits of circumstantial evidence, apparently unrelated to each other, you may have a sound case.

Evolution is supported by literally hundreds if not thousands of pieces of such circumstantial evidence in addition to direct observation. Much of this evidence was predicted to exist before it was found.

Just as it's evidence of a Creator.

Of course, it is evidence of a Creator. There is nothing contradictory in finding evolution in a created universe. When I first discovered a real (i.e. not hostile or distorted) description of evolution, my first reaction was to exclaim "So that's how God did it!" It just made so much sense and spoke so strongly of God's infinite wisdom to me that I have never doubted that evolution is God's plan.

i suspect your argument may be reduced to the form: Because things are the way they are, they evolved.

Not quite. It should read, Because species evolved, they are what they are.

Does 414's

The name is "gluadys" by the way. Pleased to meet you, piglet.

"scientific method" consist of NOT asking for proof ?

yep.

Not asking for anything ?

Nope. Do ask for evidence. Plenty of evidence. And logic. One needs logic to build a theory from the evidence and more logic to derive consequences from the theory. Then more evidence to determine if the predicted consequences concord with observation.

"Intellectually perverse." You mean "ignorant" ?

No, it is not intellectually perverse to be ignorant. That is just an unfortunate consequence of lack of education--at least in the field. "Intellecually perverse" is a phrase of Stephen J. Gould's I rather like. It refers to the person who is not ignorant, who has viewed the evidence, understands the evidence, understands the logical conclusions to be drawn from the evidence and still refuses to accept those conclusions.

the latter for an Evolutionist's insistence that Evolution's fact.

Evolution is a fact. Of course, since you confuse evolution with common descent, you might be overlooking observed evolution. Common descent is both a logical conclusion and an inference supported by much evidence, but it cannot be an observed fact. Evolution, on the other hand, can be observed and has been observed.

So Evolution doesN'T teach that all life came from a common biological ancestor ?

Nope. Common ancestry is a conclusion based on theory and evidence. It is not an a priori necessity of evolution. Common ancestry has been found to be the only conclusion consistent with the evidence. But that is a conclusion, not a pre-supposition.

Then what DUZ Evolution teach

That the genetic patterns of a population change over generations and may lead to the formation of new species.

What is indisputable is that the genetic patterns (distribution of alleles) change over generations. This is the foundational fact of evolution. Indeed, it is the definition of evolution. Wherever genetic patterns differ from one generation to another, that is evolution.

What may--and often does--happen as a consequence of one or more changes over one or more generations, is the appearance of new species. Usually, but not always, speciation requires many changes over many generations, but there are a few exceptions in which speciation occurs in a single generation.

For the next couple of posts, let us provide some words of praise for the Creator in which we, all of us, believe.

Just came across this blessing this morning.


Blessed be the Creator
of all creative hands
that plant and harvest,
pack and haul and hand
over sustenance--
Blessed be carrot and cow,
potato and mushroom,
tomato and bean,
parsley and peas,
onion and thyme,
garlic and bay leaf,
pepper and water,
marjoram and oil,
and blessed be fire--
and blessed be the enjoyment
of nose and of eye,
and blessed be colour---
and blessed be the Creator
for the miracle of red potato,
for the miracle of green bean,
for the miracle of fawn mushrooms,
and blessed be God
for the miracle of earth,
ancestors, grass, bird,
deer and all gone,
wild creatures
whose bodies become
carrots, peas and wild
flowers, who
give sustenance
to human hands, whose
agile dance of music
nourishes the ear
and soul of the dog
resting under the stove
and the woman working over
the stove and the geese
out the open window
strolling in the backyard.
And blessed be God
for all, all, all.

Alla Renee Bozarth from Earth Prayers from around the world.

 

[clmanning]

For those who believe in evolution, read this;
"To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." Charles Darwin, author of "Origin of Species" the very book upon which the entire "THEORY" of Evolution is based.

Since the time of Darwin, until the present, there has been discovered not one piece of empirical evidence to support the theory. Normal scientific practice is to put forth a theory, gather evidence to attempt to support the theory, then if the evidence is sufficient, the theory is restated as a scientific fact. However, since there has been no evidence to support the theory, that is why it is still a "THEORY". Simply put, the scientific community still recognizes the lack of evidence by still referring to evolution as the THEORY of Evolution.

However, I will yield this point, just as you cannot empirically prove the theory of evolution, I cannot empirically prove the "theory of creation." Nor will I attempt to. All I can say is "IF" you believe that the Scripture is the Word of God, then the Scripture simply states that "In the beginning God created...." For me, that is sufficient. However, if you believe in evolution, then you cannot lay hold to a claim of being Christian because the Scripture says, "In the beginning God created...." This contradicts the theory of evolution, so, therefore, you need to ascertain wheither you are a Christian or an Evolutionist. Both are mutually exclusive.

 

[Mick116]

you need to ascertain wheither you are a Christian or an Evolutionist. Both are mutually exclusive.

Okay, i really can't let a comment like this slide. Not only is this comment highly offensive, but it is completely and utterly untrue.

For those who believe in evolution, read this;
"To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." Charles Darwin, author of "Origin of Species" the very book upon which the entire "THEORY" of Evolution is based.

The theory of evolution via natural selection does not stand or fall on Darwin, any more than the theory of gravitation stands or falls on Newton.

Since the time of Darwin, until the present, there has been discovered not one piece of empirical evidence to support the theory. Normal scientific practice is to put forth a theory, gather evidence to attempt to support the theory, then if the evidence is sufficient, the theory is restated as a scientific fact. However, since there has been no evidence to support the theory, that is why it is still a "THEORY". Simply put, the scientific community still recognizes the lack of evidence by still referring to evolution as the THEORY of Evolution.

The fact of evolution has been embraced by all reputable biologists, and only denied by a fringe minority. "Natural selection" is the theory, originally suggested by Darwin, that attempts to explain how evolution is taking place.

However, I will yield this point, just as you cannot empirically prove the theory of evolution, I cannot empirically prove the "theory of creation." Nor will I attempt to. All I can say is "IF" you believe that the Scripture is the Word of God, then the Scripture simply states that "In the beginning God created...." For me, that is sufficient. However, if you believe in evolution, then you cannot lay hold to a claim of being Christian because the Scripture says, "In the beginning God created...." This contradicts the theory of evolution

Scripture states clearly that God created all things... however, it gives no detail of precisely how he did it.

The bible was never intended to provide a natural history of the universe... it is not a scientific textbook, and many Christians feel it is a mistreatment of sacred scripture to read it as though it were. Genesis 1 is highly poetic, and should be read and interpretted as such.

 

[warrior of sacrifice]

Scripture states clearly that God created all things... however, it gives no detail of precisely how he did it.

Neither does science

I would partially fit into YEC.... and a few others.