Creationists are coming to town

I should start out by saying that I am a student in Cornerstone's science program as well, albeit a very small yet very dedicated group. I want to say that I discovered this site after your post and was interested to read some of the other threads. I was very impressed with your relative fairness on the subject. Usually the topic of origins brings out a lot of emotions and heated debate solves nothing. I am, however, not impressed with your last post.If I may I'd like to say a couple things before answering any of your questions. To say that the study of evolution is an unbiased one would be unfair. I believe there is more to the subject than scientific theory. It is safe to say that Christians have alot at stake in the debate, but at the same time the same thing can be said about any evolutionist. Atheist or not, any evidence that supports the existence of a Creator is significantly dangerous to an evolutionist. It threatens to undermine the very foundations of their worldview. The existence of a creator has many implications such as the existence of a fixed moral standard. Dr. Fryling, by the way, never called anyone an atheist baby killer. What he said was that from our origins we must derive a moral law, one that values human life. The closest thing to a moral law that you can develop from evolution is survival of the fittest. I’d like to reiterate that this does not make or insinuate that anyone is a baby killerIn order to discuss this topic openly and fairly you must concede that evolutionists have more to lose than just their pride. Creationists are not the only ones that can be biased. While my next point may seem arbitrary or just deluded to you I must make it. It is a conclusion I have come to after much contemplation and frustration. Evolution is more than a science. It is a way of life. Examining our culture will give you many clues. Growing up I had always been deeply fascinated and moved by evolution. As a child it was The Land Before Time, then Jurassic Park, and later others like Contact and Mission to Mars. There were always the PBS shows like NOVA and the National Geographic magazines. All of these things romanticized the subject considerably. I was in love to say the least. There came a time in my life when I had to reconcile my faith with this science. I say all of this to say that the belief in evolution requires a worship of it.
I would like to make another point. Evolutionists argue that creationists are very narrow-minded. We limit science by forcing unnecessary restrictions upon it. I would counter by saying that true science requires boundaries or at least presuppositions. When we study science we must make the assumption that there is order in the universe and that we can somehow know it. Creationists make the presupposition that there is a Creator. When we study science we study his laws and designs. Without these limits we would not be able to form any theories.As well I would like to consider the possibility that Origins falls outside the realm of true empirical science. We cannot observe it, we cannot isolate it in a lab, we cannot replicate it, and as far as I know we cannot test it. This should humble us all when taking up this discussion. In truth I believe we can at best only defend a position, but never prove it. I believe in the area of origins science has become far too presumptuous.On your first question of the canopy theory you ask a question as to its origin. If it did exist the answer is simple. It was most likely part of the original creation. You mentioned problems about the rate at which water needed to arrive. I don’t know what those specific problems might be. You’ll have to elaborate. Otherwise the Genesis account specifically states that in the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open and the floodgates of the sky were opened.You also mentioned the kinds, and the number of animals on the ark. You complained that that was not enough to supply everything we have today. You would have us believe that everything here came from a single celled prokaryotic amoeba. I think the first theory is far more plausible. Firstly we would limit this to land dwelling animals and insects. As far as speciation is concerned I believe that that is a more than substantial number. We do it all the time with breeding; pigs, cows, cats, especially dogs. It is amazing the different varieties we can come up with in only a few generations of selective breeding. They range from the size of a small bear to smaller than a basketball. As far as the herbivorous T-Rex I am not familiar with this theory. I do know, however, that it is entirely realistic. You are assuming that some evolutionary process was required to allow the T-Rex to change its diet. You are also assuming that it became entirely carnivorous which cannot be substantiated. Dogs eat dog food that has no meat in it. Bears can survive on nuts and berries. Omnivorous humans can flourish on an entirely vegetarian diet. As far as handling the beast it is also useful to understand that before the Flood men had complete dominion over animals. It was only after the Flood that God gave Noah the ordinance to eat the animals, at which point he instilled in them a fear of men.Now I want to respond briefly to a few things you have said. I believe your analysis of the presentation was unfair. I regret to admit that I could not attend the story hour because I was in fact studying for one of Dr. Fryling’s Organic Chemistry tests. I am, nonetheless, rather familiar with the views of all three of my professor’s. I have tremendous respect for them and I do not appreciate your misrepresentation of them. Your response was a bit childish and it revealed that you never approached the subject objectively. Dr Fryling is an exceptional professor who goes above and beyond for his students. You made a point of critiquing his presentation because he did not provide you with answers to all the questions that you provided after the fact.Because I do not believe that you approached the subject objectively I would like to respond and end with two questions for you. How much time would you have liked the professor to spend covering every point that could possibly come up in this type of debate? And what would be sufficient evidence to prove to you a Creator exists?{Put in the blank lines - Adminnemooseus}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-13-2004]

thanks for the advice. as for the statement i made i admit i made it without any qualifications, and that was wrong.

To NosyNed,
Thank you for the warm welcome. I apologize for posting off topic. My main intent was to address fliesonly.
I, however, believe I may have been misunderstood. When I say Creator I do not just mean a deity. I mean the God who created the everything from nothing (aka 6 days). Proof of his existence would be particularly threatening to evolutionary theory and evolutionists in turn. My only point there is that noone likes to have their worldview crushed (myself included).
While I have no reason to disagree with your statement about the number of scientists who proclaim Christ I have to question the number of scientists who hold to evolutionary theory. I know that creationsists are vastly outnumbered. I happened to read a book in high school which I still have. "in six days" was edited by john f. ashton PhD. It consists of essays from 50 scientists who believe in a literal 6 day creation. They span the gambit from physicists to biologists and everything in between all with PhD's in their fields. To this list I can add my biology professor, chemistry professor, anatomy professor, and ecology professor. While I realize that there are more than 54000 scientists in the world I suggest that creationists compose more than 1% of the serious scientific community.
In response to Coragyps thank you for the welcome as well. On the subject of the T-Rex I am currently under the impression that there are now theories that suggest T-Rex was more of a scavenger because of the nature of his teeth. Your comment about the bears interested me so I looked around. From what I have found the teeth of bears reflect those of an animal that would be strictly carnivorous. The only distinction is that made between brown bears (mostly vegetarian) and polar bears (mostly carnivorous). The polar bears have slightly bigger and sharper teeth. It is still maintained however that the brown bear's teeth are carnivorous. I think the teeth of domesticated cats and dogs also show that a creature with carnivorous teeth can flourish on a vegetartian diet. BTW what does the rabbit survive on when there are no humans to eat? [This message has been edited by Kodiak, 04-13-2004]

First of all, someone correct me if I am posting this in the wrong place.I have no idea how many evolutionary biologists believe in a god, but I assure you it is not the God which I am trying to describe. There is something ultimately less about a god who relies on evolution to produce man imago dei. When I say that His existence would be threatening I am talking about the God who created the universe and everything in it in 6 days. I honestly believe that evolutionary theory is a reaction to God. I am certain, however, that you have other threads where I should debate this specific issue, so I will stop here.On the issue of worldview I think it would be wonderful if we could all just view the world. Unfortunately thats an impossibility. We are finite creatures and must have a basic set of presuppositions from which to operate. Just as a computer requires a language we require preconceived notions about our universe. To say that we should just view the world proceeds proceeds from a worldview that says objectivity is inherently better. For me worldview is a worldview. hahhahhah. somethings wrong with that. So in conclusion I wish we could be entirely unbiased but men cannot function that way.For those who ascribe to theistic evolution I lovingly encourage you to fully consider the ramifications of this belief. What are the results of believing in this demi-god? I assure you he is not the loving all-powerful God spoken of in Genesis.I want to repeat an honest question. If you happen to be an atheist reading this, what would it take for you to change your mind? What would you require of God to believe in his existence.For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that [we] are without excuse. (Romans 1:20 NASB)BTW If I offended someone by calling them an evolutionist I am sorry, it was not my intention to use it in a derogatory way.

wow, it's late and i should be finishing my paper. I realize you are only an hour behind me so you are probably feeling it too. This debate, however, is much more fascinating and ultimately more important I believe.You started out by saying that theistic evos (thats what I assume were talking about here) believe my God is not biblical. I would not go that far. Most likely they just believe that he doesnt jive with the scientific evidence as well.You made the analogy of a pool player. You're right, I believe that the player who gets them all in in one shot is pretty impressive. I don't, however, believe this analogy is appropriate. A God who uses evolution is not a pretty pool player. He makes alot of mistakes, alot of scratches, and puts the other guy’s balls in the pocket alot. As a matter of fact his game is pretty painful and I think he barely gets by. On the other hand the omnipotent Creator whom I speak of requires no set up. He supplies the balls from nothing, he racks them, and he gets them all in off the break.I'll have to admit your pie analogy has me stumped. My God has to either make the pie all at once or keep messing with it. I dont think it can be both. Which one is it? Which one is better? And how would you propose that this other god does it?As far as subtlety I will agree that it is a trait which God chooses to manifest from time to time. It is a trait he chooses to manifest to Elijah on the mountainside, and I believe it is also one he commonly uses to win his children to him. I do not, however, believe that it is inherently better. This depends upon the situation. As for the creation of the world I would like him not to be so subtle. I want clear and demonstrative evidence that he exists, which I believe creation is. "The message of God's creation has gone out to everyone, and its words to all the world" (Romans 10:18 NLT). I say all this humbly acknowledging that his plan goes before my desires. I think a football analogy is in order. Suppose you are a QB. When a 250lb Defensive End crushes you in one blow you will remember him. You will never doubt his power and you will never question his existence.I will agree with you about your next statement. You say that scientific theories do not as a rule make statements about God. I would like to limit this to secular science. I fancy myself a fledgling scientist and the theories to which I ascribe relate directly to God. It does not, I believe, limit me in any way. When I seek to understand laws I go to the legislators for understanding. Similarly when I seek to understand the natural laws I go to the Supreme Legislator. I would like to honestly say that evolutionary theory is nothing short of amazing. When you will not allow God into your theories about the world and the universe you immediately remove Creationism as a viable alternative. If I had good reason to doubt the existence of God evolutionary theory would be my basis of understanding as well. I cannot discredit the fact that many brilliant men have poured out their lives in the pursuit of understanding. I am, however, saddened that they did not and could not consider creationism as an alternative. You made the statement that "Evolutionary theory is a reaction to evidence, not the Bible." I would edit that to say evolutionary theory is a reaction to evidence minus the bible and minus God.I think that what I just said also serves as suitable response to your next comment as well. I would also say that you are rash in claiming that no one has ever observed God. I have never been to Detroit to see the Ford plant, but I drive a Ford so I assume they exist nonetheless. The Israelites also claim to have seen God visibly, Moses especially, not to mention the prophets. The disciples died because they demanded that they had seen God in the flesh. Once again, all of creation testifies to his existence. I believe he is rather visible.You then made the statement that holding a materialistic worldview somehow makes the world a better place. I resent the implication that believers are too foolish to ever make any scientific advancements. I would also note that I think the world is not a better place overall than it has been in the past.About the dark ages: I think it was called the dark ages because Thomas Edison had yet to invent the light bulb. Seriously though I wont defend the Church here except to say that the true Bride of Christ has never been powerful by worldly standards. You cannot look at a church that governed the world and say, "look! here is the church, look at what the church is doing." The church has seen good and bad days but I believe it has always consisted of a relatively small remnant of true believers. A culture based on abusing the power of religion does not make the church. Even now the heart of the church is not based in America or Western Europe (I wish I could say otherwise), but truly it exists where it is persecuted most violently, where people daily sacrifice their lives to proclaim the love of Christ. All this to agree, religion is bad, true christianity is not religion.Finally, what then does it take to substantiate my existence? Is this conversation sufficient? If it is, then the Word of God, the Bible, should be sufficient. What if I suffered and died a bloody death for you only to return from the dead? Would that be enough? He's already done that too. Does it take more? Must you see me face to face? I would submit that if you ever saw God's face it would more than take away doubt. It would take away your ability to doubt or think or do anything but bow your knee and confess his name. I submit that believing would no longer be a choice. I believe that he wants you to make this choice. This is why you do not look upon him. If you truly require an explanation then you can find it in his Word.I say all this humbly (or at least should). I realize this post may irritate you but I really want to communicate what I believe while angering as few people as possible.
A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger (Proverbs 15:1).

To Crashfrog:
I once was a theistic evo. Its really the only option to a believer who grows up in the public school system in the US and is flooded with evo propoganda. No offense meant there, but it really is enforced in schools like nothing else. From my personal experience I did not believe that the Creationist God was inferior I just couldnt reconcile him with an ancient earth. When I came to realize that old earth was theory and not fact I suddenly God came alive to me. He was not some mystic anology that may or not have been neccesary, he was the very real, very powerful Creator. From the past tense I assume you don't believe anymore. I submit that this is because this evo god was to weak to capture your heart. He was in a sense emasculated. If you made a pool table from nothing I'd be pretty impressed. You could make a lot of money.I am not saying that God does not work through men. I believe, however, that creation was a means by which God demonstrated to us his power and autonomy. I did say that I would not like my God to be subtle. I did, however, qualify that by saying that my desires do not come before his plan. I agree with your next statement. I believe I actually said the same thing in my previous post. While asking for a sign is probably a bad idea, asking for evidence is entirely reasonable. Without any evidence we would be considering foolishness not faith. I believe that the laws of nature and the beautiful way that biological systems work almost seamlessy are evidence enough.I like the football analogy because I played football and wrestled in high school and from my experience my greatest adversaries often became close friends. You are right to say that God has more than crushing tackles planned, but they are often necessary to wake us up.Your reaction to the Bible is where we part ways. I am very certain about the authorship of the Bible. If you choose you may ignore the evidence quite well, but it stands nonetheless as the most historically reliable collection of books ever written. The faithful transmission of the Massoritic Scribes is testament enough. The fact that the authors of the Gospels and Epistles all (excepting John) eventually died horrible deaths in the defense of their stories is also overwhelming. As a matter of fact I do believe that creation is a powerful revelation, but it is general revelation and can only reveal so much. The scriptures are specific revelation and God through our languages conveys much more specific ideas about himself. It is therefore significantly important, especially considering it contains the plan of salvation.You said that no theory about God can be falsifiable. I think you misunderstood me. My theories relate to God, but they are not about God, at least directly anyway. You make the claim that anything that is not falsifiable is not scientific. In truth evolution falls into this category because it cannot be categorically disproven. Since noone would have been there to witness the first amoeba we cannot say in fact that it didnt happen. For this reason Origins is and always will be a pseudoscience (I am not, however, saying we should give it up. It is still very useful.).God tells me that the things of this universe are knowable. There is order in light, time, matter, and gravity. I can study these things reasonably because I have reason to believe that I will find function. When you study an atom you can only hope that the next one bear any semblance. On biologists I still maintain that there are many brilliant scientists who believe in creation."Since there's no way that creationism can be falsified, it can't ever be science. If there's no way to know that it's wrong, there's no way to ever know if it's right."Again you may be correct here, but if you are this also applies to evolutionary theory. For the same reasons it can never be fully disproven."How many beards does he have, then?"You're absurd response does not detract from the fact entire races have claimed to view him in the dead of day. It only distracts from the point.In response to the statement about natural laws: I believe that natural events have natural causes. Where we differ is that I believe that natural causes flow from God. I am in no way less interested in science because of this. I am all the more spurred onward. My love for Christ and my Creator cause me too seek him through this laws. When I do science i seek person behind it. The things of science are even more enticing to me because they were made by my God.I am not saying that Christians are better than everyone else. Two reasons: 1)It seems to be a rule of thumb that God prefers to work through some of the more pathetic people in the world because it more clearly glorifies him 2)I know plenty of nonbelievers, I will take Mormons for example, that are wonderful people. They often make better citizens than Christians. The important thing is that being a good citizen will not save them. My whole point was that the church of the "Dark Ages" was not representative of the church. It was more of a Machiavelian powerplay by a few, an extreme abuse of power at the very least.Offering the Bible is not a fallacious appeal and it is hardly anonymous. It claims to be the work of the Holy Spirit (2 Peter) through around 50 men over 1500 years. Quite the conspiracy, eh?What I said was that I would prefer the God of Creation to an evo god. From time to time God is like a DE, or possibly DT or LB, depending on the defensive set. To FliesOnly: Address away
I will continue to vouch for the moral integrity of my professors.
I would not encourage you to develop a moral theory form ToE either. If you will not concede that you hold no biases on ToE I will respectfully diagree and not push the point any further. I would hope that you would defend your theory to the best of your ability. I would expect nothing less.I am still not sure if i ascribe to the vapor canopy theory, i do not know enough about it, and it is after all just a theory. as to its origins i never claimed they would be scientific, but then again I dont think ToE theories into things we cannot observe are empirical either. About Mt. Everest I have my own theories. After looking around I see that this theory is proposed by others as well. As you know the flood would have been accompanied by a massive upheaval in the Earth's geology. The bible only describes hills before the Flood and it is plausible to believe that there were no mountains. If we could theoretically take a giant bulldozer and smooth out the Earth's crust, that would be sufficient to cover all the land with water. It is therefore a plausible theory that there were no mountains before the Flood and they were in fact a result of this massive change in the world's topography.You later state that no other culture speaks of a worldwide flood. This is the beautiful thing about he Flood account. It is substantiated by other cultures worldwide. While it has taken many forms they all obviously point to a worldwide flood. I remember a particular story that I read once "The Epic of Gilgamesh." In this Sumerian tradition Gilgamesh visits Ziusudra (he has many other names in other traditions such as Ut-napishtim and Uta-Napishtim). He is known for being the only man, his family aside, to survive a worldwide catastrophic flood. In case you might think that the story of Noah is just a copy you must also consider the fact that there are over two hundred other stories of worldwide floods that came as punishment to mankind. This also includes the Arawak of Guyana of South America who believed that the wise and pious chief Marerewana was warned of the flood. He built a canoe and survived with his family. There are as a matter of fact several accounts from every continent.Bah! I haven't slept since tuesday morn. I will try to get back to all of you tommorow.

I only have the time and energy to reply to one of your posts, because I am a fulltime student with a parttime job and I do happen to be taking science classes. All of them happen to be math science classes at this point.
To FliesOnly: You are right, I do have an answer to you, but then again if I had a problem for you I am sure you would be quick to fix it as well. If you take the time to look you will realize that there are 100's of flood stories from hundreds of cultures. If this is not enough evidence for a flood for you then there never will be. You said that the stories conflict. For an answer to this you will have to go back to the Genesis account. What I am referencing is the tower of Babel. God gave men a mandate to go out into all the lands but they failed to do this. Instead they all stayed in one place and built a monument to themselves. This is known as the Tower of Babel. Because of this God gave them different langauges and sent them there own ways. This is why we have so many different cultures and languages to this day. Each person walked away knowning the story of Noah their ancestor. Each story was influenced by the culture subsequently developed. The stories do support each other. The real question is which one is most accurate. This is where faith comes into the picture. I believe that the history of the Bible was faithfully transmitted by the Holy Spirit.I realize I am not going to change your mind. You won't change mine. So after this post I think I am done here. Thank you all for your input. Its been awhile since I've debated on the subject and you've all encouraged me to study harder, which I am going to do now.
God Bless,
Cody Knuppenburg