two important questions for Servant

I kind of agree. Even if creationism is wrong it doesn't make evolution an absolute certainty. The number of evolutionists and their determination to be correct about this almost completely closes their minds. This forum is a great example. No offense evo's but you very rarely come close to getting out of the box. It's almost like a crowd of atheists who take any suggestion apart from God.They are now even saying that Methodological Naturalism concludes that there is no God. Sadly this must also mean that evos are against God. I only say this because the same evolutionists who argue with me over creation also argue against my faith. I am suspicious now......

Asgara - always when I say something bad about evos you turn up - you are the antithesis of bad evo.Lam - you think I am insane right? I once accepted evolution for many years. If I am so closed minded why did I change? Like Servant2thecause also changed. And recently I have came closer to accepting evolution again. I would be insane to listen to anyone who says I am closed minded, that's for sure.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-17-2004]

An old earth yes, evolution?....Catholics? --> Seeing how long you can stare at a statue of Mary without blinking - doesn't make you a christian. I remember going to church out of fear of going to hell, I thought if I clocked up enough Sunday visits I would be saved. I also wonder why I was forced to repeat prayers to "mother of God". Also - I took evolution for granted - most christians do, because they haven't heard of creationism. I think when you are christian, you take creationism, in the same way an atheist might take evolution as truth. A+E=Cake and cream, just be honest......you know it. Didn't you yourself come to a Godless conclusion because of evolution?

I think s/he means people do not look for evidence against evolution. As in, they would not look for what something like creation might say. For example, if you now pretend creation happened, what would you then look for?Yes, it may seem un-scientific to assume creation. But if I show that a living fossil could show creation, you would immediately think, "No, because evolution says...". IOW, you then assume evolution has the correct explanation even though there is a possible creationist explanation. Your too busy trying to show evolution and showing creationism as wrong, to actually consider creationism, and the alternative view it might have concerning evidence. SO, there is a possible explanation of creationism, yet because of the "assumption" of creation, as - if you like, the starting point - you reject it because it doesn't fit the man-made way of doing things = evidence then explanation.

My "snide" comment didn't refer to the catholics. Do you think there is a possibility of God?Yes/no answer please.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-17-2004]

If it helps, you and Lam are not the people I was thinking of when I said "box". I, however should have said "some evo's". I make this mistake sometimes when I am rushing a post. Typical -- I mention the bad guys and Asgara and Sylas and Lam turn up and spank me, the guys who are most definately not closed-minded.Lam, in the other thread you mentioned your objective stance and I took heed. I haven't mentioned names because that would not be right, let me now just say "some evos". What I mean by "in a box" is that they think in the box, and they don't give an inche, they basically never change their worldview that evolution could be wrong. You say that but I have heard creationists who stick to talking the evidence. John Mckay (geologist) mainly shows his evidence as fossils. Basically - he is using the same evidence to come to a reasonable position using logic. When you put your "bible glasses" on and then interpret the evidence - you get another view of things. I know what your thinking - I can't put those un-scientific glasses on. But let's just consider for a moment, that the bible is the truth. I mean, what if it is actually the truth? What would the scientific means of investigation then be? I'm not saying the scientific approach is wrong, but there is more than one way an investigation can happen.If we start like this:Assume bible correct - look at evidence - make a conclusion with biblical glasses on. That might see very un-scientific.But with evolution what was it?Darwin made his theory - the evidence was found - checked it with evolution glasses on.Even I will concede that I may not be entirely correct about the above. But, what if we take the creationism stance as a theory based on the bible, and then check the evidence? Surely creationism is - as you guys have conceded, one viewpoint of the bible. It is fairly modern and even if it has a biblical basis what's the big deal? What is so worrying and frustrating about people coming to a different conclusion about the same evidence?Schrafinator called us ignorant - I don't like that either, she said that because servant2thecause is creationist. So, like my quick posted "box" comment, it is not necessary, yet I won't complain about this as I know that we generalize sometimes and I by no means put everybody in the same place. So I apologixe about the box statement but I was in no way thinking of you Sylas, when I wrote it.

Oh now be honest - every conclusion will be evolution because they see it as a given. I am not afraid of being wrong. I also seek the truth. Just like with Wyatt's Ark in the other thread, I now think it is a geological structure.I asked you what you would look for if you presumed creation was true. You said "I don't know". This is my point really, you'll never put those bible glasses on to see what we are saying - even if it's just for a laugh. Let's just say it might seem unconventional or un-scientific? What if it the truth anyway, and you missed it because of this outlook?If it ain't the truth Schraff, you won't find me whinging for too long. But when I have heard creationists, they claim the same scientific evidence. Have you read about Natural Selection at AIG?
Maybe that's not a great example......but the evidence is the same, it's just a different conclusion. Why am I ignorant if I reach a conclusion that differs from your own? Even if I am wrong about that conclusion! How do you know the bible based doesn't work? Why should I trust man's limited knowledge, instead of God's?You see, creationism is bible based but it is only one theory of how it migh have happened. Have you ever read the first verse in Genesis? "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth". That's a big open door...You said yes to the question of "Is God a possibility". Yet you seem to argue against that possibility. We have debated in the past, about design, you mention the skull and the breathing "supposed" problems. Why don't you ever argue FOR the possibility?

You would expect to find? You see, you immediately see that it has to be your way. Why would you expect that to happen? When was the last worldwide flood we happened to research - so as to see what we would expect? Can you show me the link where you made the experiment of a worldwide flood, so I can see the results which would make you expect these things. Anything's possible eh? So creationism is a possible explanation and God is also a possibility, yet I am ignorant for preferring this possibility. Evolution can only be argued because it is past-tense. If I don't have to believe I came from a monkey, why should I? It might explain a lot of things, I just don't believe in the things it says about the past. I'll believe if I see a speciation tomorrow, but if it is within a kind why should I worry? I don't believe human's came from animals - what is so wrong about that?
When dealing with the past our only key is the present, what if the past was not the same as the present like uniformatarianism says? Lucky for me, I don't have a religion. I do not associate the word with other religions. If anything - the OT itself said to have no other gods or religions. Or, maybe they just see the evidence concludes a young earth with other explanations. Starlight and time is a scientific explanation for the stars, that doesn't go against evidence --> gravitational time dilation. Also, I have heard YEC's like Mckay Sucuri WebSite Firewall - Access Denied(limited site), who argue WITH evidence, fossils etc.Ignorant is what you like to conclude - yes, but it is not necessarily the case. Atleast you can admitt that, nevertheless others do see evidence of God.

You see, I watch this tv program, and McKay has been on it a LOT. I always thought the things he said made sense, when he explained the logic behind what he is saying. The website itself seems to be the tip of the iceburg and is almost and overview which is why I said - (limited website). I'll be honest, I think some of the statements at the website are in no way enough to engage you or to even jump to his defense. My first post sure has made some interest, but I am not really attacking evolution here, my main point was that like Asgara pointed out, there are some alternative explanations to the evidence that creationism might explain. Well, again - the website I was never very impressed with, I only provided it because I hadn't given a source for Mckay. I am not recommending it as the website of the year or anything. But my point was, (might be a smaller point than you think) - is that, he does discuss evidence alone sometimes. If he shows fossils and his arguments, how is that not producing the evidence. I don't know if you have heard of revelation tv, but Mckay has had atleast 4 "talking hours" about fossils and orchids. To be fair to him, he did make some good arguments and is very persuasive, and I am a layman so - yes, it would make sense to me. But then, I've never pretended to be anything other than a layman. Well, I always said I was disturbed, you only have to read my post titles to conclude that. However, despite me being a luny, I am not infact that much "against" evolution at the moment. I knew I would get a big response in this topic, it is my fault as I have chose to defend a newbie really. You see this is the problem, the site is not "in depth". His argument for the size difference, is that animals done better before the fall/flood, in a hotter climate, and the world has went downhill. His basic outlook is death&decline. He argues that all cratures are found to be huge in the fossils. Super crocs, giant cockroaches(no laughing "scarface" fans) giant plants etc. - All indicative of a fallen world. It's kinda like a battle I have lost but I am still fighting --> the guy just doesn't know when to quit. I respect you though Sylas, your honesty is a good thing concerning the "ignorance".Problem is though - you guys are all evos, how can I know for sure which is accurate when you guys are on the same side.There's no point in a crowd of people fighting with one person. I have tried to defend Servant2thecause as when a newbie arrives who is creationist, usually there is a big attack on that person. If I joined and agreed with the populas about evolution, I am certain that there would be no crowd and potm would shortly follow. I gotchta even it out a little sometimes.I already am finding it hard to respond to every post. Maybe he might not return and I will end up fighting his battle.