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

QUOTE:
Let me get this straight. Are you saying, then, that the natural forces that can now be detected in connection with minute particles, composes the reason, or reverse-order "precedent," as to why the tonnage of materials that composes the universe came into being ex nihilo?

​

Not necessarily, but possibly. Your point, at least insofar as you expressed it in the post I replied to, was that particles are evaluated in an "after-the-fact" matter: my point was that this is not so, but that physicists can and do conduct experiments which not only predict, but require, the appearance of particles from nothing. As for the scale of these occurences, it is almost unimaginable as it appears throughout space and time.

​

However, perhaps your new point is rather that the mass of the universe is inexplicably? Hardly, given the energy available in the Casimir effect alone. But please don't get me wrong, I am not saying we have all the answers, just suggesting that answers are conceivable and that research in this field does bear fruit.

​

Reply:
Given the limited answers that we have now, I think it is unSCIENTIFIC to define science in a way that precludes the possibility of the study of nature itself leading to the conclusion that something beyond nature may have been responsible for the existence of the universe, i.e., naturalism is just as assumptively religious-based as creationism.

​

QUOTE:
I like the "far more" part.

​

You should - after all, the Judaeo-Christian God is not just creator, but source of morality and much else besides.

​

The Judaeo-Christian "claim" is far more than a putting forth of an unsupported "view." That's what all of the apologetical books are about.

​

I know - I have many books of apologetics in my library.

quote:

---

As I've recommended in other discussions, read Josh McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict, or any others, like some of Strombel's works, and the bibliographies in these opens up libraries of supportive, legitimate data.

​

You're kidding surely? "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" is a travesty of a book. I did read it and can truly say that it is enough to make one feel ashamed to have even picked it up - I found it puerile, shallow, doctrinaire and sectarian.

​

Reply:
In the sense that:
puerile = we must come to Him as children
shallow = one doesn't have to dig beyond the Bible to find Truth
doctrinaire = there's only one God with one plan for salvation
sectarian = Jesus really is the only way

​

QUOTE:
Odin, Zeus, the first "Alien," or whomever one might want to imagine, really doesn't compare with the facts that back up the evidence for the validity of Christianity.

---

​

And your knowledge of Hinduism is presumably exhaustive enough to comment on this with authority? Or perhaps you are also familiar with the entire output of the Therevada Buddhist tradition - or perhaps the more familiar (in the west) Mahayana tradition?

​

Reply:
Given the data regarding the person and ministry of Jesus (some of which you might be inclined to dismiss as readily as some of the apologetical information I mentioned), I have very good grounds for believing, among other things, that Jesus rose again from the dead. "If" he did, it sort of takes care of all other man-made religious traditions that have become popularized as alternatives in a largely Christ-rejecting world.

​

Quote:
Whatever, you misunderstood my point. You reject, for your own unclear reasons, a naturalistic explanation for the existence of matter.

​

Reply:
Pardon, but your reasons for embracing naturalism's original cause appear to be quite unclear.

​

Quote:
But even if you accept a supernatural explanation - which is in essence no explanation at all . . .

​

Reply:
It's not explaining to say that the Creator created, but it is explaining to say something akin to: "The universe came into existence via a quantum fluctuation of some pre-existing true vacuum," or any such stuff, ranging from the dacyon field to the force, etc.

​

Quote:
. . . the following do not follow from it: that the supernatural cause is intentional; that the supernatural cause is or was in any sense "personal"; that there is or was only one supernatural "person"; that the supernatural cause is eternal; that the supernatural cause is or was infinite; that the supernatural cause is or was omniscient; that the supernatural cause is moral; that the supernatural cause has any influence or, even means of influence, over the universe once created.[b]

​

[QUOTE]I don't know; I guess I just have this strange quirk about me, as irrational as it is, that cause is fundamental.[/b]

​

[/QUOTE]

​

I don't think it is irrational, but I do think there are alternatives - it is your insistence on the correctness of your admittedly irrationality prejudice, that I disagree with.

​

You could be mistaken you know ...[/QUOTE]Reply:
My confidence in the Creator creating in the biblical way exists, in part, due to the stuff of the apologetical argument again, which, taken as a whole, is impressive. If Jesus isn't the proverbial liar or lunatic that he must have been if indeed he wasn't what he claimed to be, then he is the Creator. Go ahead and belittle this. But your apparent faith in the religion of naturalism does not rest on as strong of a foundation of legitimate knowledge as the Christian faith.In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)--Marty

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:

Are you saying that the six day range of created forms would have to be in the fossil record in the same order in which they were created?

---

Oh wow Martin! This is a take on this issue that I haven't seen before. But you do need a mechanism to account for the order in the record.

quote:

---

A lot of the strata questions are answered by the Mt. St. Helen's eruption. For example, hundreds of feet of multiple strata types--virtually identical to the Grand Canyon phenomenon, but 1/40th the size--were laid down in less than mere years, to say nothing of millions of years. The strata's are endowed with the sorts of evidences that evolutionists point to as proof of their millions of years darwinian scenario.

---

Except for well ordered sequences of fossils....

quote:

---

Of course, both of us realize that there's a lot of exceptions to the strata idea: fossils that are supposed to belong at a particular level to fit the evolutionary idea, can be found anywhere throughout the range of strata's anywhere in the world.

---

If this were the case, there would be no ToE, or at the very least, I'd be on your side of the debate.

quote:

---

Evolutionism was well-established on the philosophical level before the "evidence" was sought, and much of the results of this situation can be applied to the strata issue in general.

---

It actually seems the other way around to me, though I grant that science of few hundred years ago wasn't what it is today.

quote:

---

Ruled out (before the "investigation" begins) is the possibility that the study of nature could, itself, prove that something other than the laws and materials of nature were necessary in order for our universe to exist. It is not objective to rule that possibility out at the onset. It is assumptivism to do so. Not the kind of assumptivism that is born out of observation or analytical proofs, but a mere religious, a priori preference.

---

quote:

---

No. Atomic theory extrapolation is based on facts, hard science. Macroevolutionary extrapolation is based upon unfounded metaphysical assumptivism.

---

How exactly? What are the relevant differences?

quote:

---

It is interesting that you are so quick to cry "you're philosophizing," when indeed it is philosophy that undergirds the notion of naturalism.

---

And undergirds your belief system as well. What is the point? Philosophy undergirds pretty much everything if you think about it just right.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

Thanks for the reply Martin. Here are some comments ...[b] [QUOTE]Given the limited answers that we have now, I think it is unSCIENTIFIC to define science in a way that precludes the possibility of the study of nature itself leading to the conclusion that something beyond nature may have been responsible for the existence of the universe, i.e., naturalism is just as assumptively religious-based as creationism.[/b][/QUOTE]You seem to be saying that science must leave space in its models for modalities which are by definition unverifiable by science. But how is science to identify when it is appropriate to do so?The only way I can see is leaving space for that which cannot be verified, but is to be done in all cases or only whenever a verified or verifiable solution is not known?If the latter, this is simply the traditional God of the Gaps problem where a supernatural explanation stands in for current lack of knowledge.If the former, it leads to an unbridgeable inferential gap, because if one must always leave room for that which cannot be verified, one can never make an inference, even from observation, without also leaving room for an unverifiable cause for the effect.As an example of the latter, take a game of pool. When one ball strikes another I can infer that energy is transferred from one to another, and that consequently the struck ball moves. But this is an inference - there remains the possibility that no such thing happened and that the second ball was moved supernaturally and arbitrarily. How am I ever to secure the inference that is a not a supernatural event?[b] [QUOTE]Given the data regarding the person and ministry of Jesus (some of which you might be inclined to dismiss as readily as some of the apologetical information I mentioned), I have very good grounds for believing, among other things, that Jesus rose again from the dead. "If" he did, it sort of takes care of all other man-made religious traditions that have become popularized as alternatives in a largely Christ-rejecting world.[/b][/QUOTE]This argument can be paraphrased as "the evidence for Jesus is so overwhelming that I don't need to know anything about any other religion." Actually, this may well play in Peoria as a piece of polemics, but your original assertion was that no other deity compares with the facts for Jesus. You are in fact not making a comparison, which again is ok by me if you present it as what it is - a piece of sectarian rhetoric, but do not present it as comparative when you are not willing to make the comparison.You give no reason as to why one should accept your grounds for beleiving in Jesus over and above others equally deep conviction that Mohammad is the prophet of God, or in the efficacy of prayers to Ganesha.More significantly, I notice you did not reply in any way to my later point - that a supernatural explanation alone does not imply that the supernatural cause is intentional; that the supernatural cause is or was in any sense "personal"; that there is or was only one supernatural "person"; that the supernatural cause is eternal; that the supernatural cause is or was infinite; that the supernatural cause is or was omniscient; that the supernatural cause is moral; that the supernatural cause has any influence or, even means of influence, over the universe once created.Would you care to address this point?Finally, let me put it as simply as this: you appear to have a position securely anchored on a personal faith, and on certain a priori assumptions about the need for a "first cause." This is fine, but doesn't provide a basis for argument with others because you can only go so far without falling on arguments from your faith. In other words, and to be blunt, your personal faith provides no basis for discussion. Your replies are simply statements of faith, dressed up as reasoned argument.

QUOTE:
You seem to be saying that science must leave space in its models for modalities which are by definition unverifiable by science. But how is science to identify when it is appropriate to do so?Reply:
Hear me out for a moment so I can make my point that seems very difficult for naturalists to relate to. I think that science is purely an objective undertaking. But, by that, I'm not saying that assumptions and their related extrapolations are innappropriate to science. So, take this next position of mine in the spirit in which it is intended (which I think you will understand by the end of the explanation): totally objective work (science) must be nonassumptive regarding the grand design (although in innumerable hypothesizing and testing situations, assumptions play an obvious role). But naturalists have defined science, in effect, to make it impossible to factor in God, even if he exists. I don't think naturalists say: there is no God. They do not say that because it's obvious that they would be proceeding from ignorance to do so. Partially for that reason, I think science must leave that end of the discussion OPEN, not IMPOSSIBLE, i.e., nonassumptivists enter the investigation of reality without a prior assumption about what the nature of reality IS or IS NOT (for starters in the sense of considering ultimate cause). Yes, nature itself is the basis for our investigations. That's a nuetral, ground zero starting point that must be used to expand our knowledge of the universal environment. But naturalism is't neutral. Naturalism is not some irrefutable sort of empirical tenet such as: "the belief that the physical existence of the universe can be verified," nor is naturalism even "the belief that nature is all there is (now) with the Cause that existed before nature existed, that was responsible for nature's coming into being." Naturalism is all about the assumption of a self-contained, "self-caused" phenomenon. Given that grandiose assumption, naturalists are entirely willing to examine all of the physical data in a fair and objective manner.Quote:
The only way I can see is leaving space for that which cannot be verified, but is to be done in all cases or only whenever a verified or verifiable solution is not known?If the latter, this is simply the traditional God of the Gaps problem where a supernatural explanation stands in for current lack of knowledge.If the former, it leads to an unbridgeable inferential gap, because if one must always leave room for that which cannot be verified, one can never make an inference, even from observation, without also leaving room for an unverifiable cause for the effect.As an example of the latter, take a game of pool. When one ball strikes another I can infer that energy is transferred from one to another, and that consequently the struck ball moves. But this is an inference - there remains the possibility that no such thing happened and that the second ball was moved supernaturally and arbitrarily. How am I ever to secure the inference that is a not a supernatural event?Reply:
All of that goes back to assumptions about "the grand design." Neither creationists or evolutionists/naturalists would posit a supernatural force for things like the movements of pool balls.
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 because we can only perceive (sense) nature," then there's a potential problem with circularity there. Assumptivist positions like that open the door to heading in the wrong direction, sometimes in spite of what the unperceived reality is. That's why it's more objective to keep the door open for things like this, rather than ruling it out all-together at the onset. Naturalists may be wrong. Naturalist and creationist studies need not be hindered at all by this: the study of nature without a belief in the inerrant doctrine of a self-existing universe.QUOTE:
Given the data regarding the person and ministry of Jesus (some of which you might be inclined to dismiss as readily as some of the apologetical information I mentioned), I have very good grounds for believing, among other things, that Jesus rose again from the dead. "If" he did, it sort of takes care of all other man-made religious traditions that have become popularized as alternatives in a largely Christ-rejecting world. [QUOTE]This argument can be paraphrased as "the evidence for Jesus is so overwhelming that I don't need to know anything about any other religion." Actually, this may well play in Peoria as a piece of polemics, but your original assertion was that no other deity compares with the facts for Jesus. You are in fact not making a comparison, which again is ok by me if you present it as what it is - a piece of sectarian rhetoric, but do not present it as comparative when you are not willing to make the comparison.You give no reason as to why one should accept your grounds for beleiving in Jesus over and above others equally deep conviction that Mohammad is the prophet of God, or in the efficacy of prayers to Ganesha.Reply:
The reason could be understood as provided by the apologetical data. True, I didn't specify anything here, but I gather that you are knowledgeable of such data. If I was to be true to your suggestions about "the comparison" issue, I'd have to spend more than a lifetime studying all of the religions of the world before I responded to the message of Christ. If I began to engage in such a strategy, some might think that I was being very rational, all-the- while, though, I'd be missing out on serving the Master. Now, because I realize that that gives you fodder for waxing purely logical with me (resulting in you winning some points here, in this debate forum), I may as well go on a roll and open up into a full "wallowing in irrationality" mode as I make a final point.
First, I'll set it up a bit. 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. There's only one God. He has only one plan. It's Jesus. Sectarian? Well, truth is sectarian in the sense that there's no other way to be saved. If one wants a rational basis for the Christian faith, seek the apologetics. But for those who accept Christ by faith (the way we're supposed to), apologetics are not necessary, although the apologetic data is still there as a somewhat silent testimony to wise decision.
On what is perhaps a more somber, related note (as to what actually causes people to convert into the percived-as-irrational Christian faith, whether the conversion is by geniuses or "simple folk"), and a point that is not emphasized much even in Christiandom today, is the fact that the only ones who will convert are those who are "drawn of the Father," i.e., not those who are of any particular IQ level, whether high or low. The Father's drawing is literally irresistable. Once a person in the group of "hopelessly lost" humanity is "struck" with the seed of God's grace, it grows, and nothing stops it--not one of these can be plucked from his hand. It might happen to you. Irrational, hugh.Quote:
More significantly, I notice you did not reply in any way to my later point - that a supernatural explanation alone does not imply that the supernatural cause is intentional; that the supernatural cause is or was in any sense "personal"; that there is or was only one supernatural "person"; that the supernatural cause is eternal; that the supernatural cause is or was infinite; that the supernatural cause is or was omniscient; that the supernatural cause is moral; that the supernatural cause has any influence or, even means of influence, over the universe once created.Would you care to address this point?Reply:
Given the "blank check" perspective (favoring infinite imaginative possibilities) that is implicit to naturalistic dogma, I can't refute you. But that could mean we're even, and not that your assumption about the nature of the universe is more accurate than mine. And when apologetics are factored in, I think I have the edge.Quote:
Finally, let me put it as simply as this: you appear to have a position securely anchored on a personal faith, and on certain a priori assumptions about the need for a "first cause." This is fine, but doesn't provide a basis for argument with others because you can only go so far without falling on arguments from your faith. In other words, and to be blunt, your personal faith provides no basis for discussion. Your replies are simply statements of faith, dressed up as reasoned argument.Reply:
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, much like how you portray my creationistic perspective as being tantamount to tricks of rhetoric.In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)--Marty

My request to "reply quote" was not fully honored, so I'll respond in the following manner to the initial elements of your reply.You were astounded that I questioned the perceived necessity for the fossil record to reflect the order of created forms that came from the six days indicated in Genesis. If all animals were created within six literal days, if they co-existed for over 1000 years before they were trapped in various levels of strata caused by the Flood, why should the creatures necessarily be isolated for burial according to the order in which they were created hundreds of years before? Your idea for the strata order is based on the far-from-confirmed philosophy of naturalism. If I was to put forth an idea for the strata order based on creationism, it would't be that the creatures wanted (or were made) to go out according to the same order in which they were created, although if that order also reflected various capacities to escape from the flood, then I see that that order in Genesis could be appealed to, but for another reason than the fact that they're listed in Genesis according to that order.You say that a "well ordered sequence of fossils" are not answered by the Mt. St. Helens eruption. You did not mention anything against my point that the Mt. St. Helens phenomenon sports the sort of evidence (minus only the fossil sequence) that evolutionists point to in order to "prove" evolutionary speculation, yet the time frames needed to produce the St. Helens phenomenon directly contadict the evolutionary framework. Perhaps that implies a concession of sorts. No? And since the Mt. St. Helens phenomenon is a relatively recent occurence, it wouldn't be likely to yield a fossil study at this time. I'm sure that there were animals trapped in those St. Helens strata's. It would be interesting to see if the order of "fossils" supports the idea of escape ability, even though some of our favorite forms of fossil "life" (like dinasaurs, for example) went extinct, and so would not be present in this new, potential strata record.You indicated that if there were a lot of exceptions to the strata aspect of evolution, there would be no ToE and you would be on my side of the debate. This intrigued me until I realized that you, like most evolutionists, would very likely continue to increase your requirements for the meaning of "a lot" until your theory was no longer threatened by your statement.What are the relevant differences between assumptions of Atomic theory and macroevolutionary extrapolationism? 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. It is by legitimate extrapolative rationale, for instance, that has allowed naturalistic and creationistic astrophysicists to agree about the nuclear processes that occur in the unseen center of the Sun. The phenomenon is not an outgrowth of the fundamental metaphysical assumption of naturalistic faith which requires, for example, that all life is linked back to a "simpler" life form.QUOTE:
And undergirds your belief system as well. What is the point? Philosophy undergirds pretty much everything if you think about it just right.Reply:
"The point" is that my philosophy (creationism) is, according to the naturalistic perspective, labeled irrational, whereas your philosophy (evolutionism--NOT SCIENCE) is labeled as rational. There's a problem with a double standard for equally metaphysical positions.In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.comA)--Marty

My "reply quote" not honored, so:You say that because the Casimir effect is noticable only at extremely short distances, and since our universe began very small, it must be that our universe popped into existence by the same phenomenon of nature that we call the Casimir effect.
That doesn't sound very convincing to me. Indeed, I find it every bit as mythical speculation as any story of creation I've ever read. What rational basis is there for believing that just because (once nature existed) nature was able to produce the Casimir effect, that (possibly before nature existed), the Casimir effect was a possibility?QUOTE:
This isn't really a Grand Unified Theory type of problem. This is quantum fluctiation. It can be observed and studied, at least a little bit.Reply:
It's GUT-type in the sense that the GUT notion requires a beginning (or a rationalization about how a beginning isn't necessary).In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)--Marty

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
You were astounded that I questioned the perceived necessity for the fossil record to reflect the order of created forms that came from the six days indicated in Genesis.

---

Well, not astounded that you questioned it, but that something so glaringly obvious hadn't occurred to me.

quote:

---

Your idea for the strata order is based on the far-from-confirmed philosophy of naturalism.

---

No, my idea of the strata order is derived from the fact that there are strata and that certain critters appear in certain strata pretty consistently. This part can't be denied. It is independent of evolution , or naturalism, or creationism. The ToE explains why these critters fall in the strata they do. Any alternative theory, such as a creation/flood theory, would have to explain this sequence as well. So far as I have seen no flood model can do this. [QUOTE][b]You did not mention anything against my point that the Mt. St. Helens phenomenon sports the sort of evidence (minus only the fossil sequence) that evolutionists point to in order to "prove" evolutionary speculation, yet the time frames needed to produce the St. Helens phenomenon directly contadict the evolutionary framework.[/QUOTE][/b]True enough. I am not enough of a geologists to discuss Mt. St Helen without first doing a considerable bit of research on it first. I was actually hoping that edge or Joe Meert would comment on this, as I would learn a lot that way. But as you point out, the fossil sequence is missing and that is a major component of geological strata. This makes me think that this may not be a good analogy.

quote:

---

It would be interesting to see if the order of "fossils" supports the idea of escape ability

---

Agreed, it would be interesting.

quote:

---

You indicated that if there were a lot of exceptions to the strata aspect of evolution, there would be no ToE and you would be on my side of the debate. This intrigued me until I realized that you, like most evolutionists, would very likely continue to increase your requirements for the meaning of "a lot" until your theory was no longer threatened by your statement.

---

Actually, I wouldn't.

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.

---

How then do we learn to make this distinction?

quote:

---

"The point" is that my philosophy (creationism) is, according to the naturalistic perspective, labeled irrational, whereas your philosophy (evolutionism--NOT SCIENCE) is labeled as rational. There's a problem with a double standard for equally metaphysical positions.

---

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.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

Very intriguing post. Very interesting.

Martin writes:

---

Neither creationists or evolutionists/naturalists would posit a supernatural force for things like the movements of pool balls.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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. That Creationism is unable to work toward any consensus whatsoever reveals its inherent subjective nature.--Percy

quote:

---

MK: You did not mention anything against my point that the Mt. St. Helens phenomenon sports the sort of evidence (minus only the fossil sequence) that evolutionists point to in order to "prove" evolutionary speculation, yet the time frames needed to produce the St. Helens phenomenon directly contadict the evolutionary framework.

​

JOhn: True enough. I am not enough of a geologists to discuss Mt. St Helen without first doing a considerable bit of research on it first. I was actually hoping that edge or Joe Meert would comment on this, as I would learn a lot that way. But as you point out, the fossil sequence is missing and that is a major component of geological strata. This makes me think that this may not be a good analogy.

---

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.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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
You say that a "well ordered sequence of fossils" are not answered by the Mt. St. Helens eruption. You did not mention anything against my point that the Mt. St. Helens phenomenon sports the sort of evidence (minus only the fossil sequence) that evolutionists point to in order to "prove" evolutionary speculation, yet the time frames needed to produce the St. Helens phenomenon directly contadict the evolutionary framework.

---

You really believe this? Think of it this way then. There a millions of MSH's in the geological record. Now think how long it is in between eruptions. That adds up to an incredible amount of time. MSH evidence does NOTHING to the understanding of geological processes, time and evolution.

quote:

---

Perhaps that implies a concession of sorts. No? And since the Mt. St. Helens phenomenon is a relatively recent occurence, it wouldn't be likely to yield a fossil study at this time.

---

Actually, creationists tell us just the opposite of this. Steve Austin thinks that the trees in Spirit Lake are examples of other forests in the fossil record.

quote:

---

I'm sure that there were animals trapped in those St. Helens strata's. It would be interesting to see if the order of "fossils" supports the idea of escape ability, even though some of our favorite forms of fossil "life" (like dinasaurs, for example) went extinct, and so would not be present in this new, potential strata record.

---

Well, by creationist logic, since future geologists will find no dinosaur remains in the MSH deposits, we can conclude that they escaped the pyroclastic flows.

quote:

---

You indicated that if there were a lot of exceptions to the strata aspect of evolution, there would be no ToE and you would be on my side of the debate. This intrigued me until I realized that you, like most evolutionists, would very likely continue to increase your requirements for the meaning of "a lot" until your theory was no longer threatened by your statement.

---

Heck, I'm still looking for one credible instance.

Martin, thanks for taking the time to reply at length.Let's be clear about the disctinction we are making about Science and the supernatural. Science proceeds on what can be observed or, more accurately, on what it is conceibale to observe: if the universe was created then that creation could concievably have been observed as soon as any matter, space or time or whatever it was that was "created" was created and therefore is the subject of science. It is not that science or naturalism is based on an assumption of a self-caused system, it is the rather the position that causality is also the business of science.[b] [QUOTE]All of that goes back to assumptions about "the grand design." Neither creationists or evolutionists/naturalists would posit a supernatural force for things like the movements of pool balls.[/b][/QUOTE]Why? How does a creationist scientist identify which phenomena are to be attributed to supernatural agency?[b] [QUOTE]do naturalists know scientifically or via a priori knowledge that there was no Creator.[/b][/QUOTE]The question is not a priori assumptions, but how one identifies the universe as being created and, if the identification is made, how one identifies the properties of the creator.[b] [QUOTE]If I was to be true to your suggestions about "the comparison" issue, I'd have to spend more than a lifetime studying all of the religions of the world before I responded to the message of Christ. If I began to engage in such a strategy, some might think that I was being very rational, all-the- while, though, I'd be missing out on serving the Master.[/b][/QUOTE]You know something? I agree with you. Think of it this way: when I fell in love with the girl who is now my dear wife, I didn't embark on a spree of "comparison shopping" to be sure of it. Belief in God is very like being in love - actually I think it is the nearest comparison one can make to religious belief in human experience. But it is not objective - and your suggestion that Christ excels "in comparison" is simply wrong if you cannot make a true comparison. I love my wife dearly and she fills my heart with fathomless joy by herself, in herself and through herself - not "greater joy in comparison to Cindy Crawford."[b] [QUOTE]Now, because I realize that that gives you fodder for waxing purely logical with me[/b][/QUOTE]So, you see, I wasn't point-scoring, but trying to indicate that you cannot extrapolate from your love of Christ to an objective logical constructed interpretation that others can or should orient theories, beliefs or actions around. Apologetics, indeed, try to bridge this chasm between our personal experience of God and the observed reality of the world in an objective way: but ultimately it is love. I can try to explain to someone why I love my wife - her beauty, grace, intelligence, kindness, care for others - yet no doubt they could point to someone more objectively beautiful, more intelligent, who has performed more selfless acts, etc. Yet I could not love them in the same way. Apologetics cannot persuade one to love - and love reduced to a equation is no love at all.

What would it take to convince you that intelligent creation has happened?
Scientific Evidence of God
In an article called, Beyond Physics (Scientific American, Aug. 1998, page 20), renowned scientists contemplated the evidence for God. Allan R. Sandage, one of the father’s of modern astronomy, asked several hundred scientists and theologians if there were sufficient evidence to support a belief in a Jedeo-Christian god.
Many of the scientists had as belief in a supreme being but could not support their belief with scientific evidence. About two dozen, nearly all at the top of their fields, arrived at a different conclusion.
George Ellis, a cosmologist said, There is a huge amount of data supporting the existence of God. The question is how to evaluate it. Item one on his list was the so-called Anthropic Principle. This principle has to do with the extreme unlikelihood for all the fundamental constants of nature to be so precisely balanced by accident. Without this very precise balance, galaxies and life could not exist. Astronomer John D. Barrows asked, One possible explanation they give is that the universe was designed.
Mitchell P. Marcus, chairman of computer science at the University of Pennsylvania said, In mathematics and information theory, we can now guarantee that there are truths out there that we cannot find. The inability of science de to provide a basis for meaning, purpose, value and ethics is evidence of the necessity of religion Sandage adds, The reasons for the existence of the universe, the existence of any physical laws at all and the nature of the physical laws that do hold--science takes all of these for granted, and so cannot investigate them.
If all things, including man, were part of intelligent design by a supreme being, it seems that man must have a special place in that creation. As Barrows asked, How is it that humans’ cognitive abilities greatly exceed the demands imposed by evolutionary pressures, so that we can perceive the quantum nature of the universe and map its cosmic features: And why is mathematics so surprisingly effective at describing the physical world?
Einstein stated, Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.I therefore make the following conjectures which can only be supported by indirect evidence:1. God and man are of the same species and we are his spiritual offspring.I will begin the indirect evidence support with NDEs (near death experiences). The best reference I can give you is the book Fingerprints of God by Arvin Gibson, Horizon Press,Bountiful, Utah, 1999. This is a book written by a scientific professional and has analyzed dozens of NDEs. Gibson correctly asserts that studying NDEs can be done with scientific methodology, you just have to pick those who claim NDEs as your test subjects. There is a large amount of out-of-body experiences of events occurring that can not be explained otherwise and correlates with other NDEs. He is interested to get comments on his ideas from forum readers. If I cannot get him to join the forum, I will submit some of his findings.2. Indirect evidence of God (I may comment on later after I get a string going on item #1 above.)The Anthropic Principle (coined by Brandon Carter), the complexity of design motif that many forum members have addressed, the bible as history, and grand design logic.
William WmEHa@cs.com
Can anyone out there help me set up a web site?

[QUOTE][b]About two dozen, nearly all at the top of their fields, arrived at a different conclusion.[/QUOTE][/b]Argument from authority. Interesting, but still... [QUOTE][b]George Ellis, a cosmologist said, There is a huge amount of data supporting the existence of God. The question is how to evaluate it.[/QUOTE][/b]But how does evidence of a creator necessarily imply the Judeo-Christian God? How does Creation of the universe necessarily mean special creation of Man and a <10,000 year old Earth? [QUOTE][b]Item one on his list was the so-called Anthropic Principle. This principle has to do with the extreme unlikelihood for all the fundamental constants of nature to be so precisely balanced by accident. Without this very precise balance, galaxies and life could not exist. Astronomer John D. Barrows asked, One possible explanation they give is that the universe was designed.[/QUOTE][/b]That's a possibility but it still requires faith. Remember, the obvious response is that "if all those things had not fallen into place, we wouldn't be here in awe of it". Small wonder all these things happened in just the right way: they had to. [QUOTE][b]Mitchell P. Marcus, chairman of computer science at the University of Pennsylvania said, In mathematics and information theory, we can now guarantee that there are truths out there that we cannot find. The inability of science de to provide a basis for meaning, purpose, value and ethics is evidence of the necessity of religion Sandage adds, The reasons for the existence of the universe, the existence of any physical laws at all and the nature of the physical laws that do hold--science takes all of these for granted, and so cannot investigate them.[/QUOTE][/b]These issues are completely outside of science. In fact, I consider "creation science" be an oxymoron because it presupposes a divine creator and is reliant upon miracles. We've established that
science can't explain a creator, so why attempt to invoke a creator in science? [QUOTE][b]I will begin the indirect evidence support with NDEs (near death experiences). The best reference I can give you is the book Fingerprints of God by Arvin Gibson, Horizon Press,Bountiful, Utah, 1999. This is a book written by a scientific professional and has analyzed dozens of NDEs. Gibson correctly asserts that studying NDEs can be done with scientific methodology, you just have to pick those who claim NDEs as your test subjects.[/QUOTE][/b]So far, so good. But before we can use the testimonies of people who have had an NDE, we have to establish that what happened was real and not a hallucination created by the brain. I would ask Dr. Gibson if the experiments involving hidden objects in emergency rooms had yielded fruit. If not, then the whole premise of the NDE is questionable.I wonder how you will demonstrate that we are the spirit children of God. [QUOTE][b]He is interested to get comments on his ideas from forum readers. If I cannot get him to join the forum, I will submit some of his findings.[/QUOTE][/b]I'll keep an eye out. [QUOTE][b]Can anyone out there help me set up a web site?[/QUOTE][/b]Somebody here might be able.

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 07-14-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by William E. Harris:

Can anyone out there help me set up a web site?

---

William,I'm sure I could help with the site, just let me know.Take care.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

"Can anyone out there help me set up a web site?"
--I do this professionally, you may like to check out my company web site over at http://www.promisoft.net . It is newly updated and some things are not functional right now, such as the wallpaper and portfolio. Though I think that the site itself is good enough a portfolio until further notice. Pricing has not been fully decided yet, though depending on what your looking for, it may cost little to nothing. Besides, while my portfolio which has not been updated yet has quality, it doesn't have quantity. I could give you a brilliant site for nothing but a 88x33(or 88x31) banner ------------------