My Epiphany

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Years ago I was fighting the good fight of creation on the Internet. I argued that evolution was impossible, for it required that the genetic code had to be changed to make new kinds of animals. It did not seem feasible to me that evolution could do this. I argued in the CompuServe debate forum, basing my arguments on Michael Denton’s Evolution: A Theory in Crises.

My favorite illustration was the difference between mammals and reptiles. The differences between living mammals and reptiles are substantial. Mammals all have hair, mammary glands, a four-chambered heart, and the distinct mammalian ear, with three little bones inside. These features are found in no living reptiles. I argued that this is because there is no viable intermediate between the two, that an animal could have either the reptile genetic code or the mammal code but could not be in the middle.

An evolutionist disagreed with me. He told me that in the past there had been many intermediates. He said that there were animals that, for instance, had jaw and ear bones that were intermediate between reptiles and mammals. How did he know this? He gave a reference to an essay in Stephen Gould’s Ten Little Piggies. I wrote back that since the local library had a large collection of children’s book, I should be able to find that book. (I thought that was quite a zinger.)

I borrowed the book, and found an interesting account of how bones in the reptile jaw evolved and changed through millions of years to become the mammals’ ear. That sounded like such a clever tale. How could Gould believe it? Perhaps he made it up. But there was one little footnote, a footnote that would change my life. It said simply, “Allin, E. F. 1975. Evolution of the Mammalian Middle Ear. Journal of Morphology 147:403-38.” That’s it. That’s all it said. But it was about to make a huge impact on me.

You see, I had developed this habit of looking things up, and had been making regular trips to a university library. I was getting involved in some serious discussions on the Internet, and was finding the scientific journals to be a reliable source of information. Well, I couldn’t believe that a real scientific journal would take such a tale seriously. But wait. Before I would declare victory, I needed to check it out.

On my next trip to the library, I found my way to the biomedical journal archive. I retrieved the specified journal, and started to read. I could not believe my eyes. There were detailed descriptions of many intermediate fossils. The article described in detail how the bones evolved from reptiles to mammals through a long series of mammal-like reptiles.

I paged through the volume in my hand. There were hundreds of pages, all loaded with information. I looked at other journals. I found page after page describing transitional fossils. More significantly, there were all of those troublesome dates. If one arranged the fossils according to date, one could see how the bones changed with time. Each fossil species was dated at a specific time range. It all fit together.

I didn’t know what to think. Could all of these fossil drawings be fakes? Could all of these dates be pulled out of a hat? Did these articles consist of thousands of lies? All seemed to indicate that life evolved over many millions of years. Were all of these thousands of “facts” actually guesses?

I looked around me. The room was filled with many bookshelves; each was filled with hundreds of bound journals. Were all of these journals drenched with lies?

Several medical students were doing research there. Perhaps some day they would need to operate on my heart or fight some disease. Was I to believe that these medical students were in this room filled with misinformation, and that they were diligently sorting out the evolutionist lies while learning medical knowledge? How could so much error have entered this room? It made no sense.

How can you explain those mysterious mammal-like reptiles? Reptiles and mammals today are quite distinct from each other. Mammalian features include differentiated teeth (incisors, canines, premolars, molars), double rooted teeth, a distinct jaw joint, three bones in the ear (stapes, incus, malleus), the diaphragm, limbs under the body, a different arrangement of toe bones, and a braincase that is firmly attached to the skull. No reptile has these features. But when we look at ancient fossils, we find a strange series of animals with features in the middle.

They begin 300 Ma (million years ago) in the Pennsylvanian. It was a different world. There were no mammals, flowering plants, or even dinosaurs. According to the fossil record, these would all come later. The world belonged to amphibians and reptiles. Early Synapsids such as Haptodus appeared. Their dentary jaw bones rose in the place where later animals would have a new jaw joint–the mammalian joint.

Then advanced pelycosaurs (270 Ma) like the Dimetrodon had signs of a bony prong for the eardrum. Later, cynodonts like the Procynosuchus (236 Ma) had jawbones more similar to mammals, but they still had the reptile’s jaw hinge.

The Probainognathus (238 Ma) and the Thrinaxodons (227 Ma) have signs of two distinct jaw joints, the reptilian and the mammalian. This allowed some of the bones that had been part of the reptile’s jaw to transmit vibrations to the ear. This was the beginning of the special mammalian ear bones.

By the time the Sinoconodon appears (208 Ma) the mammalian jaw joint predominates, and the reptilian jaw joint is small.

The Morganucodon (205 Ma) has teeth like a mammal, a distinct mammalian jaw joint, and only a tiny remnant of the reptile’s jaw. It’s malleus and incus ear bones remain attached to the jaw.

By the late Cretaceous period (80 Ma) early placental mammals like the Asioryctes had jaws and ears that were transformed to the mammalian type. Two of the reptile’s jaw bones, the quadrate and the articular were no longer part of the jaw. Instead they had become parts of the middle ear, the malleus and incus.

This is only a brief overview of these strange creatures. In reality, there are thousands of species that span many millions of years, with many intermediate stages of many different features.

Now what on earth was God doing? Why was he slowly introducing mammalian features into the fossil record? Why did he progressively change the design of the jaw, ear, teeth, and limbs until the animals look more and more like mammals? Should I just shrug my shoulders? “God moves in mysterious ways.” Problem resolved? No, I shall ask why.

Did God learn from past experience and introduce new creatures with improvement every several thousand years or so? Creationists would cringe at that suggestion. Then why do we find this progression? It is difficult to escape the all-too-obvious conclusion: God must have allowed the first mammal to evolve from reptiles through a process involving many millions of years.

As a Creationist, I finally came to the point where I considered that possibility. It instantly become apparent that this would be a huge change in worldview. For if the first mammal evolved from reptiles, then where did the second mammal come from? If God used thousands of transitions to evolve the first mammal, did he then just copy that design to create the second and third mammals? That makes no sense. These mammals must have evolved also.

In fact, we would need to conclude that all mammals have evolved from these mammal-like reptiles. Think for a minute of all of the varieties of mammals that you know–elephants, tigers, mice, dogs, and whales, to name a few. Did all of these descend from a sequence of mammal-like reptiles? Is there any other way to explain all of these intermediates?

The impact of that day in the library was truly stunning. I didn’t know what to say. I could not argue against the overwhelming evidence for mammal evolution. That was hopeless. But neither could I imagine believing it. Something had happened to me. My mind had begun to think. It was becoming free. And it was not about to be stopped. Oh no. There is no stopping the mind set free.

I went to the library and borrowed a few books on evolution and creation–diligently studying both sides of the argument. I started to read the evolutionist books with amazement. I had thought that evolutionists taught that floating cows had somehow turned into whales; that hopeful monsters had suddenly evolved without transitions; that one must have blind faith since transitional fossils did not exist; that one must simply guess at the dates for the fossils; and that one must ignore all of the evidence for young-earth creation. I was surprised to learn what these scientist actually knew about the Creationist teachings of flood geology, of the proposed young-earth proofs, and of the reported problems of evolution.

And I was surprised at the convincing answers that they had for these Creationist arguments. I was surprised to see all the arguments they had for evolution. I read with enthusiasm. I learned about isochrons, intermediate fossils, the geologic column, and much, much more.

I would never see the world in the same light. Several weeks later I found myself staring at the fossil of a large dinosaur in a museum. I stared with amazement. I looked at the details of every bone in the back. I wondered if a design so marvelous could really have evolved. But I knew that someone could show me other animals that had lived earlier that had transitional features to this dinosaur. And I knew that one could trace bones back through the fossil record to illustrate the broad path through which this creature had evolved. I stared and I pondered. And then I pondered some more.

Within days, I had lost interest in fighting evolution. I began to read more and write less. When I did debate, I confined my arguments to the issue of the origin of life. But I could no longer ignore what I had learned. Several months later I first sent out an email with probing questions to a creationist who had arrived on the scene. He never responded. I have not stopped questioning.
---------------------------
This is from my website: Did We Evolve?
 

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Jesus Fed fed five thousand people He created fish out of nothing
Ah, yes, reminds but of when I was a Creationist. I kept trying to make real arguments that addressed the physical observations, and those that were on my team were making arguments like this.

Does your argument in any way address the fossil record?
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,193
1,971
✟177,142.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
The impact of that day in the library was truly stunning. I didn’t know what to say. I could not argue against the overwhelming evidence for mammal evolution. That was hopeless. But neither could I imagine believing it. Something had happened to me. My mind had begun to think. It was becoming free. And it was not about to be stopped. Oh no. There is no stopping the mind set free.
...
I have not stopped questioning.
Very cool story, there! I've quoted the above bit because its just the coolest (IMHO).

Regardless of what anyone believes, how it all got started has to the greatest mystery of all time.
There may be an answer out there, or here, in some Earth bound lab.
Whether the one 'out there' is within our reach, is another matter entirely.

Either way, it will be human minds pondering the testable questions, for as long as those minds exist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

Saucy

King of CF
Site Supporter
Jul 5, 2005
46,669
19,838
Michigan
✟838,184.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I had a similar, but opposite, journey. Started out as a staunch atheist who studied all types of sciences and lauded evolution while calling my creationist friend stupid. Then God spoke to me one day and changed my whole life. The next few years were quite difficult, including multiple panic attacks as my entire worldview was going up in smoke.

What I learned during that time is there are indeed a lot of credibility issues with so-called transitional forms. Many forgeries were lifted up as absolute proof and written in science textbooks. Vast, elaborate drawings that were born showing a full transitional creature based entirely on imagination and a couple of bones.

According to this article from the Institute of Creation Research:

Although some creationists do say that “there are no transitional fossils,” it would be more accurate to state that there are no undisputed transitional forms. Although the article asserts that the fossil record “is full of them,” the reality is that it does not contain a single universally accepted transitional form. Every transitional fossil candidate has both proponents and doubters even among evolutionary “biologists and paleontologists.”

and

Other extinct creatures had “shared features,” physical structures that are found in different kinds of living organisms. However, “shared features” are not transitional features, which is what Darwin needed. There is no scientific evidence to refute the idea that shared features were designed into creatures by a Creator who wisely formed them with the equipment to live in various shared habitats.

I think it makes a good point. Shared features don't necessarily mean it's a transitional feature. You can look at two cars created by two completely different companies and they will still have similar features. Why can't God have used similar features when creating both apes and humans?

What you're not going to find from the fossil record is a complete A to Z roadmap of an entire creature's transition perfectly laid out. Besides, the complexity of the genetic code, which you started with, still does not give credence nor can be explained by evolution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BPPLEE
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Very cool story, there! I've quoted the above bit because its just the coolest (IMHO).

Thanks.

I had written that for my original website 20 years ago. As I have been putting that website back together, I have read that paragraph of when my mind was set free several times. It has even brought tears to my own eyes as I thought back on the experience. I have named the reincarnation of my website after that experience -- The Mind Set Free.
 
Upvote 0

Mr Laurier

Well-Known Member
Mar 26, 2021
1,141
366
57
Georgian Bay/Bruce Peninsula
✟31,584.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Years ago I was fighting the good fight of creation on the Internet.
Creationism is not christianity.
You can accept that life evolves by biological processes, and still believe that a man named Jesus preached that we should love one another.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Creationism is not christianity.
You can accept that life evolves by biological processes, and still believe that a man named Jesus preached that we should love one another.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Understood. I mention this at my website, and go on to examine all of Christianity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mr Laurier
Upvote 0

ottawak

Well-Known Member
Aug 1, 2021
1,495
725
64
North Carolina
✟16,862.00
Country
United States
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Married
I had a similar, but opposite, journey. Started out as a staunch atheist who studied all types of sciences and lauded evolution while calling my creationist friend stupid. Then God spoke to me one day and changed my whole life. The next few years were quite difficult, including multiple panic attacks as my entire worldview was going up in smoke.
God told you to take up literal inerrancy?
 
Upvote 0

Saucy

King of CF
Site Supporter
Jul 5, 2005
46,669
19,838
Michigan
✟838,184.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
God told you to take up literal inerrancy?
No by revealing himself to me He also opened my eyes to the fact that a spirit world existed and the world was supernaturally created. Science explains things in naturalistic ways.

For example, a naturalist will look up at the stars and think, "wow! All those vast distances for starlight to travel! The galaxy must be billions of years old!" Where the bible says stars are for signs and marking of calendars and travel. God could've placed those there in an instant to be used.

If a scientist stood in the garden and looked at a massive tree, he could conclude, "we've observed that this tree is at least 500 years old to reach this level of maturity" but it would have been put there in an instant and be no older than a day since God created all the plants, animals, and humans in their fully mature form.

I understand creationism requires faith, but so do many scientific theories. Scientists don't always agree and we find out things later that completely refute a long-held theory. Even dating methods aren't that accurate and can be disputed. There's also a lot of imagination and assumption that goes into it as well, like an artists rendering of what an animal species looked like when all they found was a tooth or a few bones.

I also don't think a Christian can believe in evolution as even Jesus spoke about creation, Adam and Eve, and the flood. If you want to take a scientist's words over Jesus, go right ahead. But that would mean calling Jesus a liar, in which then that outs into question whether he ever sinned since lying is a sin.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Estrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
9,744
3,243
39
Hong Kong
✟151,190.00
Country
Hong Kong
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
I had a similar, but opposite, journey. Started out as a staunch atheist who studied all types of sciences and lauded evolution while calling my creationist friend stupid. Then God spoke to me one day and changed my whole life. The next few years were quite difficult, including multiple panic attacks as my entire worldview was going up in smoke.

What I learned during that time is there are indeed a lot of credibility issues with so-called transitional forms. Many forgeries were lifted up as absolute proof and written in science textbooks. Vast, elaborate drawings that were born showing a full transitional creature based entirely on imagination and a couple of bones.

According to this article from the Institute of Creation Research:



and



I think it makes a good point. Shared features don't necessarily mean it's a transitional feature. You can look at two cars created by two completely different companies and they will still have similar features. Why can't God have used similar features when creating both apes and humans?

What you're not going to find from the fossil record is a complete A to Z roadmap of an entire creature's transition perfectly laid out. Besides, the complexity of the genetic code, which you started with, still does not give credence nor can be explained by evolution.

One thing for sure. If you studied science,
you sure did not study very hard or learn anything.

Giving benefit of the doubt that no intellectual
dishonesty is involved, the silly falsehoods against ToE
can only be a product of aggravated ignorance-
as it is simply impossible to be an educated and
intellectually honest yec, as the op illustrates.
 
Upvote 0

Estrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
9,744
3,243
39
Hong Kong
✟151,190.00
Country
Hong Kong
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
No by revealing himself to me He also opened my eyes to the fact that a spirit world existed and the world was supernaturally created. Science explains things in naturalistic ways.

For example, a naturalist will look up at the stars and think, "wow! All those vast distances for starlight to travel! The galaxy must be billions of years old!" Where the bible says stars are for signs and marking of calendars and travel. God could've placed those there in an instant to be used.

If a scientist stood in the garden and looked at a massive tree, he could conclude, "we've observed that this tree is at least 500 years old to reach this level of maturity" but it would have been put there in an instant and be no older than a day since God created all the plants, animals, and humans in their fully mature form.

I understand creationism requires faith, but so do many scientific theories. Scientists don't always agree and we find out things later that completely refute a long-held theory. Even dating methods aren't that accurate and can be disputed. There's also a lot of imagination and assumption that goes into it as well, like an artists rendering of what an animal species looked like when all they found was a tooth or a few bones.

I also don't think a Christian can believe in evolution as even Jesus spoke about creation, Adam and Eve, and the flood. If you want to take a scientist's words over Jesus, go right ahead. But that would mean calling Jesus a liar, in which then that outs into question whether he ever sinned since lying is a sin.

Do you have the inerrant ability to
know the exact meaning of every word
attributed to Jesus?
If you cannot do this then be careful how you
toss about the word "liar", for lo, the sinner may just
be you.
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
33,267
36,587
Los Angeles Area
✟829,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
I regret I have but one Winner to winner the OP with.

I had a similar library experience. I don't remember the specific topic, but it was something 'paranormal': psychic powers of some sort. I was something of a believer, and the pro-psychic literature referred to various successful experiments, and said nasty things about the skeptics who doubted them. Asserted all sorts of skullduggery that the skeptics were perpetrating: faking this and hiding that. And one detail seemed so outrageous that I had to see for myself. A few trips to the university library and... well, I entirely sympathize with your epiphany.
 
Upvote 0

Saucy

King of CF
Site Supporter
Jul 5, 2005
46,669
19,838
Michigan
✟838,184.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
One thing for sure. If you studied science,
you sure did not study very hard or learn anything.

Giving benefit of the doubt that no intellectual
dishonesty is involved, the silly falsehoods against ToE
can only be a product of aggravated ignorance-
as it is simply impossible to be an educated and
intellectually honest yec, as the op illustrates.
You should show someone why they're wrong before going straight to the insults. I disagree with certain sciences so I'm either ignorant or intellectually dishonest and there's no other choices besides that? Whatever. There are plenty of Ph.D scientists who accept creationism over evolution. Heck not all scientists agree with the theory of the Big Bang or that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs. Science should allow a diversity of thought since none of these theories can really be fully proven. Science also can't measure supernatural involvement in changing up the natural order of things.
 
Upvote 0

Estrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
9,744
3,243
39
Hong Kong
✟151,190.00
Country
Hong Kong
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
You should show someone why they're wrong before going straight to the insults. I disagree with certain sciences so I'm either ignorant or intellectually dishonest and there's no other choices besides that? Whatever. There are plenty of Ph.D scientists who accept creationism over evolution. Heck not all scientists agree with the theory of the Big Bang or that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs. Science should allow a diversity of thought since none of these theories can really be fully proven. Science also can't measure supernatural involvement in changing up the natural order of things.

There is no insult intended or made.
If any insult can be found, its by you to your
own intelligence, and the world scientific community.

You want an example to show you learned not
the simple basics of science? You provided, above,
the thing about proving a theory. It is imposdible
to ever prove any theory. Its ok not to know much
about science, just dont present that you do in debate,
or you will be called on it.

Of course there are "PhD" holders who are yec.

But none have to their names one fact to disprove
ToE. They have opinions, emotions only. Same as you.

Prime example: a Dr K Wise, PhD, paleontology.
Creds enough?
Quote "....even if all the evidence turns against yec,
I will still be yec because that is what the bible seems to
indicate".
THAT is the refined essence of intellectual dishonesty.

There are no exceptions for an informed person who goes yec,
for lo, IF they had any FACTS, they would soon be world famous.
Plz dont bother with the usual conspracy excuses.

I dont think you personally are dishonest, just mis-
and ill- informed, plus a powerful emotional reason
to attach to your beliefs.

Educated Chridtians are able to accommodate simple realities
such as heliocentrism and deep time with their faith, no
reason you cant.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ottawak

Well-Known Member
Aug 1, 2021
1,495
725
64
North Carolina
✟16,862.00
Country
United States
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Married
I also don't think a Christian can believe in evolution as even Jesus spoke about creation, Adam and Eve, and the flood. If you want to take a scientist's words over Jesus, go right ahead. But that would mean calling Jesus a liar, in which then that outs into question whether he ever sinned since lying is a sin.
You are in no position to dictate to other Christians what they can believe.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I had a similar, but opposite, journey. Started out as a staunch atheist who studied all types of sciences and lauded evolution while calling my creationist friend stupid.
Ah, so we meet in passing. Nice to meet you.

By the way, if what you say is true, then you would be the first former staunch atheist I met who is now a creationist.

I am not saying it is impossible. I am just saying I have not yet met such a person. So I hope you don't mind if I admit to some skepticism of your claim.

Can you tell us what arguments had convinced you to become a staunch atheist that lauded evolution? What books or other sources influenced you? What organizations were you involved in?

You do understand that childhood naivete and teenage apathy are not the same as staunch atheism, yes?

As for me I had become a staunch creationist after reading The Genesis Flood by Henry Morris, and after hearing debates by Duane Gish. Also, as I mention in the OP, the book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis was also a primary source.

In the OP I mention some of the specific creationist arguments I found impressive.

And no, my creationism was not simply childhood naivete or teenage apathy. A former debate partner writes about me:

He was something that you almost never see: an honest creationist. He argued on CompuServe for young-earth creationism and was one of its better, more coherent advocates. While most creationists would just make their claims and then refuse to support or discuss them...Merle would make the effort to support his claims and to engage in discussion. A real rarity among creationists. Source

Then God spoke to me one day and changed my whole life.
I am sure you will agree with me that some people claim to be hearing from God and they are not. So I do not find "God spoke to me" to be a convincing argument.

What I learned during that time is there are indeed a lot of credibility issues with so-called transitional forms. Many forgeries were lifted up as absolute proof and written in science textbooks. Vast, elaborate drawings that were born showing a full transitional creature based entirely on imagination and a couple of bones.
Are you aware of the magnitude of the evidence for evolution? In the OP, I describe being overwhelmed by the evidence.

Yes, you might find a few cases of fraud, poor reasoning, or misinterpretation. But all of it? Be serious.

If all of this is fraud, that is like telling me I am on The Truman Show; that one day I will find the door leading off the stage; and that I will learn that all of science was one huge effort to fool me. Then we can all go have a beer together and laugh at how the thousands of research papers fooled me. Right?

Wrong.

According to this article from the Institute of Creation Research...I think it makes a good point. Shared features don't necessarily mean it's a transitional feature. You can look at two cars created by two completely different companies and they will still have similar features. Why can't God have used similar features when creating both apes and humans?
Read the OP, please. I discuss why the transitional fossils are so important.
What you're not going to find from the fossil record is a complete A to Z roadmap of an entire creature's transition perfectly laid out.
I can't understand how you could have been a staunch defender of evolution, and not realize that nobody is claiming to find "a complete A to Z roadmap of an entire creature's transition perfectly laid out".

That would like me complaining that Creationism is not true, for storks couldn't possibly be bringing all the babies to the hospital. If I was making such straw man arguments, I suspect you would shake your head in sorrow and doubt my creationist credentials.

Evolutionists are emphatic, that, though the fossil record is imperfect, it still gives strong evidence of what happened. I am curious how a former staunch evolutionist would not know that.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Estrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
9,744
3,243
39
Hong Kong
✟151,190.00
Country
Hong Kong
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Ah, so we meet in passing. Nice to meet you.

By the way, if what you say is true, then you would be the first former staunch atheist I met who is now a creationist.

I am not saying it is impossible. I am just saying I have not yet met such a person. So I hope you don't mind if I admit to some skepticism of your claim.

Can you tell us what arguments had convinced you to become a staunch atheist that lauded evolution? What books or other sources influenced you? What organizations were you involved in?

You do understand that childhood naivete and teenage apathy are not the same as staunch atheism, yes?

As for me I had become a staunch creationist after reading The Genesis Flood by Henry Morris, and after hearing debates by Duane Gish. Also, as I mention in the OP, the book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis was also a primary source.

In the OP I mention some of the specific creationist arguments I found impressive.

And no, my creationism was not simply childhood naivete or teenage apathy. A former debate partner writes about me:

He was something that you almost never see: an honest creationist. He argued on CompuServe for young-earth creationism and was one of its better, more coherent advocates. While most creationists would just make their claims and then refuse to support or discuss them...Merle would make the effort to support his claims and to engage in discussion. A real rarity among creationists. Source


I am sure you will agree with me that some people claim to be hearing from God and they are not. So I do not find "God spoke to me" to be a convincing argument.


Are you aware of the magnitude of the evidence for evolution? In the OP, I describe being overwhelmed by the evidence.

Yes, you might find a few cases of fraud, poor reasoning, or misinterpretation. But all of it? Be serious.

If all of this is fraud, that is like telling me I am on The Truman Show; that one day I will find the door leading off the stage; and that I will learn that all of science was one huge effort to fool me. Then we can all go have a beer together and laugh at how the thousands of research papers fooled me. Right?

Wrong.


Read the OP, please. I discuss why the transitional fossils are so important.

I can't understand how you could have been a staunch defender of evolution, and not realize that nobody is claiming to find "a complete A to Z roadmap of an entire creature's transition perfectly laid out".

That would like me complaining that Creationism is not true, for storks couldn't possibly be bringing all the babies to the hospital. If I was making such straw man arguments, I suspect you would shake your head in sorrow and doubt my creationist credentials.

Evolutionists are emphatic, that, though the fossil record is imperfect, it still gives strong evidence of what happened. I am curious how a former staunch evolutionist would not know that.

If you know how a person can have intellectual integrity
as a yec, plz tell us.
I think its impossible, but, show me and I will change my mind.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Site Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,196
9,203
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,159,222.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Now what on earth was God doing? Why was he slowly introducing mammalian features into the fossil record? Why did he progressively change the design of the jaw, ear, teeth, and limbs until the animals look more and more like mammals?

Consider: Why does a flower unfold?

-----

If God is the Creator of Nature (as I believe, the creator of all the Universe, all of Nature), then it has to be that He necessarily created how Nature works, of course.

But if one does believe God originated this Universe and Nature -- all -- gravity, how matter behaves, chemistry, physics....

Then Nature itself is a flower unfolding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: public hermit
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
If you know how a person can have intellectual integrity
as a yec, plz tell us.
I think its impossible, but, show me and I will change my mind.
How does one argue for young earth creationism with intellectual integrity? Two requirements: First, be misinformed. Second, have integrity.

Between Christian schools, Fundamentalist churches, and the ICR, I had the first requirement covered.

Regarding the second requirement, uh, er, let's just say that I didn't quite do as well as my debate partner thinks I did. ;)
 
Upvote 0