Creationists:: What would convince you that evolution has happened ?

I didn't actually say that creationists were one,
and evolutionists were the other.If you enquire objectively (as possible) then that's
OK.If you start with an assumption about the answer and then
seek out evidences after the fact I would question the
validity of the approach.ToE stems from Darwin's observations, and we have increasingly
found evidences that match the basic concepts.YEC stems from the Bible ... and to make the evidence fit seems
on the whole to require casting doubt on scientific methods
which have been tested and verified considerably.

Redemption is always gonna be Christ-like in nature. For redemption involves restoring a sin-cursed event (to varying degrees) on some given cosmic level. To deny redemptive observations exist in nature is to follow empiricism to its reprobate end; i.e., declaring that secondary causes exist APRIORI.That they reflect a Redeemer that gives his life for his friends (life and death) requires revelation, Christian faith, and/or rational deduction based on the empirical observations of redemptive events in nature and in our souls:This would include the billions of life-supporting events continuing on billions of cosmic levels that enable you and I to exist at all. Such excellencies like the billions of precise configurations of naturalist phenomena that we take for granted I won't go into (you can count your blessings as well). I know you won't disagree with our multi-tiered excellencies that become the criteria for being alive.These are all redemptive in nature in that we don't deserve any of them, will never deserve any of them, and never did deserve them. Yet our lives are sustained by them. God's gifts and grace(s) may be concluded as redemptive, unselfish, self-denying, glorifying, just, holy, etc. based on our empirical observations even, yes?Can you take the Redeemer (Christ) out of any redemptive observations? ...Not, unless you deny the observations are redemptive, like a fundamental empiricist.Any fundamental empiricists out there who REALLY wish to deny the billions of redemptive observations and events we witness in nature ... that are keeping us alive?

I wanted to respond to your post, but I don't remember how to get your post transferred to my reply field (it has been over a year since I've done it--I know it's a simple process, would you enlighten me on the method, please?).Anyway, I agree with a lot of what you have to say, but I predict that we'll have to part company over the issue of how science is perceived. You wrote: One of the problems is that of intentionally failing to be forthright about weaknesses of favored theories in textbooks. For example, open up any public high school Biology textbook in the origin of life chapter (and beyond), and you'll see language that would lead one to believe, Not that we see evidence that leads us to believe (and here it is) that life has a natural tendency to come into being on its own, but, rather, that we should believe that life came into existence on its own (because we must assume that only physical matter exists, and no supernatural force). "What's wrong with that?" you say. There's a difference between science dealing with what is, and the assumption of life coming into being on its own. (I think that creationists who believe in evolution are victims of philosophers, who may also be scientists, who have convinced them that evolution is not just factual, but true. So, if one believes that the universe didn't just pop into existence on its own, and if evolution is true, God must have used evolution to create, and not some other means that naturalists are uncomfortable with . . . but that is at least as compatable with the observable facts as are naturalistic tenets.) To modify your claim a bit, I believe that, yes, science deals with what is, and religion deals with what comes after; however, "science" can be manipulated philosophically by presently-seated sociological forces that promote the religion of naturalism under the banner of science, and so, in a similar way that religion does not only deal with what comes after (but also deals with what is), "science" can go way beyond "what is" to cause people to believe things that are no more substatiated or provable than the "what comes after" interest of religion. If public school textbooks, "nats-ic" TV documentaries, etc., were promoting straight science, I wouldn't have much of a problem--but that's not what's going on.

Martin,It's no great feat to accuse believers who affirm the evolutionary explanation for biological complexity of being duped by the massive naturalistic conspiracy. It's no great feat to claim that creationism hasn't made it into pop science magazines and school textbooks because of the massive naturalistic conspiracy.The great feat would be to show us how supernaturalism has ever contributed to scientific progress. Please demonstrate one example of successful scientific research conducted under the assumption that supernatural forces are relevant to science.Otherwise, we'll all stick with our naturalistic dogma, since at least it works.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Sorry, but I'm afraid an old topic has been revived - Probably since this one was active, we've gotten the idea that topics with this many messages are subject to technical problems - They develop damage for no apparent reason.Closing down - Again, sorry about that,Adminnemooseus