If evolution is not the answer, then what is?

quote:

---

This idea of HOW, rather than WHETHER, seems to present a better parallel to the naturalist point of view, to me, and a more suitable place for dialogue, than a mutually exclusive Creation vs naturalism argument, at least for the sake of information sharing among people interested in the same disciplines.

---

This is great. You probably should have left it there, except that there's no debate left when you say this. If the issue is "how," then, if we are to accept the evidence of the earth, nature, and the universe, the answer is "by gradual, natural processes over billions of years."I believe "In the beginning, God..." I also believe that the beginning was about 14 billion years ago in a big bang, because "the heavens declare the glory of God, and the hammered dome of the sky declares his handiwork." So I let the heavens declare the glory of God, that he is very ancient, and the skies his handiwork, that he creates over long period of times using a process of birth, life, and death to get to his results.

quote:

---

contrast, the naturalist is free to pick and choose as many theories as pallatable because fossil evidence will always reveal some new species or refute the newest nuance of evolution. It is no surprise, therefore, that the naturalist's "base" is a constant, shifting sand because naturalist theories are all based upon what they see at a single point in time and never the entire fossil record as a whole - which seems to constantly refute their theories as the Bible predicts it will.

---

This is what I meant by "you should have stopped." You act like you are willing to discuss the "how" of God's creation, but you begin by with an insult that's quite obviously based in ignorance. It's one thing to say you believe the Bible says God did it. It's quite another to suggest, so inaccurately, that the fossil record refutes evolutionary theories.

quote:

---

I believe that God created the universe in 6 days, so, to me, any other explanation than God is false.

---

In my opinion, even the atheists on this board would say, "Ok, fine," at this comment.

quote:

---

I equally defend Biblical truth against evolutionary, pre-conceived ideas of science that consistently ignore irrefutable evidence for global deluge.

---

And Don Quixote was defending the world against a non-existent threat from windmills. There are no "pre-conceived ideas of science that consistently ignore irrefutable evidence for global deluge," because there is no "evidence for a global deluge."It's one thing to say, "I believe God created the world in six days, because I believe the Bible says so." It's quite another to say, "Scientists ignore irrefutable evidence for a global deluge." The first is just religious fanaticism, which might be good or bad. The second is slander, hopefully based on ignorance, but possibly based on that religious fanaticism, in which case that fanaticism is bad.The "evidence" for a global deluge has been demolished on this web site so thoroughly it almost seems silly to bring it back up again. The only reason AiG and others continue to pretend like they have good evidence is because there's an integrity problem of some sort.You might try "Science Held Hostage" by Howard Van Till, et al. It is published by InterVarsity Press, an evangelical Christian publisher, and it does a good job documenting the honesty problem in "creation science" circles.

quote:

---

Therefore, when AIG looks at the world from a Bible based perspective, you automatically assume they are wrong

---

This did not used to be true. It is true now, because their reports have consistently been shown to be untrustworthy, and even Christian writers are having to complain about their lack of integrity. So when a publisher with an integrity problem puts out information, people generally assume it can't be trusted. They're right.On the other hand, because evolutionists are constantly having to protect truth from the dishonest hands of "creation scientists," they actually look at and research the claims of AiG, CRI and others. From the evolutionists, you can find out the real facts and the actual sources, because evolutionists look them up and check them out. Creation scientists don't do the research that their profession requires them to, so they have lost trust.It's appropriate here to give an example. A friend of mine recently debated some students of mine, one of them his own son. In order to do so, he hunted down information from creationists (especially including "The Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter," much of its evidence borrowed from CRI). He quoted creationist literature saying that Mt. St. Helens dumped logs into Spirit Lake, that those logs had roots intact, the roots got waterlogged, then they sunk to the bottom, standing upright. As the sediment from Mt. St. Helens settled in Spirit lake, the trunks were buried, creating the appearance of layers of forests, one upon the other, created in a year, rather than over tens of thousands of years.The problem is, one other dad who agreed to research found a place where the creationists slipped and admitted that only about 10% of those logs had roots and sank upright. Not only that, but there is no reason to suppose that those sinking trees actually settled in layers that gave the appearance of a succession of forests. The creationists (good, "honest" Christians all) conveniently forgot to mention whether there were actually any real layers in Spirit lake.Of course, you know there weren't. The trees settled randomly, 90% horizontal or skewed, and about 10% vertical, and they were buried as randomly as they sunk, not in layers at all.All of this Mt. St. Helens "evidence" was supposed to refute the appearance of age in the 27 layers of forest laid upon each other in Yosemite park, each with trees that are up to 500 years old, dated by tree rings. Each forest had been destroyed by fire, buried, then another grew on top of it.Spirit lake looks nothing like the series of forests in Yosemite, and these creationists knew it, but they duped my friend, and they led him to try to unknowingly deceive his own teenage son.Pretty sad. That's the record of creationists.Okay, that's my story. Where's your story? Where's your evidence that evolutionists just close mindedly ignore what creationists say? Give us examples, but prepare to be educated when you do.

quote:

---

As far I am concerned, that defines you as a religious person who seeks to study God’s Creation with the preconceived notion that God didn’t make it.

---

I really like Darwin's Origin of Species, I agree with his general points, I believe in evolution, and I have a preconceived notion that God did make it all. About 80% of the Americans who believe in evolution agree with me. Only about 20% of evolutionists think God didn't make it.So now what are you going to do with your false accusation that we are believing the evidence of evolution because of preconceived ideas?

quote:

---

This is as much a circuitous, declaration to me as my beliefs probably are to you, i.e I am right because you are wrong!

---

Nobody said this to you. This is what creationists do. Evolutionists are directly opposed to that kind of thinking.

quote:

---

it seems that your platform is shifting

---

That's because that's what you want to believe. It's not true, and AiG and CRI wish it was true, but it's not. Provide some examples, please. Examples are the only way you are going to find out how much of CRI and AiG's material is errant or made up.

quote:

---

The fossil record just does not seem to support the old one.

---

Actually, it supports it well. Care to bring up examples? It's the only way you're going to find out how CRI and AiG have been training you to slander.I really liked the example from the fossil record one of my students put in her final report. Ammonites are a shelled creature found in the geologic column all the way from the devonian through the cretaceous, where they were wiped out in the same mass extinction that took the dinosaurs. They remain the same size and shape (roughly) throughout the column, but in devonian layers the sutures between their gas chamber are simple and straight. They become more complex over time, until by the time of the Triassic, they are quite complex.Evolutionists believe they evolve because that's what it looks like. The evidence suggests descent with modification, and there's no real alternative explanation for these ammonites (they went extinct a little too early for Moses to be responsible for the extinction of these ammonites) nor for thousands of other things in the fossil record that cry out "Descent with Modification!!!"

quote:

---

I’ve read several laments from AIG that you evolutionists beat your dead horse instead of looking at the evidence from the same angle as they. Shall we say, Tit for Tat?

---

No, let's not say that. That's like a bank robber looking at a teller and saying, "I take money from the bank when I rob it, and your take money from the bank when you're paid. Shall we say, 'Tit for tat?'"No, we shall not. The creationist position is based on dishonesty, lack of integrity, and in the eyes of those observing, the behavior of creationists dishonors the god they claim to serve. Let them show honesty and integrity and pull down the falsehoods on their web sites, and they will at least have the honor that honesty brings.You have laid out accusations. I have, too, but I have given examples. As far as I'm concerned, now I'm the bank teller, and you're the bank robber. Pull out your money, and let's look at where you got it. Mine's out on the table for examination. Care to look at it?

quote:

---

My point is that Christians and evolutionists will never agree, but, from the Christian point of view, for us, we might build a scientific dialogue based upon HOW, not WHETHER.

---

Christians and evolutionists are having a scientific dialogue based upon how, not whether. Dr. Paul Cresswell, for example, is very Christian, from what I can tell of his web site, and he discusses with evolutionists. He knows, however, that "HOW" is descent with modification (evolution).Another great example is the geologist Glenn Morton, who is also an avid Christian, who wants Genesis one and two to be literally true. He is honest, however, so he has had to admit that the earth gives evidence of being very old, and life gives overwhelming evidence that it evolved. He's postulated that Adam existed five million years ago, was an Australopithecine, and that he lived in the Mediterranean basin when it was dry. He believes the filling of the Mediterranean basin is the flood of Noah, and that it literally happened, five million years ago, to the only people existing on earth.I have discussed that with him by email a very little, as I don't believe there's anything literal about the start of Genesis. I'm not a scientist, though, and he is, so he discusses with scientists, and I don't.No one is discussing with the "creation scientists," though, because they're not discussing at a scientific level. They're not looking at the evidence. They're discussing at the religious level, and they begin by assuming that the earth is six to ten thousand years old.You appear to make that same assumption. You are disqualified from discussing the "HOW" scientifically as well if that's true, because the evidence is overwhelming for a 4.5 billion year old earth upon which life evolved.So the discussion of "HOW" is happening. I don't really think it's appropriate for the people who refuse to hold an honest discussion to complain that they aren't allowed to participate in it.

quote:

---

And, according to AIG, at least one evolutionist organization has admitted that AIG is correct.

---

Fascinating. Can you name them? Did they say AiG was correct about one piece of evidence they presented, or did they say AiG was correct about everything they say, in which case I guess that evolutionist organization is no longer evolutionist? Can you give us some details?

quote:

---

My point is that Christians and evolutionists will never agree

---

Codswallop, mate! Most Christians and most evolutionists agree. Christian literalists who ignore scientific evidence and atheistic evolutionists who say science proves God can't exist are the only exceptions. Everyone else is doing fine!

quote:

---

AIG ought to be allowed to publish it’s reports in Nature but it doesn’t because of that publication’s bias.

---

No, AiG isn't allowed to publish because their reports don't meet the standards of science. The Christians who wrote "Science Held Hostage" give a great explanation in the first chapter of the honesty required in scientific papers and why groups like AiG don't qualify.

quote:

---

Yet, AIG and ICR both provide links to evolutionist reports, when able, so that their readers will have a comprehensive grasp of the subject.

---

Hogwash. AiG and ICR provide links to some scientific articles, which they have misquoted to serve their purpose. They do not provide links to the reports that expose them for charlatans.Evolutionists, on the other hand, regularly provide links to creationist sites, because creationist sites are so lacking in any real evidence, they're no threat to an informed person.

quote:

---

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

---

Yeah, creationists tend to like versions like that, because it allows them to ignore the fact that "firmament" means a hard, hammered out vault (Job 37:18, try using a Strong's concordance for the words there). Genesis one says the sky is a hard dome holding up water. Did you know that? You can use a Strong's for those words in Gen 1, too (if you have a modern one, at least).

To those who asked 6days to stay on topic, I apologize for answering him, but I just couldn't resist.

quote:

---

The Bible shows that Jesus had a literal view of scripture so it’s strange that some Christians say they don’t interpret the Bible literally yet claim to follow Christ.

---

That's totally awesome!!! I agree it's a problem not to take Jesus literally. I know 190 people who can't wait to come see the love of the community you live in. Imagine, people finally taking Jesus literally! No one calling anything his own, and sharing everything except their wives (Acs 4:32). How many families do you have living in your house? I know when you start living like that, your house starts to get real full.We'll probably only send three or four men at first. I realize you may not be able to put us up, because you've sold all your possessions and given the money to the poor (Luk 12:33). That's okay, we'll camp in a tent and bring our own food.So tell me how to find y'all, and we'll be coming to see. I'm very excited.

I'm just giving this a bump to see if we're going to get 6days back. I'm interested in his response to my post.

quote:

---

Interesting, isn't it, that it was the 'caustic words' that led him to believe that 'we' believe ourselves to be Christian?

---

It's nice to have an admission. There's about 80 adults in our community, and most of them were "the best of the best" when they were Christians. Knowledgeable, committed, in church every time the door was open, avidly anti-evolution, etc. Several were evangelists, deacons, ministers of music (no ex-pastors except ones who started their own churches). By most I mean 65 to 70 out of the 80.Every last one will tell you with a shudder that what they learned best from Christianity was to be mean (verbally, at least). We're embarrassed to call ourselves Christian, because we're embarrassed about how mean/rude we learned to be in the past, and we're trying to put it behind us. We need a new word or something. For right now, we use no word at all, and generally, if someone asks if I'm a Christian, I say know. I've told a couple people that our group is Hindu, because we really like Gandhi. To me his "Truth," whom he personified so much that he treated "Truth" pretty much as a being, is my Christ.

quote:

---

I think your words scared him more than anything we evil ones could have said.

---

No doubt. We decided once to drop in on a group in Indiana, about the same size as ours, with about 20 people. We really were excited, thinking they were doing pretty much what we were doing. We'd read their books and seen one of their videos. We called on the way, and their pastor left an obnoxious message on his answering machine saying that if it was me calling, just keep going home, don't stop in his city. He didn't even have the guts to answer his own phone.One other small group heard about us, called us, got real excited, and then I offered to come visit, bringing two couples with me, just for a weekend. The guy who'd been emailing us was real excited, but when he mentioned it to the leader, the leader said no, and then they never answered another one of my emails.My point in those stories is: talk is cheap. Literal's easy if all you have to do is argue stories in Genesis. At Luke 12:33, the talk starts turning expensive. Real expensive.[edited to fix misquote][This message has been edited by truthlover, 06-04-2003]

quote:

---

I joined this board trusting that God would either circumcise the hearts of its members with faith or that they would at least know the charges against them prior to the second resurrection, seeing that they have had over a week to digest the scripture in my prior letter.

---

Then perhaps you should confine your posts to one of the belief sections or to free for all, where the rest of us, who prefer to observe forum rules, could answer your tirades. To answer you here would require me to be as rude to IRH as you are.

quote:

---

John was rough in his application of truth toward men. He had no time to grin and say, God loves you all but hates your sin. God’s kingdom was too near to mince lies with truth. Likewise, Jesus’ candor about himself to theists brought him to Calvary. I too have no time to mince words about Jesus Christ. I am offensive to you because I will not move from God’s creation in 6 days or his flood. What else do you expect us Christians to believe?

---

Well, if we're really terminally off topic, as has been said, I'd like 6days to tell me why Genesis one is literal, but Luke 12:33 isn't?So, you won't move from God's creation is 6 days or his flood, but will you move from selling all your possessions and giving them to the poor? Is that literal. All true Christians take the Bible literally, you know. Do you hate your parents? That's a direct command, not just a story."He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him."Since your topic is what constitutes true belief, I ask, are you keeping his commandments, specifically Luke 12:33, or are you a liar with no truth in you? It's my God-given duty to bring this up to you.