Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

104 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

SeanG
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278

Posted 12/22/2002 11:22 PM (GMT -6)

What Do the Fossils Say?

“…and this perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” ~ Darwin ~ [speaking of the fossil record]

Let us jump into the two major models by which we can extrapolate our (humanity’s) origins. Either we evolved, or we were created, period. As Douglas Futuyma stated in his anti-creationist book, Science On Trial, “Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed, or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.” Now, for those who say that this is a religious topic, e.g., religious creationism versus non-religious science, this next part is for you.

The religions of the world that say we evolved over a very long period by a slow evolutionary process are the following:

Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Taoism, Shintoism, Sikhism, Jainism, Animism, Spiritism, Occultism, Satanism, Theosophy, Bahaism, Mysticism, Liberal-Judaism, Liberal-Islam, Liberal-Christianity, Unitarianism, Religious Science, Unity, Humanism.Of course there are differences in the subtleties of these religious belief systems, for example: in Hinduism the earth is balanced on the back of a turtle, who himself is on the back of another – larger – turtle. What we end up with is an infinite progression to an even larger turtle. Nevertheless, the point is, the Hindu believes that all life originally came from the simplest forms, and through millions of years of evolutionary change, we now have arrived at the current phoenix of evolution, man. The only religions that accept the literal, Biblical interpretation of origins are the following: Orthodox Judaism, Orthodox Islam, and Orthodox Christianity.

Is Evolution a Religion?
Huxley called evolution “religion without revelation.” H. S. Lipson, FRS, Professor of Physics, Univ. of Manchester, UK, states that “In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it.”

Professor D. M. S. Watson, one of the leading biologists and science writers of his day, demonstrated the bias behind much of the evolutionary thinking when he wrote, “evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” So it’s not a question of biased religious creationists versus objective scientific evolutionists; rather, it is the biases of the Christian religion versus the biases of the religion of secular humanism resulting in different interpretations of the same scientific data. As the anti-creationists science writer Boyce Rensberger admits:

“At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about scientists work, something the textbooks don’t usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical process but through hunches and wild guesses. As individuals, they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position.”

It’s not really a question of who is biased, but which bias is the correct bias with which to be biased! (Did you follow that?) Richard Lewontin, a geneticist and professor of biology at Harvard University, recently wrote this very revealing comment (I will put in bold where Lewontin originally italicized). It illustrates the implicit philosophical (dare I say religious) bias against creation – regardless of whether or not the facts support it:

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories; because we have a priori commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

Now, a person does not have to be religious to see or comprehend the evidences for the creation model of our origins. One only has to be scientifically-minded-enough not to reject the evidence due to an “a priori” assumption. What this entails is the open-mindedness of an individual to view evidence, and, even if the evidence goes against his or her presupposed ideas or worldview, that said person, is willing to change their assumptions to fit the evidence, not changing the evidence to fit the assumptions. That being said, how can we know, or see, the past via our models of origins (creation or evolution)? Are there certain predictions or events the theories say we should see if that particular view of life is true? There certainly is! Lets see if we can sort a few of the major predictions made by the differing models and see where the evidence lies.

The Importance of the Fossil Record

Let us begin with the evolutionary view of life, and what the fossil record should show in accordance with the predicted event – which is, life changing over time from the simplest form (i.e., a single celled ameba) to the most complicated forms (i.e., volitional invertebrates, man). In other words, creationists and evolutionist have radically different ideas as to the kinds of life they expect to find as fossils, created or evolved.

Evolutionists should expect to clearly see, and in fact predicted over 120 years earlier, one type of animal or plant changing into another type. The prediction then is that the boundaries between kinds should blur as we look further and further back into time via their fossil history. Better put is this defining explanation by Dr. Henry Morris on the importance of the fossil record:

“The fossil record must provide the critical evidence for or against evolution, since no other scientific evidence can possibly throw light on the actual history of living things. All other evidence is circumstantial…. The time scale of human observation is far too short to permit documentation of real evolutionary change from lower to higher kinds of organisms at the present time. The vital question, therefore, is: ‘Does the record of past ages, now preserved in the form of fossils, show that such changes have occurred?’”

Dr. Duane Gish also states the importance of the fossil record:

“Much evidence could be drawn from the fields of cosmology, chemistry, thermodynamics, mathematics, molecular biology, and genetics in an attempt to decide which model offers a more plausible explanation for the origin of living things. In the final analysis, however, what actually did happen can only be decided, scientifically, by an examination of the historical record, that is, the fossil record.”

Of course, I would be remiss if I didn’t include some quotes by evolutionists on this same subject, since I just quoted two well-known creation scientists. W. Le Gros Clark, the well-known British evolutionist, has said:

“That evolution actually did occur can only be scientifically established by the discovery of the fossilized remains of representative samples of those intermediate types which have been postulated on the basis of the indirect evidence. In other words, the really crucial evidence for evolution must be provided by the paleontologist whose business it is to study the evidence of the fossil record.”

Pierre Grasse, the most distinguished of all French zoologists, whose knowledge of the living world was said to be encyclopedic, said this:

“Naturalist must remember that the process of evolution is revealed only through fossil forms. A knowledge of paleontology is, therefore, a prerequisite; only paleontology can provide them with the evidence of evolution and reveal its course or mechanisms. Neither the examination of present beings, nor imagination, nor theories can serve as a substitute for paleontological documents. If they ignore them, biologists, the philosophers of nature, indulge in numerous commentaries and can only come up with hypothesis. This is why we constantly have recourse to paleontology, the only true science of evolution…. The true course of evolution is and can only be revealed by paleontology.” Elsewhere he comments: “Thus evolution actually did occur can only be scientifically established by the discovery of the fossilized remains of representative samples of those intermediate types which have been postulated on the basis of the indirect evidence. In other words, the really crucial evidence for evolution must be provided by the paleontologist whose business it is to study the evidence of the fossil record.”

Sir Gavin de Beer, well known British biologist and of course, evolutionist, said:

“The last word on the credibility and course of evolution lies with the paleontologist…”

Glenister and Witzke, in their chapter in an anti-creationist book, state:

“The fossil record affords an opportunity to choose between evolutionary and creationist models for the origin of the earth and its life forms.”

It would be sensible to assume then, that the fossil record is important, if not crucial, to this debate for the origins of humankind. Thus, the history of life may be traced through an examination of the fossilized remains of past forms of life entombed in the rocks. If life arose from an inanimate world through a mechanistic, naturalistic, evolutionary process and then diversified by a similar process via increasingly complex forms in to the millions of species that have existed and now exist; then the fossils actually found in the rocks should correspond to those predicted on the basis of such a process. On the other hand, if living things came into being by a process of special creation, the broad outlines of which are given in the first two chapters of Genesis, then predictions very different from those based on evolutionary theory should be made concerning the fossil record.

Creation Model
On the basis of the creation model, we would predict an explosive appearance in the fossil record of highly complex forms of life without evidence of ancestral forms. We would predict that all of the major types of life, that is, the basic plant and animal forms, would appear abruptly in the fossil record without evidence of transitional forms linking one basic kind to another. We would thus expect to find fossilized remains, for example, of cats, dogs, bears, elephants, cows, horses, bats, dinosaurs, crocodiles, monkeys, apes, and men without evidence of common ancestors. Each major kind at its earliest appearance in the fossil record would possess, fully developed, all the characteristics that are used to define that particular kind.

Evolution Model
On the basis of the evolution model, we would predict that the most ancient strata in which fossils are found would contain the most primitive forms of life capable of leaving a fossil record. As successively younger strata were searched, we would expect to see gradual transition of these relatively simple forms of life into more and more complex forms of life. As living forms diverged into the millions of species which have existed in the past and which exist today, we would expect to find a transition of one form into another.

We would predict that new types would not appear suddenly in the fossil record possessing all of the characteristics which are used to define that group but would retain characteristics used to define the ancestral group. Dr. Gish says, “There should not be any difficulty in finding transitional forms. Hundreds of transitional forms should fill museum collections. If we find fossils at all, we ought to find transitional forms. As a matter of fact, difficulty in placing a fossil with a distinct category should be the rule rather than the exception.”

What Do the Evolutionists Say?

To better grasp what we are dealing with here, let us first see what some of the bigger names in the evolutionary field of geology and paleontology have to say about the fossil record and the evidence that it portrays. Charles Darwin, the man whose theory is the topic of this discussion, also realized the foundational importance of this matter to the life-blood of his theory, if you will:

“[Since] innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.”

Again, Darwin:

“The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species appear in certain formations has been urged by several paleontologists… as a fatal objection to the belief of the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, that fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection. For the development by this means of a group of forms all of which are (according to the theory) descended from some one progenitor, must have been an extremely slow process; and the progenitors must have lived long before their modified descendants.”

Thomas Huxley, Darwin’s “bulldog,” also realized the importance of this issue when he wrote:

“If it could be shown that this fact [gaps between widely distinct groups] had always existed, the fact would be fatal to the doctrine of evolution.”

Absence of transitional forms was a continuing problem for Darwin, as it is for paleontologists today. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, make this abundantly clear with this statement:

“He [Darwin] was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn’t look the way he predicted it would, and, as a result, he devoted a long section of his Origin of Species to an attempt to explain and rationalize the differences…. Darwin’s general solution to the incompatibility of fossil evidence and his theory was to say that the fossil record is a very incomplete one…. We are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America [still on display in the Los Angeles Natural History Museum], have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information.”

Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, probably evolution’s leading spokesperson today, has acknowledged:

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.”

Anthropologist Edmund R. Leach told the 1981 Annual Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science:

“Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.”

George Gaylord Simpson, perhaps the twentieth century’s foremost paleontologist, said:

“This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all orders of all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate.”

Dr. Steven Stanley of the department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, John Hopkins University, says:

“The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic [structural] transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid.”

Professor Heribert Nilsson, Director of the Botanical Institute at Lund University, Sweden, declared after forty years of study in this field:

“It may, therefore, be firmly maintained that it is not even possible to make a caricature of evolution out of paleobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of the material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled.”

Gareth J. Nelson, of the American Museum of Natural History:

“It is a mistake to believe that even one fossil species or fossil ‘group’ can be demonstrated to have been ancestral to another. The ancestor-descendant relationship may only be assumed to have existed in the absence of evidence indicating otherwise.”

Well known British zoologist Mark Ridley declares:

“…no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.”

Moreover, Newsweek reported:

“In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated.”

Lord Solly Zuckerman, M.A.,M.D.,D.Sc., famous British anatomist concurred:

"...if man evolved from an apelike creature he did so without leaving a trace of that evolution in the fossil record."

Dr. Derek V. Ager from the Department of Geology, Imperial College, London, at the Proceedings of the Geological Association said:

"It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as student...have been debunked."

Personal letter from Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to L. Sunderland:

"...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustrations of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly would have included them...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils...I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”

Again, Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History, which houses the world’s largest fossil collection – sixty million specimens – said:

“For almost 20 years I thought I was working on evolution…. But there was not one thing I knew about it…. So for the last few weeks I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. Question is: ‘Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true?’ [Fossils being included in this question of “Where’s the beef?”] I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all i got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, ‘Yes, I do know one thing -–it ought not to be taught in high school.’ … During the past few years… you have experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith…. Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge.”

So by using quotes and comments by evolutionists themselves on the subject of the fossil record and what evidences it provides, I have shown that as of yet, the evolutionary predictions made about the geological record have not been met. What does the fossil record show? Let us peer into just the first layer and see if this could shed light on the prediction made by the evolutionary model that we should find simpler life forms evolving into more complicated forms and fauna in the upper parts of the geological columns.

The Cambrian “Explosion”

In the Cambrian rocks are found a multitude of highly complex creatures with no ancestors. After vertebrates were found in the Cambrian, Science magazine placed every major animal phylum (group) in the Cambrian rocks. This information comes as a shock to most people for it is not discussed in school or university textbooks. Dr. Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History said, “There is still a tremendous problem with the sudden diversification of multicellular life. There is no question about that. That’s a real phenomenon.” Noted evolutionist Dr. George Gaylord Simpson has called the sudden appearance of many types of complex life forms in the Cambrian rocks (around the entire globe) the “major mystery of the history of life.” He went on to say that two-thirds of evolution was already over by the time we found the fist fossils. Today, some scientists are saying 75 percent of the evolutionary process occurred before the first fossils were deposited.

Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, and George Gaylord Simpson, the twentieth century’s foremost paleontologist, have both pointed to the fact that two-thirds of evolution was over by the time we found the first fossils. Creationists were saying that to an open-minded person (setting you’re “a priori” presuppositions aside), this would indicate agreement between the creation model and what is found in the fossil record. Eldredge goes on to say:

“Then there was something of an explosion. Beginning about six hundred million years ago and continuing for about ten to fifteen million years [Dr. Gould rates it about five million], the earliest known representatives of the major kinds of animals still populating today’s seas made a rather abrupt appearance. This rather protracted ‘event’ shows up graphically in the rock record…. Creationists have made much of this sudden development of a rich and varied fossil record where, just before, there was none…. Indeed, the sudden appearance of a varied, well-preserved array of fossils, which geologists have used to mark the beginnings of the Cambrian Period does pose a fascinating intellectual challenges.”

Science magazine had evolutionary scientist, Dr. David Woodruff, do a review of the book Macroevolution, Pattern and Process. Dr. Woodruff stated that the fossil record “fails to contain a single example of a significant transition.” [FYI, all creationists believe in what is referred to – wrongly – as microevolution, however, the disagreement is over macroevolution.] Ichthyologist Dr. Donn Rosen, the late curator of fish at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, noted that evolution has been “unable to provide scientific data about the origin, diversity, and similarity of the two-million species that inhabit the earth and the estimated eight million others that once thrived.” Dr. Steven M. Stanley, professor of paleobiology at John Hopkins University, openly admits that “the known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic [gradual] evolution accomplishing a major morphological transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid.”

In the book Darwin’s Enigma, Luther Sunderland (a creationist, although, at the time of the interviews the interviewees didn’t realize this) interviewed five top paleontologists at leading natural history museums around the world (some of which have been mentioned already), each having significant fossil collections. Those interviewed were Dr. David Pilbeam, former curator of the Peabody Museum of Natural History at Yale, later professor of anthropology at Harvard; Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History; Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator of invertebrate paleontology at the American Museum in New York City; Dr. David M. Raup, curator of Geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago; and Dr. Donald Fisher, state paleontologist at the New York State Natural History Museum. This is what Sunderland said after all the above men were interviewed:

“None of the five museum officials could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another.”

So, is the proof of evolution “wanting?” Dr. Eldredge when he confessed about our textbooks in the colleges and universities (and presumably television channels such as the Discovery Channel or The Learning Channel) also confessed to the lack of evidence about the theory of evolution that so permeates our society:

“I admit that an awful lot of [mis]information has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true…. Many statements about prehistoric time, or a presumed fossil record, partake of imaginative narratives.”

Is it any wonder then when writers and scientists say such things like, “Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grownups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless” (Professor Louis Bounoure, Former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research at the French National Center of Scientific Research). Or that “I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution especially the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has” (Malcolm Muggeridge, world famous journalist, writer and philosopher).

These men are only commenting on the lack of any credible evidence that should be there if evolution were true. They are only commenting on the predictions made that are yet to be substantiated. To reject creation a priori and to defend a model that lacks any substance, whatsoever, is itself unscientific. Or, as the senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History puts it, “Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge.”

Dr. Gish remarks that, “Eldredge admits that ‘The Cambrian evolutionary explosion is still shrouded in mystery.’ But creation scientists say, ‘what greater evidence for creation could the rocks give than this abrupt appearance of a great variety of complex creatures without trace of ancestors?’ Thus we see, right from the beginning, on the basis of an evolutionary scenario, the evidence is directly contradictory to predictions based on evolution but is remarkably in accord with predictions based on creation. This [Cambrian] evidence alone I sufficient to establish the fact that evolution has not occurred on the earth.”

To Conclude
When creationists look at evolution through the eyes of mathematical probabilities; the fossil record; information theory and the vast informational content in living things; the laws of thermodynamics, biogenesis and non-contradiction; comparative studies in physiology/anatomy/taxonomy/embryology/ morphology/genetics and biochemistry; and sciences such as anthropology, geology, and biology, they (we) find it hard to believe that anyone who fairly examines this issue could state that evolution is a fact – or even a credible theory. This is why creationists argue that any open-minded individual, scientist or layman, who will objectively evaluate all the evidence, will discover that such evidence comes down heavily on the side of creation.

As I have shown with the crux of the Darwinian theory, the fossil record. Where does the evidence lay? With creation.

SeanG!

"Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen."

SeanG
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278

Posted 12/22/2002 11:34 PM (GMT -6)

Books by Atheists & Agnostics

Evolution: A Theory in Crisis: New Developments in Science are Challenging Orthodox Darwinism, By Michael Denton: M.D., Ph.D. is a molecular biologist at the University of Otago, New Zealand

Shattering The Myths of Darwinism, by Richard Milton:
Science Writer. Writes a column for Mensa Magazine

Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, byRobert Shapiro: Professor of chemistry at New York University, Ph.D. in Chemistry.

Books by Theists

Fossil Record

Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No! by Duane Gish:
Ph.D. in biochemistry, University of California, Berkeley. He has held key positions at Berkeley, Cornell University Medical College, and The Upjohn Company.

Darwin’s Enigma: Ebbing The Tide of Naturalism, by Luther Sunderland: Sunderland had a B.S. from Penn. State University and worked as an aerospace engineer with General Electric specializing in automatic flight control systems for 30 years.
General Responses

Refuting Evolution: A Response to the National Acadamy of Sciences’ Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science, by Jonathan Sarfati: B.Sc. [Hons.] in Chemistry [with condensed matter and nuclear physics papers substituted] Ph.D. in Spectroscopy [Physical Chemistry]. He obtained a B.Sc. [Hons.] in Chemistry with two physics papers substituted [nuclear and condensed matter physics]. His Ph.D. in Chemistry was awarded for a thesis entitled “A Spectroscopic Study of some Chalcogenide Ring and Cage Molecules.” He has co-authored papers in mainstream scientific journals on high temperature superconductors and selenium-containing ring and cage-shaped molecules. Dr Sarfati is also a keen chess player. He is a former New Zealand Chess Champion, and represented New Zealand in three Chess Olympiads. In 1988, F.I.D.E., the International Chess Federation, awarded him the title of F.I.D.E. Master [FM].

Darwin’s Leap of Faith: Exposing the False Religion of Evolution, by John Ankerberg and John Weldon.

Biology/Biochemistry

Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong, by Jonathan Wells: Ph.D. in molecular and cell biology from Berkley; Ph.D. in religious studies from Yale.

Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, by Michael Behe: Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of Pennsylvania. He is presently Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University.

The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution, by A. E. Wilder Smith: Ph.D. in physical organic chemistry at University of Reading, England; Dr.es.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) in Zurich; D.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from University of Geneva; F.R.I.C. (Fellow of the Royal Institute of Chemistry); Professorships held at numerous institutions including: University of Illinois Medical School Center (Visiting Full Professor of Pharmacology, 1959-61, received 3 "Golden Apple" awards for the best course of lectures), University of Geneva School of Medicine, University of Bergen (Norway) School of Medicine, Hacettepe University (Ankara, Turkey) Medical School, etc.; Presented the 1986 Huxley Memorial Lecture at the invitation of the University of Oxford; Author or co-author of over 70 scientific publications and more than 30 books published in 17 languages; NATO three-star general

Religious/Bias – Aspect of Evolution

Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil, by Cornelius G. Hunter: Ph.D. in Biophysics from University of Illinois. Was Senior Vice President of a high tech-firm in Silicon Valley

Information Theory

Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution, by Lee Spetner: Ph.D. in physics from MIT; he worked in the Applied Physics Laboratory with John Hopkins University and taught graduate level physics for five years and information theory for ten at John Hopkins University.

In The Beginning Was Information, by Werner Gitt: Dr. Gitt is a director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Braunschweig), the Head of the Department of Information Technology

SeanG!

"Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen."

Edited by - SeanG on 12/23/2002 3:03:07 PM

SIM
Registered Member

Date Joined Nov 2002
Total Posts : 90

Posted 12/23/2002 8:01 AM (GMT -6)

Great arguments for Creation. Are you familiar with http://www.sciforums.com/ ? It would be worth posting your info. there.

SIM

SeanG
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278

Posted 12/23/2002 10:01 AM (GMT -6)

SIM

I have visited many debate sites through the years, and have of late completely stop posting on these sites. I came across this site doing some research, and the reason I have started to post again (at this site) is because it takes a while for folks to answer. I have laid out some great arguments at other sites, only to return 24 hours later and have 50 people posting rebuttals, statements, and the like. I am not one to let things slide, and so, my time was being consumed. Here at Dr. Boyds site, my wife is happy, as am I (my happiness being primarily driven by if she is happy) because I am not so overwhelmed by information that I need to respond to, and I spend less time on-line. However, the site you mentioned is very well broken down into their respective sections, I was impressed. But if you take note, there are almost 7,000 members. And I bet that at least 10% of those love to pounce in on the creation / evolution debate, and I just can’t deal with answering hundreds of challenges.

Peace

SeanG!

"Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen."

SeanG
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278

Posted 12/23/2002 10:08 AM (GMT -6)

Oh, SIM, thank you for the complement. I appreciate it… assuming, of course, that you were making it in earnest and not just buttering me up to “join the fray” at sciforums

SeanG!

"Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen."

a_theist
"Thy will be done."

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286

Posted 12/23/2002 3:31 PM (GMT -6)

Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, by Michael Behe: Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of Pennsylvania. He is presently Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University.

www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/behe-review/index.html

I wish I had an extensive library of quotes that favored my position.

"The Creator's power (by which I mean the capacity to influence the world) is made manifest paradoxically in the vulnerable defenselessness of crucified man."
-John F. Haught

Edited by - A_Theist on 12/23/2002 8:32:26 PM

SeanG
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278

Posted 12/24/2002 7:08 AM (GMT -6)

A_Theist, my question to you is, “have you ever read the book you posted the criticism of?” I will tell you something about me. I have (and read) every book written by a philosophical atheist that “disproves” God and the Christian religion. I have (and read) every anti and counter creation book published to date. I have every major book published by contemporary evolutionists explaining evolution. I have every major, and almost every cultic and occultic holy book or religious belief expressed in this small world of ours. (Yes, my wife hates me… books everywhere!) I have books on politics, social issues, philosophy, history, apologetics, and the creation evolution debate (including every debate on video between evolutionists / creationists; and after tomorrow, every debate on video between theists / atheists – all held at colleges and universities.)

the challenge for you, then, is, to make sure you lay aside your biases as much as possible and look at both sides of the issue (like the responses by Behe to his critics for instance… since you initiated the link to the critics of Behe). I have a few books and videos when you are ready to go this extra step that I can recommend. I would even put together a video for you of some of the better videos out there. I can also speak from personal experience… since I have been on digs and visited places that disprove the evolutionary paradigm.

Behe Responds To Critics:

Response to Ken Miller
http://www.trueorigin.org/behe02.asp

Response to R. Doolittle, K. Miller and K. Robison
http://www.trueorigin.org/behe03.asp

Response to various criticisms by the likes of Jerry Coyne, Bruce Weber, Peter Atkins, John Catalano, David Ussery & Kenneth Miller
http://www.trueorigin.org/behe04.asp

response to Kenneth Miller and John McDonald
http://www.trueorigin.org/behe05.asp

Response to various critics, including Jerry Coyne, H. Allen Orr, David Ussery, James Shapiro, Michael Ruse, Andrew Pomiankowski & Neil Blackstone
http://www.trueorigin.org/behe06.asp

A first-hand look at how the “peer-review process” handles challenges to Darwinian orthodoxy
http://www.trueorigin.org/behe07.asp

SeanG!

"Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen."

Edited by - SeanG on 12/24/2002 12:09:59 PM

scott_jorgenson
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271

Posted 12/31/2002 2:02 PM (GMT -6)

Sean,

You seem to have invested a tremendous amount of psychic energy in your pursuit of the creation/evolution issue (not to mention other issues you only hint at). I have done the same myself. For nearly two decades I have invested (wasted? :-) time and effort, informally researching evolution and creation, as a Christian and a layman.

I've come to the conclusion that there are far too many players in this debate with a-priori motivations; but that if such chaff is swept aside, all the substantive critiques of the scientific theory of biological evolution (as opposed to the metaphysical belief system) are, on balance, by the principle of convergence-of-evidence, less convincing than all the positive supports for the theory. This is particularly true, in my opinion, when it comes to interpretations of the empirical evidence (as opposed to the whole philosophical-theological take on the issue). And my same conclusion goes for the related scientific theories of geology, cosmology, etc, dealing with the deep history of the world.

In other words, I've concluded (contrary to you) that evolution - in the purely limited, material and scientific sense - is supported by the evidence in the created order, more so than any specific creationist theory, and furthermore is reconcilable with a genuine Christian faith. I can't say this will always be my conclusion - as with any matter of the intellect, I hold it tentatively. But its where I am now.

Sean, I mean this in all humility, and hope that you can simply hear me on this and honor my position, feeling no challenge from me. I just feel it needs to be said. The exhaustive list of objections you lay out, the approach you take in laying out those objections... I've seen it all before, and it does not persuade. I'm sorry I don't have more time or energy left, after these years, to get into it more. I would just wish that you publicly engage more with the arguments of all those authors of books defending evolutionary science (not metaphysics) that you own and have read, and accordingly reflect more intellectual tentativeness in your own writing.

If you're interested in knowing more about my thoughts on the matter, I would refer you to such Christian authors, scientists, and accepters of evolution as Howard Van Till, Keith Miller, Kenneth Miller, etc. Not that I'm necessarily offering them as trumps for your views (I know how these fellows have been countered, and counter-countered, and so on - I would guess you are convinced against them, though I am not). Rather I offer them as proxies for where I'm coming from on the matter in detail, in case you are curious.

One final thing. You might ask: why am I even posting this message, if I'm too tired of the issue to get into the details with you - isn't it a little irresponsible of me to dive in and dive out? The answer is: simply because I want it to be disclosed in this forum that there are readers, participants, Christians, who indeed have considered all the issues you have, and have thoughtfully come down on the other side of the matter. Our silence does not so much reflect assent, perhaps, as weariness.

Best wishes for a Happy New Year!

Scott

a_theist
"Thy will be done."

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286

Posted 12/31/2002 10:35 PM (GMT -6)

I wish I could have conveyed this as well as you. Don't forget John F. Haught (friends with Ken Miller). He is great at science and theology.

Blessings,
Paul

"The Creator's power (by which I mean the capacity to influence the world) is made manifest paradoxically in the vulnerable defenselessness of crucified man."
-John F. Haught

SeanG
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278

Posted 1/3/2003 8:54 PM (GMT -6)

The usual “ hit and run!” I wish to answer in more depth and engage you in the deep sweeping asides that you felt necessary to display… but a rerun of Welcome Back Kotter is about to begin.

*As I lean back in my worn and tattered chair that only Archie Bunker could enjoy, I start to think of the days events and that really neat debate that took place between Phillip Johnson and Howard Van Till… (the flickering lights of the old television set give my eyes the awesome job of straining to focus after a hard days work… and just as I am about to doze off, and the background laughter of Horseshack is barley audible, I think of the debates whereabouts…* http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9306/johnson.html

SeanG!

"Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen."

a_theist
"Thy will be done."

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286

Posted 1/3/2003 9:17 PM (GMT -6)

I am sure you are familiar with this link:

www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/odyssey/debate/

I sure WISH your link would've worked.

Peace

"The Creator's power (by which I mean the capacity to influence the world) is made manifest paradoxically in the vulnerable defenselessness of crucified man."
-John F. Haught

SeanG
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278

Posted 1/3/2003 10:49 PM (GMT -6)

Already read it (quite a while ago) A_Theist... I think the site I posted is temporarily down. I will check it here and there and post when it is up and running.

SeanG!

"Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen."

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 1/5/2003 5:13 AM (GMT -6)

Seems to me that this whole debate is all about two groups talking past each other - both accusing each other of being "religious" (which I guess really means "NOT scientific") in their approach to the question.

One point that I thought really landed in the Nova debate (link that A_Theist posted) was the following quote from Ken Miller:

quote:

Finally, Phillip, your mention of "materialist philosophy" entirely misses the point of how science works. You imply that if we do not understand the exact mechanism of a process (like evolution) we must allow for intervention by the "Creator." Sorry, but science doesn't work that way. Consider what happens when a living cell divides and its chromosomes move apart. We do not, in fact, know exactly what produces the force that moves chromosomes. Do I make a "materialist" assumption when I say that the force is probably generated by biochemical mechanisms? Of course not. But your logic would claim there is no mechanism, and the Creator Himself has to push every chromosome around. C'mon.

This is a really good point. I have up until now always believed that the standard model of evolution (natural selection) could in no way explain the fact of the pre-cambrian explosion in life forms. Now, I am not so sure. I just got done reading "Hidden Order: How Adaptation Builds Complexity" and "Emergence: From Chaos To Order" both by John Holland. This is the latest research work done in the area of Complex Adaptive Systems. It shows clearly (and even uses computer modelling to demonstrate) that a system with very simple rules can generate emergent phenomena that can in turn be used as building blocks to generate even more complex emergent phenomena. Holland shows how a very simple "cellular automata" can generate a persistent pattern that can in turn be used as the basis for a general purpose computer - this is an absolutely astounding discovery. One of the keys to this kind of emergent phenomena is that it is built on "levels". That is once enough "persistent patterns" emerge in the foundational level then there can be a sudden jump in capability at the next level - the next level, in fact, uses the prior level's emergent phenomena as building blocks to a whole new level of emergent phenomena. It seems to me that this discovery lines up nicely with the fact of the pre-cambrian explosion (as well as the first explosion of life in the fossil record).

It then seems to me very plausible that God created this world such that evolution and massive jumps in capability through emergent phenomena working in a "building block" sort of way generate ever-increasingly complex life. If Christians keep denying this is possible and then one day scientists are able to prove it through complex modelling to any educated person's satisfaction - aren't we only hurting our own cause?

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Edited by - Iconoclast on 01/05/2003 10:16:35 AM

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 1/6/2003 4:16 AM (GMT -6)

Iconoclast: If Christians keep denying this is possible and then one day scientists are able to prove it through complex modelling to any educated person's satisfaction - aren't we only hurting our own cause?

Doc: Bingo. This is an excellent and informative discussion. All well and good. But I worry when anything about the credibility of the Gospel is leveraged on it having a particular outcome. I have known people who rejected Christianity because they thought it incompatible with evolution... and whether you believe in evolution or not, this is tragic!

Doc

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

SeanG
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278

Posted 1/6/2003 7:39 AM (GMT -6)

A couple of comments Ironclast. What Dr. Miller did was posit “a God of the gaps” theory that Dr. Johnson does not support nor argue for. More importantly, Dr., Johnson argues for the Intelligent Design Theory (IDT), which, in fact argues from what we do know. The best (and well worth the $) explanation of such comes from two video presentations that I highly recommend. One can be found at the end (appendix) of a tape by Ralph O. Muncatser entitled Creation vs. Evolution, from Harvest House. Muncaster does the first part of the presentation – which is mediocre, however, the second part of the tape is outstanding! The second video tape is entitled Unlocking the Mystery of Life: The Case for Intelligent Design. This video is good because of the amount of minds brought together to present a scientifically sound presentation for arguing from what we do know, and not from positing God in the gaps of what we don’t know.

Many articles and books have been published and posted throughout the Internet also debunk the computer model you reference. For instance, Dr. Richard Dawkins has argued from such a position – even incorporating “computer modeling to demonstrate” his points. A good book that quickley and simply refutes such a computer model is called Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, and the chapter is #15, “The Ghost in the Machine.”

As for your thesis that God could have (and quite rightly so – has the ability to) allowed, either in the genetic makeup, or by divine intervention, giant leaps of evolution to occur is both refuted by the scientific evidence, and, the theological evidence as well. Not knowing whether you are a Christian or not, and thus not knowing whether you would like to discuss theological matters at all, I will leave both sides of the argument alone for now. However, if you wish to proceed further in discussing the matter, I would be more than open to enjoy a fruitful discussion on such matters.

Not only do I reject naturalism and evolution on the above grounds, but also because natural selection itself is circular in reasoning – thus, not a scientific theory at all, and that evolution, unlike IDT, is unverifiable. The main proofs for evolution and natural selection (like the peppered moth, Haeckel’s embryos, vestigial organs, missing links, fossil horse series, etc., etc.) have all been thoroughly refuted with evidence and rational arguments. I don’t see it as two groups of people talking past each other; I see it as one group presupposing only naturalistic explanations. By doing so, they have to, let me repeat, they have to write their peer reviewed papers and try to generate “proof” for just such a view. Dr. Miller doesn’t argue from the evidence as much as he does from the fact that he believes that materialism is all there is, and there is nothing more. I wish to post a debate I had with a chap quite a while ago about bias, I will post it here for you to view if you so wish:

(Quote)
I wrote the following, Blue Dragon, before I read your post, but I will quote what you posted by Associate Professor of Biology S. Blair Hedges said, because it is relevant.

“If we can learn when different stages of life evolved on Earth, we can compare those dates to events in the chemical evolution of Earth's atmosphere and ocean, such as when oxygen and other important gases increased. Our goal is to see if the early history of life on Earth can give us clues for how to predict life on other planets and in other solar systems.”

I will get back to that quote. The following interview was held with Dean Kenyon, the professor of biology at the University of San Francisco, quite a few years ago. Dean Kenyon was a staunch evolutionist; he wrote the book Biochemical Predestination (McGraw-Hill, 1969), which was the best-selling advanced level book on chemical evolution in the decade of the 1970’s. One of Dean Kenyon’s students gave him a copy of a book written by Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith (who holds three earned Ph.D.’s) entitled The Creation of Life: A Cybernetic Approach to Evolution. In this book by Dr. Wilder, Dean Kenyon’s book is critiqued.

Instead of Kenyon saying – “Well, Dr. Wilder is just a creationist, who would listen to him?” – Dr. Kenyon read the book and tried to answer the arguments in it against his own book. When he couldn’t, he began to investigate where the evidence led to… outside of his previous presuppositions, which were based on naturalism (evolutionary thinking).

One of the questions asked of Dr. Kenyon in an interview were: “What are the general presuppositions that scientists make who study the origin of life?” Dr. Kenyon responded:

“Well, I think there are two general kinds of presuppositions that people can make, one is that life, in fact, did arise naturalistically on the primitive earth by some kind of chemical evolutionary process.

The second presupposition would be that life may or may not have arisen by a naturalistic, chemical process.

Now, if you have the first presupposition, then the goal of your research is to work out plausible pathways of chemical development to go to the bio-polymers, then to the protocells; and what would be likely pathways that you could demonstrate in the laboratory by simulation experiment.

If you have the second presupposition, your still going to be doing experiments, but your going to be more open to the possibility that the data, as they [it] come ~~in from those studies may actually be suggesting a different explanation of origins altogether.”~~

This is what the fervor was over in Kansas. Besides the Kansas Board leaving microevolution mandatory, but making the teaching of macroevolution optional (for the local districts discretion); the part that caused the biggest “stir” was changing one word in a definition. The original drafting commission defined science as:
“Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us.”
The Kansas Board defined science as:
“Science is the human activity of seeking logical explanations for what we observe in the world around us.”
This simple word change, and the subsequent fervor it caused, illustrates the embedded philosophy in current science (materialism, empiricism, existentialism, naturalism, and humanism – whatever you want to call it).

This is what caused Richard Lewontin to plainly state (Dr. Lewontin is a geneticist and professor of biology at Harvard University):
“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories; because we have a priori commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
Plain and simple, this is not science, but a philosophical paradigm. I will illustrate with another example. The Miller experiment – which was proposed on the basis of a hypothetical atmosphere – has been disproven by the evidence that the early atmosphere was not reducing. Unfortunately, like many other doctrines, it too still graces our universities and textbooks as being experimentally sound, thus seemingly backing the process of chemical evolution.

This study is still cited not for empirical (evidential) reasons; but rather, for methodological necessity. In other words:
If molecular oxygen had been present (even a tenth-of-one-percent of today’s percentage), then chemical evolution could not have happened. Therefore, molecular oxygen must have been absent; because we know that chemical evolution happened.
The evidence is pushed aside in favor of the philosophical paradigm. Until one realizes the presuppositions that drive a large segment of the “scientific” [e.g., philosophical; and the educational system] community – especially at the ASA – one cannot even begin to scientifically critique the evolutionary hypothesis. And critiquing ones hypothesis is the scientific method.

It is interesting to note that at the Arkansas creation trial of 1982, the defense’s main witness was Canadian evolutionary philosopher, Michael Ruse. He said that evolution was pure science, and that creation was religious. Dr. Ruse now has this to say:
“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality [a worldview in other words]. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr. [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today…. Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.”
The point being, if his testimony helped win the day in Arkansas and was accepted as valid by the evolutionary community, would not his revised testimony be as well? (Michael Ruse, professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph, Canada [recently moved to Florida]). Now back to Professor Blair Hedges:
“If we can learn when different stages of life evolved on Earth [evolution is stated as fact, he is starting with the naturalistic paradigm as his starting point], we can compare those dates to events in the chemical evolution [chemical evolution is stated as having happened, this is presumed before he started his investigation… counter to the evidence of course] of Earth's atmosphere and ocean, such as when oxygen and other important gases increased. Our goal is to see if the early history of life on Earth [as long as it is the naturalist history, and he will make sure the experimental data fit his presupposition] can give us clues for how to predict life on other planets and in other solar systems [evolutionary life on other planets].” (all text in boxe quotes are my additions.)
Again, Evolution is…

THE FINE PRINT: Evolution Is still (even after 150 years): UNKNOWN CHEMICALS in the primordial past … through UNKNOWN PROCESS… which no longer exist… produced… UNKNOWN LIFE FORMS which are not to be found… but could, through… UNKNOWN REPRODUCTION METHODS spawn new life… in an… UNKNOWN ATMOSPHERE COMPOSITION… in an… UNKNOWN OCEANIC SOUP COMPLEX [now bubbling clay]… at an… UNKNOWN TIME and PLACE!!

SeanG!
"Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen." ~ An adaptation of Hebrews 11:1

Edited by - SeanG on 01/06/2003 12:46:53 PM

a_theist
"Thy will be done."

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286

Posted 1/6/2003 12:26 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
THE FINE PRINT: Evolution Is still (even after 150 years): UNKNOWN CHEMICALS in the primordial past … through UNKNOWN PROCESS… which no longer exist… produced… UNKNOWN LIFE FORMS which are not to be found… but could, through… UNKNOWN REPRODUCTION METHODS spawn new life… in an… UNKNOWN ATMOSPHERE COMPOSITION… in an… UNKNOWN OCEANIC SOUP COMPLEX [now bubbling clay]… at an… UNKNOWN TIME and PLACE!!

I don't believe you. And please don't give me anymore of those articles. The only reason you are even attacking evolution is because it doesn't resonate with your theology. You call evolution a philosophy, but you are just mistaking it with your metaphysics. Evolution is a science and it is a FACT, get over it.

I need to go email ken miller.

out

"The Creator's power (by which I mean the capacity to influence the world) is made manifest paradoxically in the vulnerable defenselessness of crucified man."
-John F. Haught

Edited by - A_Theist on 01/06/2003 5:28:40 PM

Edited by - A_Theist on 01/06/2003 5:49:07 PM

SeanG
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278

Posted 1/6/2003 1:32 PM (GMT -6)

Its one thing to say evolution is a fact… its quite another to prove it. And, ahh, A_Theist, I will post all the articles and papers I wish to post. Last I checked you weren’t the Czar of the Internet or this site. Are my articles getting under your skin? (As I relax in my chair in front of the blue-eyed monster, a knock raps across my door loudly. I get up and answer the door, “Are you Sean?” asks the built man in the black suit. “Ahh, yes… Hey, Hey! You can’t do that! I got rights, I’ve got an attor … ney… …Ouch! … hey… that hur ..t..s… …”) -no one ever hears from Sean again… the Internet Czar attacks again!

No, seriously A_Theist, what proof is there of evolution? Why don’t I help you:

Come on A_Theist, throw me a bone man. Work with me. Another item I wish to address with you is if you have ever read, from cover to cover, a well written and thought out book on the creation / evolution debate by a creationist, whether a design theorist or a young earth’er? For instance, I have about every book written by atheists against the Christian faith. Hell, I could own Prometheus stock I buy so many of their publications. I have all the anti-creationists books written in the past two decades. I have video debates between evolutionists and creationists, as well as atheists and Christians. I don’t post this to say I am better than anyone here. I post it for the simple fact that you should really look into what you are denying. If a Jehovah Witness or Mormon comes to my door, I won’t merely slam it in their face after I preach that they are wrong because the Bible says… “fill in blank.” I am respectful enough to read the Book of Mormon and research other publications and understand them better… even if it’s a little bit (although I spent half-a-year in a Mormon Church taking notes and getting to know the people there, I lasted about a month in a Kingdom Hall).

The point is, before you attack a position, you must get to know that position somewhat. Even if its only one book. I recommend the one by the before mentioned atheist called Shattering the Myths of Darwinism. It is a great introduction by someone who doesn’t have a creationist axe to grind. If you have a B. A. (or higher) in science, let me know and I will recommend something more technical. I don’t try to change minds as much as challenge them to view all the evidence. Let me know buddy, and I will do what I can to help.

SeanG!

"Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen."

Edited by - SeanG on 01/06/2003 6:33:28 PM

a_theist
"Thy will be done."

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286

Posted 1/6/2003 4:41 PM (GMT -6)

The point is, before you attack a position, you must get to know that position somewhat.

What makes you think I haven't? I sat down for about 5 Sundays with a man who studied creationism, and I wanted to believe it, the problem is that I have friends who had answers for all of their objections. He left me with some papers he composed with different creationist arguments. I am going to go make a nice warm fire.

How does one who is only in their 30's balance a family, and read suppoedly every book written in the past 20 years on the creation/evolution debate? (I don't believe you have) Could I have a review of every book you read with why you object to these scientists work? What was wrong with Daniel Dennett's treatment of evolution in Darwins Dangerous Idea? What is wrong with Teilhard de Chardin's belief in evolution? How incompotent must Dr. Richard Dawkins be if everything he believes about his science is wrong if it agrees with evolution? What is wrong with John f. Haugt's take on God and evolution? What is wrong with Dr. Ken Miller's take on Biology? Why shouldn't he be espousing this evolution heresy? Have you ever talked to an evolutionist about why he believes that the empirical method? Do you really listen to both sides of the argument, or do you just equate evolution with whatever atheist told you it disproves God? How old is the earth really? Are astrophysicist's wrong when the propose that the universe is roughly 14 billion years old? What about Ian G. Barbour, is he wrong? What about Steven Hawking? Are you a young earther? Do you believe the earth to be older? How does a creation scientist empirically get a dating consistent with the age of the earth? What makes one assume that they need to read the creation accounts literally? And if so, how does one believe that everthing in the bible followed in consistent 24 hour periods? (I am not arguing that they weren't literal days, just wondering how one can believe consequitive days followed in the text) Why do creationist's create the false dichotomy called macro and micro? Why is it that a young earth creationist would even use someone like Behe or any other intelligent design agent to defend their theology, when some of them don't even hold to a young earth? What about John Polkinghorne? What about any other christian thinker who espouses an evolutionary world view? What about books like Ken Ham's that state if you reject the book of Genesis, you reject clothing, How is that scientiffic? ...

More questions to come.

These are the questions that readily come to mind when I hear objections for evolution. I don't know how to answer any of your objections, so I am asking the one who has "God knows how many years" over my 1 year.

"The Creator's power (by which I mean the capacity to influence the world) is made manifest paradoxically in the vulnerable defenselessness of crucified man."
-John F. Haught

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 1/6/2003 5:46 PM (GMT -6)

dbserv.ihep.su/~pubs/tconf97/ps/gavr.pdf

IS CHRISTIAN NATURAL PHILOSOPHY POSSIBLE? by N.C. Gavryushin
Institute for History of Natural Science and Technology RAS and Moscow
Theological Academy, Russia (On the BAFIZ site: A distributed network of knowledge bases in particle and nuclear physics)

Begins with:

quote:
The ultimate goal of any religious natural philosophy is to demonstrate the ties between the Divinity, the Creator and the material world, the reflections of the Supreme Being in the created Cosmos, the traces of Providence in the evolution by means of scientific data and in the language of natural science.

and ends with:

quote:
God revealed Himself as a Creator, but He left us no chance to understand by what means or how directly He created the Universe. He has shown Himself responsive to human prayers and has given us a hope that the destiny of the world can be changed.

God revealed Himself as a Spectator of His own work, but He left us no formal criterion for judgement about perfection of His masterpiece.

God revealed Himself as Love, which transcends Heaven and Earth, but He left us no hint, that speculations about harmony of numbers could help us approach Him.

The Christian natural philosophy is impossible. But it exists despite its impossibility. Perhaps, we should take it as a form of religious poetry with a specific language and connotations. This poetry sometimes is provoked by sincere religious feeling, but rather often it is due to mere illusions and misunderstandings.

Interesting, and quite short (four pages).

Al

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 1/7/2003 8:01 AM (GMT -6)

Well, I guess I'll chime in here...

Let's first not complicate one thing: either nothing (material and that which produces material)--AND I DO MEAN ABSOLUTELY NOTHING...NOTHING...NO CHEMICALS, NO NOTHING--produced something, or Something (Someone) produced something. So far, from absolute nothing comes nothing. The alternative is that someone with a hek of a lot more intelligence than the rest of us created this show. These are the only two alternatives.

If one just picked up the Bible for the very first time--no influences from an evolution perspective, no theological influences from a creation perspective--one can't help but see that the writer of Genesis was talking literally. One may not understand how light, for instance, came before the sun, but that doesn't negate the obvious, plain and simple communication of the creation account. There are days, there is a week, there are creations of elements (yes, maybe not in the order that we would naturally understand it), but there certainly is no hint, whatsoever, of an evolutionary process or an old-aged behind-the-scenes creation. Staying within the account itself leaves little room to interpret it as other than literal.

A_Theist asks what is wrong with the several author's views and works he sites in regard to evolution and old-aged earth theories. Nothing, if one's premise going out the gate is that the earth is old, and many of these scholars and publications have already taken that position; they have no choice, because they are are atheists or agnostics. Others who are creationists teaching evolution give what seems to be such a convincing side of old-age and evolutionary perspectives, only to be well-countered by the "other" side. Are you, A_theist, well-read in regard to the evidence and explanations opposing evolution and old-age views? (Not picking on you, just working off your questions.) For every explanation given by an old-age or evolutionary perspective, there is a young-earth and non-evolutionary counter that calls into check (and many times contradicts) the opposing so-called explanation. I mean, it goes back and forth, but the evidence absolutely does not prove the earth is old or that evolution is true. However, if one already takes the premise that these are in fact realities, then, as is easy to find Scripture to back up any view, the evolutionist and old-aged theorist will find evidence to back up the view.

Back to Genesis . . .

The text of the creation account is very clear. Reading the text says it all. (Maybe the "how" of how God did it isn't understood, but God ain't told us all there is to know about everything else, has He?) God didn't make the creation account hard, didn't play games with the words, didn't play with poetic verse to hide its meaning and leave it open for all kinds of spectacular interpretations. Genesis isn't written like Shakespeare with immense poetic verbage and sytax; it's not a thesis with heavy research and high-end sophisticated vocabulary to sift through. No, the language is clear. How do I know? Just read some of it:

The evening and the morning were the first (second, third, etc.,) day; By the seventh day, God had finsihed the work he had been doing; for in six days, the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested (ceased) on the seventh day (Ex 20). I don't mean at all here to be a smart-alec, but what part of this clear, concise, communicable language do we not understand? Not in the "how" sense, but in the "what does it say" sense?

Ken Ham (www.answersingenesis.org), by the way, fights vigorously for a literal 7-day creation, because if the creation account says what it means and means what it says (again, the "how" being an unknown), then truly the account is made naked if it's stripped of its literal 7-day literality. You're right, A_Theist, that's not scientific, because it's not a scientific issue. There's no need for any scientific knowledge to interpret the creation passage. Any culture with any language can understand that in one morning and evening there was something of the creation in which we live, a total of seven of these evenings and mornings.

God has stated things clearly:
For this commandment which I command you today is not too mysterous for you, nor is it far away. But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it. For I commanded you today to . . . walk in his ways, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws . . ." (Deut 30:11,14, 16).

There are similar verses as these where God makes it clear that He has said what He has meant to say. If we can understand clearly what God has said here, then why complicate the creation account? I'm NOT saying that everything in the creation account is easily explained, but that's no reason to sacrifice literality because it can't yet be explained. Further, events such as the talking serpent in Genesis 3 has something of its literality brought to sobriety by the fact that God talks to the serpent, curses it, and treats it dreadfully real. I don't understand how it all happened, but I believe the text is meant to convey the reality that there was a conversation, in some sense, between the serpent and Eve, between God and the serpent. How hard is it to find some literal meaning behind the Genesis 3 account in view of the way Jesus and those in the NT confronted demons and talked to or about about Satan?

Deut 29:29 states "The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us . . . that we may follow all the words of this law."

I think when we try to "reveal" the creation of the earth beyond the scope of a literal Biblical 7-day creation, as was given us, we create a false revelation. Sincere in many cases, but false regardless. Nothing wrong with the process of scientific discovery, but when the evidence is never proved conclusive and often times is contradicted by other evidence, isn't it wise, then, to return to the clear, concise language of the original account?

To close here, for those of you on this board who believe in evolution or an old-age earth view, I'm not radical enough to say, BURN, YOU HEATHENS! Rather, I am much more interested in whether you have discovered yourself to be a sinner, you have believed in the One God of the Bible, you have believe in Jesus Christ the only Savior who can wash away your sins, and you follow Him at all costs until death causes your parting with this life into the next. THAT is my concern.

For life in Him,

Starkman

Starkman

SeanG
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278

Posted 1/7/2003 8:18 AM (GMT -6)

A_Theist, most of the men you listed are old-earth creationists. I myself, to answer one of your many questions, am a young-earth creationist… this is because I have been to archaeological digs and well-known phenomena in national parks that would refute old ages within the geological time-scale. In fact, there is good evidence put forward by Guy Berthault (published in peer-reviewed evolutionary journals [e.g., Nature], and actually repeated in the largest hydrological laboratory in the world [at Colorado University]) that fossils in the higher geological columns were buried before the fossils in the lower strata. I showed Dr. Berthault’s video to a geologist teacher at the local college here in town, and it floored him. The video is called Experiments in Stratification, there is no religious viewpoints forwarded in the video, just what he has shown in the laboratory, in deep sea drilling, in delta’s, and at Mount Saint Helen’s. This is something the Lyell hypothesis has yet to do… that is, prove it in a controlled test that is repeatable, and exemplify it in nature (science in other words).

A_Theist, I just referred you to a video easily gotten on the internet. I didn’t argue that because a geologist believes that almost all the features of the earth are better explained by catastrophism that, therefore, you should believe it to. If I did this I would be committing the fallacy of “arguing from authority.” let me quote you A_Theist:

“How incompetent must Dr. Richard Dawkins be if everything he believes about his science is wrong if it agrees with evolution?…. Are astrophysicist's wrong when the propose that the universe is roughly 14 billion years old?…. What about any other Christian thinker who espouses an evolutionary world view?…”

This would be analogous to me saying, “How incompetent must Josef Mengele be if everything he believes about eugenics is wrong. Are the 87% of the population wrong who voted Hitler in? What about any other Aryan in the world who espouses this doctrine.” This is the reason that I love to discuss the evidence (i.e., peppered moths, tautologies, fossil evidence, vestigial organs, etc.) rather than the personalities behind them. And when I do quote people, it is because they are experts in their field and have something relevant to say towards the evidence being presented.

I could, point by point, answer your queries, but they are many and broad. So I will post an article (I look over my shoulder for the Internet Czar and his goons… remembering that I have been warned not to do this!) at the end of this brief response to corral almost all the men you mentioned towards a theological rebuke, thus, hitting more than two birds with one stone. Another reason I reject evolution is its foundation of reductionism. One of the men you referred to, Stephen Hawkings (who holds the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, Einstein’s chair), comments on reductionism at a lecture given to a university crowd in England entitled “Determinism – Is Man a Slave or the Master of His Fate.” He discussed whether we are the random products of chance, and hence, not free, or whether God had designed these laws within which we are free. In other words, do we have the ability to make choices, or do we simply follow a chemical reaction induced by millions of mutational collisions of free atoms?

Would you like to discuss reductionism with me A_Theist? Almost all the men you listed believe in reductionism, if not explicitly, implicitly. That is another rebuke of evolution over creation. I can argue from the young earth position, but I can even give you [evolution] 30 billion years to work with and this is still not enough time for it to occur, would you like to discuss this aspect of it?

I do wish to respond personally to one item though, if I may. You said: “How does one who is only in their 30's balance a family, and read supposedly every book written in the past 20 years on the creation/evolution debate? (I don't believe you have) Could I have a review of every book you read with why you object to these scientists work?” Well, lets see. I am a three time convicted felon who spent a long time in a 5’ by 8’, with nothing but time on my hands. My wife and I were separated for 3 years, during which I read about 4 to 5 books a week. I broke my neck (C-7) and fractured my back (T-1 and T-2), so I had a lot of down time there. Now I read at least 3 chapters a day, and most books average around 10 chapters… you do the math. The older anti-creation books are nice because they have chapters by Isaac Asimov. I do not particularly enjoy his views, but I grew up in an evolutionary family watching Isaac and Sagan on TV almost nightly. Keep in mind you misquoted me though. I said every anti-creationist book published in the past two-decades. However, there are works that go to B.C. that are “anti-creationist,” for instance. Henry Fairfield Osborne, the celebrated paleontologist who supported the Scopes evolution trial said:

“When I began the search for anticipations of the evolutionary theory… I was led back to the Greek natural philosophers and I was astonished to find how many of the pronounced and basic features of the Darwinian theory were anticipated even as far back as the seventh century B.C.”

I, of course, would say that this is because Darwinism is indeed a philosophy. One of the first Greek naturalists was Anaximander (c.611-547 B.C.) who taught that man was derived from the water after their bodies developed. He suggested that:

“…the first animals were generated in the moisture

and were enclosed with spiny barks. As they grew older, they migrated onto the drier land; and once their bark was split and shed, they survived for a short time in the new mode of… existence.”

I could go on, but you get the point… I think?

Pick a subject, and I will graciously go through it with you (micro, macro?), however, you seem to burn items that disagree with you, to quote you:

“I am going to go make a nice warm fire.”

This in no way is a reference to the Germans (used in an earlier analogy) and the fact that they burned divergent theories. (again, I look over shoulder to look for the Internet Czar, wondering if I will soon be dowsed in flammable liquid?)

SeanG!

"Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen."

Edited by - SeanG on 01/07/2003 1:29:15 PM

SeanG
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278

Posted 1/7/2003 8:22 AM (GMT -6)

Does the Bible teach that disease, bloodshed, violence and pain have always been 'part of life'?

The late Carl Sagan, in his book Contact, wrote:

'If God is omnipotent and omniscient, why didn't he start the universe out in the first place so it would come out the way he wants? Why is he constantly repairing and complaining? No, there's one thing the Bible makes clear: The biblical God is a sloppy manufacturer. He's not good at design, he's not good at execution. He'd be out of business if there was any competition.'1It's easy to understand why Carl Sagan viewed the God of the Bible this way. Sagan believed that the fossil record, with all its death, mutations, disease, suffering, bloodshed and violence, represented millions of years of Earth's history. He also saw a world full of death, mutations, disease, suffering, bloodshed and violence today. So he concluded that any 'god' responsible for this seeming mess of life and death could not be all-powerful and all-knowing.

Sagan's view of God is consistent with his belief in an old Earth. Once one accepts billions of years for the age of the Earth, whether because of belief in slow and gradual processes to form rocks and fossils—and/or a trust in radiometric dating methods as giving accurate ages of rocks2—it follows that the fossil record was laid down during hundreds of millions of years, before there were any people (and thus before human sin). However, the fossil record is not a pretty one! It shows evidence of animals eating each other,3 of diseases like cancer in their bones,4 of violence,4 of plants with thorns5 and so on.

Sagan's writings show he was familiar with Genesis. What must he have thought when he read that at the end of the sixth day of creation, God pronounced that everything He had made was very good (Genesis 1:31)? How could a very good Earth contain diseases like cancer? Didn't the Bible state that thorns came after the curse because of Adam's sin (Genesis 3:18)? Sagan is not the only one to recognize the true nature of the god of an old Earth. Irven DeVore, a Harvard anthropologist, said:

'I personally cannot discern a shred of evidence for a benign cosmic presence. I see indifference and capriciousness. What kind of God works with a 99.9 percent extinction rate?' 6DeVore recognizes that the fossil record is one of massive extinction. If this has stretched over millions of years, enormous numbers of creatures have become extinct—without such a reason as a Flood judgment on man's wickedness. What kind of god would create such a scenario? The god of an old Earth can't be a loving God.

The issue was a major one for Charles Darwin, too.7 How could a God of love allow such horrible processes as disease, suffering and death for millions of years? Christians who believe in an old Earth (billions of years) need to come to grips with the real nature of the god of an old Earth—-it is not the loving God of the Bible. Even many conservative, evangelical Christian leaders accept and actively promote a belief in millions and billions of years for the age of rocks. Many have been influenced by the progressive creationist movement8 as represented by its main spokesperson, Hugh Ross. In his book Creation and Time, Ross states:

'Could it be that God's purposes are somehow fulfilled through our experiencing the "random, wasteful, inefficiencies" of the natural realm He created?' 9Interestingly, the liberal camp points out the inconsistencies in holding to an old Earth, yet trying to cling to evangelical Christianity. For instance, Bishop John Shelby Spong, the most senior Episcopal Bishop in America, states:

'The Bible began with the assumption that God had created a finished and perfect world from which human beings had fallen away in an act of cosmic rebellion. Original sin was the reality in which all life was presumed to live. Darwin postulated instead an unfinished and thus imperfect creation. Human beings did not fall from perfection into sin as the Church had taught for centuries. Thus the basic myth of Christianity that interpreted Jesus as a divine emissary who came to rescue the victims of the fall from the results of their original sin became inoperative.' 10Elsewhere:

'The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.' 10Evolutionist Spong obviously believes in millions of years for Earth's history. Like the Progressive Creationists, he rejects a global Flood. Because they interpret the rocks in this way, neither Spong nor the Progressive Creationists can hold to a perfect world before sin. Spong makes it clear that the god of an old Earth cannot rescue people from a so-called Fall, when no such Fall as Genesis describes really occurred.11

The recipient of the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion, Ian Barbour, professor emeritus at Carleton College, also said recently:

'You simply can't any longer say as traditional Christians that death was God's punishment for sin. Death was around long before human beings .' 12This is an obvious reference to the millions of years associated with the fossil record. The god of an old Earth is one that uses death as part of creating, death therefore can't be the penalty for sin—or 'the last enemy'(1 Cor. 15:26).

In 1994, Tom Ambrose, an Anglican Priest, in an article in The Church of England Newspaper, succinctly portrayed the real god of an old Earth when he stated:

'Fossils are the remains of creatures that lived and died for over a billion years before Homo sapiens evolved. Death is as old as life itself by all but a split second. Can it therefore be God's punishment for Sin? The fossil record demonstrates that some form of evil has existed throughout time. On the large scale it is evident in natural disasters. The destruction of creatures by flood, ice age, desert and Earthquakes has happened countless times. On the individual scale there is ample evidence of painful, crippling disease and the activity of parasites. We see that living things have suffered in dying, with arthritis, a tumor, or simply being eaten by other creatures. From the dawn of time, the possibility of life and death, good and evil, have always existed. At no point is there any discontinuity; there was never a time when death appeared, or a moment when the evil changed the nature of the universe. God made the world as it is; evolution as the instrument of change and diversity. People try to tell us that Adam had a perfect relationship with God until he sinned, and all we need to do is repent and accept Jesus in order to restore that original relationship. But perfection like this never existed. There never was such a world. Trying to return to it, either in reality or spiritually, is a delusion. Unfortunately it is still central to much evangelical preaching.' 13Spong makes it plain (and it's implied by Ambrose) that the Bible clearly teaches that there was a perfect creation, but it is now marred by sin. But they accept the millions of years history for the fossil record, so to be consistent, they have to throw out original sin, and death being the penalty for man's rebellion. The god of an old Earth cannot therefore be the God of the Bible who is able to save us from sin and death.

Thus Christians who compromise with the millions of years attributed by many scientists to the fossil record, are in that sense seemingly worshipping a different god—the cruel god of an old Earth. The problem with people like Sagan and Darwin was that they didn't understand (or wouldn't accept) that there was a perfect world to begin with—it was very good.

However, in Adam we rebelled (Romans 5), and the resulting judgment of death and the Curse changed the very good world into one that is groaning in pain till now (Romans 8:22). When looking at this present world, these men weren't looking at the nature of God, but the results of our sin! What a difference. The God of the Bible, the God of mercy, grace and love, sent His one and only Son to be a man (but God nonetheless), to become our sin-bearer so that we could be saved from sin and its final effect of eternal separation from God: 'For He has made Him who knew no sin, to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him' (2 Corinthians 5:21).

There's no doubt—the god of an old Earth destroys the Gospel.

Let this be a challenge to the Church to return to the loving, holy, righteous God of the Bible.

References and notes

1. Sagan, C., Contact, Pocket Books (Simon & Schuster, Inc.), New York, 1985.
2. All dating methods are based on assumptions and numerous results conflict with the evolutionary timescale. E.g. see:
· Austin, S., Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, Institute for Creation Research, Santee, California, 1994.
· Morris, J.D., The Young Earth, Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas, 1994.
· Snelling, A.A., Radioactive 'Dating' in Conflict, Creation 20(1):24--27, 1997.
3. E.g. ground up dinosaur bones were found in the fossil dung of another dinosaur: Nature 393(6686):680--682, 1998.
4. Tanke, D.H. & Rothschild, B.M., Paleopathology, Currie P.J. & Padian K., Ed., Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs, Academic Press, San Diego, California, pp. 525--530, 1997.
5. Banks, H.P., Evolution and Plants of the Past, Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., Belmont, California, pp. 9--10, 1970.
6. DeVore, I., Astronomy might be refashioning images of God, Times-News Weekender, May 1, 1999. This commonly cited figure is exaggerated--it is based on the evolutionary assumption concerning the many transitional forms that 'must have existed'(!). There are only about 250,000 known fossil species.
7. Desmond, A. & Moore, J., Darwin, Warner Books, New York, p. 479, 1991. See also Brentnall, J.M. and Grigg, R.M., Darwin's slippery slide into unbelief, Creation 18(1):34--37, 1995.
8. Typical of this movement would be their adherence to the following beliefs: Big Bang; billions of years for the age of the Earth and universe; days of creation are long periods of time; Noah's Flood a local event; race of soulless 'humanoids' before Adam and Eve; death and disease existed before sin.
9. Ross H., Creation and Time, Nav Press Publishing Group, Colorado Springs, Colorado, p. 88, 1994.
10. Bishop John Shelby Spong, Episcopal Bishop of Newark, A Call for a New Reformation, from home page for the Episcopal Diocese of Newark, September 4, 1999.
· For a thorough refutation of Spong's many errors and outright heresies, see Bott M.R., and Sarfati J.D., What's wrong with Bishop Spong? Apologia 4(1):3--27, 1995.
11. Consistently, Spong also denies virtually every other Christian doctrine—including the bodily Resurrection and the Virginal Conception of Christ etc., and says that homosexual acts are acceptable.
12. Cited in Lieblich, J., Searching for answers: Templeton Prize winner bridges science and faith, Dayton Daily News, Religion Section, Saturday March 13, 1999.
13. Ambrose, T., Just a pile of old bones, The Church of England Newspaper, A Current Affair Section, Friday October 21, 1994.

SeanG!

"Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen."

Edited by - SeanG on 01/07/2003 1:31:23 PM

SeanG
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278

Posted 1/7/2003 8:32 AM (GMT -6)

Good post Starkman!

SeanG!

"Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen."

a_theist
"Thy will be done."

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286

Posted 1/7/2003 8:47 AM (GMT -6)

Starkman! That article sucks.

"The Creator's power (by which I mean the capacity to influence the world) is made manifest paradoxically in the vulnerable defenselessness of crucified man."
-John F. Haught

Edited by - A_Theist on 01/07/2003 1:47:40 PM

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 1/7/2003 4:03 PM (GMT -6)

A_Theist,

Again, I'm really only concerned about this: in whether you have discovered yourself to be a sinner, you have believed in the One God of the Bible, you have believe in Jesus Christ the only Savior who can wash away your sins, and you follow Him at all costs until death causes your parting with this life into the next. THAT is my concern.

I care about your views and your heart. Nothing here is said vindictive or with spite. YOU are important, and YOU make a difference in this world, whether you believe in evolution or not. That's fact. And it matters. Very much.

Starkman

104 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:33 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual