To "Hitchy"--Creation discussion with high school science teacher

{As of message 10, this discussion was moved to the "Great Debate" forum. Any further discussion should be between only "Servant2thecause" and "Hitchy". - Adminnemooseus}Hitchy:Before we begin, let me apologize for the delay. Now then, if you are a high school science teacher with a degree in science education and in biology, allow me to assume you believe in Neo-Darwinian evolution (i.e. the development of higher from lower life forms over a period of approx. 3.6 billion years via gradual ammendments to the organisms involved). Please correct me if that was a faulty assumption (although I have never met a science teacher who DID NOT believe in Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism--But I guess that's what I get for going through public school and being raised by people whose salaries are paid by taxes).Moreover, If we are to engage in a legitimate debate, then let's first begin with a clear definition of "evolution." After all, evolution (like "Gay" or "cool") may indeed bear seperate meanings. Therefore, I would be inclined to define the meaning of the very word we are discussing before going any further. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would define "evolution" according to seperate categories:1) Cosmic evolution--The origin/state of matter (i.e. big bang)
2) Stellar evolution--The origin/state of stars
3) Chemical evolution--The origin of the 91 other elements from Hydrogen
4) Biological evolution--The origin/state of life (biogenesis)
5) Macro-evolution--The gradual change from one "kind" to another (common ancestry between all living things)
6) Micro-evolution--(also called "Variation" or "Mutation" or "adaptation) the organisms' abilities to change and adapt to fit local conditions.Some say that (4) does not pertain to Darwinism, but the simple fact is that the origin of life from nonliving matter is vital for Darwinism to prevail (after all, the idea--even the teaching of Mayr, Gould, Dawkins, etc.--tries desperately to produce an explanation for the origin of life from nonliving matter, and when they fail repeatedly I have found that some scientists tend to slide back on the idea that it is not pertinent to the study of evolution, rather than defending thier first statements on the matter).Furthermore, I would like to explain "KIND" -- as used in (5). This may be difficult for some to grasp (seeing how many people I've discussed this with don't even fathom the principles or terms OUTSIDE of western science) but since I am a Christian I am going to use the Bible. Genesis chapter 1 says "let them bring forth after their kind." Therefore, a creationist who reads into it enough will tell you that the Bible defines a "kind" as organisms that can bring forth (i.e. if two sexual-reproducing organisms together can bring forth then they are the same "kind." Likewise, if an asexual organism brings forth than any offspring it produces is the same "kind").Since I feel that I have established exaclty WHAT we will be discussing, let the discussion begin! I would first like to say that I am in no way prepared to argue against (6); on one hand I do not even disagree with it (it does in now way contradict the Bible and its teaching of creation from six literal days), and furthermore, it is scientifically documented (observed) that adaptation, genetic variation, speciation, and chance mutations can (and often do) take place. However, I am in every method possible prepared to fight the idea that (6) can be given as evidence for (1-5). In other words, speciation within the same "kind" of creature and chance mutation does in no way prove the belief that every living organism on earth share a common ancestor; nor does it prove that humans and apes share a common ancestor, or the idea that protozoa and amoeba share a common ancestor, or the concept that bananas and coconuts share a common ancestor, etcetera.Firstly, (1) is not proven by science ("science" = "knowledge through observation and experimentation"). The idea that all matter in the universe was condensed within an infinitesimal (non-existent) space and has since the big bang been expanding is neither proven nor provable. Let me point out that no human alive (that I know of) knows for sure the amount of matter in the universe, nor the age of it all, and therefore the concept that all matter is the same age and hails from the same infinitesimal region within the past 20,000,000,000 years remains a product of speculation based primarily on the Hubble Constant and the observation of the red shift. By the way, the red shift and Hubble Constant merely proves (if anything) that stars might possibly be moving away--spreading out--from each other. But that does not prove the big bang (after all, Isaiah 40:22 gives an equally-possible theory as to the red shift: "...God stretched out the heavens"). Before moving on, think about that phrase and, assuming the Bible is correct, what it might indicate about our observation in astronomy.Secondly, I am not going to argue against stellar evolution; the idea that stars are being born still does not prove that the Bible is wrong and therefore is not worth the time of a creationist to fight against. Nevertheless, let me quickly point out that star-births are speculative theories--if I said that stars are never born, but rather, the observation of "star-births" is really only based on the dust clearing and revealing a star behind thereof that already was there, you would have a tough time refuting my argument with empirical data.Thirdly, chemical evolution is based on the notion that the universe shortly after the big bang was composed of only hydrogen (an element consisting of--unless in the ionic state--only one electron and one proton) which has since produced the remaining elements on the periodic chart. Now, I am not speaking for all the scientists out there because there exist people who still believe in Darwinian evolution without buying (3) as a valid scientific theory.Fourthly, all attempts to create life from nonliving matter has yet failed (the formation of a few amino acids does not count). Lest we forget, the biogenesis-experiments (attempts to create life from nonliving matter) were utilizing perfect laboratory conditions. I did not begin this topic to try and offer evidence AGAINST the origin of life from nonliving matter; however, the mere fact that life does not arise by chance in the laboratory-conditions created by Urey, Miller, and their predecesors leads me to conclude that it is even LESS likely for life to originate by chance in earth's so-called primitive atmosphere.Finally, it has come to Neo-Darwinian evolutionary principles: the speciation and branching of all forms of life that exist today--and that which have come before us--from a common ancestor through slow gradual process. I would be extremely appreciative if you could offer empirical data (scientific evidence) to support theory (5) of evolution. Also, since this is a new topic, let us assume that no science has been discussed prior (and therefore any arguments raised in any other post does not count here without at least recapitulating the arguments). I ask this favor for the purpose of allowing us both to focus off of the other posts and topics on this site and turn our attention solely to this thread and the discussions that come thereof.
Naturally, I would expect the existence of non-functional pseudogenes ("pseudo" + "gene" = "gene" + "falsely so-called") to arise as evidence for theory (5). On one hand, the puzzling existence of pseudogenes can be explained (and essentially dismissed) easiest when observing them from an evolutionary perspective. However, that does not allow us to conclude that it is evidence for the idea that we share a common ancestor with all non-human organisms (or that the latter share a common ancestor). After all, perhaps the so-called pseudogenes serve a purpose within our genetic code that we have yet overlooked (which is quite possible since the human genome project's objective was NOT to determine the specific FUNCTION of our genes, but rather merely to reveal the genetic code's basic layout and appearence).
The preceding argument for theory (5) evolution is probably the most difficult to explain for creationists, but does not in any way provide empirical evidence for common ancestry between different "kinds" of organisms. The only thing that pseudogenes do for us--so far that we know of--is make more sense when looked at from an evolutionary perspective.
Furthermore, transitional fossils--gap-fillers for the missing links--and structural similarity, which by the way is a topic that can be broken down into many topics of discussion, does not suggest the existence of a common ancestor any more than it proves that all living things have a common creator. First off, even the most radical Darwinist--if speaking honestly--will admit that the number of transitional fossils in the geologic record remains few and hard to come by, and therefore even if used to further the argument for theory (5) it cannot be used as irrefutable and empirical evidence because the transitional fossils are very limited in abundance and thus not valid evidence for theory (5). Moreover, the transitional fossils--however limited--nearly exlusively work to fill gaps between species, but not "kinds." For instance, there exists no observable transition between a reptile and bird. And archaeopteryx is a bad example because it can be argued that it was 100% bird. The existence of teeth and claws in some modern birds (swans, ostriches, emus, etc.) provides ample reasoning that it cannot be demonstrated that archaeopteryx was anything but an extinct species of bird. Now, the preceding statement held just merely an example of how transitional fossils are both few and non-empirical in the way of providing evidence for theory (5). Lastly, and I ask you this in honesty and good faith, how can it be demonstrated that the existence of transitional fossils suggests a common ancestor RATHER than a common creator?Now, I kid you not, I used to be the most fervent, solid evolutionist thinkable. It was the way I was raised--I can still remember the thoughts racing through my mind as I sit in high school biology class: "you just don't dare believe in anything against evolution or you'll forfeit your grade and credibility in science class." Seem far-fetched from a teacher's point of view? Believe it--I felt as though I was walking on eggshells when I began to doubt evolution theory. Having been raised on movies like "Lost World" and "Journey to the Center of the Earth" and the more recent "Jurassic Park," and reading pop-up books on dinosaurs as a child, and entering jr. high and high school as a student of evolutionary teaching--tax-supported institutions, of course--I once felt as though evolution was SUCH a solid fact (as much as the fact that clouds are primarily composed of water) that I truly believed there was no other option. Guess what, I have made a 180-degree turnaround since then and it was because of my study of science rather than inspite of science. It's amazing what one learns when they study science ("science" = "knowledge through observation and experimentation") from a non-evolutionary standing. I have found that if I ignore any biases or concepts of origins and study ONLY the observations before me, I can learn and comprehend much more than if I were to enter an experiment or study with a previously-obtained bias in favor of one theory of origins over another. Or, in simpler terms, whether true or not, any prejudice in favor of evolution--I have found--is a hindrance to intelligent conclusions drawn from scientific research.Also, since evolution theory is obviously widely-supported by public funds, I then wonder how the theory would do in the absence of tax support. Would it still prevail or woud it crumble if all taxes that support the teaching of evolution in museums, universities, and public schools were withdrawn and the theory of evolution was forced to resort to support by private organizations? I was just pondering out of curiousity, that's all.I look forward to hearing from you, Hitchy.Sincerely,ServantP.S. This thread was started to discuss with Hitchy only. I was invited to begin this thread for the purpose of discussing evolution and creation with a high school science teacher, and will therefore not be responding to any others. (However, if anybody wants to confront me elsewhere, let me know and start a new thread elsewhere). Thanks .[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-23-2004]

Sorry if I said I would not be talking to anybody but Hitchy, but your lies angered me.First off, Hitchy invited me to start a thread in the education section, which is the only reason why I am not posting this thread in the debate section.Furthermore, I am not trying to pick areas of study outside of Hitchy's expertise. Rather, I am trying to produce areas of discussion that cover a wide area of science (as biology and earth science at the high school level seem to cover a wide range of topics) and Hitchy mentioned that he/she had degrees (plural) in science and taught both biology and earth science.Moreover, you are wrong on the topic of kinds v. species. A horse, donkey, and zebra are not considered the same species, but they ARE the same kind according to the Bible's definition. Also, a wolf, a cyote, and a huskey are not the same species, but they are the same kind as described in the Bible.Also, the arguments have been discussed, attacked, critiqued, and ridiculed, but never legitimately refuted (as it pertains to science). And I brought them up here because, if you READ my first post, you will see that my intention on bringing up topics that are already discussed elsewhere was to discuss one-on-one with Hitchy and disregard speculative gibberish that was thrown into other threads.Also, why are you getting off topic? You seem to dwell on the fact that you think you refutted every major argument posted by a creationist and therefore have proven your point, when indeed all you have done is shown me that you a really good at distracting people from talking about what we came here to talk about--evolution, creation, and the evidence for and against.Sincerely,
Servant

First of all, I am not trying to prove evolution wrong. Rather, I am just demonstrating that it cannot be proven correct. Take that for what it says (I can already tell you'll try to pervert that in some way like you do all the other statements). I will restate an earlier statement: "how can it be proven that structural similarities suggests a common ancestor RATHER than a common creator?" All attempts of an evolutionist trying to answer that question scientifically (without a previous prejudice in favor of evolution) have as yet failed.Also, please explain how my comment that pseudo-genes do not prove evolution has a legitimate scientific rebuttal behind it.also, Mr. John, read a little deeper and you'll find that my definition of kinds is in fact Biblical: Genesis 1:25 says "...cattle after their kind..." Note that cattle would consist of: zebu, ox, holstein cow, etcetera (different species). The Bible does not say that there is more than one "kind" of cattle--it just says "cattle after their KIND" (emphasis added). The Bible in no way gives an inclination that there is more than one kind of cattle. I trust Genesis chapter 1 as word-for-word accuracy (KJV) and the mention of cattle simply says "cattle after their kind..." How did you then draw that conclusion that my definition of "KIND" is inconsistent with the Bible. My definition of kind is two animals that can bring forth offspring together, and the Bible does not (and doesn't NEED to) explain the concept that there may have at one time been more than one type of cattle (after all, the Hebrew word translated in that verse into "cattle" pertained to domesticated animal, not just cows). Once, again, however, we are getting off topic--let's try and stick to evolution/creation (that's why we're here, isnt' it)?Thanks again for the time.Don't take offense to this, but once I get a reply from Hitchy to my first post I will be ignoring most other posters to this thread for the purpose of discussing evolution and creation with a high school science teacher, one-on-one.

First of all, I am not trying to attack anybody here. I am not against science and I am not against learning. Furthermore, I am not an advocate for getting evolution taken out of schools; I just don't think it should be discussed exclusively (the only things that should be discussed exclusively in the science classroom are the fossils, the geologic strata, the characteristics of species of animals and plants both living and extinct, the anatomy of humans and animals, the factual and empirically-observed elements of our solar system, the observable processes of nature such as photosynthesis and the decays of radioactive elements, and the behavior of elements, ions, and ionic compounds). These are the things that make up the science field (things that are observable and testable and, for the most part, irrefutable). However, nobody I have EVER talked to (on this website OR in person) can seem to offer a convincing argument that all the processes observable--namely those in this preceding statement--indicate a common creator and a common period of creation RATHER than common descent and common formation (i.e. big bang and stellar evolution).Next, I would like to apologize for "throwing a lot at you." It's just that, before I begin a legitimate discussion with somebody on this topic I like to give them an up-front illumination on where I stand, what I believe, and--for the sake of a little reasoning--WHY I believe what I believe (The risk of not believing in evolution--whether it be true or not--is dying while feeling ridiculed and mocked by "educated people"... but the risk of not following Christ and believing that God made us all the way we are is dying and facing eternity in hell). So, whether it be "scientific" or not, I am going to believe the Bible until evolution is SO factual that the Bible is obviously wrong, because if I reject the Bible I face eternity in hell and I don't care HOW silly that sounds to a skeptic evolutionist--I don't want that big of a risk hanging over my head.Now then, as far as "kind" is concerned, sorry to break it to you but the Bible doesn't give us a more clear "scientific" word for it. Also, since this is not a purely science debate (it's a Creation-Evolution debate) I have decided to use and quote the Bible whenever I deem necessary (and I leave up to you the free will to quote and reference any sources you wish as well). The Bible's definition of a kind is, again, all the animals that fit together in a given pool of inter-breeding ability. Whether that be the consensus on the scientific mind's definition of "species" or not is irrelevant--let's try and stick to the main topic. Now, I have read the speculation on the subject, and even legitimate sources, that quote scientists and peer-reviewed journals which speculate that the observable evidence of speciation has occurred (i.e. new species have evolved since modern science has come about).With that said, I would like to ask for a simple favor...
Could you please explain, in great detail, (or at least point me in the right direction of) a source in which science has observed the "evolution" of a new "species/kind." First of all, I am going to step outside the world of science and into the world of "what can we know FOR SURE (as opposed to hypotheses and theories)" in order to look at the theory of evolution as more than just a scientific viewpoint (after all, if evolution theory number (5) is true than it's not just to be discussed in science but in ALL walks of life as a basic fact of life). So, with that said, there must exist empirical evidence that it is in fact possible for a specific species of animal to advance BEYOND it's ability to interbreed with other animals of the same "species/kind." Could you possible describe some? I mean, I have heard of mutations and adaptations and cross-breeding leading to the production of speciation, but is there truly observable evidence that animals are continually evolving beyond their ability to interbreed and thus creating a completely new "species/kind" in which it can NO LONGER cross-breed with the animal species from which it evolved?Thank you again for responding.Oh by the way, let me just say that I am not trying to discredit evolutionists. I am not trying to attack them. I am just trying to present the people--those that are willing to watch and listen with an open mind and an open heart--with what I believe and WHY it is what I believe. University-graduates who walk away with PhD's and MD's and even B.S.'s are generally smarter than I am--I will humbly assume that--but It's just that I do not believe they are correct in this particular circumstance.Sincerely,
Servant

Sorry, Hitchy... I am balancing my somewhat-commitment to learning from this site and the rest of my life. Yes, I use this site for mainly just learning-purposes; I use this site not as a catalyst with which to try and sway people to believe in creation but rather to learn what the best arguments exist in favor of evolution that I may study science closer and learn more about the evidence for and against so that I can apply it to my life in terms of educating people with both worldviews. That is my reason for being here and frankly, I have many other commitments in my life that are infinitely more important than discussing evolution on a website, so I apologize for any times that I am detained or delayed in replying to you.Now then, I guess I should clarify. Science is, as you probably know, defined as knowledge gained through what can be observed, tested, and demonstrated. Therefore, students studying SCIENCE, in my opinion, should not have their grade--or credibility in class--determined by their worldviews. Since evolution is in such heated debate constantly, students growing up in secular homes--and ESPECIALLY those in Christian homes--should legally have the right to be exempt from any section of the science class that deals with something other than observations and facts. Yes, it is effective in terms of education to apply the knowledge discussed, but there exist much less controversial and much more scientifically-supported theories and processes to approach than evolution.If evolution was such a well-proven theory as has been speculated about it, why would there be so much controversy over it still? Seriously, the idea that the earth was round was accepted worldwide by all mainstream religions and science once the idea was proven (same goes for the idea that the sun DOESN'T revolve around the earth and that blood-letting induces death). Christianity--true Biblical fundamentalist Christianity--has always taught that the world was round (it was only a few people during the inquisition a few hundred years ago that tried to teach it was a disk), and likewise scientists that have scrutinized the Bible on behalf of the earth revolving around the sun--not the other way around--but in truth the Bible doesn't teach that (the Bible makes mention to the sun rising and setting, but even scientists today describe that process because it is easier to describe things as we see them). You see, in order to properly scrutinize the Bible, you need to understand it thoroughly, REGARDLESS of your knowledge or "evidence" in favor of evolution.Sorry that I cannot give a scientifically-sound answer to your question of "kind," but the fact is the Bible doesn't either. As I've said before, the Bible describes "kind" as nothing more than "they bring forth..." --Genesis 1.Nevertheless, the Bible makes clear mention that man was made in God's image (as well as female, upon Jesus mentioning--in reference to Adam--"He who made them [Adam and Eve] at the beginning made them male and female...") Thus, the Bible makes it abundantly clear that man has not descended from earlier life-forms. Furthermore, the Bible mentions that plants were made on day three, fowels (birds, bats, insects) and fish on day five, stars and sun on day FOUR, and land creatures and humans on day six. Thus, perhaps there are only five basic "kinds" ... that is, Biblical kinds may refer to the division of the different living creatures mentioned on each day of creation... fowels (flying creatures), sea-creatures (includes whales), plants (includes fungus and other immobile organisms), land animals, and humans. I am not being dogmatic, just practical as to offering a possibility. Thus, supposing that IS the Bible's definition of kind then evolution would not be limited to speciation but ALL changes that can occur in a line of organisms for as long as the earth had been existent. In other words, perhaps--if the 7000-year creation model is true--then there is no limit to the changes that could happen, given slow and gradual mutations mentioned by evolution. Granted I still believe in a 7000-year creation model, but THAT possiblity would comply with speciation observed lately AS WELL AS explain the Bible's explanation of "kind" (similar animals bring forth together, plants, etc.) Well, its not just my worldview... It's all Christianity. look it up in the Bible: it says (in Romans 3:23 and 6:23 that ALL people sin and therefore ALL who sin will suffer hell (death = hell in Biblical terms). The select people who DON'T see hell are those who put their faith in Christ (Matthew 23:39, Romans 8:28-35 and Romans 10:13). According to The Bible, hell is a place of "outer darkness" where there is "weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Look it up in Matthew 8:12 KJV).However, God is not willing to have anybody go to that place (I Timothy 2:3-4 says that "[it] is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved and come unto the knowledge of the truth." Hell is inevitably a real place and where God sends people who don't put their faith in him to be saved from their sins, which would otherwise send them us all to hell.Well,
I have to run, sorry
Servant

---

Open minds and open hearts... seeing what the world chooses not to see... seeing what no one else sees...

As far as precipitation and evolution goes, you may want to be careful when using one as an example to explain the validity of why scientists believe in the other. First of all, evolution by means of natural selection is in the past as far as we know (that is to say, science has never documented enough of a change to allow for evolution to be regarded as every bit as much of a fact as precipitation).In other words, yes we observe change; that is a fact (I'd like to say that the creation-model allows for such speciation that has been observed in nature every once in a while without the conclusion that God still didn't create the universe less than 10 thousand years ago). But the precipitation-analogy you gave me starts off with a blatant observation of something that happens in nature and goes to explain WHY it happens. On the other hand, the evolution-model starts off with IF something happened and has not yet surpassed that step. Yes, scientists note observations--adaptations of organisms in response to the environment, mutual achievement between organisms through symbiotic relationships, the predator-prey phenomena, etc.--however, evolution had been offered as a speculative reason for such observations (much like the cause-effect analysis of precipitation) but has not been determined as the established "fact" before people would begin hunting for evidence and explanations of "why."Now, although it has been said time and time again, I would like to illustrate briefly the creation-model: 1) Every element of matter in the universe had been created by a supernatural being in one point in time and nothing has been created since (first law of thermodynamics--also dubbed the law of the conservation of energy--forbids the random forming of "new" matter and energy); 2) The world had been formed together, plants and animals created, and the humans. The angel Lucifer rebelled against God in the metaphysical realm of the universe and the physical realm has since undergone a "curse" of deterioration (not necessarily the second law of thermodynamics, which is a bad argument and often misused by creationists) but simply the fact that problems seens today--death, decay, and an increasing rely on the earth to sustain our lives rather than reliance on the supernatural being. Now then, creation offers a set of answers to science-related problems in a different--but not necessarily wrong--perspective than that of evolution.For instance, why would the geologic strata seem to fit quite well with the evolution model? Well first off, I'd like to point out that, in most areas of the world in which geologic deposition of strata had been observed, the layers are stacked one on top of another without any evidence whatsoever of enough time allowing for erosion in between (look at the layers at the John Day Fossil Beds of eastern Oregon, the strata of Joggins Nova Scotia, the Grand Canyon, the sandstone deposits along both the east and west coast, or any cliffside in which strata-layers can be seen, and you will find that the layers are 1) overlapping in some parts or 2) neatly-stacked on top of one another without ANY evidence of years'-worth of erosion in between... Both cases would support the idea that such strata were laid down at one point in time).Secondly, if that suggests the possibility--granted, the merely HYPOTHESIS of a world-wide Flood--then that would explain with great results the reason why it seems as though the fossil record seems to fit with evolution. In other words, the theory of evolution teaches that the geologic strata had been laid down over millions of years, burying the fossils of each age within the layer, correct? So, that would suggest that trilobites, mollusks, etc. had evolved long before vertebrates, right? Then, as millions of years pass by, the simpler vertebrates would be buried somewhere in the middle along with more complex vertebrates, right? Then, a few MORE million years down the evolutionary timeline we would find the birds, humans, and later-forming mammals, just a few yards above the last dinosaurs and the earlier mammals, correct? Well now, the strata--if so wonderfully laid-out as the geologic-column concept suggests--would easily be explained by the Flood-hypothesis. Let me take a few examples from biology and geology to illustrate my point:1) The organisms in the fossil record may have been buried according to their habitat (when a flood starts, the trilobites and mollusks and anthropods are ALREADY at the bottom and the birds and the mammals would expectedly serve as the last to become buried);2) They may have been burried according to their body density (when a flood starts, the sediments would layer-out depending on the density thereof, and so clams and other shell-creatures would naturally sink below the "floaters" like the birds and mammals);3) When a flood starts, they may be buried according to the violence of such a catastrophe (polystrate fossils, overlapping strata, and a combination of 1 and 2 explanations above would give us reason to believe the fact that, if a catastrophe occurs, evidence should be apparent for several thousand years to come).4) When a flood occurs, all the soft sediments are going to be sorted out and form layers depending upon the violence of such a catastrophe (thus, this would serve to explain the reason why no time-gaps are apparent in such strata-layers found at the Grand Canyon or in fossil-beds, such as erosion-marks indicating reasonable amounts of time had passed in between the deposit of such strata).Any one of the above explanatory-devices serve to support the concept of the world having been created and since wrecked. However, all four placed in conjunction with one another serve to give us an observation worthy of great study and interest. Yes the geologic strata has been used to study evolution, but the SAME strata can be used to explain the Flood with no conflict with science EXCEPT between the personal-preference of what two groups of people choose to believe. Not exactly. First, Christians only believe in ONE God (not God-A and God-B). Secondly, I was discussing this matter with my cousin--a recent under-graduate-student from Oregon State University--and he told me something very interesting: "the people who have the weaker faith are the ones who feel the strongest need to prove their faith."How true, I figured. Furthermore, "faith is the evidence of things not seen." --Hebrews 11:1Thus, a triune God would have created the world, destroyed it with a Flood while sparing the lives of only four couples, and left behind a legacy of people to believe in (afterall, there exist over one-third of the world population who still believe in the Bible, according to a pole done by the writers of the publication "Why so many gods?") That is to say, while not proving evolution whole-heartedly, Christians can accept science for its great discoveries, advancements in technology, and improvements in healthcare and communications WHILE accepting the rest of the phenomenons of the universe through faith, which comes from studying God rather than man.Now then, I would like to say that this has been enjoyable. It's nice to discuss this issue with a science teacher--one who holds the integrity of dealing with a multitude of people and their beliefs--rather than continuing on with a "this that and the other thing" argument with people who are not willing to open their eyes up to other possibilities beside THEIR OWN beliefs. I do not want to assume anything, but if you simply read through this message, I would ask that you either read through it again or spend a few moments to dwell on it... fact is, such concepts are the reasons why I stopped believing in the theory of evolution a few years ago.Till next time, sincerely,
Servant

---

Open minds and open hearts... seeing what the world chooses not to see... seeing what no one else sees...

I am not denying the existence of natural selection (out with the bad, in with the new). However, adaptation and variation does not necessarily add up to evolution. The changes we see today do not offer evidence that such changes had been going on for more than the few thousand years since the Flood. I've been studying evolution and creation for many years, reading books and articles on BOTH sides of the matter, and have yet to come across a "mountain" of irrefutable evidence. Yes, professors and teachers and journalists offer some compelling arguments for evolution, but they still go on with the non-scientific assumption "we can't think of any other way to explain what we see, therefore WE MUST be right!" Then I wonder where the "scientific" rebuttal to the fact that many parts of the world yield layers of coal and sedimentary rock that overlap. That's an interesting idea, but it's a huge leap of faith to accept that as the reason why we see a lack of surface erosion on the layers having formed. Mudslides do not level off and form near-perfect level-off points of deposition. Furthermore, if thousands or millions of years is required for such sediments to become compacted, why is it then that surface erosion does not occur WHILE such layers are being compacted and layered on? What I mean is, uncomformities ought to be excrutiatingly abundant in a system where millions of years are required for the sediments to compact into stone before another geologic strata is deposited via a mudslide. The argument posed above seems quite compelling, in a perfect world. Nevertheless there exists still no evidence that the layers observed in sedimentary strata are the product of uniformitarian accumulation (empirical evidence does not equal conjectured speculations of how something might have happened, and all I have seen thus far is the latter). Well, technically in perfect laboratory conditions one would expect to find the theoritcal conjures of alleged evidence to refute a global Flood. Yet, a world-catasrophe (i.e. the FLood of Noah) would have accounted for countless nonconformities still contrary to evolution principle (overlapping strata, polystrate fossils--which have been refuted through conjectures and speculation but not with evidence, denser-bodies easier to bury and expected to be fossilized more often than their counterparts given a catastrophe, etc.). First of all, that rebuttal assumes that all elements of a catrastophe would behave as speculated in perfect lab-conditions.On the contrary, the initial flooding occurred in a span of several weeks, if not months, thus allowing enough time for topsoil and grasses and sea-dwelling invertebrates to be buried, compacted, and fossilized first and then allowing for further flooding to create a mass of unconform layers of sedimentation (yet still without evidence of surface erosion in most cases... only on the wider and higher up layers where the flooding was nearing an end) which is primarily what we see.Furthermore, Genesis says that the flooding came from two sources... "the fountains of the deep were broken up" and "the windows of heaven were opened..."Thus, initial flooding caused by torrential rain would allow for surface erosion and washing away of the lower sediments to become compacted in certain areas--also accounting for the missing strata in certain parts of the world. Likewise, further flooding would be caused by breaking of the "fountains of the deep" as recorded in Genesis--which offers a Biblical account for why we have the mid-Atlantic ridge as well as fault lines and tectonic activity. Thus, as flooding CONTINUES due to uprises from subterranean water chambers, further sedimenation would be pushed up in some areas while washed away and stacked and compressed in other areas--accounting for the unconformity-issue of denser sediments on top of limestone found in certain parts of the world--particularly close to the fault lines where such flooding would have occurred in an upward motion according to the Bible and the creation model.Oh yeah, before I forget... Have you ever been to Washington? Have you ever seen Mount St. Helens? That is just one example of how rapid sedimentation can occurr VERY rapidly. Canyons with walls several hundred feet high, with perfectly-conform strata of sedimentation, had formed in a few months. Sedimentation of strata several feet thick had formed--perfectly conform into layers as found in most parts of the world--in a few hours, while the washout-basin had carved a canyon several miles long in a few months following the eruption. As mentioned above, I do not deny the existance of ANY disconformities, just that which would suggest enough surface erosion to account for thousands or millions of years in between the depositions. Genetic changes in alleles of parent-to-offspring transition proves absolutely nothing in terms of evidence for evolution. Again "we can't think of any explanation better than that which our theory provides, therefore WE MUST be right!"
--A famous evolutionistCome on, there has got to be better evidence for evolution. But apparently it's nothing more than a leap of faith with a few compelling arguments thrown in and disguised as science-education. Then perhaps you can offer a conclusive, well-documented rebuttal to this reply as a whole.Again, if ALL evidence supports a 4-5 byo earth, then why are there so many holes and illogical conclusions thrown in with that alleged evidence? Somebody finds a nylon-digesting bacteria and assumes that means that, in a billion years, that bacteria-strand might evolve into a mammal. Somebody finds two thousand layers of sedimentation and--despite a lack of evidence to actually SUPPORT the idea that they did indeed accumulate slowly--assumes that they are the product of uniformitarian geology. Somebody sees a redshift in astronomy and assumes that that means that the universe is expaning as a whole and therefore all used to be together in one place at one point in time (i.e. Big Bang)... now THAT argument requires several leaps of faith and inconclusive data.Assumptions mean nothing in the world of science... nor do interpretations made to explain the observations seen without ample evidence that does not require interpretations (your precipitations analogy does not REQUIRE interpretations because it is a cycle that can be seen and observed and studied thoroughly at any time) while evolution is a study that require intperpreting and concluding upon speculation. Interpret the evidence ACCORDING to your belief in evolution, analyze your interpretation, and if you find that it confirms your theory, well done! You have just proven that you know how to interpret your evidence to fit with your theory, nothing more.Sincerely,
Servant

---

Open minds and open hearts... seeing what the world chooses not to see... seeing what no one else sees...

Sorry about the delay, Hitchy, I had a rather busy week. Okay, let’s get started with first reviewing a little that was mentioned. First of all, the five planks you mentioned on natural selection do not offer evidence of evolution. Just because the weakest species will die off and the imperfect species will adapt *when necessary* how does that offer evidence of evolution as a whole? Perhaps natural selection is a process in nature that has been overlooking the adaptations of animals in response to their environment ONLY because such selection and adaptation would be necessary in a post-flood world, where the environment is drastically changed. Again, I would not disagree that we see changes in alleles. Mutations, adaptations, and natural selection DO indeed occur, but how does THAT prove that they have been occurring for millions of years? If evolution is supported by a mountain of evidence, as you have claimed, how come the mountain is founded on speculation (the speculation that small changes we see today can reasonably infer that such changes will cause all evolution if spread out over long enough periods of time). If I saw a man in Oregon, driving north on highway 101 (the coast highway), can I ASSUME that he started in L.A. three days ago if I can’t see his odometer and have never seen a photo of his car in other parts of the country? They very well can be, yes. But I wouldn’t disregard the possibility of the earth being created only 7000 years ago on account of THAT. If you are referring to the same peppered moth color-change from white to black as mentioned in most textbooks, that was a hoax
Manually positioned moths have also been used to make television nature documentaries. University of Massachusetts biologist Theodore Sargent told a Washington Times reported in 1999 that he once glued some dead specimens on a tree trunk for a TV documentary about peppered moths Staged photos may have been reasonable when biologists thought they were simulating the normal resting-places of peppered moths. By the late 1980’s, however, the practice should have stopped. Yet according to Sargent, a lot of faked photographs have been made since then Defenders of the classical story typically argue that, despite being staged, the photographs illustrate the true cause of melanism. The problem is that it is precisely the cause of melanisim that is in dispute.
Before the 1980’s most investigators shared Kettlewell’s assumption, and many of them found it convenient to conduct predation experiments using dead specimens glued or pinned to tree trunks. Kettlewell himself considered this a bad idea, and even some biologists who used dead moths suspected that the technique was unsatisfactory Since 1980, however, evidence has accumulating showing that peppered moths do not normally rest on tree trunks. Fnnish zoologist Kauri Mikkola reported an experiment in 1984 in which he used caged moths to assess normal resting places. Mikkola observed that ‘the normal resting place of the Peppered Moth is beneath small, more or less horizontal branches probably high up in the canopies’
--Dr. Well, Jonathon. Icons of Evolution. 2000. Page 149-151.I'll be back with more later on.Till then, sincerely,
Servant

---

Open minds and open hearts... seeing what the world chooses not to see... seeing what no one else sees...

Granted, but how exactly does that offer evidence of darwinian evolution?Micro-evolution--in conjunction with the creation hypothesis--suggests that there was a smaller population of species in existent following the Flood and it was adaptations and changes in the alleles that have given way to speciation in the last 4-5000 years. Your argument--whether true or not--does not hold any weight in determining whether to be used as evidence of darwinian evolution or simply adaptation to fit the environment (something that would have happend a LOT following the Flood).You gave me a lot to digest in terms of your geological analyses. So, allow me a little more time (I keep a VERY busy schedule and will try to get back to you ASAP).Sincerely,
Servant

Okay, but why evolution? Seriously, where’s the alleged mountain of evidence for it? I’ve read the speciation arguments, the biogeography and distribution arguments, the beneficial mutation arguments, the carbon dating, the K-Ar dating, the geologic strata arguments, the lake varve arguments, the pseudo-gene arguments, but the fact is NONE of those can offer a single PIECE of evidence to the idea that the universe is NOT only 7000 years old and that God created everything. So you’re saying that, because you guys have a stronger grasp on man’s understanding of biology than we Christians do, that YOUR theory is correct and WE’RE the ignorant ones? Okay, I’ll buy that for a momentbut where’s the evidence that I allegedly don’t understand? Every since I have become a member of this forum I have demanded ONE thingtrue empirical evidence WITHOUT an argument that is supported or proposed due to a vested interestand as far as evolution’s evidence goes, that is the ONE thing I haven’t seen yet. I’ve only been shown the same old stories time and time again; that the frequency of similar nonfunctional pseudogenes among similar families proves evolution, that biodiversity among species on different continents proves evolution, that the variation of nylon-digesting bacteria prove evolution, etc. (and the list goes on). But all of that neither proves evolution NOR the Flood. Granted, but aren’t you doing a disservice by teaching them WHAT to think instead of HOW to think? My question here has a built-in assumption, yes, but since you do not KNOW for certain that we’ve evolved the way Darwin said sobecause God forbid we do not have the ability to travel back in time and see WHICH concept is truewould you fail a student on an evolution-related test if all the answers they gave were from a Biblical perspective? It may seem a little severe, yes, but how much knowledge do we as humans actually have? Our entire history, we have ONLY been able to observe science and the universe from OUR understandingOUR observationsmade from THIS planet. The truth is, there is an infinite amount of knowledge left for us to uncover and therefore the theory of evolutionno matter HOW rational and well-thought out is SEEMS to biologists of the 21st centuryis based on a great lack of knowledge.Allow me to summarize and paraphrase the statement of an unknown evolutionary scientist:We do not have a better explanation for what we see in nature; therefore, our theory is accepted as fact.If that is the logic being used to support evolution being taught in public schools as a fact, why is it the ONLY theory of origins being taught? What I mean is, if the Bible says that the universe is roughly 7000 years old and created in six literal days, you could not SCIENTIFICALLY prove me wrong, because even in the first week of creation the world was a mature creation. In other words, did God create a baby in the Garden of Eden or a full-grown man? Did God give Adam and Eve a bag of seeds or did God create the entire Garden instantaneously? Therefore, if you are using the APPEARANCE of ageor the collated manifestation of an aged creationand the conclusion of what we see and the speculated dates obtained by radiometric dating and geologic strata deposition as your basis for saying that the world is billions of years old, you have no way of PROVING that such a worldwhile appearing to be oldis in fact young but CREATED to look old for the purpose of being a mature creation (like the concept that God created a full grown man, not a baby or a fertilized egg, in the Garden). Now I am by NO means using this idea to fall back onit is not a necessary defense of Biblical creationism because there’s already enough reasonable doubt posed against the ToE that such an argument is not necessary in a creation/evolution debate. Nevertheless, it is a firm proponent of the fact that the age of the universebeyond the realm of a few thousand yearswill never be proven entirely, and thus neither will evolution.And I say this to anybody reading this: there is no reason whatsoever to compromise the Bible with man’s understanding of science. If God really DID create the universe in six literal days, how would he have said it any MORE clearly than he did in Genesis 1:1? In other words, there is no RATIONAL, faithful reason to compromise the Bible’s credibility with science. After all, science is based on OBSERVATIONS and ANALYZATIONS, while the Bible says to walk by faith and not by sight. If science claims to have the answer to an event that no HUMAN was around to witness, then their argument is ALWAYS going to be based on inconclusive evidence. That goes for BOTH evolution AND creation, however. The origin of the universe was a one-time deal; therefore, unless we ever develop the ability to travel back in time 7000 years, we will NEVER know for certain whether THAT’S when the universe began or if it had already been around for billions of years prior. Thus, while admitting that the existence of God and the credibility of the Bible cannot be readily proved or disproved, neither can evolution. And THAT is my basis for saying that either both should be discussed in the science classroom or NEITHER should be. First of all, I have still not seen conclusive evidence for evolution. Yes, I’ve seen an argument that SUPPORTS evolution from virtually every one of the professions mentioned above, but none are conclusive and none can confirm evolution without assumptions first being drawn to fill the gaps in the void of what we do not yet know. Not necessarily, because evolutionwhile unproven and shaky in itselfcontradicts Genesis chapter one, an ancient text that is the basis for the faith of millions of Christians worldwideand Jews and Muslims for that matter. On the other hand, no other theories in science directly contradict anything in the Bible. Now, I say that the Bible is true becausebesides evolutionI have seen no scientific reason to believe that the Bible is wrong, and therefore accept it as a piece of writing that God has given us through inspiration. Thus, I hope you’re not saying that I’m close-minded only because I believe that God has given me a book of his truth? Honestly, I don’t understand the rationale in saying that Bible-believers have a closed mind. After all, close-minded or not, if the Bible truly IS the truth about Godwhich it very well may bethen we should believe it out of fear of what might happen to us in the realm of eternity.Let me ask you a question do you believe, at all, in the possibility that God might exist? Yes or no, please.Let me ask one more if you believe that God DOES exist, don’t you think that he might WANT us to know who he is and therefore give us SOME sort of supernatural record of Him (i.e. the Bible or SOME form of sacred scripture)?Let me ask one more if you say yes to the last 2 questionsand given the fact that evolution, not matter HOW robust, is not entirely proventhen what is your basis for saying that people who accept the Bible for face-value are close minded (because they believe that God still lives and gives us a chance to learn more about him)??? Perhaps because the only evidence to support the theory is inconclusive (unless you’re delving INTO the subject with a pre-conceived notion that evolution is already proven to be true; because in THAT case you’d be able to find your OWN conclusions to fill the gaps in your evidence with, but you and I both know that’d be unscientific and bias, correct?). I agree. I disagree.Your above assertion (referring to dinosaurs and humans being buried together) does not support evolution on a logical basis (which is what I assume you were trying to do based on your syntax).The creation and the Flood stories are hypotheses, yes.Nevertheless, enough evidence supports each that they can clearly be given at least a fighting chance. If a worldwide flood were to occur TODAY, would you EVER find humans and cows fossilized next to each other in the years that follow? Highly unlikely, but that does not prove that humans and cows never lived ON the same planet AT the same time.Arguments for the fossil record to support evolution start off with assumptions that evolution has already been proven by OTHER areas of science.Hundreds of ancient stories all over the entire world tell of a global Flood (possibly referring to Noah). Almost EVERY ancient culture speaks of a golden age when people used to live to be a thousand (possibly referring to the time before the Flood, since Adam lived 930 years, etc granted, no humans alive today have a sporting chance to make it to 900 years, but it is not scientifically IMPOSSIBLE, seeing how before the Flood the Bible teaches that the world was a paradiseenvironmental changes and atmospheric altercations may be to blame for the shortened lifespan. After all, evidence shows that people long ago DID indeed live longer. Abraham of Uruk lived to be approximately 160 years).Furthermore, virtually EVERY major ancient culture talks about dragons and large lizard-like monsters (not necessarily conclusive, but quite possibly HISTORICAL evidence that dinosaurs did at one point live at the same time as humans). Granted this is all going to be difficult to accept without first speculating that the ToE may be wrong, but that’s all that’s needed and the rest starts to make sense on its own. Not necessarily. Like I said, if a worldwide deluge occurred TODAY how many instances would you find of a human and a cowor a human and a lamaor a human and a platypusor a human and a giraffebeing buried together within a few feet from each other? Not very many instances, if ANY, and therefore you cannot use humans and dinosaurs would have been buried together as an argument against the Flood. Wow; not very often do I encounter such a misunderstanding of the creation hypothesis. My deer, first of all the Bible teaches that the world before the Flood was a paradise and there was little need for houses, junkyards, etc. Furthermore, a photograph on the homepage of Evolution-Facts | Fakta & Evolusi Ilmiah depicts a fossilized hammer found in a lump of cretaceous rock. The hammer had not oxidized (suggesting that whoever made the hammer before it became imbedded in cretaceous rock knew how to make stainless steel). Furthermore, marine fossils would be EXPECTED to be most commonly found following a deluge (seeing how most surface-creatures would decompose), and indeed 95% of the fossil record is composed of marine fossils. First of all, as I’ve said just above this statement, 95% of the fossils in the record are marine. Furthermore, the burying of fossils in a deluge is such that the hierarchy of evolving organisms would be EXPECTED to be buried in the same order (humans and birds and other mammals typically more near the top, lizards and amphibians typically near the center, and marine invertebrates nearer to the bottom of the strata). Your argument there supports NEITHER Genesis nor evolution, but each side does indeed have an explanation for WHY it is we see what we see. I hope you understand that coal can be formed quickly, right? Doesn’t take much longer than it takes for objects for fossilize in most cases. In fact, the waterlogged bark that covers the floor of Spirit Lake (not too far from where I live in Oregon) is not only beginning to petrify but in some cases has been found to be turning to coal. It typically only takes great pressure (and in many cases, heat, but not millions of years). No, I mean two separate layers of rock that meet up somewhere along the horizontal plane. In other words, a layer that diverges(debunking the idea that such layers are gradual depositions). Neither exists BECAUSE of the evidence. Here is how you defined evolution in post number 23: Not a bad definition. If I had known that THAT was the definition of evolution being discussed, then I suppose I’m wasting my time arguing it with youI agree that evolution at THIS level is a proven fact, as do most of my acquaintances. However, the hearsay of neo-Darwinian evolution theorythe emergence of completely new and more advanced features through countless, totally new genetically-defined traitsis very different from your definition. It is not to be confused with the genetic variationsomething that I would not argue withbut the problem is that too many people use the latter to support the former, and thus attempt to blur the vivid line separating the two ideas. Advocates of neo-Darwinism deliberately label them both as evolution and thus argue that, since ONE takes place, the OTHER takes place as well. Thereforeleaving out all chemistry, physics, geology, etc.and using just what we know of biology, neo-Darwinian evolution has no firm evidence to support it except the argument that, because we observe small changes in the frequency of alleles in the gene pool, we can assume that, over time, the changes will snowball and create new and more advanced organisms within an ancestral descent. I would agree with you there (in reference to your last sentence). But the disconformities seen in strata do not suggest erosion between the deposition of layers. Rather, the disconformities transpire altogether rather than sequentially, thereby suggesting that erosion only began on the sedimentary rocks following the deposit of later layers. Or, in other words, there still remains no evidence that such strata took more than a few years to form and deposit. I know completely well that this is irrelevant to the BIG picture, but I have to comment on it for the sake of paying attention to detail and making sure we have the facts strait: you know full well that radiocarbon dating is not used whatsoever in testing the dates of rocks, correct? Carbon-14 dating utilizes measurements ascertained with disregard to numerous flaws of logic. Furthermore, it is only used to date organic material. Well that’s an interesting idea, but not entirely. First off, dating of sedimentary strata is performed through the use of index fossils, not isotopic decay (and thus a circular argument). Furthermore, the corroboration of different dates only proves one thingthat each of the dates are consistent with one another (but that does not mean that ANY ONE of them are correct). In other words, if you’re using one dating method to supplementsupportanother, then you have a rubber-ruler problem because, if the alleged age ascertained by one dating method is off course, and it agrees with the test results of another dating method, you do not know that EITHER is correct because all you have proven is that the conclusions drawn from both dating methods are in agreement, and nothing more. Likewise, if one dating method is used to find one age, and another dating method is used to determine the age of the same specimen, but the two dates do not coordinate, how would you know which to use. Moreover, about fifty percent of the dates ascertained are thrown outonly the alleged test results that agree with the preconceived notions of how old such a specimen SHOULD BE are kept and accepted as fact by many laboratory technicians (a heavy bias often determines the trustworthiness of a specimen’s alleged age).Well, more next timeSincerely,
ServantP.S. I apologize tremendously for not having replied more frequently or more recently. I really AM trying to keep up with you in this discussion. You have given me a lot to chew overand, essentiallya lot of research assignments to look in to. I will dwell for a while on your most recent posts and let you know what my thoughts are on them in the next several days. Till next time, hitchy.

---

Open minds and open hearts... seeing what the world chooses not to see... seeing what no one else sees...

No, mainstream (peer-reviewed) scientists’ interpretations of the evidence point to an earth older than 7000 years. Scientific facts do not speak for themselves--they are open to interpretations (ever heard the analogy of how two people can look at the same thing and reach opposite conclusions?) Here’s an example (please don’t allow your rebuttal to get off topic I’m just using this as an example):
A journalist from National Geographic can stand at the edge of the Grand Canyon and look down, thinking it’s amazing how such a small amount of water did this over the course of such a long time!
Contrastingly, the writer for Technical Journal can stand at the edge of the same spot on the Grand Canyon and say, wow, I am amazed how such a grand amount of water did this over the course of a few weeks!
Another interesting point that I read about from one of those dumb Christian books is the fact that--based upon the observations of Mars as having canyons and valleys much larger than Grand Canyon--many mainstream scientists (most if I’m not mistaken) believe that the geologic phenomena was caused by massive flooding! Interesting how, despite the fact that there is LITTLE IF ANY water on mars, they speculate that the canyons were eroded in such a way while, despite the fact that the earth is covered in 70% water with an average of 2 miles deep, they refuse to accept the possibility that the earth’s geologic features were caused by such flooding. So you’re saying that none of the facts can speak for themselves, right? Then how do you know that evolution is true when NONE of the facts can support it on their own without the aid of OTHER facts? But that depends on HOW you put them together. Remember, no one fact in science can speak for itself. All such observations are open to interpretation, and that’s where Intelligent Design and neo-Darwinism differ in the field of science (and DON’T say that Intelligent Design is unscientific it’s pointless, and by the way, that’s what we’re here to discuss, so don’t jump to such a conclusion as many have without looking at all the arguments and evidence).
After all, ever heard of the law of disclosure? In a criminal case, both councils are obligated to share with each other a list of all their witnesses, evidence to be included, as well as the affidavits of the potential witnesses and are therefore not allowed any surprises because otherwise it could very well be a mistrial. In any event, if any evidence or witnesses are left out of the trial process, the verdict may be tainted based upon a lack of one or more pieces of evidence that could sway the verdict.
Similarly, scientific research must look at ALL the possibilities, as well as open their observations to ALL interpretations and ALSO allow for margin of error AND allow for possible fallacies to a particular interpretation based on the possibility of missing evidence and conclusions, for only THEN would a scientific theory stand up without the unnecessary aid of a bias and prejudice by majority rule. True. Let’s get to the main topic and well settle the more minor disputes--namely the puzzler of what had caused the biodiversity of animals worldwide in earth’s history--later. True, but the entire ground (including plants, roads, sidewalks, walls, cars, rooftops, etc.) would have to be wet in order for such a speculation to become reasonable. In the case of creation and evolution, a more accurate analogy would be:
Well, I was camping with my friends. We woke up in the middle of the field and noticed that our sleeping bags and all the grass around us was wet. Therefore, there exist two possible alternate assumptions. (1) it rained last night or early this morning, (2) it cooled off substantially last night to form dew all over the field. My friends and I argued relentlessly over whether it had rained or whether the wet ground was simply caused by dew. So you’re saying that, by the time you’re finished with ‘em, you got ‘em believin’ in your side of things, eh?
Sounds a little accusative, yes, but hypothetically, if I was your student (and granted, I would NEVER try to embarrass or defy you in front of your class simply on behalf of the fact that you and I differ on the origins of the universe and of life) would you fail me on a test if I refused to answer a question from a Darwinian mindset? And if the student were to refuse to accept the idea that the Bible is wrong (perfectly okay under the first amendment) would you fail him on a test that requires evolutionist-type answers? Not necessarily, because science claims that all of our understanding and knowledge possible for us to grasp can be ascertained through observing our universe and drawing conclusions based on our observations and experiments. On the other hand, religion (namely Christianity) contends that all of our knowledge and understanding possible (and necessary) can be ascertained supernaturally (or naturally, but with a supernatural influence--i.e. special creation of the NATURAL universe). The idea that science does not offer all the answers, and never will, is because of the fact that science is and always will be based upon OUR understanding, observations, and interpretations of the known universe; however, true Christians who put their faith 100% in their Creator obtain wisdom and growth and moral endurance and knowledge and stronger faith based upon their reliance on God and their search for higher understanding (which would include, among other things, delving into science.) After all, Louis Pasteur and Gregor Mendel, two of the most notable biologists in history, were Christians who had faith that God would set the right path for them. Of course I agree with you there. I wouldn’t be a Christian otherwise. The mere fact of the existence of absolutes is proof enough of your claim (which I totally agree with, btw). Let me back up a few weeks’ worth of debate here. When you use the word evolution I assume you’re still referring to the neo-Darwinian theory of common ancestry over the past 3.5 billion years via beneficial mutations and natural selection; am I right in making that assumption? After all, I’m not against the word evolution. Evolution, in the broadest sense, is change over time. Such a theorychange over timeis neither untrue NOR does it contradict the Bible. However, when you apply the broader sense of evolution to the ideology that all living things on earth share a common ancestor, you are taking a leap of faith based on a lack of proof. Granted, that is something that Christians do with the Bible, but it goes to show you that common ancestry and Darwin’s theory on the origin of all modern species of bacteria, protozoa, fungi, plants, and animals is a shaky ground because one change does not necessarily imply another.
Furthermore, I would agree with evolution in many terms. By saying that I happen to believe that the Bible’s original context (the original, untainted versions of Hebrew and Aramaic Scripture) is divinely inspired and the fact that I’m a Christian may imply that I am close-minded to all types of evolution theory and natural selection. This is not the case. I am a Christian, yes, and I believe that the original Hebrew and Aramaic root versions of the Holy Bible were written by people who were inspired to write by the active Spirit of God, yes, but I also believe that natural selection and chance mutation and even speciation are processes that occur in nature and can be tested.
However, natural selection is a process that weeds out the weaker-adapted creatures that cannot survive under certain conditions, while chance mutation is an occurrence in which a random alteration in the genetic make-up of an individual organism, and speciation is a product of adaptation and genetic variation within a population that has allowed for one line of organisms to change beyond the possible realm of common reproductive ability. However, NONE of the above assertions are evidence of the neo-Darwinian evolutionary family tree, for such are processes that go on in nature just as the cycle of precipitation or the fertilization and growth of eukaryotic organisms and therefore do not exclusively offer evidence of the Darwinism-model. Now, these processes may be EXPLAINED and INTERPRETED by the mindset of the neo-Darwinian model, but that only proves that you are looking at such processes THROUGH THE EYES of a Darwinist. Again, you’re implying that neo-Darwinian evolution is true because the scientists of mainstream society say so. Regardless of whether that’s what you meant, could you withdraw or rephrase your above statement so that it is no longer disputable as to whether or not it’s true? I understand your assertion. Using science to prove that the Bible is correct is neither possible nor necessary. However, using scientific findings as a tool for revealing problems and challenges to the evolution theory is a catalyst which opens the doors to the possibility of logic that, perhaps there IS a God and perhaps there IS a supernatural explanation to the many unexplained phenomena of quantum physics, astronomy, the origins of the universe (whether it be progressive OR instantaneous in origin).
However, if there IS a God then he can do whatever he wants (with his OWN self-set limits for instance, he cannot learn if he already knows everything). Therefore, if there IS a God then he has created and therefore regulates all the laws of the universe and the energy and matter and the states thereof. The precept of the existence of a supernatural being would throw infinite weight against whatever we humans THINK we know. As smart as the intellectuals of our time think they are, I find it absolutely mind-boggling that they cannot seem to grasp such a SIMPLE concept as this. If there is no God, then we are on our own for finding knowledge and higher meaning; if there IS a God then He can control his own universe and we are subject to whatever He ALLOWS to happen. No, it implies that SCIENTISTS (not science in general) rely on evolution because we don’t seem to have a better explanation for the natural phenomena of the universe (by evolution I mean not necessarily life but ALL change over time and ALL origins of matter as well as life). First off, I only used it twice here. Secondly, if evolution is an explanation of facts and not an actual fact itself then why are you going through so much trouble to defend it? (Let each person come up with whatever explanation fits them in terms of describing the origins of the universe and life and modern creatures). Wrong. The neo-Darwinian evolution model of biological evolution does not comment on origins. However, evolution refers, in the scientific sense, to the processes and events of history throughout all space and time that point to the origins of matter, energy, life, AND modern species. We’re talking about all these subjects, not just one of them (otherwise I would be finished because I want to address the origins, age, and processes of the universe as a whole and not JUST the emergence of life within the past however long ago it is). How do you define what science is again? Knowledge through observation, application, and experimentation of the knowns of our universe, is it? Well then, if THAT constitutes science, then why isn’t the existence of God/a supernatural being classified as science? Before you respond to this, hear me out
God is, by definition, the supreme or ultimate reality as well as the perfectly wise and powerful creator and ruler of the universe (look it up on Dictionary by Merriam-Webster: America's most-trusted online dictionary, the website for Merriam Webster). Moreover, if science deals with the natural and the reality of the universe, then from where did matter and energy originate? And if you have an answer to that question, is it scientific? And if it is scientific, how can you tell? There is no explanation which can be determined, without bias or opinion, to be absolutely true. Therefore, the mere origin of matter and energy is, for the time being, a supernatural phenomenon of natural element.
You cannot see the wind even though you can see the effects of the wind.
You cannot see the beginning of the universe no matter HOW hard and long you speculate on it.
Granted, the former can be given a reasonable explanation as to the cause thereof. However, that was not the point I was making. If there is no probable cause as to the origin of all matter and energy, many hypotheses are considered possible explanations from a scientific viewpoint. Furthermore, matter and energy are dealt with in scientific means because of the fact that they are tangible and natural. Hence, if I asserted that the origins of matter and energynatural qualities of the universecould be explained by supernatural means, on what ground would you base your rebuttal? On the grounds of the fact that I do not have enough scientific proof to back it up, perhaps? Are you suggesting that, because I don’t believe in Darwin’s theory, I must therefore not understand it enough? When you talk about faulty logic ever in the future, remind me to point THIS statement out.
Sure there is reasonable doubt. Beyond a reasonable doubt constitutes about 90% certainty. Darwin’s theory is not proven to the point of 90% certainty because there is a huge gap between the observations/experiments and the conclusions consequently drawn.
Allow me to point out a gap. Darwin observed the relative changes in the size of the beaks of the finches on the Galapagos Islands over the course of a few years, correct? How does that indicate that the birds have been changing for millions of years? (Stick to the main point being discussed, not the direct wording of my sentence when reviewing this, because many people tend to try too hard when reading in to what I’m saying).
Another one: the astrophysical red shift of light being radiated from quasars causes many scientists to speculate that, because of a Doppler effect, the stars are moving away from us. Therefore, scientists speculate the universe to be expanding. Therefore, scientists propose that the universe and all the components thereof were once condensed within a single iota (speck). How does the red shift and the Hubble Constant prove the Big Bang theory? Again, how does the red shift or the Hubble Constant, or both, prove the majority opinion on how the universe came to be? Bottom line is, it doesn’t.
Another one: the geologic stratified layers offer preserved fossils. 95% of all the fossils are aquatic, and the ones tending to be the simplest or oldest are generally found at the bottom. A geologist may find a layer of cretaceous rock, fossils embedded in it, and come to all sorts of conclusions (some reasonable, some not) but how does THAT prove that it evolved from the types of organisms found several meters below it in the chunk of rock? Also, radiometric dating does not measure the age of a specimen; rather, it measures the amount of an isotope in ratio to the by-product left behind and, based on underlying assumptions, an inference as to the age of the specimen is determined. Let me quote a research paper written not too long ago, addressing the subject: (btw, emphasis on the word conclusive in paragraph one): No, it does neither. First of all, if we are deceived, it is our own fault (hypothetically, was it God’s fault that Eve was tempted to eat from the tree of knowledge)? Furthermore, this statement does not go against any Christian affirmation because God WOULD and DID create the universe to be already mature (hypothetically, God created a full-grown mannamely Adamon a single day). Let me give you an example of how the appearance of age (geologic strata, stars being billions of light years away yet having light already visible to us, etc.) is the same reason why he would have created a tree in a single day, yet with thousands of annual rings already inside it. Let’s say God creates Adam, along with millions of trees already hundreds of feet high. Ten years later Cain is born. Twenty years after THAT Cain cuts a tree down and counts the rings inside. Seeing 400 annual rings, Cain yells at his dad for lying to him about the universe only being created 30 years ago. Adam explains that the tree was created to be mature (i.e. to look as though it had been there all along) and therefore is still only 30 years old, along wit Adam and his 20 year-old son. Yet Cain still refuses to believe what Adam says because Cain SEES the rings for himself (he SEES evidence for the earth to be at the very least 400 years old). How do you know that modern scientists are not taking the same example and having it put into terms of radiometric dating? I believe that God created the universe 7000 years ago. Call it science; call it faith; call it a pain in the neck; but, above all, call it a possibility!
Now, if I remember right, my grade in high school biology was an 86% and my grade in high school chemistry was 98%. I am not dumb to science and will not ever let my personal and moral beliefs interfere with scientific research. That is, regardless of what I see as a reality about the world, I still understand how science works and I believe that much good can come from science. I also have a deep interest in many (most, actually) areas of science and I will continue to do research and learning in most if not all areas of science for as long as I am alive and able. All the scientific findings of the world do not prove that there is no God and, frankly, it doesn’t matter much in the long run. As a Christian, I believe that what matters, what matters INFINITELY MORE than the slight issue of evolution and the age of the earth, is how we view God and what choices we make in relation to whether or not we put our faith in the God that created us (no matter HOW he created us or how long ago it was). Likewise, using two or more evidences of evolution to support one another is equally tautological. Since facts cannot stand for themselves without being interpreted differently, how can you say that Darwinian evolution is true beyond a reasonable doubt? First of all, walking by faith does not mean being BLIND to everything else. After all, the Bible does not say walk by faith and be blind elsewhere. Rather, it says walk by faith, not by sight. There is a difference. To walk by faith and be blind elsewhere means to TOTALLY cut off any influence on our lives OTHER than that which comes by faith (the evidence of things not seen). On the contrary, to walk by faith means to let faith be our largest (not sole) component that affects our lives. The Bible does not say be blind, rather, the Bible is full of instances in which a person’s perception and vision is IMPROVED (thus suggesting that blindness is not good, even in Biblical terms). In other words, having faith should take precedence over the possibility of deception (altering a person’s perception based on a lack of total knowledge about a particular situation) but faith should NOT consume 100% of our lives because we do not need to have faith that the sky is blue, for you can just go outside on a warm sunny day and look up. Now then, let’s get back to the main issue. Faith is like any other learned behavior or emotion; it builds itself upon past experiences and beneficial occurrences in an individual’s life surrounding the concept of faith. Heck, even the BIBLE agrees with this assertion! The Bible says that faith comes from somewhere--an accumulated trait. Yes it can, but it does not universally do so. For instance, the problem behind the Dark Ages. I cannot think of any culture that served as a bad example of Christians MORESO than the Catholic Church leaders during the Dark Ages. Using no regard for improving physical wellbeing or technology, the society of the Dark Ages (including technological advancements) fell far below the standard that came thousands of years earlier, with the Egyptians and the Israelites and the Greeks and Chinese.
Faith without anything else is not enough. That is why I believe in science as well, and I don’t know of any Bible-believers (STRONG EMPHASIS on TRUE Bible-believers) who would contend that being negligent to the realm of human advancement in society is a good thing. (Thus, as a Christian AND one who believes in the inerrancy of God’s word, I believe that the Dark Ages’ church was not a TRUE Christian organization but was rather serving as a bad example of how Christian society SHOULD BE but was NOT). You do not know that. It is 100% opinion. Furthermore, it angers me to hear that. I do not hate you, nor will I ever, but it upsets me to see that a person would be close-minded to faith in a such a way. You accused me of being close-minded because I believe in the Bible. Well, I believe that there is a God (so call me close-minded) and I believe that God gave us a tool to learn more about Him, i.e. the Bible, (so if I’m close-minded for believing that God would have wanted us to read and learn about Him, then it frightens me to think about somebody who is NOT close-minded).
Also, I do not base my faith in the Bible. The Bible is not where I found my faith in God. My faith is IN God, and nothing else. That means that, if you could prove beyond all doubt that the Bible is incorrect, then you would not sway my faith whatsoever because my faith is in something even MORE real than a book; it’s in a moral absolute (a universal truth). On the contrary. As stated above: I do not hate you, nor will I ever, but it upsets me to see that a person would be close-minded to faith in a such a way. You accused me of being close-minded because I believe in the Bible. Well, I believe that there is a God (so call me close-minded) and I believe that God gave us a tool to learn more about Him, i.e. the Bible, (so if I’m close-minded for believing that God would have wanted us to read and learn about Him, then it frightens me to think about somebody who is NOT close-minded).
First of all, no one part of the Bible contradicts another, and I’ve read the Bible cover to cover more than once. This may seem like a so what? argument, but let me clarify a few points. First of all, every major event written about in the New Testament was prophesized in the Old Testament (written centuries earlier). And let me point out, there is no dispute as to when the Bible was written, and very little dispute as to by whom.
First off, the Old Testament was written over the course of about 1100 years (from roughly 1500 B.C. to the fifth century B.C.) and the entire Old Testament fits as not only the perfect predecessor, but also the perfect prophecy for the New Testament. There are hundreds of events written about in the New Testament that were discussed in fervent detail hundreds of years prior. This is undisputed (whether the events of the New Testament and the prophecy of the Old Testament are based on supernatural influence, or not, is arguable, but not the fact that the two coincide nonetheless). Thus, there are only three possible conclusions that I can think of:
1) The events of the New Testament and the prophecy of the OT are completely coincidental, beyond any reasonable realm of mathematical probability
2) The OT and NT are the components of a conspiracy spanning the entire history of human civilization, in which the dozens of writers of the Bible were all in perfect synchrony to the point that they had pre-planned the entire writing of the Bible from 1500 B.C. to 90 A.D. (when the last book of the Bible was written).
3) The OT and NT are miraculously coincidental to the point that God had inspired the composing of themSo, if you’re still going to call me close-minded for believing conclusion (3) above the other two, based on logical reasoning of what God would have wanted in my best interests, then so be it. I understand the movement of the continents. However, that neither means they have ALWAYS been moving NOR does it mean that the earth is billions of years old. That is why they’re still hypotheses in the realm of science, not theories. However, they are still possible alternatives to the theory that the mid-Atlantic ridge has been spreading the continents over the past 200 m.y. Clearly shows, you say? Then tell me, why does archaeology show also, that there is evidence of an Egyptian army at the bottom of the Red Sea, with gold-plated wooden chariots and chariot-wheels not attached to their chariots (described in Exodus 14:25) and, btw, the age determined by the style and structure of the chariots matches the same time period of the Red Sea Crossing in the Bible? Also, there exist two pillars, one on either side of the Red Sea (the Gulf of Aqaba, to be exact) which were inscribed by King Solomon to commemorate the Red Sea Crossing (an event found by Archaeology that matches the Bible but is not found IN the Bible). Not true. The use of plate tectonics to describe the age of the earth (which I already have shown the major hole in the argument) is like using the traveling of a car on Highway 101 in Oregon to PROVE that the car started in L.A. four days earlier (it could have gotten on at the last exit). Like how the fact that Highway 101 extends from Canada to California does not prove that a car traveling north through Oregon MUST HAVE started in L.A., the movement of the plate tectonics does not PROVE that they have always been moving (or that the earth is more than 7000 years old). If you disagree, explain this to me like I’m a five-year-old:
How does the movement of the plate tectonics PROVE that the earth is 200 millions years old?
As I stated earlier (my most important points, I believe):
Radiometric dating and plate tectonic movement measurement do not measure age. Rather, they respectively measure the amounts of isotopes and the direction and speed of continental drift, and from that an inference is made as to the age of the earth (based on uniformitarian viewpoints and assumed interpretations of the evidence). I believe that God created the universe 7000 years ago. Call it science; call it faith; call it a pain in the neck; but, above all, call it a possibility!
I am not dumb to science and will not ever let my personal and moral beliefs interfere with scientific research. That is, regardless of what I see as a reality about the world, I still understand how science works and I believe that much good can come from science. I also have a deep interest in many (most, actually) areas of science and I will continue to do research and learning in most if not all areas of science for as long as I am alive and able. All the scientific findings of the world do not prove that there is no God and, frankly, it doesn’t matter much in the long run.Thank you for taking the time to read this LENGTHY response (I understand your schedule being as busy as mine seems to be... I hear ya).Well, sincerely,
Servant

---

Open minds and open hearts... seeing what the world chooses not to see... seeing what no one else sees...