I struggle with...

[Barry Desborough]

But you are the one defending it.
Make a case, 5 years debating, and only a handful of cases have actually been presented by the counter arguer.
Join the few, the proud, present your argument.

If you need me to tell you where to begin, then I'm afraid you've already lost.

You must have seen this thread, Wolfe. Viruses that prove common descent

 

[Jimmy D]

Take your pick.....


Part I. A unique, historical phylogenetic tree

1. Unity of life
2. Nested hierarchies
3. Convergence of independent phylogenies
   • Statistics of incongruent phylogenies
4. Transitional forms
   • Reptile-birds
   • Reptile-mammals
   • Ape-humans
   • Legged whales
   • Legged seacows
5. Chronology of common ancestors

Part 2. Past history

1. Anatomical vestiges
2. Atavisms
   • Whales and dolphins with hindlimbs
   • Humans tails
3. Molecular vestiges
4. Ontogeny and developmental biology
   • Mammalian ear bones, reptilian jaws
   • Pharyngeal pouches, branchial arches
   • Snake embryos with legs
   • Embryonic human tail
   • Marsupial eggshell and caruncle
5. Present biogeography
6. Past biogeography
   • Marsupials
   • Horses
   • Apes and humans

Part 3. Evolutionary opportunism

1. Anatomical parahomology
2. Molecular parahomology
3. Anatomical convergence
4. Molecular convergence
5. Anatomical suboptimal function
6. Molecular suboptimal function

Part 4. Molecular evidence

1. Protein functional redundancy
2. DNA functional redundancy
3. Transposons
4. Redundant pseudogenes
5. Endogenous retroviruses

Part 5. Change

1. Genetic
2. Morphological
3. Functional
4. The strange past
5. Stages of speciation
6. Speciation events
7. Morphological rates
8. Genetic rates

 

[Hidden In Him]

As I said, I have wasted a lot of time examining creationist material. I think I have seen it all, in all its excruciating repetitiveness. If you really want me to risk wasting 1:20 minutes of my precious time, give me a teaser: A reason to look at it.

Hi Barry!

Looks like you're well versed on the debate, which is a good thing. The trouble with this issue is that I believe it ultimately does come down to a matter of faith on either side.

But let me briefly tell you my experience so you understand what I mean.

I wasn't raised Christian. I got born again just before I went back to "University," as Europeans like to call it. Because I was growing in my faith but still ascribed to evolution as the truth, I eventually realized I would have to reconcile this theory with my new-found faith. So I began reading creationist material, but I also decided to take upper level courses in paleontology and keep an open mind. What I discovered was that the fossil evidence proved that the theory of evolution rested almost solely on a foundation of punctuated equilibrium, and without it the entire theory crumbled. I'll never forget the images one professor put up on the screen using a projector which showed all the places in the fossil record that demanded punctuated equilibrium as the scientific explanation for what had supposedly taken place. It was Swiss cheese. I decided right then and there that the case presented by the "science" of evolution, as presented by secular scholarship, was far weaker than most were being led to believe. And because there seemed to me to be so many genuine physical proofs for the creationist/flood model, I chose to view creationism to be the truth.

But since you are well versed in creationist literature, it sounds like it had the opposite effect on you.

Anyway, all these things lead me to the conclusion that one's determinations on this heady and intellectually challenging subject ultimately boil down to a matter of faith. Those who look for evidence of one will find it. Likewise, those who look for evidence of the other will find that as well.

My apologies that many of the believers you talk to on this subject will discuss it solely from the perspective of faith, but that's just the nature of the beast. Not many are educated in matters of science to debate the matter on a more intellectual basis. And if that sounds arrogant, the truth is that I don't particularly regard myself as an intellectual either.

I fully respect your opinions, as I do with all atheists and agnostics. So I hope you take this as nothing more than my simply sharing my life and journey with you, and what happened to me. I really haven't discussed this issue with anyone in decades. I'm far more spiritual in my orientation than scientific, so I looked at the available evidence, made my determination and then just moved on. But I thought I'd encourage you that there are indeed believers out there who would gladly discuss this with you intellectually without evading the tough questions, and treat you and your opinions with the utmost respect. So if you are searching for the truth please keep looking. Seek and you will find.

In the love of Jesus Christ our Lord,
Your friend,
Hidden

 

[The Brown Brink]

Sure.

But you don't want to describe for me the way you see the creation of Adam and Eve...?

The problem with creationism for me is that it defies God's laws of nature.
It's like a fairytale.

I have faith in God's laws of nature.
I can depend on God's laws of nature.

That's the covenant God and I have.

 

[razzelflabben]

...trying to understand the creationist mentality. I've been struggling with this for years. Is anyone prepared to give an honest, clear explanation as to why they believe in creationism?

there are different versions of creation belief what they all have in common is that God is the creator. IOW's not spontaneous but created and that creator is God.

There are different reasons for the belief as well. For some it is because they believe God to be God. Some look at the science and find it wanting. Some are taught to believe it. Etc.

for me personally, I do believe that God created because the science cannot offer another explanation that can hold water. I choose to believe God is the creator because He has shown Himself to me to be truth. I also believe that when we read Gen. for comprehension it tells us that the creation account is a polemic and not a scientific treatise and should be treated as such. That does NOT mean it is wrong but rather that it's intent is NOT to be a scientific work explaining it from a scientific standpoint.

That is about as honest as it gets...I assume from the question that you believe in the theory of evolution...can you be honest enough to explain to us why?

 

[Barry Desborough]

there are different versions of creation belief what they all have in common is that God is the creator. IOW's not spontaneous but created and that creator is God.

There are different reasons for the belief as well. For some it is because they believe God to be God. Some look at the science and find it wanting. Some are taught to believe it. Etc.

for me personally, I do believe that God created because the science cannot offer another explanation that can hold water. I choose to believe God is the creator because He has shown Himself to me to be truth. I also believe that when we read Gen. for comprehension it tells us that the creation account is a polemic and not a scientific treatise and should be treated as such. That does NOT mean it is wrong but rather that it's intent is NOT to be a scientific work explaining it from a scientific standpoint.

That is about as honest as it gets...I assume from the question that you believe in the theory of evolution...can you be honest enough to explain to us why?

I have no quarrel with believers who accept that Genesis is not to be taken literally.

And I do not "believe" in the theory of evolution. I am convinced it is true by the evidence for it. What I do not understand about evolution-deniers is why they go to extreme, irrational levels of denial when presented with evidence for which is there no reasonable answer. It's not the facts that keep them in denial. I am convinced of that.

 

[Barry Desborough]

Hi Barry!

Looks like you're well versed on the debate, which is a good thing. The trouble with this issue is that I believe it ultimately does come down to a matter of faith on either side.

But let me briefly tell you my experience so you understand what I mean.

I wasn't raised Christian. I got born again just before I went back to "University," as Europeans like to call it. Because I was growing in my faith but still ascribed to evolution as the truth, I eventually realized I would have to reconcile this theory with my new-found faith. So I began reading creationist material, but I also decided to take upper level courses in paleontology and keep an open mind. What I discovered was that the fossil evidence proved that the theory of evolution rested almost solely on a foundation of punctuated equilibrium, and without it the entire theory crumbled. I'll never forget the images one professor put up on the screen using a projector which showed all the places in the fossil record that demanded punctuated equilibrium as the scientific explanation for what had supposedly taken place. It was Swiss cheese. I decided right then and there that the case presented by the "science" of evolution, as presented by secular scholarship, was far weaker than most were being led to believe. And because there seemed to me to be so many genuine physical proofs for the creationist/flood model, I chose to view creationism to be the truth.

But since you are well versed in creationist literature, it sounds like it had the opposite effect on you.

Anyway, all these things lead me to the conclusion that one's determinations on this heady and intellectually challenging subject ultimately boil down to a matter of faith. Those who look for evidence of one will find it. Likewise, those who look for evidence of the other will find that as well.

My apologies that many of the believers you talk to on this subject will discuss it solely from the perspective of faith, but that's just the nature of the beast. Not many are educated in matters of science to debate the matter on a more intellectual basis. And if that sounds arrogant, the truth is that I don't particularly regard myself as an intellectual either.

I fully respect your opinions, as I do with all atheists and agnostics. So I hope you take this as nothing more than my simply sharing my life and journey with you, and what happened to me. I really haven't discussed this issue with anyone in decades. I'm far more spiritual in my orientation than scientific, so I looked at the available evidence, made my determination and then just moved on. But I thought I'd encourage you that there are indeed believers out there who would gladly discuss this with you intellectually without evading the tough questions, and treat you and your opinions with the utmost respect. So if you are searching for the truth please keep looking. Seek and you will find.

In the love of Jesus Christ our Lord,
Your friend,
Hidden

Seems to me you were looking for an excuse. The fossil record is not the only line of evidence for evolution. Tell me. Are you a YEC too?

 

[AV1611VET]

The problem with creationism for me is that it defies God's laws of nature.

That's because there's nothing scientific or natural about the creation events.

God spoke the universe into existence.

It's like a fairytale.

Or miracle.

 

[Barry Desborough]

That's because there's nothing scientific or natural about the creation events.

God spoke the universe into existence.Or miracle.

If he did, then he also spoke all the (according to you) false evidence of evolution and deep time with it. Such a belief strikes me as close to blasphemy.

 

[razzelflabben]

We can justify confidence in science using reasoned argument. Creationists, as the thread demonstrates, can only say they believe because they want to believe.

[Staff edit].

now this sounds to me like that noncomprehending lang. you talked about previously.

Let me offer this and see if it makes sense. When studying scripture for meaning one layer of protection against wrong interpretation is to test the interpretation. IOW's if God is God HE then is 100% right 100% of the time and any interpretation that does NOT stand up to that testing is false. Most of the posters here that I have taken time to read are telling you that they believe God to be 100% right 100% of the time and since nothing has yet falsified the creation account there is no reason to doubt it.

Before you try to suggest that science falsifies it, it does NOT. In fact, the science backs up the actual account as it is written without alternate interpretations put on the text.

 

[Barry Desborough]

now this sounds to me like that noncomprehending lang. you talked about previously.

Let me offer this and see if it makes sense. When studying scripture for meaning one layer of protection against wrong interpretation is to test the interpretation. IOW's if God is God HE then is 100% right 100% of the time and any interpretation that does NOT stand up to that testing is false. Most of the posters here that I have taken time to read are telling you that they believe God to be 100% right 100% of the time and since nothing has yet falsified the creation account there is no reason to doubt it.

Before you try to suggest that science falsifies it, it does NOT. In fact, the science backs up the actual account as it is written without alternate interpretations put on the text.

Then why do the likes of Answers in Genesis have to deliberately arm themselves against any other "interpretation" BEFORE THEY EVEN LOOK AT ANY DATA? What's that about?
Veritas: On the Answers in Genesis' Statement of Faith

 

[razzelflabben]

If he did, then he also spoke all the (according to you) false evidence of evolution and deep time with it. Such a belief strikes me as close to blasphemy.

I have asked for this "false evidence" before and all I get is people questioning specific creation interpretations but nothing that challenges the Gen. account as given in scripture. If you have something I would love to hear it since no one else can provide it.

 

[Barry Desborough]

I have asked for this "false evidence" before and all I get is people questioning specific creation interpretations but nothing that challenges the Gen. account as given in scripture. If you have something I would love to hear it since no one else can provide it.

Try the common descent of chimpanzees and humans for starters. Veritas: Endogenous Retroviruses - Frequently Asked Questions
There is a separate thread on this in the forum.

 

[razzelflabben]

Then why do the likes of Answers in Genesis have to deliberately arm themselves against any other "interpretation" BEFORE THEY EVEN LOOK AT ANY DATA? What's that about?
Veritas: On the Answers in Genesis' Statement of Faith

lol...I get laughed at alot because it wasn't until I started reading "The Genesis Record" that I began to understand what the scripture actually does and does not say about creation. Now it is big business on both sides of the issue as in big money to create a debate that assumes to know what we cannot know. The bigger the debate the more money generated and the more followers who blindly go along with their side so that they don't have to think things through. It's all about creating that following that generates money and power.

 

[razzelflabben]

Try the common descent of chimpanzees and humans for starters. Veritas: Endogenous Retroviruses - Frequently Asked Questions
There is a separate thread on this in the forum.

had a whole long discussion with evolutionists over this and they couldn't address what scripture actually says as in disagreement. IOW's doesn't question scripture if you look at what the science says not what you are told to believe it says. Try again.

 

[Barry Desborough]

had a whole long discussion with evolutionists over this and they couldn't address what scripture actually says as in disagreement. IOW's doesn't question scripture if you look at what the science says not what you are told to believe it says. Try again.

Genesis describes the separate, special creation of man. This evidence proves that we descended from ancestors we have in common with chimpanzees and other primates.

 

[razzelflabben]

Genesis describes the separate, special creation of man. This evidence proves that we descended from ancestors we have in common with chimpanzees and other primates.

the evidence does not say that at all. The evidence says we share some commonalities which we would expect to find if there is only one creator who created from the stuff that was here (aka dust)

 

[Barry Desborough]

lol...I get laughed at alot because it wasn't until I started reading "The Genesis Record" that I began to understand what the scripture actually does and does not say about creation. Now it is big business on both sides of the issue as in big money to create a debate that assumes to know what we cannot know. The bigger the debate the more money generated and the more followers who blindly go along with their side so that they don't have to think things through. It's all about creating that following that generates money and power.

The "big business" is in fleecing the gullible for money to create yet more propaganda. There is just one side engaged in such a scam.

 

[razzelflabben]

The "big business" is in fleecing the gullible for money to create yet more propaganda. There is just one side engaged in such a scam.

oh no dear one, it's on both sides don't fool yourself and your very question testifies to the truth that it is a two sided coin.

 

[Barry Desborough]

the evidence does not say that at all. The evidence says we share some commonalities which we would expect to find if there is only one creator who created from the stuff that was here (aka dust)

Come off it. Creationists believe that man did not descend from ape-like ancestors. The science proves that he did.