Time to Deal with Darwinism!

[mark kennedy]

I made the effort to reach out to TEs and received the standard fallacious arguments and inevitable insults. I'm convinced that this philosophy is nothing more then atheistic materialism in sheep's clothing and I intend to treat it as such. They won't stop at Biology or natural history, they mean to uproot Biblical Christianity and replace it with their own brand of pseudo-theology. The Christians who are involved with these Darwinians are deceived into a false sense of security that they are somehow intellectually superior to fundamentalists and evangelicals. It's time to deal with Darwinism the same way the Church has dealt with the many other false teaching for 2.000 years, expose the error and shun the offender.

I guess I could start a flame war but that is the sort of thing they thrive on. I'm simply going to expose the myth they have substituted for God's special creation and as of right now I will not engage them on any issue for any reason. What I am going to do is to track their responses and categorize them logically. I'm no longer interested in studying evolution, I'm going to study the evolutionists and expose them for what they are, mythographers.

The key to the whole thing is to seperate the genuine article of science from the fallacious nature of naturalistic assumptions. I know how to do this and now that it's started it won't stop. I'm well aware of the rules of the forum and know full well how to keep this in bounds.

This is just to inform interested Creationists that things are going to change. So kick back, grab a box of popcorn and enjoy the show.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Christian Soldier]

Be sure to read Did God Use Evolution?, by Dr. Werner Gitt. He exposes the many fallacies of theistic evolution.

http://www.christianbook.com/Christ...d=452392&event=ESRCN&item_code=WW&view=covers

 

[busterdog]

I made the effort to reach out to TEs and received the standard fallacious arguments and inevitable insults. I'm convinced that this philosophy is nothing more then atheistic materialism in sheep's clothing and I intend to treat it as such. They won't stop at Biology or natural history, they mean to uproot Biblical Christianity and replace it with their own brand of pseudo-theology. The Christians who are involved with these Darwinians are deceived into a false sense of security that they are somehow intellectually superior to fundamentalists and evangelicals. It's time to deal with Darwinism the same way the Church has dealt with the many other false teaching for 2.000 years, expose the error and shun the offender.

I guess I could start a flame war but that is the sort of thing they thrive on. I'm simply going to expose the myth they have substituted for God's special creation and as of right now I will not engage them on any issue for any reason. What I am going to do is to track their responses and categorize them logically. I'm no longer interested in studying evolution, I'm going to study the evolutionists and expose them for what they are, mythographers.

The key to the whole thing is to seperate the genuine article of science from the fallacious nature of naturalistic assumptions. I know how to do this and now that it's started it won't stop. I'm well aware of the rules of the forum and know full well how to keep this in bounds.

This is just to inform interested Creationists that things are going to change. So kick back, grab a box of popcorn and enjoy the show.

Grace and peace,
Mark

There are some posting high readings on the smug-o-meter. But, there were also some pretty reasonable exchanges with a few others.

 

[mark kennedy]

I noticed early on that there is a big difference between Darwinian naturalistic assumptions and actual Biology. In the secular and scientific world Darwinian logic comes before the empirical data. It is propagated as an empirical conclusion based on the evidence but it's not, it's an a priori assumption in that it comes before the actual empirical evidence and transcends all evolutionary thinking. The key to defending Creationism against the constant onslaught of Darwinian logic is genetics.

MIT Open Courseware Lecture Series

In this series these brilliant Professors will expound on a vast array topics in Genetics and Biology. Creationism is not the only issue, Bioethics for instance with regards to things like embryonic stem cells. Prolifers have opposed harvesting stem cells because as soon at the egg is fertilized it is considered human.

In the opening introduction Prof. Robert A. Weinberg starts right off the bat pushing Darwinian evolution. The next four lectures will be on Biochemistry and by the time the course gets to Genetics taught by Prof. Eric Lander the focuses has shifted to Gregor Johann Mendel. Mendel was a monk but he did not live a Monastic lifestyle that we associate with Medieval clerics. He was more like a Professor who both taught and research on how traits are inherited. While Darwinism was enjoying great popularity Mendel was working pretty much in obscurity and could not manage to attract much attention. According the the Human Genome project it was the work of Mendel and his single surviving paper that has propelled Biology and the quest to understand how inherited traits for the last 100 years. They identified four main phases corresponding roughly to the four quarters of the century.

1. Cellular basis of heredity- The Chromosomes
2. Molecular basis of heredity: The DNA Double Helix.
3. Informational basis of heredity: Biological mechanism by which cells read the information contained in genes (recombinant DNA, cloning and sequencing)
4. Genomics: Decipher genes and then entire genome sequences.
(Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome, Nature 15 Feb 2001)​

According to Professor Weinberg, Genetics finally became a real science 50 years ago with the discovery of the structure of DNA by Watson and Crick. He further says that because of that we can start to talk about the basic laws and rules that govern all forms of biological life on this planet and that we did not know 80% of what we do now in 1961.

The Mythical Time line of Darwinism:

Biological attributes,developed a very long time ago early in the inception of life on this planet...It’s clear, for example, that to the extent that Darwinian Evolution governs the development of life forms on this planet that is not an artifact of the Earth. Darwinian Evolution is a logic which is applicable to all life forms and all biosystems that may exist in the universe, even the ones we have not discovered. (Weinberg)​

Evolution he says, solved the biochemical and molecular problems starting with the inception of life, this is the time line as he describes it:

The Two Major Cell Divisions, protozoa (single cell) and metazoa (zoa=animals).

• The inception of life (abiogenesis?)
• Conserved almost unchanged for the intervening 2 or 3 billion years.
• 1.5 billion years ago cells evolved that contained nuclei (largest organelle in animals and occupies 10% of the total volume.
• eukaryotes then existed in single-cell form for perhaps the next 700 or 800 million years until multi-cellular aggregates of eukaryotic cells first assembled
• the first multicellular life forms began to evolve 550, 600 million years ago.
• Plants go back 300 to 400 milion years but no more.

This time line has absolutely nothing to do with the real world science of Biology and Genetics but was artificially incorporated in what is called the Modern Synthesis. The fact is that Darwinism leaches off of Mendelian Genetics and Genetics does not need Darwinism at all. After the Darwinian model based on naturalistic assumptions foundation is laid, then and only then does he begin to describe cellular architecture. At this point we are leaving the metaphysics are Darwinism and entering the empirical world of cellular molecular mechanisms:

• Mitochondrion (Cell Power Production. ATP synthase)
• Golgi apparatus (Post Office) Remodel and regenerate membranes, an integral in Modifying, sorting, and packaging Macromolecules required for life.
• Endoplasmic reticulum (Protein Synthesis)- important for the synthesis of proteins which are going to be displayed on the surface of cells

Cells synthesize a large number of different macromolecules required for life. The Golgi apparatus is integral in modifying, sorting, and packaging these substances for cell secretion (exocytosis) or for use within the cell. It primarily modifies proteins delivered from the rough endoplasmic reticulum but is also involved in the transport of lipids around the cell, and the creation of lysosomes. In this respect it can be thought of as similar to a post office; it packages and labels items and then sends them to different parts of the cell. (Golgi Apparatus from Wikipedia)​

Ribosomes (Protein Factory)

Ribosomes (from ribonucleic acid and "Greek: soma meaning 'body' they are 'the factories' that build proteins from the genetic instructions held within messenger RNA. They are complexes of RNA and protein that are found in all cells. The function of ribosomes is the assembly of proteins, in a process called translation. Ribosomes do this by catalyzing the assembly of individual amino acids into polypeptide chains; this involves binding a messenger RNA and then using this as a template to join together the correct sequence of amino acids. This reaction uses adapters called transfer RNA molecules, which read the sequence of the messenger RNA and are attached to the amino acids. (Ribosomes from Wikipedia)​

• Chromatin (Chromosomes) the mixture of DNA and proteins and a little bit of RNA in it., which together constitutes the chromosomes.

Here's the thing, the former has nothing to do with the later. Intelligent Design is a movement that started at Berkly and has grown to include scientists, philosophers and mathematicians who claim naturalistic forces could not have evolved these molecular mechanisms. The problem with the sudden appearance of 19-35 of the 40 phyla would have had to be developed in a 5 to 10 million year period. In addition between 32 and 48 of 56 total subphyla.

Molecular biologists have recently estimated that a minimally complex single-celled organism would require between 318 and 562 kilobase pairs of DNA to produce the proteins necessary to maintain life (Koonin 2000). More complex single cells might require upward of a million base pairs
(Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories By: Stephen C. Meyer)​

Did you know that the term specificity did not originate with Intelligent Design proponents, this is where they get the term from.

...Thus, molecular biologists beginning with Crick equated information not only with complexity but also with “specificity,” where “specificity” or “specified” has meant “necessary to function” (Crick 1958:144, 153; Sarkar, 1996:191)...​

Finally you will never hear a Darwinian admit that the known mutation rate causes a problem for evolution as natural history. If you have been into these issues you have seen the probablity argument for abiogenesis. The same probability argument can be applied to most of the major transitional in the pantheon of modern Darwinian mythology.

...a mutation rate of 10-9 per base pair per year results in only a 1% change in the sequence of a given section of DNA in 10 million years...

It is staggering at the enormous problems with Darwinian evolution and yet it can never be questioned. If you do question it you are immediately considered ignorant. They call it an argument from incredulity because you have the audacity to question the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinian metaphysics. My suggestion for Creationists is simply this, learn to discern Darwinism out of Biology and Genetics. The conflict is not between religion and science but between theistic reasoning and naturalistic a priori assumptions.

You can learn the Life Sciences without Darwinism and should.

To that end I'm working on an Open Courseware and public domain based resource to encourage Creationists to do exactly that.

7.012: Introduction to Biology, Fall 2004

Whether you are a dyed in the wool Darwinian or Creationist how life works and how information is inherited remains unchanged. It's not science that is in jeopardy here, Darwinism has targeted traditional Christian theism. My advice to Creationists is to pursue knowledge of the Life Sciences. Darwinism is the obstacle, Creationism represents the true history of mankind, Intelligent Design proponents are our intellectual allies and genetics is the prize.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Be sure to read Did God Use Evolution?, by Dr. Werner Gitt. He exposes the many fallacies of theistic evolution.

http://www.christianbook.com/Christ...d=452392&event=ESRCN&item_code=WW&view=covers

I don't know if I will be able to get the book right now, I'm getting ready to move. I did find this, thought you might find it interesting, I know I did:

In the Beginning was Information or Chaos

 

[mark kennedy]

"Some day the world may be as indebted as it is to Isaac Newton for physics. They may be as indebted to the City of Braunau for its contributions to inheritance." (CF Nap, President of the Pomological and Enological Society of Braunau, 1820)

Genetics 1 (Prof. Eric Lander)​

Eric Lander led the Broad Institute which is a a joint institute between MIT and Harvard. He worked on the Human Genome project and tells us that Genetics is growing so fast the curriculum had to be changed every year, unlike calculus. The diagram that he uses to outline the course is a pyramid with one point being biological function. Then Biochemistry seeks to break down the organism into individual components and study them. The focus is on physical properties of the proteins that are the physical structure of living systems. Genetics focuses on how the genes in the DNA produce traits, often by knocking one of the genes out. For a long time Genetics and Biochemistry could not be integrated until Molecular Biology blended the two, first theoretically and later technologically. This came about when the structure of the DNA was finally manifest and could be worked with directly.

Mendel and the birth of Genetics

We have a growing number of utube videos around here but this series is from the most prestigious research institutes in the world. You will notice if you follow the lecture that there is absolutely nothing about evolution. Most people will prefer either genetics or paleontology and personally I prefer the study of living systems over speculative discussions of dead ancestors. If you would know the history and practice of Biology and Genetics Mendel is the most important figure from the nineteenth century. While Darwin was enjoying great popularity Mendel's work laid undiscovered for a half a century.

This world class researcher and educator Eric Lander says that Mendel is his hero because he pursued the truth in such a scientific way. He says, 'Mendel working of genetics was no accident. He will give you a window into this vital period he calls the Age of Discovery. Mendel like Darwin was looking at inherited traits and hybrids, better breeding practices and the Austria Hungarian empire was starting research projects at their capitol. CF Nap makes a speach saying that one day be as indebted to the city of Braunau for understanding inherited traits as physics is to Isaac Newton.

The crucible of modern genetics was the gardens of the St. Thomas Monastery where Gregor Johann Mendel preformed a series of hybrid experiments. The monastery had a university that focused heavily on scientific research and teaching and it was there that Mendel would make history. Mendel started a serious of experiments and noted the, ‘ striking regularity with which the same hybrid forms always reappeared whenever fertilization took place between the same species induced further experiments to be undertaken”. Mendel using thirty-four different kinds of peas of the genus Pisum , produced 70 hybrid crosses with each of the seven traits he studied, from 10,000 meticulous experiments, crossing and cataloging some 24,034 plants, over a six year period (1857-1863).

Mendel's experiments yielded two laws of science that became the foundation of modern genetics. Without directly observing the chromosomes he built a scientific model that demonstrated how the internal mechanism of inherited traits worked. Nearly half a century later his only surviving paper on the pea plant experiments were discovered and demonstrated again and again in the early 1900s. His experiments would yield the two foundational laws of modern genetics. The Law of Segregation that states the alleles (alternative versions of the genes) account for the inherited variation. The next generation inherits two alleles, one from each of the parents and finally that the two alleles are segregated during the fusion of the egg and sperm (gamete production). And the Law of Independent Assortment that states that the inheritance pattern of one trait will not affect the inheritance pattern of another. I submit that it is these laws that represent the Mendelian boundary beyond which species cannot transform above the level of genus.

This is the most fascinating discussion of the history of Genetics I have ever seen or heard. I would suggest that no self respecting Creationists should consider themselves well read without and extensive understanding of Mendelian Genetics. Professor Lander will describe in detail how the controled cross over experiments worked.

While I fully realize that the material is not easy to understand I would encourage Creationists who are serious about learning the requisite science involved explore this topic zealously. The science of Mendel draws a dramatic boundary between Genetics and the philosophy of Darwin, Huxley and Dawkins. Nothing you will study on the subject will be as potent or vital to dealing with Darwinism and putting the issues in their proper perspective.

For instance, the scientific definition of evolution is the change of alleles in populations over time. An allele is a Greek meaning change and this lecture covers the terminology associated with how alleles change. The changes are not really evolutionary, in fact there is a strong tendency to revert back to the grandparent form. This becomes important when you start looking at the role of mutations in evolution. Not only are the mutations carefully screened by checkpoints as the DNA is being replicated, mutations can be repaired.

Talk of the Nation, March 25, 2005 · Researchers report finding that some plants may have a hidden mechanism for repairing damaged genetic material -- even when the plant received two copies of the damaged gene. Does that finding shake up the rules of inheritance?

Plant Inherits Repaired Gene​

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[shernren]

I made the effort to reach out to TEs ...

You lost me right there. I remember no such thing.

Anyhow, I'm just dropping this post to subscribe to the thread. Pass the popcorn? ^^

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish2]

The Christians who are involved with these Darwinians are deceived into a false sense of security that they are somehow intellectually superior to fundamentalists and evangelicals.

True.

 

[laptoppop]

I want to always be careful to distinguish between darwinism, which I believe is a lie straight out of the pit of hell, and darwinists, which are people who believe in darwinism.

A person can be a fantastic loving Christian and be a darwinist. They are wrong, and they are deceived by Satan himself, but they can be great people.

I have to always remember how God continually shows me ways in which Satan has deceived me. When I value materialism or work or ..... over spending time with God -- when I allow various things to capture my heart when it really belongs to the One who IS love -- I am deceived.

I believe darwinism and its cousins scientificism and liberal theology and higher criticism, etc., appeal to people out of elitism and pride. It is so appealing to think that we know more than God Himself revealed in His Word. To put ourselves and our human understanding over what He says so clearly.

Of course true wisdom involves accepting God at His word first. By putting ourselves into the proper context and worldview, we can attain real knowledge and real wisdom. In the case of geology -- we find that oh, you CAN interpret these huge intercontinental formations as being formed in a global flood -- just like God said! Amazing... He is true. Always.

 

[mark kennedy]

The Christians who are involved with these Darwinians are deceived into a false sense of security that they are somehow intellectually superior to fundamentalists and evangelicals.

True.

That's definitely part of it, they do have a condescending way about themselves. I think it goes back to what Bacon said, 'knowledge is power'. More importantly then being right or wrong I think they like being in control of Universities that have big budgets.

 

[mark kennedy]

I want to always be careful to distinguish between darwinism, which I believe is a lie straight out of the pit of hell, and darwinists, which are people who believe in darwinism.

A person can be a fantastic loving Christian and be a darwinist. They are wrong, and they are deceived by Satan himself, but they can be great people.

I heard that, the early Christians believed that they were at war with spiritual forces led by Satan. The term 'pagan' actually meant 'civilian' and it was a term Roman officers used to describe country bumpkin types. The early church used it to describe people they thought had been deluded by Satan. That's why most of them did not retaliate when persecuted, they felt that the persecutors were victims of a spiritual delusion and wanted to help them.

I have to always remember how God continually shows me ways in which Satan has deceived me. When I value materialism or work or ..... over spending time with God -- when I allow various things to capture my heart when it really belongs to the One who IS love -- I am deceived.

We all struggle with that don't we. The things of the world can grow up like thorns around the word and make it hard to bear fruit. My favorite Gospel song is by Terry Talbot, there's a part I think about a lot:

In my final hours of darkness, in the gardens of my search,
temptation has grown around me, like thorns around the Word.
I saw my sin before me and I felt my heart grow numb.
When I cried where is my strength came the answer that change my life.

I AM He he said... (Terry Talbot, I am He)

I believe darwinism and its cousins scientificism and liberal theology and higher criticism, etc., appeal to people out of elitism and pride. It is so appealing to think that we know more than God Himself revealed in His Word. To put ourselves and our human understanding over what He says so clearly.

When I was a new Christian I used to watch Jimmey Swaggart, he used to rant and rave about Secular Humanism. At the time I didn't know what it was really but there is a school of thought among secular atheists and agnostics that they can do religion better then Christians. When I was in college I took a Philosophy of religion class that started out with Secular Humanism and ended with it. There was a lot of talk about sacred places...etc, they really believe that they are superior and not just in the sciences or academics.

Of course true wisdom involves accepting God at His word first. By putting ourselves into the proper context and worldview, we can attain real knowledge and real wisdom. In the case of geology -- we find that oh, you CAN interpret these huge intercontinental formations as being formed in a global flood -- just like God said! Amazing... He is true. Always.

I can't make heads or tails of geology. I've read Henry Morris and he is probably the only one that made any sense of it for me. He was talking about radiometric dating once and said they test decay for weeks, months or years and project it over millions of years, this he said, would not be tolerated in any of the other sciences.

God's wisdom has always seemed like foolishness to the wise of our age. Jesus even said the children of darkness are wiser then the children of light in this age. I think we should be content with the foolishness of God because it's stronger then the fleeting worldly wisdom of the age.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[crawfish]

That's definitely part of it, they do have a condescending way about themselves. I think it goes back to what Bacon said, 'knowledge is power'. More importantly then being right or wrong I think they like being in control of Universities that have big budgets.

The irony of this statement is profound.

You know, I can live with differences. I don't agree with a lot of my Christian brothers and sisters on a lot of topics, most unrelated to science or creation, but I know that I cannot possibly know their heart and that only God is judge. So I love them as my Christian brothers and sisters regardless; I will argue my side of things with passion, but I will love them no less for disagreeing with me. What I have trouble living with is the knowledge that others, out of supposed piety or humility, judge me based on my honest and prayerful attempts to study the truth of God's word.

Sorry to distract from this thread; do know that I am going to be watching it closely.

 

[Matthewj1985]

Like I always say, tell creationist to put up, or shut up. Let me know when your paper gets into Nature and I will take your ideas seriously, till then your ideas are no more valid than Muslims and Hindus trying to make the evidence fit their ideas.

 

[mark kennedy]

The irony of this statement is profound.

You know, I can live with differences. I don't agree with a lot of my Christian brothers and sisters on a lot of topics, most unrelated to science or creation, but I know that I cannot possibly know their heart and that only God is judge. So I love them as my Christian brothers and sisters regardless; I will argue my side of things with passion, but I will love them no less for disagreeing with me. What I have trouble living with is the knowledge that others, out of supposed piety or humility, judge me based on my honest and prayerful attempts to study the truth of God's word.

You can live with the differences but the secular community can't and I'm not talking about Christians I have doctrinal differences with. Even if I were I can confront false doctrine and error with a sense of humility being careful that I don't fall into the same one or maybe something worse. The academic and scientific ivory towers have long distorted what is called science and their deep bias against anything theistic is evident and obvious.

I honestly don't care if you decide to take Genesis 1-11 with a grain of salt since poetic prose is sometimes hard to nail down. I do have a problem with the large number of professing Christians who continually contradict the clear meaning of Scripture while neglecting vital Christian doctrine and theism.

Sorry to distract from this thread; do know that I am going to be watching it closely.

I do hope you will take the opportunity to learn somethings about genetics. It's the fastest growing science of our day and as Darwin said, "the origin of species- that mystery of mysteries, as it has been called by one of our greatest philosophers." With the rise of genetics it is not so mysterious, the variation we see in domestication and in the wild can be traced back to molecular mechanisms that are identifiable and measurable.

They often speak of evolution and species but the real issues are adaptation and hybrids (see my signature). Both Darwin and Mendel asked similar questions, Mendel produced the two laws of inheritance that became the foundation of modern genetics. Darwin produced an argument against special creation that made it possible to be an intellectually satisfied atheist. The trouble is that the former is scientific and the latter is philosophical naturalism that first assumes purely naturalistic causes and all supernatural explanations are rejected without a hearing. Their attitude is no different with regards to the New Testament and New Testament Christians who are influenced by the secular world should be mindful of this fact.

 

[crawfish]

Personally, I think too many Christians have a flawed view of essential doctrine. Thank God that His grace exceeds our ability to understand.

Genetics is definitely a key to evolutionary theory. It provides a measurable, testable and falsifiable foundation for Darwin's theories. I will read your posts in all seriousness, but know this: I expect creationism, if valid, to do more than point to the space between the trees and declare there is no forest.

 

[mark kennedy]

Personally, I think too many Christians have a flawed view of essential doctrine. Thank God that His grace exceeds our ability to understand.

You mean creationists right? Regardless of what you think of a literal interpretation of Genesis original sin is essential doctrine.

Genetics is definitely a key to evolutionary theory. It provides a measurable, testable and falsifiable foundation for Darwin's theories. I will read your posts in all seriousness, but know this: I expect creationism, if valid, to do more than point to the space between the trees and declare there is no forest.

Ok I get it, your not interested in talking about Mendelian Genetics or Darwinism just condescending to Creationists. I made up my mind not to engage Theistic Evolutionists since they are just pawns in a Darwinian culture war of attrition. Comment on anything you like but I refuse to engage Theistic Evolutionists since I consider them divisive, contentious and I don't appreciate people who make sport of serious study and firm conviction.

 

[The Barbarian]

To add new doctrines to Christianity has always been to divide His people, for some will cling to the old and others will go to the new. Creationism is not an essential Christian doctrine, and never will be, since it is the invention of men.

It won't send you to hell, necessarily, to believe in creationism, but it will be one more stumbling block for those seeking Him.

 

[crawfish]

You mean creationists right? Regardless of what you think of a literal interpretation of Genesis original sin is essential doctrine.

Only a subset of creationists, and not only creationists. In fact, I'm talking mostly about legalism issues that have nothing to do with the interpretation of Genesis.

Ok I get it, your not interested in talking about Mendelian Genetics or Darwinism just condescending to Creationists. I made up my mind not to engage Theistic Evolutionists since they are just pawns in a Darwinian culture war of attrition. Comment on anything you like but I refuse to engage Theistic Evolutionists since I consider them divisive, contentious and I don't appreciate people who make sport of serious study and firm conviction.

Dude, I'm not trying to insult or condescend to you. I will listen to what you say - yes, with a critical ear, but with an open one. I will not prejudge your data. I am just a bit tired of the arguments that equate finding missing pieces in a theory as falsification.

 

[mark kennedy]

Only a subset of creationists, and not only creationists. In fact, I'm talking mostly about legalism issues that have nothing to do with the interpretation of Genesis.

Alright, I consider myself to be open minded and like to give people a chance to express their views. Creationism has never been tied to legalism, in fact, when it comes to the entrance of sin into humanity Paul is crystal clear that it was the sin of Adam and Eve. He ties this directly to the doctrine of justification by faith so if we evolved from apes then did God create us sinners or what? I'll tell you what, take a good look at Romans 5 and tell me if he was a creationist.

Dude, I'm not trying to insult or condescend to you. I will listen to what you say - yes, with a critical ear, but with an open one. I will not prejudge your data. I am just a bit tired of the arguments that equate finding missing pieces in a theory as falsification.

Data regarding what exactly because I have written extensively on these boards with regards to human evolution for a long time now. My primary arguments are from the peer reviewed scientific literature that evolutionists prize so highly. Things like genomic comparisons, ERVs, comparative anatomy and fossilized primate skulls considered our ancestors that are the size of a chimpanzee's.

I have ran the gambit a hundred times and remain steadfast in the assertion the Mendelian Genetics represents the genuine article of science while Darwinism is a contrived psuedo-scientific contrivance based on naturalistic assumptions of no Creator.

Don't get me wrong, I'm well aware that things have evolved in all their vast array. The thing is that Genetics has left the question of origins open and if evolutionists were being truly scientific they would as well.

Once Robert Frost was asked what inspired his poetry, he said and I'm paraphrasing, 'We know nothing of the ethereal, it is deeper and deeper and deeper into the natural'. That might be fine for someone who does not examine the evidence regarding the historicity of Scripture and determine that it's credentials are impeccable. The Bible is a revelation of human history and if pressed to it's logical conclusion, the origin of natural history as well.

You want to have this discussion then let's talk science or we can talk Scripture, it make no difference to me. It comes down to one thing crayfish, how do we know that we know what we know. If you think I'm talking in riddles then consider this, the essence of the term 'science' is actually knowledge. The problem is that it's a certain kind of knowledge. So that leaves us with at least four possible ways to go: Epistemology, Metaphysics, Theology or quite possible, the actual evidence with regards to human origins.

So ok, what's on your mind?

 

[crawfish]

Alright, I consider myself to be open minded and like to give people a chance to express their views. Creationism has never been tied to legalism, in fact, when it comes to the entrance of sin into humanity Paul is crystal clear that it was the sin of Adam and Eve. He ties this directly to the doctrine of justification by faith so if we evolved from apes then did God create us sinners or what? I'll tell you what, take a good look at Romans 5 and tell me if he was a creationist.

Understand, my statement does not equate creationism with legalism. I would think the text was clear about that? Both are mutually exclusive; you can be one without being the other. Although I probably would argue that it's more likely a legalist would be creationist rather than a TE.

I was trying to avoid mentioning specific theologies here because I don't want open up any other cans of worms. I will point out one in particular: I belong to the church of Christ where many don't believe that using musical instruments is pleasing to God. That is hardly essential doctrine, although many of them argue otherwise. Most denominations have one or two of these issues where the legalistic members demand beliefs that are not essential.

As to whether Paul is a creationist or not, I would say that question falls into the same realm as "was Jesus a Republican"? In other words, totally irrelevant, since the word would have no meaning in that time. Without counter-evidence, there is no reason to put your faith against the accepted norms of the time. It is only modern evidence that forces the question.

So ok, what's on your mind?

Believe it or not, I'm not trying to get into any particular discussion here. I am no scientist so I have to trust in my ability to discern the truth from others. My simple method is this: I listen to the argument (from creationist or scientific data), I read the critiques from the opposing side, and I then read the critiques of the critiques. You can judge the honestly of a critique by seeing how completely it deals with all the details of what it is critiquing. Admitting that something your opponent says has merit and you have no answer is a plus; avoiding it or misrepresenting it is a minus. Pushing data that has been proven false, or pushing data as fact that is not, is also a minus. That is how I read most of the arguments on this board, and how I read yours.

I'm not trying to dismiss you offhand or to belittle your efforts.