Hyperevolution in the aftermath of the Flood

[dad]

We're discussing the past. How do you know the past was so radically different?

That's a wonderful thing to look forward to... now, back to my question, if you please...

Well, there's the magic word... imagine. I thought you had some sort of scientific basis for your theories on the past.


In other words... a whole trunk full of megamiracles which serve no purpose except to "prove" YEC... precisely as shenren described.


And now the burden is on you to prove that it was not the same... I had assumed that you were working with something here...


All well and nice, of course... but you departed from any kind of scientific discussion early on in the post.

....

Science does not go into the far past or future, save by assumption that it was the same. Everyone departs from our limited science when they go there. No exceptions. Unless of course it could be shown it was physical only.

I showed how the future was merged, and the new heavens coming. Eternal. Your concern is how do we know the past was merged or not, and how can we prove it. How can we prove the future will be merged, or PO? WE can't. You, or I, or anyone on earth. Same with the past.

So, unless you want to talk bible, might as well just admit it is unknown. If you do look at the bible, you will see a past in a lot of ways similar to that future. I already mentioned a few ways. There is no other way I have see to explain the flood, and garden, and light before the sun, and the far stars, and continental seperation etc, within a bible timeframe, as understood by creationists.
The different matter and fabric of the universe does explain it all. Science has not a thing it can say about it.
This means taht we live in a temporary universe, and it is we who are not in an eternal natural state. Natural science, therefore as applied to the past or future is science falsely so called, because the nature of the past and future are different. Checkmate, -fishbowl physics!

 

[The Lady Kate]

Science does not go into the far past or future, save by assumption that it was the same. Everyone departs from our limited science when they go there. No exceptions. Unless of course it could be shown it was physical only.

True enough. And the only reason to assume that it was not the same is because it's the only possible way you can be correct.

I showed how the future was merged, and the new heavens coming.

The future was merged? Can we discuss the grammatical problems here?

Eternal. Your concern is how do we know the past was merged or not, and how can we prove it. How can we prove the future will be merged, or PO? WE can't. You, or I, or anyone on earth. Same with the past.

Which kicks the legs out from under everything you've just said.

So, unless you want to talk bible, might as well just admit it is unknown. If you do look at the bible, you will see a past in a lot of ways similar to that future. I already mentioned a few ways. There is no other way I have see to explain the flood, and garden, and light before the sun, and the far stars, and continental seperation etc, within a bible timeframe, as understood by creationists.

Fair enough... within the Creationist model, we need a trunk full of megamiracles, or an assumption of a complete alternate universe... the rest is precisely as shenren described.

The different matter and fabric of the universe does explain it all. Science has not a thing it can say about it.

Which is why Creationism is not science. Once again, precisely what shenren was talking about.

This means taht we live in a temporary universe, and it is we who are not in an eternal natural state. Natural science, therefore as applied to the past or future is science falsely so called, because the nature of the past and future are different. Checkmate, -fishbowl physics!

Once again, proving that Creationism is not science.

Checkmate indeed... unfortunately for you, science has been playing Scrabble. Learn the rules before you step up to the board.

 

[random_guy]

Well, so many of these theories that don't pan out, or become "modified" to readjust scientific models are accepted as absolute truth until such time, with no credence given to an explanation with divine origins.
If those who rely on the scripture for the bulk of our foundation hopped around as much, we'd be labelled as wishy washy. I don't have a problem with the theories themselves. I take issue with blind devotion to such theories in the absence of absolute proof that your belief system requires, while excluding any possible explanation of scriptural backing.

Where do you get that? No scientists accept theories as absolute truths because theories aren't truths. They're descriptions of what we see and why we see them. Take the theory of evolution. It's a theory that explains how the biodiversity on Earth arose. However, there's gaps in the theory, and scientists acknowledge it.

I think the problem is that Creationists tend to think in black and white (either Genesis is literal or a lie, either it's true or false, etc...) and fail to understand that science deals in shades of grey.

 

[Proselyte]

Where do you get that? No scientists accept theories as absolute truths because theories aren't truths. They're descriptions of what we see and why we see them. Take the theory of evolution. It's a theory that explains how the biodiversity on Earth arose. However, there's gaps in the theory, and scientists acknowledge it.

I think the problem is that Creationists tend to think in black and white (either Genesis is literal or a lie, either it's true or false, etc...) and fail to understand that science deals in shades of grey.

Yes, but you profess evolution to be true over creation, no? And why, because the "evidence" points to this? And usually, creationists are looked down upon as ignorant, with a belief system based on "blind faith" on a literal interpretation of the Bible. Both views require faith, and mine doesn't sway based on "new evidence" that corrects the previous correct "evidence." As a YEC, I have all that I need in the Bible. Why is it hard for many Christians who obviously put their faith in Jesus and the Bible, yet at the same time feel the need to prove everything? It's almost like the faith is not quite mature.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Yes, but you profess evolution to be true over creation, no? And why, because the "evidence" points to this? And usually, creationists are looked down upon as ignorant, with a belief system based on "blind faith" on a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Well, let's see if you prove this wrong...

Both views require faith, and mine doesn't sway based on "new evidence" that corrects the previous correct "evidence."

The problem is that this is a flaw in your view, not a strength.

As a YEC, I have all that I need in the Bible.

Then presenting evidence for or against would be a waste of time?

Why is it hard for many Christians who obviously put their faith in Jesus and the Bible, yet at the same time feel the need to prove everything? It's almost like the faith is not quite mature.

So, it's all about the blind faith? You were asking about the view of your belief system at the beginning of your post. Have you answered your own question?

 

[random_guy]

Yes, but you profess evolution to be true over creation, no? And why, because the "evidence" points to this? And usually, creationists are looked down upon as ignorant, with a belief system based on "blind faith" on a literal interpretation of the Bible. Both views require faith, and mine doesn't sway based on "new evidence" that corrects the previous correct "evidence." As a YEC, I have all that I need in the Bible. Why is it hard for many Christians who obviously put their faith in Jesus and the Bible, yet at the same time feel the need to prove everything? It's almost like the faith is not quite mature.

Many things wrong with your statement. I don't profess evolution to be true, but I do think that it's more correct Creationism ideas on the origin of species. Again, you're looking at things in black and white, typical Creationist thought.

I accept evolution to be more correct because evolution is scientifically sound, and Creationism is not scientific, and nearly every claim against evolution is a misunderstanding of science. You keep claiming that science requires faith, the same kind of faith as religion, and this is incorrect. Why do you think we keep digging up fossils, sequencing genes, studying species? I assure you it's not because of faith.

Second, your views are based off of ignorance, and you're proud of it. Why do you think it's a problem that we discovered quantum physics (which is more correct model of physics)? You think that's a bad thing. You seem to imply that if we kept thinking the Earth was flat, and was at the center of the Universe, it's an improvement over learning new information. I guess it makes sense, because statistically, the more educated a person is, the less likely they will accept Creationism.

 

[artybloke]

Yes, but you profess evolution to be true over creation, no?

I can't speak for random guy, but in my case, no. Evolution is God's method of creation. "Creationism" should more properly (in my opinion) be called ne0-creationism as it's essentially based on a materialistic, scientistic reading of Genesis that is only possible in the modern world. It wasn't an interpretation that would have made much sense to the original readers.

In fact, theistic evolutionists are the true creationists, because they look at the created from the Big Bang to the evolution of humanity and see the hand of God in the whole process.

 

[Proselyte]

Many things wrong with your statement. I don't profess evolution to be true, but I do think that it's more correct Creationism ideas on the origin of species. Again, you're looking at things in black and white, typical Creationist thought.

I accept evolution to be more correct because evolution is scientifically sound, and Creationism is not scientific, and nearly every claim against evolution is a misunderstanding of science. You keep claiming that science requires faith, the same kind of faith as religion, and this is incorrect. Why do you think we keep digging up fossils, sequencing genes, studying species? I assure you it's not because of faith.

Second, your views are based off of ignorance, and you're proud of it. Why do you think it's a problem that we discovered quantum physics (which is more correct model of physics)? You think that's a bad thing. You seem to imply that if we kept thinking the Earth was flat, and was at the center of the Universe, it's an improvement over learning new information. I guess it makes sense, because statistically, the more educated a person is, the less likely they will accept Creationism.

stereotypes, stereotypes. Insults, insults. Whether I am right or wrong, there is a certain Christian way to share and converse without Lording over your partner in a condescending manner. Creationism or evolution doesn't lead to salvation, but the way in which you interact and treat others reflects the heart of the person. I suggest you take a kinder tone in which you engage with others, without inflating yourself too much over a man-made theory that is still up for review.
Just my two cents brother.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

a man-made theory that is still up for review

this ploy by YECists is two part.
the first part is to claim that science is manmade and therefore inferior to their theology which is God made.

the second part is that since science is provisional it is inferior to theology which is firm, solid and unchanging.

both ideas are wrong.

Science is the investigation of God's creation, this anchors it in the revelation of God in the book of works which shows some of God's attributes.

Next theology is just as much a human creation as is science. IF it was wholly of God then why so many denominations preaching contradictory things? OTOH you can go to a biology lecture in Moscow, Beijing, and Washington DC and despite all the differences between the lecturers, get the same material. You can't even go to two Methodist churches across the street and get the same stuff??? who shows the unity expected of God's revelation?

to the next falsity:
YECist claim theology doesn't change. that is so wrong from a historical viewpoint that it is odd they even try to get away with making the argument. What is true is that religion is so generally conservative that it changes very very slowly.

Science's provisionalness is something theology ought to learn a little from and be a bit less arrogant that theology can really capture what God has said, after all it is God you are talking about. You'd expect so inability of human beings to comprehend the subject material. but instead there is an arrogance in the theological community that defies explanation. and these two misshapen ideas are part of it.

 

[random_guy]

stereotypes, stereotypes. Insults, insults. Whether I am right or wrong, there is a certain Christian way to share and converse without Lording over your partner in a condescending manner. Creationism or evolution doesn't lead to salvation, but the way in which you interact and treat others reflects the heart of the person. I suggest you take a kinder tone in which you engage with others, without inflating yourself too much over a man-made theory that is still up for review.
Just my two cents brother.

I'm sorry if I offend, but I stand by many of my statements. You imply that us Christians don't accept Creation, which is incorrect, we have different views on Creation. Your entire tone seems to be that we don't accept the Bible as true, unlike you. You imply that learning new information, the self correcting process of science, is somehow bad. You imply that I have little or no faith in the Bible or Jesus because I accept science, and at the same time, imply that I require faith to accept science. Perhaps if you re-read your posts, you'll see why I responded as I did, but your reply to me should also be replied to you.

I'm just pointing out all the logical flaws in your argument and seeing how this is a debate forum, that's expected. Finally, it's a fact that the more education a person has received, the less likely they will accept YECism. This is not an attack, it's pointing out the correlation between increased knowledge and the less likely in belief of YECism. It doesn't mean that YECism are stupid, but that they are more likely to be ignorant in areas of science.

 

[Proselyte]

I'm sorry if I offend, but I stand by many of my statements. You imply that us Christians don't accept Creation, which is incorrect, we have different views on Creation. Your entire tone seems to be that we don't accept the Bible as true, unlike you. You imply that learning new information, the self correcting process of science, is somehow bad. You imply that I have little or no faith in the Bible or Jesus because I accept science, and at the same time, imply that I require faith to accept science. Perhaps if you re-read your posts, you'll see why I responded as I did, but your reply to me should also be replied to you.

I'm just pointing out all the logical flaws in your argument and seeing how this is a debate forum, that's expected. Finally, it's a fact that the more education a person has received, the less likely they will accept YECism. This is not an attack, it's pointing out the correlation between increased knowledge and the less likely in belief of YECism. It doesn't mean that YECism are stupid, but that they are more likely to be ignorant in areas of science.

No problem, I understand we have differing views and that's ok.

Man has a tendency to become self important in the perceived act of gaining higher knowledge. He tends to become reliant on himself and said knowledge more, and on God and the Bible less. It would be safe to say that many scientists have an agenda to eliminate God and matters of spirituality from any scientific studies completely. I am not saying this is your viewpoint, but the anti-God agenda and frame of mind that atheist scientists have bequeathed have helped shape the further erosion of traditional Christian beliefs.

I actually believed evolution myself at one time. I was always taught it as fact, and didn't question it much. As I became saved, and decided to challenge what was being force-fed to me, I came to realize that evolution seemed on shaky ground, strung together by loose theories, and not being replicated before our eyes now. In addition, the Bible does not discuss evolution (speciation yes) and clearly discusses the creation process in Genesis.
It is on these grounds mainly that I accept creation over evolution. 1) Biblical evidence for creation without evolution 2) Lack of convincing proof of evolution, especially in challenging the Bible, our Living Word from God. Obviously there's more to it than that, but that's a generalization.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Man has a tendency to become self important in the perceived act of gaining higher knowledge.

this seems to be the case with some people.

but the very rare brilliant people i have met have uniformally been deeply impressed at how little they really know and have internalized that observation into a quiet mildness that is very distinctive. i've seen it in both Christians and very secular people.

reminds me of the movie Amadeus.
The truely brilliant are a different sort of people, but the 2nd level, who normally would be the height of their field, they can be self seeking, arrogant and petty.
but the brilliant? they seem to catch a glimpse that is denied to the common lot of humanity....

 

[Proselyte]

reminds me of the movie Amadeus.
The truely brilliant are a different sort of people, but the 2nd level, who normally would be the height of their field, they can be self seeking, arrogant and petty.
but the brilliant? they seem to catch a glimpse that is denied to the common lot of humanity....

That is an excellent point, and I will try not to lose sight of that.

 

[dad]

True enough. And the only reason to assume that it was not the same is because it's the only possible way you can be correct.

No. You need some back up for assumptions, especially if they affect everything. That is why you would need to support a claim the past was just physical. As it is, you simply offer a statement of faith, tantamount to admitting your extreme limitations. Pretty pitiful.

I have reasons for my assumptions, and that is that God is true, and the bible is right. It is not an empty assumption. Let's face it the past was quite different, as the future will be according to the bible, unless you try to fabalize it.

The future was merged? Can we discuss the grammatical problems here?

Jesus said, before Abraham was, I Am. See, the limitations of this temporary present don't apply to One who was here before it started, and will be here after it is the new eternal heavens again. But I guess it should be worded , the future will be merged.

Which kicks the legs out from under everything you've just said.

On the contrary, only from claims of science for that future! It cannot evidence it will be the same. It hasn't a leg to stand on for it's claims.

If we talk about the bible, I have plenty to stand on!

Fair enough... within the Creationist model, we need a trunk full of megamiracles, or an assumption of a complete alternate universe......

A past that was different, had a different 'nature'. It was not miracles, but natural then! It is old agers that cannot support a past they claim was the same, and revert to the universe in a speck and other absurdities as a result. Talk about miracles! Some might consider the healing of a deaf man a miracle. Compare that to stuffing the entire planet, and trillions of stars and sun, and gallaxies in a little photon sized so called hot soup! You got the miracles, except they are imaginary.

Which is why Creationism is not science. Once again, precisely what shenren was talking about.

Of course it is. AS far as science goes, that is right here in the present and some thousands of years back. WE have that as much as you! What you claim of the past beyond that, and future, you cannot back up! Look who is talking about 'is not science'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Checkmate indeed... unfortunately for you, science has been playing Scrabble. Learn the rules before you step up to the board.

In the rules of evidence, and supporting and testing, or science, if compared to a board game, you lost, however you want to arrange the word. We are not the ones who need to tip our King, or spell 'speck'. We have more points by spelling creation. I checked the rule book.

Now if you want to claim you won, it is you who must step up to the plate, and give us not lost proofs of a PO past, but lots of evidence which you cannot do! No use pretending you can.

 

[Mallon]

Now if you want to claim you won, it is you who must step up to the plate, and give us not lost proofs of a PO past, but lots of evidence which you cannot do! No use pretending you can.

As much as I can't stand American Idol, your position is akin to Justin Guarini claiming he won the competition over Kelly Clarkson, despite the fact that we hear only her songs being sung over the radio these days (ugh!).
Similarly, you've claimed victory for the creationists in face of the fact that it is evolution that continues to be taught in the public school system, that continues to win battles in the courtroom, and that continues to tie together the loose ends in biology and advance research.
Deny it all you want, but I think we know who the real 'winner' is.

 

[The Lady Kate]

No. You need some back up for assumptions, especially if they affect everything. That is why you would need to support a claim the past was just physical. As it is, you simply offer a statement of faith, tantamount to admitting your extreme limitations. Pretty pitiful.

Of course, you would never admit to limitations.

I freely admit that much of science is based on logical and reasonable assumptions, which may very well be incorrect.

You make no such admission, but continue to assume.

What was that about "pitiful"?

I have reasons for my assumptions, and that is that God is true, and the bible is right.

But must it be literal to be right?

It is not an empty assumption. Let's face it the past was quite different, as the future will be according to the bible, unless you try to fabalize it.

Ah.... there's the root of it all. To "fabalize" the Bible, in your mind, would make it untrue. Every spiritual and moral lesson must also be physically so.... even if the laws of physics themselves need to be rewritten or discarded.

Jesus said, before Abraham was, I Am. See, the limitations of this temporary present don't apply to One who was here before it started, and will be here after it is the new eternal heavens again.

As long as you remember that the One is not you.

But I guess it should be worded , the future will be merged.

As a matter of faith, correct. See how many problems can be avoided by proper grammar?

On the contrary, only from claims of science for that future! It cannot evidence it will be the same. It hasn't a leg to stand on for it's claims.

Nor do you... scientifically speaking.

If we talk about the bible, I have plenty to stand on!

So talk about the Bible... nobody's stopping you. But the Bible isn't science. This is where that whole "Chess/Scrabble" metaphor comes into play.

Science, like chess, has rules. If you want to claim checkmate, play chess. Don't claim victory just because you find the rules too limiting. It's childish... like kicking over the board because you don't like your opponent's last move.

A past that was different, had a different 'nature'. It was not miracles, but natural then!

So you explain shenren's boatload of megamiracles by imagining a world where miracles were commonplace. I don't see how this disproves his claims.

It is old agers that cannot support a past they claim was the same, and revert to the universe in a speck and other absurdities as a result. Talk about miracles! Some might consider the healing of a deaf man a miracle. Compare that to stuffing the entire planet, and trillions of stars and sun, and gallaxies in a little photon sized so called hot soup! You got the miracles, except they are imaginary.

Bringing this strawman to life... now that would be a miracle.

Of course it is. AS far as science goes, that is right here in the present and some thousands of years back. WE have that as much as you!

And if we accept your definitions as truth, once you step beyond that, you are no longer in the realm of science.

What you claim of the past beyond that, and future, you cannot back up! Look who is talking about 'is not science'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Once again, neither can you. So if old ages is not science, then neither of us are speaking scientifically anymore.

The difference is, that if we play this by your rules, I'm willing to accept the limitations of science... you're rewriting the rules to get some form of science, evn your own, to agree with you.

(on a side note, why is it that only YECs think that multiple exclaimation points after a statement somehow make it more true? Don't they realize it's the internet equivalent of hysterics?)

In the rules of evidence, and supporting and testing, or science, if compared to a board game, you lost, however you want to arrange the word.

Odd... it looks more like a tie to me. And the last I checked, the game isn't over yet.

We are not the ones who need to tip our King, or spell 'speck'. We have more points by spelling creation. I checked the rule book.

If by the "rule book" you mean the Bible, it should be noted that science doesn't use that book for its rules. Proving once again that you're not playing by science's rules.

But of course, you find science's rules too limiting for you, so why you would want to claim such a thing is a mystery.

Now if you want to claim you won, it is you who must step up to the plate, and give us not lost proofs of a PO past, but lots of evidence which you cannot do! No use pretending you can.

I'm not claiming I won... you are. I would like to point out that the game isn't over until the Final Judge says it is.

Perhaps you should wait for His decision before running your victory lap? Premature celebration can be most embarassing for men... so I've been told.

Furthermore, whatever game you're playing, you're not using the science rule book. It's easy to declare checkmate when you're the one who decides how the pieces should be allowed to move.

I'm willing to admit that the game is not over yet, and even if we accept your version of the rules (which skews the game squarely in your favor), it's currently a draw.

What makes you think the game is over? Are you so desperate to declare victory that you don't even want to see how it ends?

 

[gluadys]

So with 2 of every kind (Not 2 of every genus species), we would have 2 elephants, 2 dogs, 2 cats, etc. With that they all had the genes (sorry, I'm sick right now, and have been through Biology class, was it phenotypes?) needed to create the diversity we see now.

That is not physically possible and if you re-study genetics you will see why.

We know the book of Job talks about a Dinosaur.

No, we do not know that. That is a fallible (and probably incorrect) human interpretation of a passage of Job.

Now you guys are assuming that God left the animals on their own to become what we have now. Wouldn't it be feasible that God used his powers to help them too? It makes sense to me that way. With his help they became what we have now. He told Noah that he had reign over the animals and could use them for food, but not until he said so.... This shows that God was waiting for the population to come back up.

That creates an even greater problem in answering the OP. How long did it take for the population to come back up? For humans as well as other species. It seems to me there would have to be hyper-reproduction and hyper-evolution. How long would it take to get both a viable population and today's bio-diversity. And yet have no historical record of this post-flood necessity.

But talking about this... why aren't you guys believing the Bible?

Why are you suggesting that we don't?

God was also setting up our time schedule, we can clearly see that in Genesis. Where else do you think we got the 7 day week?

Moon phases.

 

[gluadys]

Scientific theories never take faith. They take evidence which must either be accepted or refuted.

i don't think this is quite right.

for example, my personal favorite philosophy of science presupposition in order to do science is the desacralization of the physical world.

I think you are conflating philosophy of science with scientific theories.

Yes, it does take faith to accept the philosophic underpinnings of the scientific enterprise.

But theories are supported by evidence, not faith.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I think you are conflating philosophy of science with scientific theories.

Yes, it does take faith to accept the philosophic underpinnings of the scientific enterprise.

But theories are supported by evidence, not faith.

i like the term "shaping principles" i think i got it from _The Battle of Beginnings_.

even to get up in the morning as a scientist requires the exercise of faith that it is a good thing that i do today, to investigate and look at the world. If the universe or the item you are studying is in fact inhabited by evil spirits who will pursue and screw up your life for looking so closely at them, you could not do science.

The shaping principle, at every level of science, from looking through a microscope to high level theory of everything theorizing requires this ethical content, that what i do is a good thing. this justification of the endeavor as an ethical thing to do.

i don't think i'm conflating the philosophy with the science, but rather pointing out that the science does not exist in a vacuum, but rather is wrapped in the philosophy and that in turn is wrapped in an ethics, neither the philosophy nor ethics are part of the science, but the science can not do anything, nor can the scientist get up in the morning and pursue his calling, without both the philosophy and ethics in place.

 

[gluadys]

Well, so many of these theories that don't pan out, or become "modified" to readjust scientific models are accepted as absolute truth until such time, with no credence given to an explanation with divine origins.

Welcome to the forum Proselyte. I have read through your posts and I hope I can question some of your apparent assumptions without offending.

First, as already stated, where do you get the notion that scientific models are accepted as absolute truth? Nothing could be further from a scientific approach to knowledge.

Second, why do you think it is a problem that scientific models are re-adjusted?

Let me ask you this. When you compose something on your computer, especially an important document like a business letter or report, do you run it through spell-check? Why? Do you then correct any spelling errors found? Why? Why do you adjust what you have already written?

If you have already handed in a report and you discover that there was an error in it, do you send a notice out about the error, so that people reading the report will not be mislead by it? Why? Why is it necessary to adjust the report?

So why is it a problem if, upon learning something in a scientific model is in error, scientists re-adjust their model to make it correspond more closely to reality? Would it not be much more of a problem if they didn't?

If those who rely on the scripture for the bulk of our foundation hopped around as much, we'd be labelled as wishy washy.

This sort of language from a Christian bothers me, because I do not believe that Christians ought to be relying on scripture for the bulk of our foundation. There is one foundation we are to rely on and that is Christ crucified and risen.

I don't have a problem with the theories themselves. I take issue with blind devotion to such theories in the absence of absolute proof that your belief system requires, while excluding any possible explanation of scriptural backing.

Who is practicing such blind devotion? Are you sure anyone is?

What makes you think that evolution or any other scientific theory requires absolute proof? (No scientific theory has absolute proof behind it. The most any theory has is a lot of supporting evidence.)

What does scripture offer science that science can use?

Yes, but you profess evolution to be true over creation, no?

No, I and all Christian evolutionists adhere to belief in creation. We also believe the theory of evolution is a good description of the process God set in place to create bio-diversity. So we do not profess evolution over creation, but as a description of some aspects of God's creative activity.

And why, because the "evidence" points to this?

Yes, and evidence does not need to be placed in quotes. It is not imaginary evidence.

And usually, creationists are looked down upon as ignorant,...

Only when they show that they are. And even then, there is no looking down on them unless they combine ignorance with arrogance. After all, everyone is ignorant in some respects. It is no shame to be ignorant, since none of us can be omniscient. It is only a shame to be wilfully ignorant when the opportunity to improve one's knowledge is at hand.

... with a belief system based on "blind faith" on a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Well, what's so great about a literal interpretation of the Bible? No one, not even the strictest literalist inteprets every statement of the bible literally. And even the strictest anti-literalist agrees that some parts of the bible are literal and/or historical fact. But that leaves a lot of room for various degrees of interpretation between those extremes for most of the bible.


Why should Gen. 1 in particular be interpreted as factual history?

As a YEC, I have all that I need in the Bible. Why is it hard for many Christians who obviously put their faith in Jesus and the Bible, yet at the same time feel the need to prove everything? It's almost like the faith is not quite mature.

I would like to ask that question of YECs. Why is it important that Gen. 1 be "true" science? Why spend time and energy either developing theories that show it is really literal or that conflicting evidence is not really scientific? What is lacking relative to your faith in Jesus and the Bible if Gen. 1 is not a historical report of creation?

...over a man-made theory that is still up for review.

All scientific theories come from human minds and are constantly reviewed. But there are different levels of review. Take the helio-centric solar system. Astronomers will review information on comets and asteroids and even perturbations in the orbit of the earth. But how much time do you think they devote to reviewing whether the earth orbits the sun or vice versa? This aspect of the theory is so solidly established that a review is no longer needed.

Evolution is in much the same situation. There are thousands of questions still to be answered about evolution. All sorts of details are still unknown. But it is details. That evolution happens is a fact. That mutations and natural selection are important mechanisms of evolution is a fact. That species have common ancestors and that the main outline of the evolution of all species from a common ancestor has been correctly delineated is so highly probable that it can be treated provisionally as a fact.

As we learn more about evolution, the first two facts will not disappear. Facts don't change. The third, which deals with the history of evolution, will probably have numerous revisions as we discover more of that history. But it will be mostly in refining the details of relationships; it is unlikely that common ancestry itself will be falsified.

It would be safe to say that many scientists have an agenda to eliminate God and matters of spirituality from any scientific studies completely.

An agenda is not needed. Science does not study God or spiritual matters. That study belongs in theology and philosophy. Science never deals with metaphysics.

I am not saying this is your viewpoint, but the anti-God agenda and frame of mind that atheist scientists have bequeathed have helped shape the further erosion of traditional Christian beliefs.

Which traditional Christian beliefs? Not creation since many evolutionists are theists who believe in the Creator. Not the Trinity nor the Incarnation, nor Christ's atonement, resurrection or coming again. Not the Holy Spirit or baptism or forgiveness of sins or the life everlasting.

Science has nothing to say on these matters nor on most of Christian beliefs. So what beliefs are being eroded?

I actually believed evolution myself at one time. I was always taught it as fact, and didn't question it much.

So, never questioning it, you never really looked into the science which supported it, right? And therefore you did not have sufficient scientific knowledge to spot the scientific garbage fed to you by anti-evolutionists.

I have seen this sort of testimony from "former evolutionists" before. The basic fact is that you took evolution on faith, not through examining the facts. And you presume that everyone who supports evolution does the same.

As I became saved, and decided to challenge what was being force-fed to me, I came to realize that evolution seemed on shaky ground, strung together by loose theories, and not being replicated before our eyes now.

I think it is great that you began to question what you had heretofore only taken on faith. But if you are going to question the authority of science teachers and textbooks, why not also question the authority of religious authorities and texts. Did you ever check out the reliability of the pseudo-science anti-evolutionists preach?

Evolution is being replicated before our eyes now. It is observed in nature and in experimental conditions.

May I recommend a book called The Beak of the Finch by Jonathan Weiner. It is a very detailed look at evolution happening right under our eyes, in the Galapagos Islands and elsewhere.

In addition, the Bible does not discuss evolution (speciation yes) and clearly discusses the creation process in Genesis.

The bible does not discuss evolution, I agree. Therefore it does not discuss speciation either, since that is an outcome of evolutionary process.

Furthermore, evolution is not an alternative to creation, it is a description of part of the process of creation.

What do you see as a clear discussion of the creation process in Gen. 1, as it pertains to living things. (Obviously evolution is not relevant to the creation of the cosmos.)

It is on these grounds mainly that I accept creation over evolution. 1) Biblical evidence for creation without evolution

The bible provides testimony. Testimony is counted as evidence in a court of law, but not in science. In science, the testimony must be supported by physical evidence. Scientifically, there can be no such thing as biblical evidence for any scientific theory. OTOH, there can be scientific evidence for biblical testimony.

2) Lack of convincing proof of evolution,

Since by your own admission, you have only looked at one side of the question (a naive unquestioning "faith" in evolution does not count as a genuine examination of the science), you are in no position to say the evidence supporting evolution is unconvincing. You don't even know at this point what the evidence is. I suspect you don't even know exactly what the scientific theory of evolution is.

I don't say this to be insulting, but it is rather disingenuous to declare unconvincing evidence that you have never really explored.

...especially in challenging the Bible, our Living Word from God.

I hate to bring this up again. The whole discussion belongs in Apologetics, not here. But please....this is not even a Christian statement. The one and only Living Word from God is the Word made Flesh in Jesus Christ.

You might note also that this Living Word is also the Creator and all of nature is His handiwork.

Perhaps you should consider that when you deny the facts of nature you are accusing the Living Word who made it of lying.

The Bible is fundamentally important for Christian faith. But it is not Christ, God's Living Word. Nor can it possibly contradict what Christ himself created.