My point exactly, elspeth. They have nothing to do with evolution(maybe). They have something to do with faith... and it takes faith to 'hear' the word of God, where this thread started before it switched tracks.

which brings me to my next point. I too am mystified. Why? because I am not sure what Big Bang vs. Pond Scum Dwellers has to do with God's rules of marriage, Jesus Christ or any of the things I may find between Genesis to Revelations with respect to Marriage.

I will say this. Creationism sure seems to be more supported in the "good book" But, not to the discredit of Darwin or anyone else, if evolution is so plausable(and the opposing of the former) then please wheel out the half-man half-monkey. Show me the amoeba with the big heart. Something. I am sure that a theory that opposes "poof and it was" would be built on gradual change over time. Oh... that is evolution, yes? So... where are all my organisms within the "between" phases of evolving from monkey to man? I will advance that "they were the weaker organisms and those 'traits' have been evolved out" sure seems like a sheep in wolves clothing.

sorry... I was feeling froggy. BTW... whilst I am typing drivel... what is random anyway? I mean truly. From a computer, RNGs are based on the clock from the PC... so by the very basis of them... are not random. Is something truly random? Or is it "just random enough" for us to label it that way.

You made a bunch of undocumented assertions about what unnamed evolutionists supposedly said. Where I come from, that's called a strawman argument.

Hey JL...the new thread is up already. Got two of the 6 parts up there. Trying to finish them.

I did address the idea of those amino acids and other building blocks coming from outside places, like Mars or wherever in one of my first posts above. It was when I showed the major groups of evolutionary thought today. What you refer to is "seeding." And again, seeding may be possible, but we again run into the problems I just posted a 1/2 hour ago about the assembling of these amino acids into life.

I do understand that other religions offer life after death. That has never been my argument that they dont. What I originally talked about was that Christianity is first and foremost a relationship with a live man. Not a book, or a list of rules. Now many can say that the man we say is alive isnt really alive. And it will be up to us to prove it. But, a Christian is someone that believes that Jesus came out of that tomb on the third day and is alive today...and has accepted that as payment for our own sins. That is the difference between Christianity, and religion.

I do agree with you that the complexity of life is awe inspiring, as well as the complexity of the universe. I cannot help but to see God's fingerprints all over it.

Actually, I did make references to some of the proponents of each of these theories. I could wheel out their names, if that is important to do so. But when I do, it still wont change that they propose these different "flavors" of evolution. And with their proposals, I have listed the problems they have encountered. No strawman there. It isnt a strawman just because it doesnt have footnotes.

"I do agree with you that the complexity of life is awe inspiring, as well as the complexity of the universe. I cannot help but to see God's fingerprints all over it."

And this is fine, so far as it goes. So, why the need 2 pit Christianity against the scientific method? Or evolution in particular?

I've never unders2d that.

-ol' 2long

Weaver...

Well I did my best to not post here, because I was afraid I'd start mudslinging!!! Nah, just kidding..... but I've always enjoyed a good debate - especially such a well articulated one at that!! So I couldn't stay silent any longer.

Just to reiterate...the new thread is up...entitled "Husbands and Wives Roles: The Thread." I have 2 of the six parts up there. So, if you want out of evolution vs. Creation, then head there!!

In His arms.

More SJG (you can probably tell I admire the man. I was very saddened when he passed away):

“As a methodology for research, science adopts as its cardinal postulate (proved fruitful by its enormous success since the time of Galileo, Newton and Descartes) the commitment to explain empirical phenomena by reference to invariant laws of nature and to avoid appeals to the miraculous, defined as a suspension of those laws for particular events. The notion of ‘abrupt appearance,’ the origin of complex somethings from previous nothings, resides in this domain of miracle and is not part of science.

“Punctuated equilibrium, catastrophic theories of mass extinction, hopeful monsters, and a variety of hypotheses about rapid rates of change in continuous sequences, not about unintelligible abrupt appearances, are part of scientific debate and bear no relationship to the nonscientific notion of abrupt appearance, despite pernicious and willful attempts by many creationists to distort such claims by misquote and halfquote to their alien purposes. Punctuated equilibrium, in particular, is a claim that evolutionary trends have a geometry that resembles a climb up a staircase rather than a slide up an inclined plane. It is, in other words, an alternate theory about the nature of intermediate stages in evolutionary trends not, as creationists have claimed, a denial of these stages. As a term, ‘creation science’ is an oxymoron, a self-contradictory and meaningless phrase, a whitewash for a specific, particular, and minority religious view in America—Biblical literalism.”

— "Creationism: Out of the Mainstream," The Scientist 1 (November 17, 1986): 10.

I dont. Actually, the scientific method can prove Creationism, just as it is continuing to disprove evolution. I am not against evolution. I believe God created the Universe. Now, could He have done it thru evolution? Sure. But first off, He didnt say He did that. And second, the facts are beginning to prove that He didnt do it that way. So, creationism and evolution, while some may want to find synthesis, actually...thru the scinetific method...are being shown to be antithetical to each other.

I am always wanting to know the truth. If the truth was evolution, then show me. If the truth is Creation, then show me. If the truth is God created using evolution, then show me. Science has not disproved Creationism. As a matter of fact, it is slowly coming arounf to accepting that there is at least an Intelligent Designer. But science has yet to prove evolution. No missing link. No scientific findings showing the conditions were here for evolution or the promotion of evolution if life came from somewhere else.

No, we have to have faith that a myriad of obstacles were overcome that statistically, just dont make sense, in order for evolution to work without someone guiding it. So far, I havent brought in the facts about why evolution hasnt been used by God (notice I didnt say He couldnt have used evolution...of course He could have...but the evidence points to He didnt).

Again, faith and Christianity does not mean you have to abandon science, the scientific method, or your brain. Evolution is a theory created by man. Man could be wrong. Too many take evolution as gospel. Just as too many take Scripture as gospel, without demanding proof. Even in the Bible, it says a person can demand and receive proof.

I am a thinking Christian. I know if I ask, I will find the answers.

In His arms.

While brilliant, SJG was also a man...thus fallible. Again, just cause he says it...dont make it true. By calling Creation Science not real science, he is just trying to define science under his own terminology. If creation science can meet the standards set my the scientific community, then why does it have to be relegated to "miracles?" By the way, when something has a 1 in 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 chance in happening...and it does randomly....THAT is a miracle!!! But we still call it science.

In His arms.

Thanks CSue. I think WAT and 2Long will join me in saying that we are all friends here. I know I dont need to take any of this personally. I also know that a good debate helps me understand if what I believe is provable, or just fantasy. In order to do that though, I need to have it tested.

This has been a very nice time, actually. And this coming from a scientist (but a political scientist...which doesnt count!!).

In His arms.

lol... well I am a computer scientist. Surely that counts little as well.

How about this.

instead of evolution vs. creationism..(attempting to drwa this back into the realm of pertinent) much like husband vs. wife....

How about they work together


Poof and Adam and Eve were. Creationism.

but then... the human body along the way decided that it needed better protection against the sun. So, the skin evolved to have a darker pigment. Evolution.

that seems more plausable to me. Creationism starts it all. Then evolution makes some refinements. Hey, I am not a PhD'ed member of the intelligencia but that seems like an arguement to me. Evolution can explain course corrections, if you will... but not blantant changes across the kingdom. Maybe staying within the genus or species...

Anyway... I will go back to 1s and 0s. That I know.

Could be. As a matter of fact, the changes you talk about have to have happened in man. Why? Well, if Creationism is true and there was Adam and Eve...then they were one race, one color, etc. So, how did we get all of the different races? Well, there must have been changes over time. Changes based on climate, availability of food, types of food, etc. But the basics of the species are the same. And no one has ever found that missing link that takes an ape and makes him my long lost uncle. Get it? Monkey's uncle? Or my uncle is a monkey? Okay, okay. It is late...I need rest.

This is all why I continue to say that my mind is open and that since I do know God and believe in Him, that I also believe He ca ndo this anyway He likes. Shoot, He might even do it the unexpected way. I know He has a sense of humor (the Platypus being a PRIME example...I am sure He got a belly laugh out of creating that one!).

In His arms.

Also, a little about miracles....

Look, science has now come to start believing that there was a Big Bang that created the Universe 14 billion years ago. For those that dont believe the universe was ever created, that it was always here...well, that is nonsensical. The Universe could not have come from nothing and by nothing. Something coming from nothing does not make sense!! Even the skeptic David Hume has said that :allow me to tell you that I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause."

Basically, then...the Universe began somewhere. And it is with this that we can make these statements:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause.

This thus points to a Creator. it also tells us something about that Creator. Whatever caused the Big Bang, has some characteristics that we can discern:

1. This Creator must be uncaused (because we know there cannot be an infinite regress of causes)
2. This Creator must be changeless
3. This Creator must be timeless (mmust be timeless, therefore changeless, because it was the creator of time)
4. and this Creator must be an immaterial being (because it created space, it must transcend space..thus therefore be immaterial rather than physical).

Now some may ask "If everything has a cause, then what caused the Creator?" Well, everything doesnt have to have a cause. The premise here is that whatever begins to exist must have a cause. Being cannot come from non-being. The Creator never began to exist...thus never had a cause.

I'd like to refer at least vaguely to what's going on in Kansas (again). But first a few scattered thoughts.

I suspect some of us are working from references here... others have forgotten less. Others have gotten through that final hurdle to get their PhDs while I have not quite managed that. Doh.

MM, I don't believe the might-as-well-be-zero probabilities you keep referring to. They make my B.S. detector go off. Guess I'd have to see the source.

The repetition of "there simply has to be a designer" isn't convincing to me.

Oh and but also... I sure wish creation science folks would stop saying "evolution is just a theory".

Okay, to the point.

I haven't seen any indication that the scientific community is abandoning evolution. I'll admit that I don't follow work on the origins of life. But I know lots of scientists. I think I'd have heard about such a huge development.

Furthermore, the proponents of "intelligent design" have apparently not bothered to make their work subject to the process of peer review, an essential part of the scientific method.

Instead, they write books. You can write a book and declare its contents to be sound science and avoid that whole troublesome process of having your work reviewed. People will buy the book, even use it to argue before school boards!

And so despite having skipped over the process that scientists have agreed on, proponents of intelligent design demand the inclusion of their unreviewed work in a scientific curriculum.

If I understand the origins of "intelligent design" correctly, I find the effort to insert this scholarly-sounding but untested and untestable concept into science education to be very dishonest.

I'm a physicist, a hydrologist, a computer scientist, and a meteorologist. And a guitarist. Those are my credentials. I have a B.S. and a M.S. but dang it, no PhD. My dissertation is 90% done though. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

GC

Had to do a quick driveby on this one.

I don't follow the latest proof of evolution either. But I vaguely recall writing a great paper (and I do say so myself and of course remember the "A" -grade that is) about the primordial soup, when working on my B.S. in Biology.

Sorry MM, I respect your views, butI wouldn't even let my DD go to a private school where they taught ONLY creationism. If someone wants to present it as a religious viewpoint, Fine. But it is not Science, and somebody better be teaching my kids about that!

The "theory" of evolution has a lot of WORK behind it. Not jsut finger-pointing and Na-na-booboo stuff! How's that for scientific sounding?!

I am not a Christian (there,I said it,here on MB- phew), but can believe that the bible may have certain "truths" behind it. Can't speak from experience, never read it through. Perhaps it was written metaphorically (sp?), that is my best guess. Creationism could be construed as evolution-God's way. Perhaps, if there is a God (and just one), then he created man through evolution and the "Adam and Eve" is really a reference to the parts of the "soup". And the "days" are really jsut a symbolic way of saying a long time and different steps to boot.

It's too late for this, I had to rewrite it 3x.

MM, I do really enjoy your posts and views. Don't blackball me for this post. OK?

jls

Hey GC...glad you joined in!!

A few notes on what you wrote. I say evolution is a theory because it has not been proven. Parts have. But the major evidence that proves this work has not. Maybe it will be...I do not know.

What I do know is that Creationism has not been disproved. There is a whole body of scientific evidence out there that Creationism is possible.

When I speak of evolution changing, that doesnt mean I am saying evolutionists are abandoning it. As I wrote in one of my early posts, as they have realized how random evolution has begun to present them with insurrmountable problems, they have begun to try to fill in these gaps with new explanations. like I wrote before, an example is the seeding theory, where some of the material needed for life came via asteroids, etc. I have listed many evoluton scientists above that have expressed their concern with their lack of evidence, and with the historical, scientific, and mathematical hurdles that they have to cross to make evolution, in whatever its current form, work. Evolution is not a fact. Parts of the theory have been proven. But not enough to take the gaps and make inferences with certainty.

I do not know the extent of the Intelligent Designers have gone in their work. You may be right...and I will research that. But my point all along is that instead of scientists bending to Darwin's model, they are now finding other information that requires a change in approach. Many of these Intelligent Designer proponents are evolutionists, and believe that evolution happened...but that it had a beginning. Some creation scientists believe the sme thing...that the Creator caused the beginning of the Universe...and that he guided its formation thru evolution. There is a synthesis there, somewhat.

I did not say that their work, or theories have been proven, nor even have reached the level of work that standard evolution has gone through. What I have said is that evolution has huge gaps...one huge one is even if fish turned to frogs which turned to small mammals wich turned to monkeys which turned to man...how did all of this begin? remember, you cannot have an infinite regress of causes. This process had to begin somewhere. So, how did it begin?

Traditional evolution says chemical processes. Well, unfortunately, that presents HUGE hurdles in time (the earth hasnt been cooled down long enough for this to have happened) or the other issued I mentioned above on how far fetched it is that these amino acids could turn into proteins, DNA and fully functioning cells. I can get the work that has been done which shows the mathmatical calculations on the probabilities.

While evolution has certain evidence that points to this, it has still not proven its result...nor its beginning. And it has to overcome a lot of data and mathmatical odds in order to do so. Maybe it will. Maybe life beat the odds like nothing ever has.

What I try to say here is this...the argument on how we all came to be is still unsettled yet. Shoot, evolution even breaks some scientific laws that we count as gospel. There is a lot of work to do before it can stop being a theory.

I also am tired of evolutionists saying all creation science is bunk. It is not. there is good, hard evidence out there that points to a Creator, that points to a beginning. Have they proven Creation? Nope. But neither has evolution.

Thus we continue to search. Again, I do not abandon science for faith. Because I believe that my faith actually can, has and will be proven scientifically. As we move on here in this discussion, I will try to bring out some of that scientific work for Creation. So far, I have only concentrated on evolution.

Thanks again for jumping in GC...especially since you are a scientist. It is good that we have a few in this discussion to keep us honest.

Hey JLS...no blackballing here!!

I do agree that evolution should be taught to my sons and daughter. Again, not as gospel, but as it is...one theory with facts that is continuing to evolve.

But I also want ID taught, creationism...all of the major theories. Education today has accepted evolution has a law...and it is not. At the same time I keep hearing that Creationism is just faith and religion, and it is not.

We still as humans have a long way to go in proving how this all began scientifically. but I do not bend m knee at evolution, just because some scientists say so. Or just because they say Creationism is fantasy. I want proof. I want cold, hard facts. That is what science should be about too.

That is why I respect scientists, even evolutionary scientists, that are honest enough to say "I dont know yet." Like some of the ones I listed above. I have met too many scientists and proponents of evolution who are almost fanatically religious in their defending evolution.

Anyway, I think you get my point. I dont discount the work or the facts. As a matter of fact, when something is proven, I embrace it. But as the story goes about two blind men with an elephant, one stroking the trunk...one at the other end...they both had their "facts" on what this thing as they were dealing with. And they were valid facts. But in the end, they did not have the full view...and did not know it was an elephant.

In His arms.

Weaver,

I thought I saw a post from you here...not sure where it went. I came back to respond to it.

Look, I never question whether a person is saved or not. That is between them and Christ, okay? So please do not think that I am into "true" Christians and non-true Christians.

All I have done is express what the Bible has said and what history has shown. History has shown that Jesus did say he was the Son of God. History has shown that He did say he was the Messiah. And history has shown that He did say that He was the only way to the Father. It is not just written in the Bible.

So, if Jesus said it, which has been proven that He did...then the problem you are having isnt with fundamentalists or Christians that exclude other religions...the problem you are having is with Jesus. Jesus said He was the only way to God. That His sacrifice on the Cross was the only way to atone for our sins. You know, if there were other ways to heaven, then the Cross was un-needed. And His pain and suffering was un-needed.

As Jesus said, there are many that will get to heaven that professed that they knew Jesus...and when they meet Him, He will say "I never knew you."

I agree that it is sad that some people I love, some people I know have, and will not go to heaven. some of my relatives that recently died...I know they did not, because they openly admitted that they were not followers of jesus Christ. That saddens me.

Now, the question to answer here is not if there is one way...but why did Jesus say there is only one way. if you want to know that answer, we can discuss it.

Ultimately, we are given free will..and given a choice. Accept Jesus and what He did for us on the Cross. Or not. Jesus said that if we are not with Him, then we are against Him. There is no middle ground with Jesus.

Now that may ot sound loving...but in fact, it is very loving.And if you want that discussion on why there is only one way, then I can show that having one way is the most loving thing God could have done. But that is up to you.

You will never find me beating you up here or discounting your views. So, have no fear with Mortarman.

In His arms.

Hi everyone,

I have enjoyed skimming through this thread. Can I jump in?

I would like to propose the idea (for debate sake) that the conflict between Evolution and Creationism is not so much a textual conflict (since the Bible has proven flexible in interpretation) but a conceptual conflict.

Creationism purports that the main purpose for the earth to exist—is for humans to exist.

Evolution purports that humans are a part of a process in the long development of life on earth. This, in turn, implies that humans are not the end purpose of the earth’s existence.

Evolution sort of puts us humans on a level playing field with all other life. (Sort of saying, well if there IS a purpose….it’s not just us).

(The same sort of “were are not the center of all existence” conflict was brought out by Galileo, when he proved the Sun, and not the earth (as believed by his contemporary Christians) was the center of our universe.)

I, for one, have always really been turned away from creationism, though I really do like other parts of the Bible, cause I have a hard time believing that everything around us exists IN ORDER THAT mankind could exist.

What do you think MM?