If evolution is not valid science, somebody should tell the scientists.

[The Lady Kate]

I beleive many evolutionary scientists put forward their so-called "proof" of evolution, simply because they want to believe in natural causes, because the other alternative is an intelligent Devine Creator, something they dont want to contemplate, because they would then have to acknowledge God's soveriegnty and laws concerning their own lives.

So scientists are afraid of God? Just seeking justification for their own sinful, sinful lives?

This is taken from a book by Grant R. Jefferey after analysing the so-called "missing links".

The Conclusion from Fossil Records.

The final result of this analysis of these famous ape-man "missing links" is that the evidence supporting human evolution simply does not exist. The evolutionary scientists have failed to find a single genuine transitiional form between ape-like ancestors and men, despite their constant search during the last 150 years. The museums and universities have more than 100 million fossils collected from every area on Earth during the last century and a half. The truth is this : There is no fossil evidence that supports the evolutionary theory of the gradual development of life from simple to complex forms, including humans.

A lot of rhetorical huffing and puffing, but no facts.

Where are his facts?

 

[The Lady Kate]

I am very skeptical of evolutionists so-called discoveries, from what I've read they twist the facts to fit what they want it to fit.

That is a serious accusation... a widespread, global, historical conspiracy to promote a false idea.

Where's the proof?

"What about the famous fossils found around the world that pupportedly show the evolutionary "ascent of man" from primitive ape-man to his ultimate successor--the evolutionary scientist carrying his briefcase into a university? What of all those who have listened to professors, watched television documentaries, or read Time-Life books illustrating and declaring authoritively that we are all descended from primitive ape-men. But the scientific evidence is now overwhelmingly in support of the conclusion that the entire "ascent of man" from ape-man to modern humans is now one of the greatest scientific frauds in history. Hundreds of millions of students around the world have been taught a terrible lie to convince them that science has absolutely proven that evolution is true and that the Bible's account of Creation must therefore be logically rejected as unscientific and false."

That was taken from the same book by Jeffrey Grant.

Sadly, Grant is still all sizzle, and no steak. Not a single fact to be found in all his huffing and puffing.

Forgive me if I come off as cynical, but I do sincerely hope that this is not the type of rhetoric which has you convinced that evolution is a lie...

What he writes is true because i have read similar statements in books by Henry M Morris who is a Creationist scientist. I have read many things about evolutionists and the dodgey methods used to validate their theories for evolution.

I hope Morris bothered to include some facts... if he did, kindly post them, and I'm sure that quite a few of us here can show you Morris' mistakes.

I have read much about evolution, but I cannot accept it, it's too illogical and certainly stretches the imagination.

Again, forgive me for sounding abrasive, but I hope that the people you've posted aren't your examples of logic.

Whereas belief in God as the sole Creator is very logical and answers all the difficult questions..

And everyone on this section of the forum acknowledges God as the Creator... this is the Christian-Only section, after all.

We've since moved on... and are discussing how He created. Has either Morris or Grant written anything concerning the possibility of God as the driving force behind evolution?

 

[The Lady Kate]

Natuaral without God

So how about natural with God? Why have you eliminated that possibility?

 

[Athene]

I am very skeptical of evolutionists so-called discoveries, from what I've read they twist the facts to fit what they want it to fit.

"What about the famous fossils found around the world that pupportedly show the evolutionary "ascent of man" from primitive ape-man to his ultimate successor--the evolutionary scientist carrying his briefcase into a university? What of all those who have listened to professors, watched television documentaries, or read Time-Life books illustrating and declaring authoritively that we are all descended from primitive ape-men. But the scientific evidence is now overwhelmingly in support of the conclusion that the entire "ascent of man" from ape-man to modern humans is now one of the greatest scientific frauds in history. Hundreds of millions of students around the world have been taught a terrible lie to convince them that science has absolutely proven that evolution is true and that the Bible's account of Creation must therefore be logically rejected as unscientific and false."

That was taken from the same book by Jeffrey Grant.

What he writes is true because i have read similar statements in books by Henry M Morris who is a Creationist scientist. I have read many things about evolutionists and the dodgey methods used to validate their theories for evolution.

I have read much about evolution, but I cannot accept it, it's too illogical and certainly stretches the imagination. Whereas belief in God as the sole Creator is very logical and answers all the difficult questions..

This is anti-intellectualism at it's worst.

So let me get this clear, you have read many books by creationist 'scientists' who unsuprisingly all reject evolution and claim it to be a massive scientific conspiracy by athiestic evilutionists with the intention of convincing thousands of young people to reject the biblical account of genesis . . . . .
HAve you read any books which are not by creationist 'scientists' , even a basic school science text book? There is a very good reason why the majority of scientists reject creationism, there is absolutely no evidence for it, not one little bit, nothing, zilch.

I don't believe for a second you know anything about the methods scientists use when to 'validate their theories'', You not fooling anyone but yourself.

 

[Dannager]

I am very skeptical of evolutionists so-called discoveries, from what I've read they twist the facts to fit what they want it to fit.

From what I read, they do no such thing. However, I am cogently aware of the fact that many creationist organizations lie in order to make their standpoint appear stronger than it is, and their opponent's weaker.

"What about the famous fossils found around the world that pupportedly show the evolutionary "ascent of man" from primitive ape-man to his ultimate successor--the evolutionary scientist carrying his briefcase into a university? What of all those who have listened to professors, watched television documentaries, or read Time-Life books illustrating and declaring authoritively that we are all descended from primitive ape-men. But the scientific evidence is now overwhelmingly in support of the conclusion that the entire "ascent of man" from ape-man to modern humans is now one of the greatest scientific frauds in history. Hundreds of millions of students around the world have been taught a terrible lie to convince them that science has absolutely proven that evolution is true and that the Bible's account of Creation must therefore be logically rejected as unscientific and false."

That was taken from the same book by Jeffrey Grant.

Who is Jeffrey Grant? The last author you talked about was Grant R. Jeffrey. I'm going to assume this is the same financial advisor with no scientific training you were talking about earlier.

What he writes is true because i have read similar statements in books by Henry M Morris who is a Creationist scientist.

Henry M. Morris was a hydraulic engineer. He may have been considered a scientist in the loosest definition of the word but he was certainly not qualified to judge the validity of claims made outside his field. Evolution has nothing to do with hydraulic engineering. Henry M. Morris was as guilty of spreading false information as Grant R. Jeffrey is.

I have read many things about evolutionists and the dodgey methods used to validate their theories for evolution.

And I have read many things about creationists and the sketchy-at-best tactics they employ in order to win the ignorant over to their side. What they present is not honest information. If you are interested in learning we are here to give you honest information. If you are not interested in learning then there is little we can do for you.

I have read much about evolution, but I cannot accept it, it's too illogical

What, exactly, is illogical about it?

and certainly stretches the imagination.

Belief in a literal 6-day creation stretches my imagination as well, but I don't use that as an argument against it. I work to find arguments that are not based on fallacy.

Whereas belief in God as the sole Creator is very logical and answers all the difficult questions..

No it doesn't. In fact, I've got one very important question for you: Why do we observe, consistently, the earth to be many orders of magnitude older than the 6,000 years young-earth creationists adhere to?

The observations are not cover-ups. There is not some logistically impossible network of scientists dedicated to pulling the wool over the eyes of the world. There is no Evil Atheist Conspiracy. There are honest scientists making honest observations and being genuinely intrigued by their findings. These honest observations are not consistent with a young earth.

 

[jewel77]

So, The Lady Kate, you really don’t believe most evolutionist scientists don’t want to acknowledge God for the reasons I give? Strange, I thought that to be one of the main reasons why people wont come to God – that they don’t want to change, they want to live their life without any restrictions. Just shows how wrong a person can be, hey Kate?

And no, what Grant Jeffrey says is not a lot of rhetorical huffing and puffing, but no facts. That’s your opinion. He has stated the facts in his book and as I metioned, Henry Morris said similar things in his book, I’m sure it would be well documented else where. Why don’t you do yourself a favor and find it?? And by the way Henry M . Morris, Ph.D, is a creationist scientist and was the Director of the Institute for Creation Research, so Dannager, I think you have the wrong Henry Morris.

Yes, I do believe they use dubious methods to make their theories fit, it’s what I ‘ve read by reputable Christians - and why shouldn’t I believe well respected born again Christians?? (The proof, Kate, is documented in their books – READ THEM )

And yes, I have gotten my logic from these authors and others. I’ am entitled to my opinin. Have you considered that you could be wrong? Who are you to say that iam wrong.

Athene, I resent your insinuation that I’m lying about having read the methods used by evolutionists. In fact I resent the whole, offensive, superior manner in which you and The Lady Kate have shown in this debate. Also, I don’t know how you can not believe in creationism and be a Christian???

 

[artybloke]

Well, personally, I'd be surprised to find a creationist who hasn't either repeated lies they've heard from others (without knowing they're lies) or made up some new ones. Actually, most of them are not intelligent enough or original enough to make up new lies...

...I've yet to come across any creationist who is doing original and proper research in any scientific area that impinges on the theory of evolution.

I wouldn't trust any of them further than I can chuck their degrees (and how many dollars did they have to pay for them I wonder?)

 

[The Lady Kate]

So, The Lady Kate, you really don’t believe most evolutionist scientists don’t want to acknowledge God for the reasons I give?

It's going to take more than a conspiracy theory to convince me.

Facts would help.

Strange, I thought that to be one of the main reasons why people wont come to God – that they don’t want to change, they want to live their life without any restrictions. Just shows how wrong a person can be, hey Kate?

Well, it's good that you acknowledge that at least some of your assumptions are mistaken.

And no, what Grant Jeffrey says is not a lot of rhetorical huffing and puffing, but no facts. That’s your opinion. He has stated the facts in his book and as I metioned, Henry Morris said similar things in his book, I’m sure it would be well documented else where. Why don’t you do yourself a favor and find it??

You mean why don't I do your work for you? You're the one holding their claims up as gospel... it's your job to give me a reason to agree.

And by the way Henry M . Morris, Ph.D, is a creationist scientist and was the Director of the Institute for Creation Research, so Dannager, I think you have the wrong Henry Morris.

Nope, it's the same guy. A hydraulic engineer.

He's certainly the man to call if we get a stopped-up toilet, but not exactly the go-to guy for evolutionary biology.

Yes, I do believe they use dubious methods to make their theories fit, it’s what I ‘ve read by reputable Christians - and why shouldn’t I believe well respected born again Christians?? (The proof, Kate, is documented in their books – READ THEM )

I've read them... and I've read the numerous refutations of them.

And yes, I have gotten my logic from these authors and others. I’ am entitled to my opinin. Have you considered that you could be wrong? Who are you to say that iam wrong.

Of course I might be wrong... and, given a credible set of facts, I'll gladly and humbly change my opinions to reflect them.

You have not provided any facts, nor offered up the slightest incentive to search for anything. There's nothing you've posted that hasn't already been said and refuted before.

Athene, I resent your insinuation that I’m lying about having read the methods used by evolutionists. In fact I resent the whole, offensive, superior manner in which you and The Lady Kate have shown in this debate. Also, I don’t know how you can not believe in creationism and be a Christian???

Please try to understand that you are by no means the first person to show up here and run off the usual misinformation and anti-intellectual conspiracy rhetoric.

Your tone from the beginning was confrontational, and so you were confronted. The problem seems to be that you have not yet provided any substance to your arguments, but rather, insist that we find it for you.

What you have provided, frankly... is neither new nor all that impressive.

It would probably be best at this point to realize that the majority of people on this board are, most likely, more well-versed in what evolutionary theory actually is and is not than you are, and that it might be best, as a newcomer, to lurk a while longer, read a few posts, and follow a few links, before stepping up to the plate.

As a fellow Christian, I can only say that this approach will save you embarassment in the future.

The fact that Creationism is not an essential doctrine to Christianity (although Creation itself is...) that's something you're going to have to work out yourself.

 

[The Lady Kate]

This is anti-intellectualism at it's worst. .

Is there such a thing as anti-intellectualism at its best?

 

[shernren]

So, The Lady Kate, you really don’t believe most evolutionist scientists don’t want to acknowledge God for the reasons I give? Strange, I thought that to be one of the main reasons why people wont come to God – that they don’t want to change, they want to live their life without any restrictions. Just shows how wrong a person can be, hey Kate?

Read Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller. Evolution, science, and God should go hand in hand in the faith of a Christian.

 

[Willtor]

. . .

Also, I don’t know how you can not believe in creationism and be a Christian???[/SIZE][/FONT]

Why don't you tell us about your interpretation of Genesis, and why you interpret it this way?

 

[jewel77]

It's simple, I dont have any problem believing the Genesis record. Quite frankly i'm amazed at christians who dont believe the whole bible. If you can only believe parts of the bible, then how can you know for sure any of it is true??

 

[shernren]

It's simple, I dont have any problem believing the Genesis record. Quite frankly i'm amazed at christians who dont believe the whole bible. If you can only believe parts of the bible, then how can you know for sure any of it is true??

None of us here has said that the Genesis account is false. It is entirely true. It's just that what God seems to be telling us through Genesis is entirely different from what God seems to be telling you through Genesis. And we believe wholeheartedly in what God seems to be telling us through Genesis, even if you don't believe in what we're hearing.

 

[jewel77]

[/SIZE][/FONT]

It's going to take more than a conspiracy theory to convince me.

Facts would help.



Well, it's good that you acknowledge that at least some of your assumptions are mistaken.



You mean why don't I do your work for you? You're the one holding their claims up as gospel... it's your job to give me a reason to agree.



Nope, it's the same guy. A hydraulic engineer.

He's certainly the man to call if we get a stopped-up toilet, but not exactly the go-to guy for evolutionary biology.



I've read them... and I've read the numerous refutations of them.



Of course I might be wrong... and, given a credible set of facts, I'll gladly and humbly change my opinions to reflect them.

You have not provided any facts, nor offered up the slightest incentive to search for anything. There's nothing you've posted that hasn't already been said and refuted before.



Please try to understand that you are by no means the first person to show up here and run off the usual misinformation and anti-intellectual conspiracy rhetoric.

Your tone from the beginning was confrontational, and so you were confronted. The problem seems to be that you have not yet provided any substance to your arguments, but rather, insist that we find it for you.

What you have provided, frankly... is neither new nor all that impressive.

It would probably be best at this point to realize that the majority of people on this board are, most likely, more well-versed in what evolutionary theory actually is and is not than you are, and that it might be best, as a newcomer, to lurk a while longer, read a few posts, and follow a few links, before stepping up to the plate.

As a fellow Christian, I can only say that this approach will save you embarassment in the future.

The fact that Creationism is not an essential doctrine to Christianity (although Creation itself is...) that's something you're going to have to work out yourself.

I really dont have any time for you and your sarcasim.

 

[Willtor]

It's simple, I dont have any problem believing the Genesis record. Quite frankly i'm amazed at christians who dont believe the whole bible. If you can only believe parts of the bible, then how can you know for sure any of it is true??

But if I believe Genesis, in whole, and I still come to a different conclusion from you, how do we determine who has the better interpretation?

 

[random_guy]

Again with the conspiracy theories. Why is it that Creationists seem to think that evolutionists somehow control nearly every single scientific organization, from physics, computing, chemistry, etc, etc, and nearly every single university and college, nearly every single government branch, and nearly every single prestigious scientific organization?

I'll tell you what another conspiracy theory is, helocentrism. It is clear from the Bible that helocentrism more supported Bibiclally than geocentrism. It's just a massive conspiracy by all the same people to prevent geocentrism from being taught in schools.

 

[jewel77]

We probably wont determine who has the better interpretation. Much of what we believe comes down to faith

 

[artybloke]

We probably wont determine who has the better interpretation. Much of what we believe comes down to faith

Not true. There is no evidence in favour of a young earth, and a pile of evidence in favour of an old earth. It comes down to evidence.

If you've got any evidence that has somehow been miseed over the last 200 years, please present it.

 

[Willtor]

We probably wont determine who has the better interpretation. Much of what we believe comes down to faith

But if we are each going to have our own faiths and go our separate ways, how is that conducive to a unified body of Christ? I'm not saying that we can't disagree, or even that we can't conclude that we aren't going to come to a conclusion, but is it reasonable to say that when we interpret something differently, we have no basis for communication (or that we can't try to convince each other as to why we interpreted it the way we did)?

 

[jewel77]

[/SIZE][/FONT]

It's going to take more than a conspiracy theory to convince me.

Facts would help.



Well, it's good that you acknowledge that at least some of your assumptions are mistaken.



You mean why don't I do your work for you? You're the one holding their claims up as gospel... it's your job to give me a reason to agree.



Nope, it's the same guy. A hydraulic engineer.

He's certainly the man to call if we get a stopped-up toilet, but not exactly the go-to guy for evolutionary biology.



I've read them... and I've read the numerous refutations of them.



Of course I might be wrong... and, given a credible set of facts, I'll gladly and humbly change my opinions to reflect them.

You have not provided any facts, nor offered up the slightest incentive to search for anything. There's nothing you've posted that hasn't already been said and refuted before.



Please try to understand that you are by no means the first person to show up here and run off the usual misinformation and anti-intellectual conspiracy rhetoric.

Your tone from the beginning was confrontational, and so you were confronted. The problem seems to be that you have not yet provided any substance to your arguments, but rather, insist that we find it for you.

What you have provided, frankly... is neither new nor all that impressive.

It would probably be best at this point to realize that the majority of people on this board are, most likely, more well-versed in what evolutionary theory actually is and is not than you are, and that it might be best, as a newcomer, to lurk a while longer, read a few posts, and follow a few links, before stepping up to the plate.

As a fellow Christian, I can only say that this approach will save you embarassment in the future.

The fact that Creationism is not an essential doctrine to Christianity (although Creation itself is...) that's something you're going to have to work out yourself.

You come across as having a very high opinion of yourself and I am NOT embarassed.