If evolution is not the answer, then what is?

I’m quite certain that more than just one person on this board knows more about the Bible than I do or attends an ekklesia. There are many theistic-evolutionists.Your last statement is well and simply articulated, though antithetical to mine. It reminds me of Ephesians 2:14-22:"For he [Jesus Christ] is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; and that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: and came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: in whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit."

quote:

---

I believe that God created the universe in 6 days, so, to me, any other explanation than God is false.

---

In my opinion, even the atheists on this board would say, "Ok, fine," at this comment.

quote:

---

I equally defend Biblical truth against evolutionary, pre-conceived ideas of science that consistently ignore irrefutable evidence for global deluge.

---

And Don Quixote was defending the world against a non-existent threat from windmills. There are no "pre-conceived ideas of science that consistently ignore irrefutable evidence for global deluge," because there is no "evidence for a global deluge."It's one thing to say, "I believe God created the world in six days, because I believe the Bible says so." It's quite another to say, "Scientists ignore irrefutable evidence for a global deluge." The first is just religious fanaticism, which might be good or bad. The second is slander, hopefully based on ignorance, but possibly based on that religious fanaticism, in which case that fanaticism is bad.The "evidence" for a global deluge has been demolished on this web site so thoroughly it almost seems silly to bring it back up again. The only reason AiG and others continue to pretend like they have good evidence is because there's an integrity problem of some sort.You might try "Science Held Hostage" by Howard Van Till, et al. It is published by InterVarsity Press, an evangelical Christian publisher, and it does a good job documenting the honesty problem in "creation science" circles.

quote:

---

Therefore, when AIG looks at the world from a Bible based perspective, you automatically assume they are wrong

---

This did not used to be true. It is true now, because their reports have consistently been shown to be untrustworthy, and even Christian writers are having to complain about their lack of integrity. So when a publisher with an integrity problem puts out information, people generally assume it can't be trusted. They're right.On the other hand, because evolutionists are constantly having to protect truth from the dishonest hands of "creation scientists," they actually look at and research the claims of AiG, CRI and others. From the evolutionists, you can find out the real facts and the actual sources, because evolutionists look them up and check them out. Creation scientists don't do the research that their profession requires them to, so they have lost trust.It's appropriate here to give an example. A friend of mine recently debated some students of mine, one of them his own son. In order to do so, he hunted down information from creationists (especially including "The Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter," much of its evidence borrowed from CRI). He quoted creationist literature saying that Mt. St. Helens dumped logs into Spirit Lake, that those logs had roots intact, the roots got waterlogged, then they sunk to the bottom, standing upright. As the sediment from Mt. St. Helens settled in Spirit lake, the trunks were buried, creating the appearance of layers of forests, one upon the other, created in a year, rather than over tens of thousands of years.The problem is, one other dad who agreed to research found a place where the creationists slipped and admitted that only about 10% of those logs had roots and sank upright. Not only that, but there is no reason to suppose that those sinking trees actually settled in layers that gave the appearance of a succession of forests. The creationists (good, "honest" Christians all) conveniently forgot to mention whether there were actually any real layers in Spirit lake.Of course, you know there weren't. The trees settled randomly, 90% horizontal or skewed, and about 10% vertical, and they were buried as randomly as they sunk, not in layers at all.All of this Mt. St. Helens "evidence" was supposed to refute the appearance of age in the 27 layers of forest laid upon each other in Yosemite park, each with trees that are up to 500 years old, dated by tree rings. Each forest had been destroyed by fire, buried, then another grew on top of it.Spirit lake looks nothing like the series of forests in Yosemite, and these creationists knew it, but they duped my friend, and they led him to try to unknowingly deceive his own teenage son.Pretty sad. That's the record of creationists.Okay, that's my story. Where's your story? Where's your evidence that evolutionists just close mindedly ignore what creationists say? Give us examples, but prepare to be educated when you do.

quote:

---

As far I am concerned, that defines you as a religious person who seeks to study God’s Creation with the preconceived notion that God didn’t make it.

---

I really like Darwin's Origin of Species, I agree with his general points, I believe in evolution, and I have a preconceived notion that God did make it all. About 80% of the Americans who believe in evolution agree with me. Only about 20% of evolutionists think God didn't make it.So now what are you going to do with your false accusation that we are believing the evidence of evolution because of preconceived ideas?

quote:

---

This is as much a circuitous, declaration to me as my beliefs probably are to you, i.e I am right because you are wrong!

---

Nobody said this to you. This is what creationists do. Evolutionists are directly opposed to that kind of thinking.

quote:

---

it seems that your platform is shifting

---

That's because that's what you want to believe. It's not true, and AiG and CRI wish it was true, but it's not. Provide some examples, please. Examples are the only way you are going to find out how much of CRI and AiG's material is errant or made up.

quote:

---

The fossil record just does not seem to support the old one.

---

Actually, it supports it well. Care to bring up examples? It's the only way you're going to find out how CRI and AiG have been training you to slander.I really liked the example from the fossil record one of my students put in her final report. Ammonites are a shelled creature found in the geologic column all the way from the devonian through the cretaceous, where they were wiped out in the same mass extinction that took the dinosaurs. They remain the same size and shape (roughly) throughout the column, but in devonian layers the sutures between their gas chamber are simple and straight. They become more complex over time, until by the time of the Triassic, they are quite complex.Evolutionists believe they evolve because that's what it looks like. The evidence suggests descent with modification, and there's no real alternative explanation for these ammonites (they went extinct a little too early for Moses to be responsible for the extinction of these ammonites) nor for thousands of other things in the fossil record that cry out "Descent with Modification!!!"

quote:

---

I’ve read several laments from AIG that you evolutionists beat your dead horse instead of looking at the evidence from the same angle as they. Shall we say, Tit for Tat?

---

No, let's not say that. That's like a bank robber looking at a teller and saying, "I take money from the bank when I rob it, and your take money from the bank when you're paid. Shall we say, 'Tit for tat?'"No, we shall not. The creationist position is based on dishonesty, lack of integrity, and in the eyes of those observing, the behavior of creationists dishonors the god they claim to serve. Let them show honesty and integrity and pull down the falsehoods on their web sites, and they will at least have the honor that honesty brings.You have laid out accusations. I have, too, but I have given examples. As far as I'm concerned, now I'm the bank teller, and you're the bank robber. Pull out your money, and let's look at where you got it. Mine's out on the table for examination. Care to look at it?

quote:

---

My point is that Christians and evolutionists will never agree, but, from the Christian point of view, for us, we might build a scientific dialogue based upon HOW, not WHETHER.

---

Christians and evolutionists are having a scientific dialogue based upon how, not whether. Dr. Paul Cresswell, for example, is very Christian, from what I can tell of his web site, and he discusses with evolutionists. He knows, however, that "HOW" is descent with modification (evolution).Another great example is the geologist Glenn Morton, who is also an avid Christian, who wants Genesis one and two to be literally true. He is honest, however, so he has had to admit that the earth gives evidence of being very old, and life gives overwhelming evidence that it evolved. He's postulated that Adam existed five million years ago, was an Australopithecine, and that he lived in the Mediterranean basin when it was dry. He believes the filling of the Mediterranean basin is the flood of Noah, and that it literally happened, five million years ago, to the only people existing on earth.I have discussed that with him by email a very little, as I don't believe there's anything literal about the start of Genesis. I'm not a scientist, though, and he is, so he discusses with scientists, and I don't.No one is discussing with the "creation scientists," though, because they're not discussing at a scientific level. They're not looking at the evidence. They're discussing at the religious level, and they begin by assuming that the earth is six to ten thousand years old.You appear to make that same assumption. You are disqualified from discussing the "HOW" scientifically as well if that's true, because the evidence is overwhelming for a 4.5 billion year old earth upon which life evolved.So the discussion of "HOW" is happening. I don't really think it's appropriate for the people who refuse to hold an honest discussion to complain that they aren't allowed to participate in it.

quote:

---

And, according to AIG, at least one evolutionist organization has admitted that AIG is correct.

---

Fascinating. Can you name them? Did they say AiG was correct about one piece of evidence they presented, or did they say AiG was correct about everything they say, in which case I guess that evolutionist organization is no longer evolutionist? Can you give us some details?

quote:

---

My point is that Christians and evolutionists will never agree

---

Codswallop, mate! Most Christians and most evolutionists agree. Christian literalists who ignore scientific evidence and atheistic evolutionists who say science proves God can't exist are the only exceptions. Everyone else is doing fine!

quote:

---

AIG ought to be allowed to publish it’s reports in Nature but it doesn’t because of that publication’s bias.

---

No, AiG isn't allowed to publish because their reports don't meet the standards of science. The Christians who wrote "Science Held Hostage" give a great explanation in the first chapter of the honesty required in scientific papers and why groups like AiG don't qualify.

quote:

---

Yet, AIG and ICR both provide links to evolutionist reports, when able, so that their readers will have a comprehensive grasp of the subject.

---

Hogwash. AiG and ICR provide links to some scientific articles, which they have misquoted to serve their purpose. They do not provide links to the reports that expose them for charlatans.Evolutionists, on the other hand, regularly provide links to creationist sites, because creationist sites are so lacking in any real evidence, they're no threat to an informed person.

quote:

---

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

---

Yeah, creationists tend to like versions like that, because it allows them to ignore the fact that "firmament" means a hard, hammered out vault (Job 37:18, try using a Strong's concordance for the words there). Genesis one says the sky is a hard dome holding up water. Did you know that? You can use a Strong's for those words in Gen 1, too (if you have a modern one, at least).

Just wanted to say a quick word about sites such as these.Do I give them any credibility? Absolutely not. It's been explained why quite well by other posters, but I thought I'd throw in a few more examples that personally outraged me:First, regarding quotes they use from evolutionists, and take out of context (quite a common tactic). "Dr." Henry Morris was caught quite obviously misrepresenting the position of one scientist. However, he has the nerve to justify this as follows:

quote:

---

The error, however, was not one of deception but of presumption. I did not actually have the 1997 edition of Carroll’s book at hand, but simply used the quote as I had received it from a constituent. I did try to check it, but the book was not yet in our ICR Library, and I finally just assumed it was o.k. and used it in my article. Carroll had made a number of similar comments about fossil gaps in an earlier book, so this seemed consistent. This assumption was wrong, however. This mistake on my part was probably no more justifiable than deliberate misrepresentation, so I must simply apologize.

---

This shows that Morris is either 1) a complete moron, or 2) a deliberate liar (and these two are not mutually exclusive). He has a Ph.D.--he should know to check sources, particularly one emailed to him from Joe Schmoe. And the book not being present in the ICR library is no excuse. Give me a break.Second, because of articles like this one, courtesy of AIG:The Blood-Stained Century of Evolution
(can be found at Christianity - Beliefs and History of Faith in God and Jesus Christ)Essentially, this article "shows" how evolution was directly responsible for the Holocaust and other mass slaughters--while conveniently leaving out that Luther practically outlined the "final solution," or that German soldiers wore the phrase "Gott mit uns" (God with us) on their belt buckles--or that Hilter wrote in Mein Kampf:

quote:

---

Hence, today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

---

AIG--credibility, zero.I won't even start with Kent Hovind--suffice it to say, even AIG and ICR have discredited him.

quote:

---

Good question but it should be phrased, Who is God?

---

So I guess we can infer that God is a living, sentient creature of some kind? Okay, that's a start.

quote:

---

Ask him yourself.

---

I don't even know what he is. No one seems to want to define it for me. How can I ask a question of a... person? Sentient creature? when I have no frame of reference to even suggest that the word means anything?You might as well say I should ask fluvenhaus what he is.What the Hell is a fluvenhaus?

quote:

---

I did, and he told me. Before he revealed himself to me, I couldn’t perceive him either.

---

Cool. Wanna give us the cliff notes version?------------------
-----------
Dan Carroll

Remember now, all I'm looking for is a valid explanation from one or more creationists for the last 6000 years. Saying its all God's fault is not good enough, since creationists seem to want to back up their claims with scientific evidence instead of faith.Somebody said that as much already, didn't they?Anyway the nature of whatever Higher being people think exists probably shouldn't be debated here, or we'll never hear the end of it The Rock Hound

An Answer in Four Parts - Part OneThank you for your repliesI see by your caustic reactions that you believe yourselves to be Christians, followers of Christ, as well as theistic evolutionists instead of atheists. I also see that you believe yourselves to be members of orthodox Christendom, perhaps a combination of pseudo-theologia and pseudo-scientia. I sincerely hope that you grow up in faith toward Jesus and out of your naturalist beliefs if you are, indeed, followers of Christ. On the other hand, I suspect that you, and most of this board, do not genuinely follow Christ based on your consistent denial of Genesis. I’m sure that if I quizzed you on Jesus’ birth, miracles, resurrection, imminent return, deity, etc, you would soon find reason to deny them too. I hope that I am wrong. Please complete this letter. Read all its scripture references carefully and pray to God for wisdom and understanding because only he can illumine you. I have no quarrel with your right to be either Christian (prayerfully so), or naturalistic (it is a free country), but I contend that you must make up your minds which one you will be. God does not countenance your denial of his testimony, either his written word, or his Word made flesh, Jesus Christ, so he does not accept your self-serving claim of sonship. With God, you must be either one or the other. You must serve him and not yourself. In John’s Revelation, Jesus told the church at Laodicea, who were in a similar predicament as you, I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. (Revelation 3:15-16)That many people are religious who believe in evolution is certainly true, but I deny that they are mature Christians, if believer’s in Jesus Christ at all. The new-born believer can be swayed by evolution, etc, but a person in whom the Holy Spirit is actually residing will not be able to deny the Bible for long without internal opposition from God, particularly if they consistently seek his guidance to show them the truth. It’s easy to say I am a Christian, for many do follow Jesus part of the way, yet they, like Judas Iscariot, or the rich young man, deny Jesus Christ’s deity at the foot of Cavalry’s cross or turn away from him on the way to it. They inevitably think that something they have done themselves will allow them access to heaven and so refuse to believe that Jesus is the only way to eternal life. Because they follow behind him part of the way, working to place their feet in his tracks as if they could fill his shoes, attempting to drink from his cup by filling one of their own, and trying to baptize themselves with his baptism by the sprinkling of water, they fantasize that their attempts have saved them. They fancy that their work, whether it be prayer, penance, priestly absolution, etc, is as efficacious as Jesus’ death at Calvary. In fact, they make their works to be co-efficacious with his and so rend from Calvary the reason why he went there alone. If they could impale themselves upon a cross next to his they would, but theirs would never be an acceptable sacrifice to God because he requires his atonement for sin to be pure and sinless, therefore he only recognizes one — Jesus’. What these professor’s believe, and what the Bible says belief is, are quite different.This distinction between works and faith is important for this discussion, and the Creation Versus Evolution bulletin board, because it delineates the difference between theistic evolutionists (who apparently outnumber the atheists on this board) and Christians. Unless one’s claim to be a follower of Christ is Biblically substantiated, the claim is worthless at best and fraudulent at worst. Where God’s Creation is concerned, Christians, by faith, believe that scientific accuracy is attained only when a close adherence to ex nihilo Creation drives one’s interpretation of the evidence. We reason that the Creator knows best, so we also pray to him that he might show us the truth. Contrastingly, the theistic evolutionist, by works, appeals to the opinion of peer review, and their own judgment, when they interpret the evidence. They reason that they know best. This, then, leaves both camps in a mutually exclusive state. The one, a Christian camp with a Christian interpretation; the other, a christian camp with a naturalist interpretation. The one with a unified belief; the other with a dichotomous belief that even atheist evolutionists don’t understand. This refusal to join Christ, yet reluctance to be atheist reminds me of Elijah in 1 Kings 18:21 who said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word.Jesus’ opinion about Biblical interpretation is definitive. The Bible shows that Jesus had a literal view of scripture so it’s strange that some Christians say they don’t interpret the Bible literally yet claim to follow Christ. One wonders exactly who they follow, or what their motivation is, because if they don’t believe what Jesus believed, then why bother to tell everyone that they’re his disciples. I suppose this conundrum can be illustrated in the difference between John, the beloved disciple of Jesus (John 19:19-30), and Judas, the Friend of Jesus (Matthew 26:47-56). Theistic evolutionists are particularly guilty of claiming to follow Christ while denying everything in the Bible that doesn’t fit their naturalist philosophy. Since the translators of most new Bible versions are especially apt at this cut and paste exegesis, almost all Christ-deniers that I have ever encountered use them too. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Higher Critics discovered that the entire New Testament was a forgery, except, remarkably, three separate words — man, is, God. Theistic evolutionists ought all to read the following scriptures to understand just how much Jesus thinks the Bible is to be taken literally (in the Authorized or Geneva versions, please).Jesus had a literalist interpretation of the Bible when he mentioned God’s Creation (Mark 13:14-23), Adam (Mark 10:1-12) and Noah (Matthew 24:32-51; Luke 17:20-37). He likewise had a literalist interpretation about Sodom and Gomorrah, including the incidents with Lot and Lot’s wife (Matthew 10:5-15; 11:16-24; Mark 6:7-13; Luke 10:1-16; 17:28-37); Jonah (Matthew 12:38-45; 16:1-4; Luke 11:29-36); Heaven and Hell (Matthew 25:31-46; Luke 16:19-31); Unclean Spirits (Matthew 12:38-45); the Commandments and the Prophets (Matthew 22:34-40); Manna in the Desert (John 6:28-59), etc. He interpreted Moses’ works, the prophets, and the Psalms literally, including in all the scriptures the things concerning himself of which he said, He [Moses] wrote of me.(Matthew 5:17-20; 8:1-4; 12:38-45; 16:1-4; 19:3-12; 22:23-40; 23:1-12; 24:4-31; Mark 7:1-23; 10:1-12; 12:18-27; 13:14-23; Luke 4:14-30; 5:12-16; 11:29-36; 16:1-31; 18:31-34; 20:27-38; 24:13-49; John 3:1-21; 5:31-47; 6:28-59; 7:14-36; 8:1-11; ) He believed in the fulfilling of prophecy. (Matthew 17:1-13) He also thought that he was God, literally. (Matthew 9:1-8; 10:16-42; 16:13-28; 19:23-30; 22:41-46; 23:34-39; 24:4-31; 25:31-46; Mark 8:27-38; 9:41-50; 10:32-45; 13:24-27; Luke 9:18-50; Luke 4:14-30; 19:28-40; 20:39-47; 21:20-28; 22:63-71; 24:13-49; John 4:4-26; 5:31-47; 6:60-71; 7:14-44; 8:51-59; 10:22-38; 11:1-16, 33-44; 12:20-50; 13:1-38; 14:1-16:33; 17:1-26; 20:26-31)Therefore, taking into account the above verses in which Jesus expressed a literal interpretation of scripture, and the vehement opposition expressed by theistic evolutionists against a literal interpretation of scripture, whether in whole or in part, I can’t conclude anything more charitable than they are confused about what faith in Jesus Christ is. However, to show that the Bible accounts for their oxymoronic religious disbelief, consider the following: (Deuteronomy 29:1-9; Isaiah 6:9-13; 29:9-24; 35:1-10; 42:5-12; 43:8-13; 44:9-20; Ezekiel 12:1-16; Malachi 1:1-5; Matthew 13:1-23; Luke 24:13-35; John 12:37-43; Acts 28:23-29; Romans 11:1-32; Ephesians 1:15-23; 2 Corinthians 3:12-18, 4:1-7)I came to the above conclusion after personal discussions, internet chats, phone conversations, and the reading of books and websites by theistic evolutionists. Most have claimed to follow Christ, but some didn’t. When I attempted to discover the basis for their religious beliefs, I found that they were Unitarians, Anglicans, Jehovah Witnesses, Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, New Age, etc and so had no unified religious doctrine. However, they all agreed in one form or another that the Bible was untrustworthy and that Jesus’ deity was likewise debatable. So, when I read the words of the last Hebrew prophet, John, who heralded Jesus’ first advent, saying, He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him, (John 3:36) then I must conclude that they aren’t Christians either.

This is nothing more than the "True Scotsman Fallacy":"Chritians don't believe in evolution!""Yes, they do. Here's one here, for instance.""Well, uh, true Christians don't believe in evolution!"Don't you find it at all arrogant or hypocritical to deny the faith of others just because they're not willing to pervert science to some theological aim? I'm just curious. Sounds like you need to take care of the beam in your own eye before you condemn other people of faith.Me, I'm an atheist. It's possible people like you drove me out of the fold. Just something to think about.

6days:
Lots of words. Not much content on the discussion at hand.How about this exchange:

quote:

---

And, according to AIG, at least one evolutionist organization has admitted that AIG is correct.
---

​

Fascinating. Can you name them? Did they say AiG was correct about one piece of evidence they presented, or did they say AiG was correct about everything they say, in which case I guess that evolutionist organization is no longer evolutionist? Can you give us some details?

---

Well, could you give us more details? Please and thanks. That would be interesting.

6days, you are not discussing the topic I brought up. If you can't or won't talk about it, I suggest you find a different thread that better suits your interest - but if you don't feel like moving, could you at least stop being so rude? Personally I am not a Christian (and as such your post does not apply to me) but I'm sure there are others here who would seriously take offence at your denial of their faith.The Rock Hound

To those who asked 6days to stay on topic, I apologize for answering him, but I just couldn't resist.

quote:

---

The Bible shows that Jesus had a literal view of scripture so it’s strange that some Christians say they don’t interpret the Bible literally yet claim to follow Christ.

---

That's totally awesome!!! I agree it's a problem not to take Jesus literally. I know 190 people who can't wait to come see the love of the community you live in. Imagine, people finally taking Jesus literally! No one calling anything his own, and sharing everything except their wives (Acs 4:32). How many families do you have living in your house? I know when you start living like that, your house starts to get real full.We'll probably only send three or four men at first. I realize you may not be able to put us up, because you've sold all your possessions and given the money to the poor (Luk 12:33). That's okay, we'll camp in a tent and bring our own food.So tell me how to find y'all, and we'll be coming to see. I'm very excited.

I'm just giving this a bump to see if we're going to get 6days back. I'm interested in his response to my post.

I think your words scared him more than anything we evil ones could have said. Interesting, isn't it, that it was the 'caustic words' that led him to believe that 'we' believe ourselves to be Christian?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

AIG ought to be allowed to publish it?s reports in Nature but it doesn?t because of that publication?s bias.

---

AiG is most certainly allowed to publish in Nature or any other professional science journal. The problem is, so far Creationist's work hasn't met the standards for publication.You do know that "Nature" is an extremely prestigious journal and it rejects most of the legitimate, high-quality scientific papers submitted to it, don't you? I mean, most of the best research done in the world still doesn't get published in "Nature". Unless it is really "sexy" research topic (meaning something really amazing or startling or unique), most scientists don't even submit their papers to "Nature", instead submitting to the relavent specific journals of their field.What I want to know is how many times have Creationists submitted for publication to any scientific journal, and when they got the comments back from the reviewers, what did they do to make the revisions or do the furter research?As far as I know, Creationists have never really even tried to get published in legitimate journals to any meaningful extent. It seems to me to be because they do not put a priority upon doing research. It doesn't seem that they handle rational inquiry very well, and that it the essence of the peer-review system, and that is how one gets published in a real peer-reviewed jounal.

quote:

---

Yet, AIG and ICR both provide links to evolutionist reports, when able, so that their readers will have a comprehensive grasp of the subject.

---

They do? I just visited AiG and ICR and neither one of them links to full or in-context scientific papers that I could see, or even to lay person-friendly pro-science sites like TaklOrigins.Mostly they take out of context quotes from scientific papers and then list all the reasons why the entire paper must be wrong.By contrast, every essay on TalkOrigins has a link box on the first page which will link you directly to Creationist responses to that very essay, plus other Creationist and scientific links.Why do you think AiG and ICR don't therefore link directly to the TalkOrigins responses to their claims? Could it be that they are afraid they will look ridiculous, or that they don't want the faithful to become too educated in science?

quote:

---

To close, no one has the complete fossil record from which to prove evolution, therefore, that theory is still in flux

---

There are several problems here.First, you seem to think that there comes a point in time that a given scientific theory becomes unchangeable, but this is not the case. All scientific theories are changeable in the light of new evidence, and so they are all in flux.Now, you point to the incompleteness of the fossil record as a reason to disbelieve the Theory of Evolution, but there are several reasons that this is in error.The first is that you claim that because we do not have perfect knowledge of the fossil record, we cannot use what we DO know about the fossil record as confirming evidence of the ToE. We don't have perfect knowledge about anything at all, but we can certainly observe what is there and draw conclusions from what we do know.Secondly, if the only evidence we had for the ToE was the fossil record, your point might be stronger, but the fact is we have a great deal of evidence which supports the ToE from many diverse fields of science including Geology, Biology, Genetics, etc.

quote:

---

Now, you point to the incompleteness of the fossil record as a reason to disbelieve the Theory of Evolution, but there are several reasons that this is in error.

​

The first is that you claim that because we do not have perfect knowledge of the fossil record, we cannot use what we DO know about the fossil record as confirming evidence of the ToE. We don't have perfect knowledge about anything at all, but we can certainly observe what is there and draw conclusions from what we do know.

---

To the best of my knowledge, the fossil record does show evolution - in Ireland and Britain anyway. Evolution happens over such long time scales that the fossil record, spanning a billion years of prehistory, is the only quantifiable proof that it happens at all. There are several examples that come to mind - the evolution of ammonite sutures, the evolution of the seed, the evolution of leaf structures - all clear cases of "Descent with Modification".Geologists may not know everything, but that doesn't mean we're stupid. We don't need the entire fossil record to prove that evolution happens - what we do have is more than enough proof.The Rock Hound------------------
"Science constantly poses questions, where religion can only shout about answers."