Evolution versus Creationism is a 'Red Herring' argument

The thread proposal appears in Message 6. --AdminI choose: "Evolution versus Creationism, et all is a 'Red Herring' argument due to misunderstanding on both sides"I cannot thank you enough for your informed and cogent help.
PaulGLEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Changed topic title from "I choose: "Evolution versus 'Creationism, et. al.' is a 'Red Herring' argument due to" to "Evolution versus Creationism is a 'Red Herring' argument".Edited by Admin, : Direct readers to the message containing the thread proposal.

Sorry, admin. For some reason my email notifications got cut off, and I didn't realize any of this was happening. Will change/check settings to rectify.

Percy: I'll have to get back to you on that, but within 10 days- since my email notifications are now back on (I hope). I had to ditch my 7-year old PC and get another. Rather than transfer my bacup, the PC store put my old hard drive in the new PC also. But I just found that it won't access those files. Will be knocking on their door Tuesday.

Evolution was, in its conception, an applied extension to biology of the school of thought known as uniformitarianism. Evolution itself is a logical explanation of the information that it correlates, and the evidence of the appropriate scientific fields has consistently verified the mechanisms necessary for substantiating the validity of evolution. Evolution, while it is not a proven process in the strictest sense, is completely valid in its viability and is the only logical process (i.e., one amenable to scientific analysis) so tenable.The human error in the promotion and promulgation of evolution was, and still is, of two aspects: Firstly, as we shall see later on in this chapter, the school of thought that gave rise to the theory of evolution- Uniformitarianism﷓ is totally in contradiction to scientific evidence. Uniformitarianism was founded on insufficient and incomplete data, and the motives for its adoption were more anti﷓Genesis than they were pro﷓scientific.The second mistake, resulting from the same anti﷓spiritual motivation as the first, was in the use of evolution as one pillar of a mechanistic explanation capable of circumventing the problem of first cause, i.e., the origination of everything. Evolution is merely a process and is not an explanation of actual creation; the explanation of creation per se does not lie within the realm of scientific explanation.The validity of evolution would not, in the slightest degree, diminish the evidential necessity of the existence of God, nor would it preclude the validity of divine creation.Evolutionists for nonscientific reasons have erroneously discarded the Genesis account and, equally erroneously, religionists have discarded evolution as being contradictory to a Genesis account.
Now it is time to logically examine the merits and foibles of the "pro-Creation" argument.To promote the literality of the six days of restoration makes equally as much sense as the Roman Catholic Church's defense of the earth as the center of the universe in the time of Copernicus. It is theologically incorrect to think that the 6 days were literal 24-hour days, since time elements (lights) were not assigned until the 4th day. The damage done by such misguided, and scripturally mistaken believers, in making Christians appear to be ignorant and illogical people, has been inestimable. What would cause some of the better scientific minds of the last century to illogically jump to conclusions in a frenzied effort to discredit the Bible in general and Genesis in particular? What would cause religious people to feel compelled to attack evolution as if they were defending the Faith? The answer to these questions is obvious if we rephrase them with the word who instead of what. Who has always endeavored to cause the human race to strain out a gnat and swallow a camel? None other than our most subtle enemy, Satan.

I wrote A Message for the Human Race. The 'cut and pastes' are my commentary on specific footnoted material validating the concepts elucidated. Do forum rules require that I re-phrase my own commentary, probably to a less cogent version?
Also, am going to check my 'murphy's law' email notification setting, since I didn't receive notification of any forum/thread/replies.
PaulGL aka achristian1985

AMFTHR: written 2 years ago.Author's Note: Since my writing of this section, rock specimens have been found in Antarctica that have been shown to have been at one time on the surface of Mars; and also some which had, at one time, been on the surface of the far side of the moon.
Also, within the last decade a complete, detailed planetary topological mapping of Venus was carried out by satellite. Venus has a violent (600 mph) and corrosive (sulphuric acid) atmosphere. Yet craters (with little or no detectable erosion) were found that had to have been formed within recent, perhaps historical times. This alone directly disproves Uniformitarianism. When NOVA asked an astrophysicist about this, his reply was: ‘I don’t see how Uniformitarianism can ever possibly explain those craters. But I’m not willing to give it up.’
Sir, your answer is the epitome of religious dogmatism and not that of objective, scientific methodology.Will reply better at future time, when have some time. Very good reasoning and informative input by you. PaulGL

1. Originally, I stated in 'A Message...et.al. that Genesis Ch. 1 AND Gen. Ch. 2 accounts of the genesis of life could not both be literally true (being contradictory LITERALLY) and that at least one of them must be allegorical. 2. Well (also stated then), both are allegorical. 3. My mistake was ignorantly placing credence (at the time I documented my theory as a book) on a misleading and incorrect biological text written by an apologetic author. It would have been convincing evidence had the 6 forms of life in the 6-day account been in evolutionary order. BUT they are NOT. My sincere apology to my readers, and thanks to your pointing this out. The 6-day account is allegorical, and is NOT written from the view of chronological creation; but rather is depicting the process of genesis of life from the perspective of A. Recovery (not original creation) from a waste, dark condition. B. Life as generated by light, and the relationship between them. 4. Any school of thought (regardless of nomenclature- 'Creationism', or 'Intelligent Design' that invokes a non-natural (supernatural) mechanism (Divine intervention) as part of its process is thus by definition disqualified from being a scientific school of thought that can be taught as a scientific discipline.

5. My dilemma is thus: A. I am born-again, and can no more deny the reality of this than I can deny my first, physical birth. B. I consequently also know that the Bible is the word of God. C. Christ is a living Person, and not a divisive religion. 6. So how to (poorly) relate the trace evidence of this in the objective realm of knowledge? Limited and futile. 7. Skeptics: "As it was in the days of Noah...so also the coming of the Son of Man...and they knew it not...and it took them all away." 8. We consume 40% more resources annually than the earth can renew, and the population continues to grow. 9. There came a point on the Titanic when everyone realized that trying to fix the plumbing was futile. Belatedly, those who were enthralled with discussing the thermodynamics of icebergs started swimming toward where the lifeboats had been. 10. What else can I say? It has been prophesied, and no one can stop it. Find out why, and take your place in the lifeboat. The reality of the Ark has unlimited room, but the door will not stay open forever. 11. If this preaching offends you & has no place in this forum (it doesn't); please forgive me. keeping my mouth shut does not relieve either my obligation or responsibility to care for those reading. Hear, seek, and receive Him! Not merely me. Written in Love, PaulGL

I. I still see no reasons not to think that: A. Man evolved. B. His evolution from primate to man was distinguished by his obtaining a spirit. C. This was possible only when he became capable of being responsible, which is dependent on obtaining free will, which is dependent on reaching a 'plateau' level of brain-to-body ratio. D. This is genetically determined. E. Such a 'plateau' threshold would require this first human to have a mate with an identical chromosomal makeup- which is possible only if she is cloned from him. F. This is recorded in the unique account of Eve's being built from Adam (not created as he was).
II. I also have not been shown empirical evidence that invalidates the probability that molecules became self-replicating in matrices of clay, also substantiated by the Genesis account of the content of man's physical being described as coming from (Hebrew) "red clay".
III. My challenge is for someone to present cogent evidence disproving these 2 hypotheses; or (failing that) explain why there is such an unmistakable correlation in the Biblical account.

I said nothing whatsoever about the length of time involved for a primate to be born with the requisite brain-to-body mass enabling his will to be a free will- i.e.: one capable of making decisions resulting from being limited only to instinct or logic. Only that the apparent discernible difference between man and the rest of life was his possession of a free will. The Bible even states that animal life has "souls"- mind, emotion, and will. But that only man has a spirit- which is not a testable condition.Edited by PaulGL, : No reason given.

Uniformitarianism as a philosophical influence upon scientific thought, causing invalid conclusions in some areas historically. Namely, in the area of cosmology in general and stellar system formation in particular. The historical effect most apparent was the influence of "the music of the spheres" philosophy upon solar system formation theories, pre-Kepplerian & pre-telescope (circular perfection vs. elliptical reality) 'what we see is the same as things have always been' nebular hypothesis ramifications. Uniformitarianism to the unwarranted and unsubstantiated exclusion of planetary gravitational interaction, astral catastrophism. Exclusion of the possibility of such interaction involving the terrestrial, inner planets; and certainly precluding events of such magnitude possibly occurring within recent (geologically) and even historical time frames.

So, your point is that if horses were the first animal to achieve a free will, then cloning would not be necessary in their case. Remark about spirit is juvenile.

By 'red herring', I meant it as you found its definition to be. I meant, specifically, that the whole argument of Evolution vs. 'Creation' is a distraction from what is of genuine life and death validity. Namely, that it is NOT of primary importance to know HOW we got here. BUT it IS of crucial (both individually and as a species) importance to know WHY we are here. The answer to the first question will not in itself be of any value to answering the second, relevant issue. The answer to WHY we are here does not lie within the purview of knowledge

Profanity is the first resort of the illiterate

Genetic mutation with the surviving traits trending towards an increase in intelligence. Eventually crossing (by possibly and perhaps even a single mutational change at the chromosomal level- of course) a threshold level whereby the increased intelligence resulted in a free will.