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

Hi! Just a comment on where I stand. I believe in creation and evolution. I believe that, except for speciation, most evolutionary advances were done by genetic engineering under the direction of God. (We seem to skirt around using the word God for intelligent creation.) But I believe that the spirits of each man or woman are offspring of a God and therefore were not created by the evolutionary path that all flora and fauna followed. In fact, I will go a step further and if you can accept the previous statement, perhaps you could imagine that God's children were the genetic engineers working under his direction. When we get tired of working on the farm, we quit and "called it a day." I would not get too stuck on using a "day" or 6000 years as the age of the earth. If you believe God created the earth, do you suppose he placed fossil superposition, radioactive dating and the many other tool discovered by scientists just to fool them with all their efforts to understand his creations?
I can expand on all of these ideas if you wish, but it is philosophy and not hard science. Sincerely, William

I have very few problems with anything that you have put
forward, from a philosophical perspective.I disagree with the idea of interventions by God along
the way, and prefer to support the search for naturalistic
explanations.

[QUOTE][b]In fact, I will go a step further and if you can accept the previous statement, perhaps you could imagine that God's children were the genetic engineers working under his direction.[/QUOTE][/b]As in the Book of Abraham? [QUOTE][b]I would not get too stuck on using a "day" or 6000 years as the age of the earth.[/QUOTE][/b]Doctrine and Covenants 77:6 says the following: [QUOTE][b]We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existance[/QUOTE][/b]Maybe that means Post-fall but it just shows that it isn't easy to be an OE LDS. I do not know how much information the prophets have about the Creation but I occasionally hear disturbing things in Church pubs. For starters, Ensign, September 1980, which essentially rails against the current scientific view in favor of a catastrophic young Earth: [QUOTE][b]It is therefore helpful to remember, when pondering the millions of years secularists postulate to explain the formation of the earth, that all current geological dating processes are based on the assumption that the present order of nature preceded us and will continue uniformly hereafter. This secularist view also holds that God, if he exists, never has and never will interfere. However, the revelations Latter-day Saints have about the earth and God’s dealings with it simply do not permit us to make those assumptions.[/QUOTE][/b]President Hinckley has also formed a negative opinion on evolution. In Ensign, October 1984 he said this: [QUOTE][b]I remember when I was a college student there were great discussions on the question of organic evolution. I took classes in geology and biology and heard the whole story of Darwinism as it was then taught. I wondered about it. I thought much about it. But I did not let it throw me, for I read what the scriptures said about our origins and our relationship to God.[/QUOTE][/b]Then this, from the Apostle Russel Nelson [QUOTE]New Era October 1987 [b]Through the ages, some without scriptural understanding have tried to explain our existence by pretentious words such as ex nihilo (out of nothing). Others have deduced that, because of certain similarities between different forms of life, there has been an organic evolution from one form to another. Many of these have concluded that the universe began as a big bang that eventually resulted in the creation of our planet and life upon it.To me, such theories are unbelievable! Could an explosion in a printing shop produce a dictionary? It is unthinkable! Even if it could be argued to be within a remote realm of possibility, such a dictionary could certainly not heal its own torn pages or renew its own worn corners or reproduce its own subsequent editions![/QUOTE][/b]What are we to make of these quotes?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
[B]

quote:

---

You have to be a Christian, and you have to interpret the Bible in a certain way, before you believe that humanity has a universally fallen nature. So, the perspective doesn't work for everyone. In fact, lots and lots of people don't think that humanity has a universally fallen nature.

​

Reply:
So, do you believe in statistical morality, the notion that if enough people believe a certain way, then it must be OK?

---

Not at all.My morality is based on a combination of the Golden Rule (Do Unto Others...), Live and Let Live, rational self interest, and recognition of the value of following group rules and engaging in cooperation for the greater good.

quote:

---

I, as a non-christian, do not believe that humanity has a universally fallen nature. I think that humanity is neither good nor bad, by nature. Our cultures and societies have constructed rules and morals by which we have constructed value systems (which have changed, and continue to change, over time), and by these value systems we judge the "goodness" or "badness" of human behavior.

​

Reply:
Well, that's certainly the popular humanistic perspective.

---

It beats the heck out of living my life feeling like I am worthless or unworthy. It also seems to be the most rational way to look at how and why human cultures are the way they are.If you believe that all is hopeless with regards to human nature, and that we are all "fallen", then a bleak and dreary perspective you must have. It is much more hopeful and inspiring to me to recognize that we CAN change. Under your philosphy, we are hopelessly doomed.

quote:

---

BTW, MArty, I was wondering if you are going to reply to
my comment on your claim that secular humanism is promoted in our schools?

​

Reply:
What was the secular humanism comment again . . . sorry.

---

You made the comment that the unofficial, yet promoted, religion in our public schools was Secular Humanism.I replied that our public schools were just as steeped in the Judeo/Christian Tradition as every other part of public life in the US, as evidencd by the recognition of Christmas, Easter, and St. Valentine's day during the school year, with the vacations that go along with these Christian holidays.Children also recite "under God" in the Pledge to the flag every single day.

quote:

---

The difference is that naturalists are unable or unwilling to distinguish between unseen processes that can be uncontroversially extrapolated from empirical realities, and unseen processes that are inherently metaphysical in nature.

---

So, how can we tell the difference between an "inherently metaphysical" process and a natural process that we don't (or can't) understand?You are making a "God of the Gaps" argument. The problem with this is that for unexplained phenomena, there's always the possibility of a naturalistic solution that we haven't thought of.You cannot claim "Godidit" simply because science does not possess perfect knowledge.It is a very large leap from "We don't know" to "Godidit". Also, history is littered with examples of people claiming "Godidit" until science figures out the natural process or system that was previously thought to be only possible by God's hand.The example of Apollo driving the sun across the sky in his firey chariot comes to mind. Or Thor sending down ligtning bolts.etc.

QUOTE
Your first reaction is correct. Comparing MSH to the geological column is utter silliness. If the entire geological record consisted of a proximal stratovolcanic environment, Martin would have a point. However, to compare pyroclastic flows to coral reefs makes no sense whatever.Reply:
You say that I don't have a point because the MSH strata's were formed differently than other strata's that evolutionists point to in order to prove evolution. I don't doubt that strata's were formed by some different processes. What I claim is that if the MSH phenomenon was to be evaluated in the future by naturalists who had no idea that the MSH region was formed by the aftermath of a volcanic eruption, they would look at the vast variety of its strata's according to the millions-of-years evolutionary philosophical bias, i.e., the way they have looked at the ones already "evaluated." The fact is that we have irrefutable documentation that multiple layers of very different and very distinct strata levels, virtually identical to other strata level sites that evolutionists cite to prove evolution, have been laid down in a very brief span of time--suddenly, in comparison to the evolutionary framework.
If it's silly for a person to seriously consider what we have as a product of the MSH eruption (as a potential disproof of the naturalistic take on the ToE), then I guess I'm "silly" . . . and further informed about the psychology of dyed-in-the-wool naturalists.Quote:
He seems to understand that the MSH deposits do not have many fossils, but does not seem to understand why. This is a very important difference that he shrugs off as insignificant.Reply:
Actually, I realize that the MSH deposits would reflect the number of animals who were overcome by the phenomenon, which could very well be a substantial amount. I think that time itself is the only thing that is "hindering" discovery of potential "fossils" there. Of course, it would take money to launch a serious investigation of the stata's there, in order to find fossils. It is significant that such aventure has not taken place. But is it necessarily unreasonable to believe that many, many animals were overcome by the aftermath of the MSH eruption?
I must say, though, that the MSH situation was different than the Flood of Noah scenario that wouldn't have killed everything in its path almost instantly. In the Flood narrative of the Bible, water covered the earth in a variety of ways, including water welling up from the great deep, which would cause creatures near those places to seek higher ground. Therefore, Noah's Flood would seem to present a better opportunity for a distinction in the strata levels to reflect a "better ability to escape from the disaster" scenario.In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)--Marty

My "reply quote" was not fully honored, thus:You pointed out that the strata order is derived from the fact that certain critters appear in certain strata pretty consistently. OK, except I'd say "somewhat" instead of "pretty." It is idependent of evolution, naturalism, or creationism. Yes. The ToE explains why these critters fall into the strata the way they do (according to the dictates of evolutionary metaphysics). You haven't seen any creation/flood theory that explains the sequence. In order to offer a competing theory, it wouldn't necessarily require an indepth treatise to contend that the established sequence of fossils simply represents an increasing ability to escape from the Flood. It is a viable possibility regardless of whether or not it has been formalized.Edge responded to my Mt. St. Helens point; you might have already read it and my response to it.QUOTE:
Science assumes certain metaphysical underpinnings; creationism assumes different underpinnings. As someone who has spent way too much time reading philosophy, I can understand your frustration here. But in accepting some science you open yourself up to all of the implications of science. Otherwise, you begin to commit a string of fallacies one of which is that of the double standard.Reply:
I assume you mean that naturalism and creationism each assume certain different metaphysical underpinnings, and with those underpinnings, each uses science in an attempt to harmonize the favored model with empirical data. By "accepting some science I open myself up to all of the implications of science," do you mean that since I operate from the metaphysical underpinnings of creationism, that I must, rather (in order to be "scientific"), evaluate evidences through an acceptance of the metaphysical underpinnings of naturalism"?You asked how naturalists should learn to distinguish between unseen processes that can be uncontroversially extrapolated from empirical realities, and unseen processes that are inherently metaphysical in nature. The first step--a bigee--would necessitate the current gatekeepers of the definition of "science" (full blown naturalists, not objectively so), to acknowledge the validity of the basic point I intimate in the latter paragraph, that it is philosophy versus philosophy, and not philosophy (creationism) versus science (naturalism). But this will never happen. Naturalists will not give up their power structure that has developed in the culture. It's reduced to a theoretical question. If the impossible did occur, though, another step toward objectivity would require some establishment of a hierarchy of knowledge-quality categories based upon the perspective of nonassumptivism, from which, relevant knowledge philosophies ascend from the most trustworthy to the least trustworthy categories:METAPHYSICAL
class III knowledgeRATIONAL
class II knowledge
--two types:
(1) uncontroversially established:
non-empirical knowledge that has gained universal
acceptance (by creationists and evolutionists)
(2) controversial/neutral:
unconfirmed theories (to explain causes of earth-
quakes, global warming, etc.) that have no
necessary connection to a particular philosophical
view
EMPIRICAL
class I knowledge--always tangibly verifiableThis might provide an idea of how I think "science" could be improved.In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)--Marty

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
[b]QUOTE
What I claim is that if the MSH phenomenon was to be evaluated in the future by naturalists who had no idea that the MSH region was formed by the aftermath of a volcanic eruption, they would look at the vast variety of its strata's according to the millions-of-years evolutionary philosophical bias, i.e., the way they have looked at the ones already "evaluated." [/QUOTE][/b]No. They would look a it and realize that MSH strata represent pyroclastic flows. It isn't that hard to do.

quote:

---

The fact is that we have irrefutable documentation that multiple layers of very different and very distinct strata levels, virtually identical to other strata level sites that evolutionists cite to prove evolution

---

But the point you are missing is that the MSH strata are not virtually identical to 'other strata' [QUOTE][b]. . . and further informed about the psychology of dyed-in-the-wool naturalists.[/QUOTE][/b]ooooooo....oooooooo....... what can you tell me about my psychology????!!!!

quote:

---

Actually, I realize that the MSH deposits would reflect the number of animals who were overcome by the phenomenon, which could very well be a substantial amount.

---

I am sure you are right.

quote:

---

It is significant that such aventure has not taken place.

---

aha.... the conspiracy!

quote:

---

But is it necessarily unreasonable to believe that many, many animals were overcome by the aftermath of the MSH eruption?

---

Not unreasonable at all, but it won't look like non-pyroclastic strata.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

My "reply quote" not fully honored, thus:I'll get back with you about the pyroclastic flow aspect of your argument.Peace. I don't want you to read too much into my claim about naturalistically-governed mindsets availing further perspectives on their psychology. I only meant that if we are to accept the premise that all of us wear blinders to some degree about at least some things, I might be onto the naturalistic mindset today a bit more than I was yesterday.The fact that there may not have been a serious exploration of the MSH strata's yet, is not a conspiracty, at least according to all of my understanding of the issue. I pointed out the problems so far (of time and money).In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)--Marty

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
Not unreasonable at all, but it won't look like non-pyroclastic strata.

​

---

My "reply quote" was not fully honored, thus:I'll get back with you about MSH doing NOTHING to the understanding of geological processes, time and evolution.You pointed out that Steve Austin thinks MSH does yield a fossil study at this time--the trees. Yes, that's right. I was referring to the animals. If memory serves, he taught that some of the trees that retained bulky root systems sank (in upright positions) at intervals to the bottom of Spirit Lake and were then gradually buried at different levels from sinking sediment caused in part by the bark rubbing off of the floating logs on the surface. He offered that this phenomenon could relate to the upright logs that run through multiple strata's of rock that evolutionists claim represent millions of years. I recall him making the point that trees in the geological column, if they grew at the strata level where they now exist, during the epoch represented at the base of the tree--its root area--then the root systems of those trees should not end so abruptly. Of course, he is persuaded from his investigation of the MSH phenomenon that the upright logs intersecting multiple levels of the geological column were deposited in this way (uprooted, transported, redeposited), thus making a case for the idea that these strata's do not represent time frames embraced by evolutionists wherein so-called multi-million-year-old forests existed. The various fossilized tree strata's may simply represent one event that had upright trees redeposited at various levels, covered up by distinct layers of debris or earth.I'm not sure what point you were trying to make about the dinosaurs not being represented in the proposed fossil record for MSH. But, yes, dinosaurs escaped the pyroclastic flows of MSH if "escaped" means that the dinosaurs weren't around for the MSH eruption.QUOTE:
Heck, I'm still looking for one credible instance.Reply:
That is incredible. Well, we're tied then, because I haven't ever seen one credible instance of a fossil failing to harmonize with the creationist model.In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)--Marty

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
My "reply quote" not fully honored, thus:

---

Hey Martin,Something that seems to help with the 'reply quote' function is to select the post and copy it, then hit reply quote.Kinda weird but so far it has worked for me everytime I've had trouble (bout three or four times now) I haven't decided if this is a trick of my imagination or a dependable glitch.take care------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

QUOTE:
So, how can we tell the difference between an "inherently metaphysical" process and a natural process that we don't (or can't) understand?You are making a "God of the Gaps" argument. The problem with this is that for unexplained phenomena, there's always the possibility of a naturalistic solution that we haven't thought of.Reply:
First of all, there's a difference between appealing to God regarding natural processes that followed the original works of creation, and appealing to God as the Creator who made the laws of physics that can be used to address "naturalistic solution(s)" for unexplained phenomena (in the sense of "naturalistic" meaning that we can investigate nature to see how things happen). So, as a creationist, I wouldn't consider the quantum jump phenomenon as God zapping particles in and out of existence. I believe that there are physical reasons for this phenomenon. I would say, though, that God created this universe with the laws of physics that allow for the quantum jump to occur. It's just as metaphysical to say God doesn't exist as it is to say that he does. It's just as metaphysical to operate with a definition of science that assumes the legitimacy of the latter being true, as it is to assume the former is true. At least theoretically, both views are equally possible, and so to rule out one unproven philosophical possibility for another is irrational. Naturalism is not all about nature simply in the sense that that is what must be used in order to be objective; naturalism makes it impossible to consider God even if nature itself supplies evidence that would lead rational people to consider the possibility
that the universe may have come into existence by "something" that transcends nature.Quote:
You cannot claim "Godidit" simply because science does not possess perfect knowledge.Reply:
Yes, and . . .
. . . It is a very large leap from "We don't know" to "Godidit," or to God didn't do it (refering to creation works).Quote:
Also, history is littered with examples of people claiming "Godidit" until science figures out the natural process or system that was previously thought to be only possible by God's hand.The example of Apollo driving the sun across the sky in his firey chariot comes to mind. Or Thor sending down ligtning bolts.Reply:
And history is littered with examples of people claiming inferior things, things that the Bible anachronously refuted all along the way, things that science too has eventually figured out, i.e., caught up with an area of Biblical revelation.The example of levitical sanitation principles compared to the coterminus example of inferior secular humanist medical practices
of the Egyptian Empire comes to mind. Or the sphericity of the earth as declared in scriptures compared to the coterminus inferior secular humanistic notions of ancient times.In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)--Marty

Something that seems to help with the 'reply quote' function is to select the post and copy it, then hit reply quote.Hey, thanks for the tip. But I'm afraid I have an embarassing confession. I don't know how to do what you recommend . . . h-e-l-p m-e . . . (The Fly).

Martin writes:
Neither creationists or evolutionists/naturalists would posit a supernatural force for things like the movements of pool balls.Reply:
But the Lord works in mysterious ways. How can you pretend to know in what way God will reveal his presence? By what set of rules do you conclude that he would burn a bush but not consume it, wrestle the night long with Jacob, answer the prayers of children, place tears on paintings of the virgin Mary, but not alter the paths of billiard balls.Reply:
If I had sufficient reason, either scriptural or "natural," I could be inclined to believe a number of things. The burning bush, for example, is a detail of a work that is supported by a substantial body of apologetics, information that has provided me with a reason to believe that the incidences referred to actually occured. But I don't suspect that the burning bush incident is anything but a one-time occurence that only Moses saw. "If God exists," he could intervene into things as he sees fit, but this whole line of reasoning seems to skirt an important issue. Are you, as a naturalist, denying the possibility that God exists? If indeed you cannot assert that God does not exist, don't you see the problem with a definition of science that doesn't allow at least for the possibility of his existence? In principle, the belief in naturalism is subject to the same set of philosophical complaints
that your making about creationism. You responded along these lines with me before:But regarding ultimate origins, do naturalists know scientifically or via a priori knowledge that there was no Creator. If the answer is "No; but we must, at the onset, by definition, rule out that possibility..."That for which we have no evidence can by no means be ruled out. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. All it means is that we have no evidence. But theories are formed around evidence, not around absence of evidence.Science is about studying and understanding the universe though our five natural senses, while religion is about exploring the nature and meaning of life itself. It trivializes this noble endeavor to turn it aside from spiritual realities to instead focus on the mere materialism of rocks and fossils.Reply:
Nobody has a right to Christian faith unless that faith is based upon reality. Part of reality that Christian faith addresses is origins. The notion you convey in your latter sentence is simply erroneous.Given the "uncompared" (because I am not knowledgeable of all the religious alternatives) belief in Christ, I'll allude to the training of bankers to detect counterfeit currency. They are not shown vast amounts of fake bills so that they can better identify fake bills. It is my understanding that they simply study the real thing, and that alone enables them to identify fakes. This is a parallel to one who accepts Christian doctrine in a world of religious counterfeits.Your banker logic is just as valid for the Moslem and the Hindu and the Buddhist and so on. So far you haven't distinguished Christianity from any other religion.Reply:
Their beliefs aren't substantiated with apologetical-class data.My replies above point out how naturalism is an inherently assumptive statement of faith. And too, naturalists use all of the scientific data that they can muster in order to rationalize their fundamentally metaphysical perspective...I guess if you wax sufficiently philosophical you can make anything seem ethereal and insubstantive, but the facts show that Creationism is a product of just one of many religions and is itself split among many viewpoints that place us on both a billions-year-old earth and a thousands-year-old earth, flooded from above and flooded from below.Reply:
Consider also the dissent that exists within naturalistic ranks.That Creationism is unable to work toward any consensus whatsoever reveals its inherent subjective nature.Reply:
Ditto (a la naturalism).In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)--Marty

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:

Something that seems to help with the 'reply quote' function is to select the post and copy it, then hit reply quote.

​

Hey, thanks for the tip. But I'm afraid I have an embarassing confession. I don't know how to do what you recommend . . . h-e-l-p m-e . . . (The Fly).

​

---

Well, I have now found a case where this trick didn't work but here goes.Put your mouse cursor at the begining of the post, left click and drag to the bottom of the post. Then right click on the selected text to get a pop-up menu. Choose 'copy.' Then use 'reply quote' like normal.Even if it doesn't work like planned you can paste into the reply window.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com