YECs: What is the problem with Evolution?

[adam149]

Well I have a very low opinion of Dawkins since he is very anti religions and has a very biased opinion.

I agree, however, since we are all biased, it is well to find the right bias with which to be biased.

This I disagree with. I would agree with you if you say that general revelation must be interpreted according to Scripture but not dismissed entirely if an apparent conflict rises. If the earth is really billions of years old then it is billions of years old and what must change is not Scripture or the evidence but our interpretation of it.

Naturally, and I agree completely. However, the evidence for billions of years is an interpretation by secular humanism and Scripture is opposed to long ages. Scripture is the guiding light and is inerrent. I feel that what you are really asking Christians to do here, and correct me if I am wrong, is to reconsider a legitimate interpretation of Scirpture if it is found out of accord with man's fallible science. I find this highly problematic since this is actually placing general revelation in a position of superiority to Special Revelation.

Naturally this is not to say that we should not reject incorrect wrong interpretations, but if the clear meaning, over and over again, through every book of the Bible is maintained, that doctrine ought to be adhered to. The doctrine of a special creation event in the recent past is just such a doctrine.

Thanks for the quote, I am familiar with Van Til and his position on Christian Epistemology. Did you know that he was a Theistic Evolutionist? I have read a couple of letters he wrote to Platntinga over this matter.

Actually, as far as I know, he felt it was up in the air and could have been long ages, or could have been recent. But his published writings make it explicitely clear that he rejected evolution as a progression of life in all it's forms and thus could not have been a theistic evolutionist. Have these letters been published? If so, where? I would like to read them. If not, is there a way for you to send copies to me?

I take my knowledge from the following:

"Q: What was Cornelius Van Til's Position on the Age of the Earth?
I deduce CVT's position from the following remark about the age of the earth, but perhaps he believed in 6 day creation with longer than traditional time between Adam and Abraham.

Commenting on Byron C. Nelson's book "Before Abraham" in which Nelson writes about the new skeletons found in European caves:

"Augsburg Publishing House ... will not reprint it. ... This book was rejected by one publisher because the author held that humanity has been in existence for something like 20,000 years (now Nelson is an anti- evolutionist, at the same time he does not accept Ussher's chronology) and he was therefore rejected as unsound by someone who thinks that in opposing evolution we must also maintain that humanity not more than 6 or 7 thousand years old (or 10,000 at the outset) . Now, I think this is a debatable point but that if we're going to fight evolution we will have to hit it where we can hit it hard and not hit it where the issue itself is debatable like this. I'm not sure how long ago man existed on this earth and I'm not sure this makes that much difference."​

Source: Cornelius Van Til, Christian Critique of Evolution, Audio Recording. The Works of Cornelius Van Til, [CDROM]. In the last 10-15% of the recording. Transcribed by Jonathan Barlow.


CVT goes on to talk about his own efforts to get the book republished to no avail." http://www.reformed.org/creation/, at the bottom of the page, "What was Cornelius Van Til's Position on the Age of the Earth?

Besides which, many other good, Reformed christians have rejected the recent creation model. Interestingly, the direct "apprentice" of Van Til, Rousas John Rushdoony, spent much of his time writing against evolution and supporting a recent creation, and is the father of the modern creationist movement. We know this, because without Rushdoony's direct interference, Henry Morris's famous book The Genesis Flood, would never have been published. The Genesis Flood is considered the book that jump-started the modern creationist movement in the early 60s.

Adam

 

[adam149]

Rubbish evolution is a scientifc theory and it has nothing to do with pan-theism, etc.

Bold claims. In fact, many scientists now consider the universe to be eternal and never ending, because they know the Big Bang has no evidence to support it (see http://www.cosmologystatement.org/http://www.cosmologicalstatement.org/). If the universe is eternal, then the universe becomes the deity, since only deitys are eternal. Everything is part of the universe, therefore everything is divine, hense pantheism (everything is God). The New Age movement is built off of this idea.

infact themajority of Christians worldwide hold evoltuion to be true.

So? That hardly makes them right. The majority has been wrong before and will be again.

Secondly, that's not necessarily true. Recent polls indicate that the population is just about evenly divided on that issue.

Secondly science overwhelemingly falsifies creationism.

Bold claims, but without emperical support. Where is your evidence? I would be more than happy to debate creation vs. evolution with you in a professional and scientific way. We both present the best evidence for our case, we respond to the other's article, and then respond to each other's criticisms. All six (three by each author) would then be published here on the forum for all to see and decide which side has more support.

Which journals, AiG clearly misrepresents the views of science.

Bold assertions, but I'm afraid you will need to substanciate any such claims you make to specific works written by AiG.

I follow the latest papers in the peer-reviewed journals, such as Geology, Evolution, Microbiology, etc. I am studying geology, history, and some chemistry at a secular university, and all I find is AiG being proven correct, not misrepresenting.

This is defitnely dishonest because as far as I can discern talkorigins is not in anyway connected with Ian Plimer, all they have is a debate between him and Duane Gish.

I must apologize. I phrased my sentence poorly. Ian Plimer is not connected with TO in any visable way, though they use some of his arguments and "reasoning."

Secondly this clearly illustartes AiG's dishonesty as I find it highly un,liekly taht Plimeris claiming that the English alphabet has 23 letters and infact the Latin alphabet (alphabetum) does have 23 letters.

First off, you are refering to my article at my website which is in no way affiliated with AiG, thus AiG certainly cannot be dishonest about something they didn't write!

Secondly, I am not being dishonest about Plimer. See Plimer, I., 1994, 1st ed., Telling Lies for God, Random House Australia, New South Wales, pg. 224

cretaionism is a religion

Evolution is comaptible with Christianity.

Did you even read the articles?

 

[adam149]

because God says not to? Because man is more intelligent than that? Because morality isn't based on evolution or creation? Because he has a conscience? Because evolution is no excuse to act any differently? Need we go on?

Man, in his fallen state, automatically tends towards evil in his rejection of God. Thus, even if God says not to, man's nature is going to rebel anyway and ignore any conscience he might have, particularly if that conscience evolved.

"Darwinism can be used to back up two mad moralities, but it cannot be used to back up a single sane one. The kinship and competition of all living creatures can be used as a reason for being insanely cruel or insanely sentimental; but not for a healthy love of animals … That you and a tiger are one may be a reason for being tender to a tiger. Or it may be a reason for being cruel as the tiger. It is one way to train the tiger to imitate you, it is a shorter way to imitate the tiger. But in neither case does evolution tell you how to treat a tiger reasonably, that is, to admire his stripes while avoiding his claws.
If you want to treat a tiger reasonably, you must go back to the garden of Eden. For the obstinate reminder continues to recur: only the supernaturalist has taken a sane view of Nature."Chesterton, G.K., Orthodoxy, John Lane, London, pp. 204–205, 1927

Jaron Lanier: "There’s a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature."
Richard Dawkins: "All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth." --Evolution: The dissent of Darwin,’ Psychology Today, January/February 1997, p. 62.

"… the average young Australian, who believes what he is taught, believes the evolutionary dogma that he is only an animal who arrived by chance, lives by his wits, survives to breed and will die … without hope of personal immortality. Of course many intelligent young people examine the evidence and reject the theory of godless evolution, but the majority of ordinary folk … accept this theory and live like animals. Many come to see the utter futility and stupidity of struggling to survive, so after they have tasted sex and every other thrill of a purely animal existence, they decide to opt out of life into the oblivion of drugs or suicide. Others go on living like animals. They satisfy every animal desire that wells up within them. If they want sex they have it immediately. If they feel aggressive they show it. The crunch comes if they rape, harm or kill. They then fall foul of the law, and are jailed and punished for being the animals they were taught to be." --J.G.L. Wedge, B.A., B.D., What do you think of the Bible?, Lindstrom Wedge, Chatswood (New South Wales), 1991, p. 2.

Dr. Jonathan Kelley established a link between evolution and moral decadance (see The Australian, February 1, 2000)

I could go on.

Insulting at best, ludicrous at least, non-sensical certainly. Show me where any part of the theory of evolution promotes rape.

Several evolutionists published a book on rape and evolution that came to this conclusion. See Craig Palmer and Randy Thornhill, A Natural History Of Rape: Biological Bases Of Sexual Coercion, MIT Press.

And yet, amazingly, Christians did a fine job of enslaving Africans--all the while using the Bible and their interpretation--long before Darwin lived. Strict literal Bible supporters still use the Bible to say that Blacks and Whites shouldn't mix, shouldn't marry, and shouldn't go to church together--all the while, rejecting evolution.

Evolution has been around in a similar form to it's modern one since about 650 B.C., and prior to that, evolution was a common pagan creation mythology. The church accepted evolutionary teachings long before Darwin's time (see Mortenson, T., 2004, The Great Turning Point, Master Books, Green Forest, AR

In fact, look at all of the atrocities committed by the church and its agents through the centuries--all without evolution.

The church is not infallible, and evolution existed.

And besides, whatever atrocities commited by the church were, they are miniscule when compared with the bloodstains left in the wake of evolution an the 'Century of Darwinism.'

So, tell me, were you kidding? You may even embarrass some of your fellow creationists with this one

I don't see why. He's right.

 

[herev]

Man, in his fallen state, automatically tends towards evil in his rejection of God. Thus, even if God says not to, man's nature is going to rebel anyway and ignore any conscience he might have, particularly if that conscience evolved.

Agreed, however he asked a question:
"If man is just an animal then what is wrong with him acting like an animal?"

I gave him several answers, so you and I agree on one point?

Dr. Jonathan Kelley established a link between evolution and moral decadance (see The Australian, February 1, 2000)

first, I have no idea who that is, but second, for one who dismisses other things to do with evolution as having been "established" you seem quick to say for certain that this link is "established." Why do you take some of the "established" theories and not others?

I could go on.

Of that, I have no doubt

Several evolutionists published a book on rape and evolution that came to this conclusion. See Craig Palmer and Randy Thornhill, A Natural History Of Rape: Biological Bases Of Sexual Coercion, MIT Press.

And as I said to him, not everything out of an evolutionist's mouth is gospel to us. The point is--as he worded it--what he said was that with evolution, rapists are "no longer detestable sinners"--that IS NOT SO for theistic evolutionists--to say so is insulting and intentionally so!

Evolution has been around in a similar form to it's modern one since about 650 B.C., and prior to that, evolution was a common pagan creation mythology. The church accepted evolutionary teachings long before Darwin's time (see Mortenson, T., 2004, The Great Turning Point, Master Books, Green Forest, AR

I agree with all of that--it had nothing to do with my response to him--what I said was that they did these things by quoting Biblical passages and taking them literally to support their support of slavery and that they did so long before Darwin lived, so we have another agreement? Additionally I said that literalist today use the Bible to support racism and they don't need evolution for that, either. The "sin" is in the misuse of the theory, not in the theory itself, just as the "sin" is in the misuse of the scriptures, not in the scriptures themselves.

The church is not infallible.

Agreed, I think that was my point.

And besides, whatever atrocities commited by the church were, they are miniscule when compared with the bloodstains left in the wake of evolution an the 'Century of Darwinism.'

QUOTE]

​

Now that, I would argue against--

I'm always open to being taught new things, but that's a pretty far-fetched claim when considering the inquisition(s), the crusades (just to name a couple) and then we can look at the wars between Christian groups and nations.

I don't see why. He's right.

Not from where I'm sitting, he's not. But you are certainly entitled to your opinoin and beliefs

 

[Tachocline]

I am studying geology, history, and some chemistry at a secular university, and all I find is AiG being proven correct, not misrepresenting.

Are you laughing as you typed this? I mean you cannot be maintaining a straight face can you?

What pray tell is AIG being proven correct on, I mean really what have they ever produced that has credibility in these areas?

 

[adam149]

Agreed, however he asked a question:
"If man is just an animal then what is wrong with him acting like an animal?"

I gave him several answers, so you and I agree on one point?

I'm not sure what you mean here. Man is not an animal, he is a created being, not an evolved being. Had we evolved, we would be nothing more than an animal and there would be no problem with acting like one. I think that your answers, for the most part, fail to actually answer the question.

first, I have no idea who that is, but second, for one who dismisses other things to do with evolution as having been "established" you seem quick to say for certain that this link is "established." Why do you take some of the "established" theories and not others?

He's a research scientist not connected with any creationist group and is not a creationist and he recognizes the nature of the problem.

The same question could be turned back on you. Why do you take some of the "established" theories and not others, such as the YEC model? Probably because you feel they lack support, yes?

Of that, I have no doubt

And as I said to him, not everything out of an evolutionist's mouth is gospel to us. The point is--as he worded it--what he said was that with evolution, rapists are "no longer detestable sinners"--that IS NOT SO for theistic evolutionists--to say so is insulting and intentionally so!

Correct, but in context, he was responding to a question of "what's wrong with evolution." He was not targeting TEers when he wrote that. Naturally TEers follow the same moral commandments of any other christian and thus find it insulting, but I think he was addressing naturalistic evolution.

I agree with all of that--it had nothing to do with my response to him--what I said was that they did these things by quoting Biblical passages and taking them literally to support their support of slavery and that they did so long before Darwin lived, so we have another agreement?

But if this is not the proper interpretation of these passages (and they are not) then some severe Scripture-twisting was going on, because the Bible does not support such things. And if there is Scripture-twisting, they are clearly not taking the literal meaning of the passages. This was my point. My point was that evolutionary thinking had already influenced the church long before Darwin and that it was because of this thinking that they twisted these passages. So, no, I can't agree. I could agree if you said "they did these things by quoting Biblical passages and twisting them to support their support of slavery and that they did so long before Darwin lived."

Additionally I said that literalist today use the Bible to support racism and they don't need evolution for that, either. The "sin" is in the misuse of the theory, not in the theory itself, just as the "sin" is in the misuse of the scriptures, not in the scriptures themselves.

Be careful when accusing someone of being a literalist, because most of them are actually "Plainists"--that is, they take a given book or passage as the author intended it, whether that be history, prophesy, metaphor, or whatever.

Also, most (or at least many) christians no longer support such thinking, so be careful when making blanket statements.

Now that, I would argue against--I'm always open to being taught new things, but that's a pretty far-fetched claim when considering the inquisition(s), the crusades (just to name a couple) and then we can look at the wars between Christian groups and nations.

Not at all. If you consider all of the casualities of both WWI and WWII, including the 6 million Jews, the slaughter of the communists, and include the <6,000,000,000 dead unborn evolution has far, far more blood on its hands.

Not from where I'm sitting, he's not. But you are certainly entitled to your opinoin and beliefs

As are you, of course.

 

[adam149]

Are you laughing as you typed this? I mean you cannot be maintaining a straight face can you?

Yes, completely and utterly. Most of the time, I have a hard time keeping a straight face when reading the sceptical posts.

What pray tell is AIG being proven correct on, I mean really what have they ever produced that has credibility in these areas?
[/size][/color][/font]

The real question is, "what has AiG produced that is not credible?"

Feel free to mock, though. God knows, I'm used to it when trying to have intelligent conversation and debate.

 

[Tachocline]

The real question is, "what has AiG produced that is not credible?".

Well, let us see. AIG's "scientists" do not send their material for peer review. AIG "scientists" frequently write articles in areas they do not research in and/or have no qualifications in. Most of this material is so obscure (i.e. fringe) and off the deep end that the academic world has never heard of it. Their credibility is only maintained in that most undiscerning and unqualified group, the YEC community of lay people. They have as far as I know never produced a piece of science that has any credibility when judged on the science content.

 

[adam149]

Well, let us see. AIG's "scientists" do not send their material for peer review. AIG "scientists" frequently write articles in areas they do not research in and/or have no qualifications in. Most of this material is so obscure (i.e. fringe) and off the deep end that the academic world has never heard of it. Their credibility is only maintained in that most undiscerning and unqualified group, the YEC community of lay people. They have as far as I know never produced a piece of science that has any credibility when judged on the science content.

Apparently you misunderstood me. See, I wanted legitimate, emperical demonstration, not unsubstanciated, completely bald asertions without a shred of evidence other than your word that this is so.

Not to mention the fact that your claims are easily demonstrated to be patently false--as in absolutely no basis in reality.

Yes, they do send in for peer review. There are several creationist journals which have review boards of Ph.D-holding scientists, and many AiG staffers have been published in the secular journals as well. For example, well-known AiG creationist Dr. Jonathan Sarfati has published these articles:

• Mawdsley, H.J. Trodahl, J. Tallon, J.D. Sarfati and A.B. Kaiser: ‘Thermoelectric power and electron-phonon enhancement in YBa2Cu3O7-d’ Nature 328:33–34, 1987.
  
• G.R. Burns and J.D. Sarfati: ‘Raman spectra of tetraphosphorus triselenide doped in tetraphosphorus trisulfide’ Solid State Communications 66:347–49, 1988.
  
• G.R. Burns, J.R. Rollo, and J.D. Sarfati: ‘Raman spectra of the tetraphosphorus trichalcogenide cage molecules P4S2Se and P4SSe2’ Inorganica Chimica Acta 161:35–38, 1989.
  
• G.R. Burns, J.R. Rollo, J.D. Sarfati and K.R. Morgan: ‘Phases of tetraphosphorus triselenide analysed by magic angle spinning 31P NMR and Raman spectroscopy, and the Raman Spectrum of tetraphosphorus tetraselenide’ Spectrochimica Acta 47A:811–8, 1991.
  
• J.D. Sarfati and G.R. Burns: ‘The pressure, temperature and excitation frequency dependent Raman spectra; and infrared spectra of CuBrSe3 and CuISe3’ Spectrochimica Acta 50A: 2125–2136, 1994.
  
• J.D. Sarfati, G.R. Burns, and K.R. Morgan: ‘Crystalline and amorphous phases of tetraphosphorus tetraselenide’ Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids 188:93–97, 1995.

Dr. Russell Humphreys has written many articles in secular journals and has worked with the US government extensively on nuclear research

Dr. Don Batten has written dozens of peer-reviewed papers and book chapters in the secular scientific arena:

2. Batten, D.J. and Mullins, M.G. (1978). Ethylene and adventitious root formation in hypocotyl segments of etiolated mung-bean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek) seedlings. Planta 138(3): 193–8.
   
4. Batten, D.J. and Goodwin, P.B. (1981). Auxin transport inhibitors and the rooting of hypocotyl cuttings from etiolated mung-bean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek) seedlings. Annals of Botany 47(4):497–505.
   
5. Peak, C.M., Fitzell, R.D., Hannah, R.S. and Batten, D.J. (1986). Development of a microprocessor-based data recording system for predicting plant disease based on studies on mango anthracnose. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 1:251–62.
   
6. Batten, D.J. (1989). Maturity criteria for litchis (lychees). Food Quality and Preference 1(4/5):149–55
   
7. Batten, D.J. (1990). Effect of temperature on ripening and post-harvest life of fruit of atemoya (Annona cherimola Mill. x A. Squamosa L.) cv. ‘African Pride’. Scientia Horticulturae 45:129–36.

Dr. Jerry Bergman holds 9 degrees and has written over 600 publications.

Dr. John Baumgardener is regarded as the leading expert in plate tectonics modeling and has published in secular journals.

Dr. Jack Cuozzo has published articles in the Journal of the New Jersey Dental Society

Dr. Bryan Dawson has published in many journals http://www.uu.edu/personal/bdawson/longpub.html

Dr. Danny Faulkner is a full professor at the University of South Dakota

Dr. Werner Gitt is now retired, but once served as director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Braunschweig), the Head of the Department of Information Technology and has published numerous papers in german journals.

Dr. David Menton has written numerous articles in technical and scientific journals dealing with bone, wound healing, and the epidermal barrier function and biomechanics of skin.

There are hundreds more we could cite, but I trust you have gotten the point?

You then say "They have as far as I know never produced a piece of science that has any credibility when judged on the science content." This bears repeating, considering that arguments creationists have long used against the BIg Bang have been recognized as correct, though they are not mentioned, of course (see www.cosmologystatement.org). White-hole cosmology, as predicted by Dr. Humphreys, has been accepted by the secular community (http://www.icr.org/headlines/whiteholecosmology.html), their sedimentation claims have been supported by recent secular publications (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/456.asp), and a YEC developed the MRI scanner (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i3/science.asp). There is more we could mention, but we trust that you get the point.

 

[Tachocline]

I'll address this tomorrow. Let's just say all you did was grab an AIG list but didn't address the real problem and that is their AIG work is out of their fields and not peer reviewed. I understand that some of these people have been published in non-Creationist material. I never said otherwise.

By the way you need to be careful with Baumgardner and Faulkner since their non-Creationist material uses old universe/earth dates and they sign thei
r names to this. IS THAT LYING? Are they fish or fowl?

You are also ignorant of (or know the truth and are thus lying) about Humphreys white hole cosmology being accepted. It's a joke and falls aprt on a cursory analysis hence no science journal has ever heard of it.

By the way check out Humprheys work at Sandia Labs. He does not work on nuclear physics, he is in an engineering group and hasn't done any phyics since his PhD.

Congrats on finding the only papers Safarti ever wrote and notice they date from his college days and they ae coauthored. In other words like most of these so called scientists they have never worked in science since they were grad students.

 

[adam149]

I'll address this tomorrow. Let's just say all you did was grab an AIG list but didn't address the real problem and that is their AIG work is out of their fields and not peer reviewed. I understand that some of these people have been published in non-Creationist material. I never said otherwise.

Then what is this? "AIG's "scientists" do not send their material for peer review." Fairly straightforward, is it not?

By the way you need to be careful with Baumgardner and Faulkner since their non-Creationist material uses old universe/earth dates and they sign thei
r names to this. IS THAT LYING? Are they fish or fowl?

Not at all. They have to write within the paradigm to be published, so they do. What they do in their spare time, and that is what it is, is up to them.

You are also ignorant of (or know the truth and are thus lying) about Humphreys white hole cosmology being accepted. It's a joke and falls aprt on a cursory analysis hence no science journal has ever heard of it.

Then it is even more surprising that The Proceedings of the National Academy of Science would publish a paper which has the same foundations and starting scenario as Humphrey's model.

By the way check out Humprheys work at Sandia Labs. He does not work on nuclear physics, he is in an engineering group and hasn't done any phyics since his PhD.

Actually, had you checked yourself, you would know that his work at the Sandia labs included nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed power research, theoretical atomic and nuclear physics, and the Particle Beam Fusion Project.

Congrats on finding the only papers Safarti ever wrote and notice they date from his college days and they ae coauthored. In other words like most of these so called scientists they have never worked in science since they were grad students.

The issue was whether they had published in peer-reviewed journals or not. Changing the subject now that I have shown how that is incorrect will not help you. I fail to see how the articles being co-authored has bearing except that you seem to be trying to say that this is a bad thing, despite the fact that it is actually highly respected among scientists. And who said that as soon as a person stops publishing they stop working in science? You? Besides which, Sarfati has published many technical articles in his fields amongs the creationist journals since that time.

As to your main point, that they don't publish in their field, this is strictly not true. Many times they do publish within their fields, and many times not. That has no bearing on the accuracy of their writing.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Gotcha. The world wars were caused by evolution.

Even by creationist standards this is pathetic.

You're absolutely ***ing desperate if this is the best you can do.

 

[adam149]

Gotcha. The world wars were caused by evolution.

Even by creationist standards this is pathetic.

You're absolutely ***ing desperate if this is the best you can do.

This, despite the fact that secularists have long recognized the effects of Darwinian and social Darwinian theory as the foundation for both world wars. So, it would appear that I am as ***ing (3 ***? what does that spell?) desperate as the secular researchers, and apparently, I am right up there on the pathetic level with the secular academics. You know, the guys who are "right" all the time.

Sorry if I am getting annoyed, but what I find pathetic is the lack of content to these responses. Do you honestly think that I'm going to be swayed by mockery? Or is it that you get a sense of pleasure out of belittling others who you don't agree with?

Either respond or don't, but I'm sick of the mocking, content-lacking sceptical responses.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

This, despite the fact that secularists have long recognized the effects of Darwinian

References please

and social Darwinian theory

Irrelevant since social Darwinism is a misuse of science. Interestingly, the most socially Darwinian social system of all is capitalism, which is usually embraced by the same conservatives who are creationists. Odd, that, isn't it?

So, it would appear that I am as ***ing (3 ***? what does that spell?)

Whatever you want it to.

desperate as the secular researchers, and apparently, I am right up there on the pathetic level with the secular academics. You know, the guys who are "right" all the time.

I have a feeling that these guys do not say what you are saying. I think you're misusing their conclusions, which is why I want references.

Sorry if I am getting annoyed, but what I find pathetic is the lack of content to these responses. Do you honestly think that I'm going to be swayed by mockery? Or is it that you get a sense of pleasure out of belittling others who you don't agree with?

No. I get a sense of irritation out of people apparantly reduced to accusing a scientific theory of being responsible for every evil under the sun.

Either respond or don't, but I'm sick of the mocking, content-lacking sceptical responses.

That's rich. You complain of scepticism, and yet we can present a series of transitional skulls to you, and your response is "proves nothing."

Methinks the pot is looking blackly at the kettle.

And it's a logical fallacy anyway. Even if evolution were responsible for what you claim, this wouldn't tell us whether it was false.

Christian teaching that witchcraft is evil led to thousands of women being executed. Is the teaching incorrect?

Nuclear fission led to the building of the atomic bomb that killed thousands in Horishima and Nagasaki. Nuclear fusion led to the hydrogen bombs that have threatened our continued existence since. Does this mean that nuclear physics is incorrect?

There is no direct link between the truth of a statement and its effects on society. This is because the effects on society depend on how the fact is used. It was a moral decision to hang witches, to make the atom bomb, and it is was moral decision to institute a campaign against the jews. Note this is "moral" in the sense of "a decision based on moral values", rather than "the right decision"; I'd suggest in each case it was the wrong decision.

 

[GodSaves]

Gotcha. The world wars were caused by evolution.

Even by creationist standards this is pathetic.

You're absolutely ***ing desperate if this is the best you can do.

Why the cursing on a Christian forum by a Christian?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I used stars instead of a curse word. I know how it upsets some people's sensibilities.

 

[GodSaves]

So you find it to be Christ like to curse at fellow Christians?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

In my culture, to say "this is ****ing unbelievable" is not considered cursing.

I usually avoid it on CF (it gets censored anyway) because it offends people. I'm not always successful.

I don't consider it to be a big deal compared with constant accusations that theistic evolutionists are not real Christians, or don't really trust God, or all the other offensive crud we have to put up with day in day out.

Can we get back to the matter in hand?

 

[Aeschylus]

Bold claims. In fact, many scientists now consider the universe to be eternal and never ending, because they know the Big Bang has no evidence to support it (see http://www.cosmologystatement.org/). If the universe is eternal, then the universe becomes the deity, since only deitys are eternal. Everything is part of the universe, therefore everything is divine, hense pantheism (everything is God). The New Age movement is built off of this idea.

1) the big bang theory and cosmology in general are completly unrelated to evolutionary theory.

2) It's a strawman, because just about everybody who can be considered an expert in the area holds big bang theory to be true. The list you have their comprises of only a couple of scientists and even those are considered to be crackpots by many in the scientiifc community. The problem is that people who don't know about these things think that there is little difference between and astronomer and a cosmologist when infact the diffference is huge, many astrononmers simply do no not have the necessary skills to give expert opinions on cosmology as their work does not in general require a good knowledge of general relativty or cosmological models.

3) the big bang has plenty of evidnece to suport it, can you came up with an alternative scientifc explantion to:

a) the isotropy and homogenity of the the CMBR?

b) the red shifting of the spectra of distant objects?

4) this has absolutely nothing to do with any religion, no-one is advocating pantheism

Thatt hardly makes them right. The majority has been wrong before and will be again.

That is ture, but the point is this goes against your assertion that evoltuion is somehow connected with pantheism, atheism, etc.

Secondly, that's not necessarily true. Recent polls indicate that the population is just about evenly divided on that issue.

That is true in the US (indeed I'm led to believe that creationists actually form the majority of Christians in the US), but as you can see from my flag I do not reside in the US (actually tthe flag itself is slightly out of date as I am not in Northern Cyprus at the moment), so I'm actually talking on a global scale.

Bold claims, but without emperical support. Where is your evidence? I would be more than happy to debate creation vs. evolution with you in a professional and scientific way. We both present the best evidence for our case, we respond to the other's article, and then respond to each other's criticisms. All six (three by each author) would then be published here on the forum for all to see and decide which side has more support.

Bold assertions, but I'm afraid you will need to substanciate any such claims you make to specific works written by AiG.

An group that says evolution contardicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics cannot be regarded as scientific.

I follow the latest papers in the peer-reviewed journals, such as Geology, Evolution, Microbiology, etc. I am studying geology, history, and some chemistry at a secular university, and all I find is AiG being proven correct, not misrepresenting.

Any peer-reviewed journal on those subject would clearly have many papers that contradict the asseryions of AiG.


I must apologize. I phrased my sentence poorly. Ian Plimer is not connected with TO in any visable way, though they use some of his arguments and "reasoning."

First off, you are refering to my article at my website which is in no way affiliated with AiG, thus AiG certainly cannot be dishonest about something they didn't write!

No I am referring to an article on AiG's website (I didn't actually read the article on your site): http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/183.asp

Secondly, I am not being dishonest about Plimer. See Plimer, I., 1994, 1st ed., Telling Lies for God, Random House Australia, New South Wales, pg. 224

From what I've seen of Plimer I can't say I particualrly like him, but you cannot seriously think that he is claiming the English alphabet has 26 letters.

Did you even read the articles?

No (I have read them before tho'), but I do not need AiG to tell me what to think.

 

[Bonhoffer]

Now that's an unusual understanding. So, what you're saying is that if I want to, once we get to heaven, you'll let me push you off a cliff? Do they have those in heaven?

Have to admit, that's an unusual thought.

Yes, okay!!