FH, please do not speak for me.

I do not "put down" Christianity or any other faith on this forum. I ask questions that may make you uncomfortable, but that does not constitute "put down." Period.

WAT

WAT, I don't speak for you, you do that quite well for your self. But your self denial is also interesting.



Gee, I don't know about others or how Kinger might view it, but it sure sounds like a "put down" of me in particular, and Christians in general, who believe the Word of God. Your presuppositions are showing again even if you don't consider your own words, speaking for yourself, to be a "put down," WAT.

Now, what was that about people who live in glass houses?

No FH - you're wrong again.

That was a criticism of you, but not of Christianity that I and most others understand - which does not deny reality as we know it today. The universe is NOT a few thousand years old. Humans did not co-habitate with dinosaurs.

And besides - that was a naturalistic discussion - entirely separate and distinct from any discussion of faith.

WAT

FH,

Thanks for your valuable contributions in the forums.

I enjoy your very conservative religious perspectives weather they are my own or not.

You have actually made me ask some really tough questions about myself that have helped me through this difficult part of my life.

Even though I may not always subscribe to your point of view your wisdom and unfortunate lengthy and successful recovery has been a positive influence on me and my personal situation.

I also know if I think you are too far out in left field I can skip over your posts. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

But I usually don’t.

Thanks again.
Plank.

Gotta love your rationalizations and excuses WAT.

You ARE consistant, I give you that.

But you have NO concept of what Christians believe, so I'm not at all surprised that you believe in a fantasy without proof like evolution. Perhaps you should go back and read what many scientists have said about the "facts" you base your faith in.

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />


Now why am I thinking about Dalek's? Exterminate...exterminate...exterminate.... <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Okay WAT. Prove it.

Christians don't deny reality and neither do I.

"The universe is NOT a few thousand years old."

Prove it. I don't accept your mere opinion based in a presuppostion.

"Humans did not co-habitate with dinosaurs.'

Prove it. I don't accept your mere opinion based in a presuppostion.


WAT, we all have the same facts at our disposal. I approach the interpretation of those facts from a presuppostion that God is right and the Scripture is correct, being inspired in it's writing by God, in order to reveal things to us that He wanted us to know.

There are TWO Models of Origins (Creation and Evolution), each of which provides a framework for interpreting facts, to see which Model is the "better predictor" of what is actually seen and found.

You come at the same facts with the presuppostion that God doesn't exist and that God did NOT Create. You presume that everything happened by random change and "natural laws" and that Uniformitarian theory is true (never mind that more and more scientists are disgarding Unformitarianism as being inadequate to explain the actual FACTS that have been uncovered).

So you'll just have to pardon me that I do NOT accept WAT's opinion as being "sacrosanct" and "right." I'm "from Missouri, WAT, show me."

No FH - I'm not gonna play your game. These proofs are already reality. Did your God make the universe to just look old? Why? As a grand ruse to test your faith?

If you wanna believe humans cohabitated with dinosaurs given all the information to the contrary, be my guest. Nothing I can add that you haven't already been exposed to and rejected will make a difference.

BTW - Your "presupposition" that I think that God doesn't exist is wrong. You keep saying this, yet I don't know why. I've never said that. Granted, it not the same One you believe. Till now I haven't felt a need to correct you. I do so now just to show you don't know as much about me as you think you do. (This is just one example.)

WAT
-----------------
All fossils are transitional.

Oh crud. I shouldn't, but...


I don't think you necessarily "deny" reality. I just don't think you're aware of all of it. Who can be? Who has the time 2 cover every aspect of it? But rationalizing something away is another story. I often get the strong feeling that you have this need 2 rationalize subjects like evolution out of existence because you perceive them 2 be in direct conflict with your religious views. I don't understand this need, but I do accept that many people seem 2 have it.


2 explore such a "proof" is poor science and a waste of time and the taxpayer's money. You can never absolutely prove a negative with 100.00000% certainty. Far better 2 spend time proving a positive - like "dinosaurs were extinct long before humans came on2 the scene" - even if the certainty is only 99% that it's true. I suppose that there might be a small chance that human remains might someday be found in association with dinosaur remains - but not before someone develops time travel, goes back in2 time 2 take movies of dinosaurs, and gets stepped on or something. Of course, such a discovery would tear a hole in the universe - like me trying 2 use my "Easy button" to find WAT's.



Uniformitarianism is not being discarded, it's being redefined (better unders2d). It simply states "The present is the key 2 the past." And since most things appear 2 happen slowly over time, most scientists didn't have experience with truly massive events that happen rarely. When Harlan Bretz first described the giant floods that carved the Channeled Scabland in Washington, he was labeled a "Catastrophist". But even such catastrophies obey the physical laws of the universe. And THAT's what uniformitarianism means 2 scientists these days.

-ol' 2long

2long - I'll tell you what, I respect your credentials and your ability to examine facts. Suffice it to say that both you and WAT make the same "presuppositions" before examining the facts and I make biblical presuppositions prior to examining the very same facts. It is NOT the facts that change, it is the interpretation of those facts.

Since I'm out temporarily out of the "advising" business, I wouldn't mind a "sane" discussion of some of the facts and arguments for evolution as a "better" explanation of the facts than creation would be.


2long, I understand your feeling. Consider this, if you will. The quotation citing your statement in your previous post applies EQUALLY WELL to those who choose to support evoluton. Simply by changing the object word will show the validity of your statement to everyone who approaches this subject with a "biased" presuppostional position.

"But rationalizing something away is another story. I often get the strong feeling that you have this need 2 rationalize subjects like creation out of existence because you perceive them 2 be in direct conflict with your evolutionist views. I don't understand this need, but I do accept that many people seem 2 have it."

But, since this is Kinger's thread, why don't we take the discussion to a separate thread?

That highlighted sentence in the quote from your post is exactly what I have been saying. Whatever "god" you think exists is NOT the God of the Bible.

So why don't you simply be a man about it and state what your god is to you. I KNOW you are an unbeliever in so far as Jesus Christ is concerned, so it really doesn't matter to me whether you think of yourself as an atheist, and agnostic fence sitter, or someone who believes in "some god" of his own choosing. The "dividing line," WAT, is simple. For or against Jesus Christ. "Saved" or "unsaved." God in control or man and/or random nature in control.

So then, WHAT "god" exists in your mind that is "as good as" YHWH? As in "Thou shalt have NO other gods before me," I am curious as to your rationalization and equation of what you believe with what I believe vies-a-vie God.

FH - my specific beliefs do not matter since I don't try to convince anybody else of them. Why do they matter to you? I don't want you to "save" me. Don't need saving.

And it has nothing to do with being "man" enough. That's pretty silly. I'm man enough to be comfortable with my beliefs without having to get others to believe the same way. I think faith should be a private matter.

But I don't mind saying that my God is not an autocratic God with humans as his "subjects". Can't be. That's the height of human conceit. Otherwise, among countless examples, the Dec. 2004 tsunami that killed a quarter million people, the 2005 Afghan earthquake, and the 2005 US hurricanes wouldn't have happened. Those were random nature in my universe. If this makes my God not of the Bible, oh well.

WAT
-----------------
All fossils are transitional.

WAT, I'm not asking you to "convince" anyone that whatever it is you believe is "THE" right belief.

But you bring it up as "equating" your "god" to the God of Scripture, and that simply isn't so and begs the question. One more time I ask you for DIRECT information and you obfuscate and claim "irrelevance." It's not irrelevant because you use it to justify, or at least partially justify, your opposition to God (the Christian God). You bring it up and then refuse to discuss it. Discussing your belief is NOT proselytizing, WAT.

I think faith should be a private matter.

Of course it is, but not when you start using it as a justification for what you DO advocate others to believe, i.e., evolution instead of creation. Then it's no longer a private matter. At that point you have entered the "arena of ideas" and people have a "right" to know what you believe that causes you to presuppose a position based upon your beliefs (i.e., evolution as a Model of Origins).


But I don't mind saying that my God is not an autocratic God with humans as his "subjects". Can't be. That's the height of human conceit. Otherwise, among countless examples, the Dec. 2004 tsunami that killed a quarter million people, the 2005 Afghan earthquake, and the 2005 US hurricanes wouldn't have happened. Those were random nature in my universe. If this makes my God not of the Bible, oh well.

A marked lack of understanding of God. But, since you refuse to engage in a discussion of what you do believe about your god, I will not rise to answer your baiting either.

By the way, here's something you've said that we agree on:

All fossils are transitional.

I agree, they have transitioned from life to death, every one of them, in one giant cataclysm. The rest never got to become fossils, they just rotted away normally.

Kinger,

I don't think there is any great mystery as to why so many people are here and ready to adopt Dr. Harley's MB principles.

First, almost anyone here will tell you that finding out your spouse had an affair is about the most emotionally devastating thing that has happened in their life. When that happens, you look for answers. You want to know if the marriage can be fixed. You want to know how. And you want these things the way someone in the desert dying of thirst wants water.

Well, here is an oasis. Are there other places on the net or anywhere else to find answers? Yes. Who has the most successful method for recovering a marriage? I don't know. I do know that what I tried in the beginning, trying to reason with my wife to stop the affair and enter counseling failed miserably.

So I am searching for answers and here is a place where success has occurred. The man has a lot of experience with these issues and that counts pretty heavily with me. Will his methods save my marriage? Who knows? But nothing else I've tried has shown the slightest sign of working.

FH - evolution and science is not a "belief." This is where you and I part ways. I do not advocate for others to "believe" in evolution. It's not something you "believe" in. It's where you get applying the scientific process in an objective way - until another answer comes along that's better. I don't care what others "believe" so long as they don't try to foist their beliefs on society.

And don't mix up origins with evolution. Evolution does not address origins. Evolution is a study of biological processes once "origin" already occured. Again, you're wrong about my "beliefs."


You mean your God. You're right.

As you know, that's not what I meant. "Transitional" in that evolution is an ongoing process and never finished as long as the surroundings of life change. In our form as Homo Sapiens, we are transitional to the next species, assuming we don't kill ourselves off.

To address your statement, actually most of them died before the KT impact 65M years ago. There was another extinction about 125M years ago with scientists working today investigating an apparent crater in the north polar region that may be a result of its cause.

WAT

Ouch. I agree with 2Long. "I shouldn't but..."

Here's my $0.02, even though no one asked me. My father has PhD in biology, so I kinda grew up around the topic of evolution. Embryology is one of the most obvious areas where a strong argument supporting the evolutionary process can be found. In the womb, or in the egg, embryos are strikingly familiar. It's also easier to see where species are divergent in their development, when watching them develop from zygote to new-born.

So, yes, there are concrete examples that support many of the premises in "Origin of Species." Does this prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that we all evolved from monkeys? Depends on your definition of shadow.

2Long makes a valid argument about trying to prove a negative hypothesis versus a positive one. I suggest reading that paragraph again, so I don't have to repeat it. Remember also, that a scientific "theory" is not the same as someone pulling an idea out of their a$$ and calling it fact. It would take some time to cover this, but I can if folks are not clear on the difference between the theory of evolution, and the theory my 9 year old has about unicorns.

Most importantly, folks who deny "evolution" are shortchanging themselves. Evolution and Creationism can peacefully co-exist. Evolution is NOT AN EVENT. It did not HAPPEN one time millions of years ago. Evolution is a process, a series of billions of tiny events, each one seemingly independent of the next. Evidence of genetic mutation and survival of the fittest are found in every ecosystem in the world.

All that said, I've read FH's thread, and I'm very impressed with his devotion and his solid application of the principles of Christianity. I truly believe he has God in his heart. I'd bet that he behaves in a moral and consistently "Christlike" manner, whether someone is watching or not. Could the world use more people like him? I say yes.

I am one of those who probably will be shunned by FH, since I have a hard time believing that "Ours" is the only "Way." I have Hindi and Muslim and Jewish friends who are equally devoted to their faith--they live a moral life, and perform good deeds for their fellow man. I have a hard time believing that God (as He's been defined in my schooling) would damn these folks to ******, just because they weren't exposed to, or chose not to follow the Bible.

As Kinger pointed out a few pages ago, there are those who call themselves Christians and hold their Bible up to shield themselves when confronted with wrong-doings. I can say my limited knowledge of men like FH and Mortarman shows that not all Christians are hypocrites. (I've just been pretty unlucky, I guess.)

I'm impressed that FH, WAT, 2Long and others are able to engage in such a heated debate, but still be respectful of the other one's opinion. You all show why this subject will not resolve itself anytime soon. Ok, now you can ignore me.

It's also the way different people think. No insult implied. Re:


I would have simply switched around my original wording and examined the result, thusly:

"But rationalizing something away is another story. I often get the strong feeling that you have this need 2 rationalize subjects like religion out of existence because you perceive them 2 be in direct conflict with your evolutionist views. I don't understand this need, but I do accept that many people seem 2 have it."

Worded that way, I don't think works for me, because I don't view religion and science, particularly subjects like evolution, 2 be in any conflict at all.

But I do agree that the term "creationism" can be readily substi2ted for the word "religion," because it is based in specific religious ideas. It's just a rather specific, exclusive facet of religious thought, and one that's not universal among religious people.

-ol' 2long

imanotherone - no one is going to "shun" you? Why would you think that? Besides, the discussion about putting people on the "ignore this user" list is on another thread.

2Long makes a valid argument about trying to prove a negative hypothesis versus a positive one. I suggest reading that paragraph again, so I don't have to repeat it.

You can't prove a negative. I agree.


Remember also, that a scientific "theory" is not the same as someone pulling an idea out of their a$$ and calling it fact. It would take some time to cover this, but I can if folks are not clear on the difference between the theory of evolution, and the theory my 9 year old has about unicorns.

Okay, for the sake of the uninitiated you might have to explain.

Neither evolution nor creation is rightly called a theory. The are both MODELS of how things got here and as a framework to evaluate what IS found in the "real world."


Most importantly, folks who deny "evolution" are shortchanging themselves. Evolution and Creationism can peacefully co-exist.

No they can't. That's part of the problem and is analagous to an Unfaithful Spouse who wants to have his/her "marriage" his/her way because that's what HE/SHE wants even if it makes no sense to anyone else. In short, he/she doesn't have to "choose." Not a very intellectually honest position because either "God created" or He did not. Why that is so I will leave to a potential later discussion.


Evolution is NOT AN EVENT. It did not HAPPEN one time millions of years ago. Evolution is a process, a series of billions of tiny events, each one seemingly independent of the next. Evidence of genetic mutation and survival of the fittest are found in every ecosystem in the world.

This simply isn't so in the sense you are attempting to apply it. NO ONE, not even the staunchest Creationist, denies that "microevolution" can, and does occur. What does NOT occur is "macroevolution," especially if you are confining the topic of evolution to just "living things."


I am one of those who probably will be shunned by FH, since I have a hard time believing that "Ours" is the only "Way." I have Hindi and Muslim and Jewish friends who are equally devoted to their faith--they live a moral life, and perform good deeds for their fellow man. I have a hard time believing that God (as He's been defined in my schooling) would damn these folks to ******, just because they weren't exposed to, or chose not to follow the Bible.

If you'd like to have a theological discussion, I'd be happy to discuss things with you because I see gross misunderstandings in what you wrote. But it's probably not germaine to an evolution/creation discussion and would need it's own thread. Obviously I disagree with your assertions, but I would be willing to tell you WHAT and WHY I believe what I do relevant to your points.


My father has PhD in biology, so I kinda grew up around the topic of evolution. Embryology is one of the most obvious areas where a strong argument supporting the evolutionary process can be found. In the womb, or in the egg, embryos are strikingly familiar. It's also easier to see where species are divergent in their development, when watching them develop from zygote to new-born.

Okay! Now you've touched on one of my "hot buttons." I don't have a Ph.D, but I am a Biology major, minoring in Science and Math.

The "old" teaching, held to by very few biologists today, and what I was taught back in college in the early 70's was this "hallmark" of evolutionary Comparative Anatomy went as follows: Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny. If you understand what that means it will save us a lot of time, but if not, I can explain what it meant.

Things like "gill slits" (which were never really gill slits) in a developing embryo (which actually become the Eustacheon tubes to the ears in human embryos) were supposed to evidence of the evolutionary time spent as a fish. Today, that theory has all but been discarded. This subject alone would make for a fascinating discussion.


So, yes, there are concrete examples that support many of the premises in "Origin of Species."

Not so. What most often gets touted as "examples" are really nothing more than normal variations already present in the genetic code of the species in question, ala the Peppered Moth of England. And a lot of people are surprised to learn that Darwin himself recognized areas of severe doubt that his theory could hold up, such as the eye.

Nice to have your input. Don't be shy, no one I know of ever died from a discussion or even a heated debate (just ask WAT, he and I are still both breathing, lol). Sort of a "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." Besides, how else do we actually learn without "challenging the facts" from time to time and seeing where it leads us? Unless we are talking about "settled facts" or "universal laws," each person must examine the facts and come to their own conclusion.

You can't make that "substitution" 2 long, because creation is NOT a part of all religions. For example the Hindu religion and the belief in Karma.

Likewise not all religions would believe in evolution.

So the "words" must be either creation or evolution, it can't equivocate to include positions that include both as a way to "exclude" those that side one way or the other.

FH-
When you use the term "micro-evolution," are you conceding that after the initial "Creation," that animals and plants have, in fact, evolved? (I.e., have they mutated and changed over time?) I don't think you are. Even these micro-evolutions would take tens of thousands of years to be visible in fossils.

I'm happy to hear you have scientific training, which makes it much less painful to discuss these subjects. Your selection of the "Peppered Moth case" shows that you've learned your arguments well. Of course, you know Peppered Moth is but one of thousands of species, and one of the few that Darwin made such comments about.

BTW, I'm also a mathemetician. My bachelor's is math, and my master's is engineering. I'll be honest, that I'll have to pull out some of my old textbooks to get some more concrete examples. I don't get to cover this discussion very often, so I'm rusty.

To get back to "Accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, or Burn in ******" philosophy: I have to politely disagree. I've seen too many folks stand up and testify in Church, only to go home and beat their wives and children.

Then, when I look at my Jewish neighbor, who works in a homeless shelter, and mows the lawn of another elderly neighbor, and participate in fundraisers and blood-drives, I cannot believe that a cognizant Lord would send them to he!! and leave Joe-Blow-Christian-Wife-Beater in heaven, just because he proclaims to be born again. I think one's ACTIONS will earn a place in Heaven. And I don't mean mumbling a few words in Church and throwing a few coins in the pan will buy you a straight ticket.

Clearly, I don't put YOU in that category. But surely you've seen the men I'm talking about? How can such an all-knowing Lord find that acceptable?