I asked for scientific evidence. Perhaps if we picked a specific claim - for instance, please demonstrate in some falsifiable manner that the Earth is roughly 10,000 years old.
Does it sound ironic to anyone that the above should appear almost immediately after I posted:


50% correct. Creationism isn't provable in the scientific sense, because there is no evidence in its favor, which probably accounts for your unwillingness to cite any.

Because it has been fourteen pages, and you haven't come up with any evidence besides some out-of-context quotes from authorities that don't establish your point, and a couple of pages of rot from the ICR.

No, that it is basically very poor and sloppy "science". Simply pulling a finagle factor out of your rear end and pretending that this demonstrates something or other when it doesn't, isn't science - it is intellectual masturbation.

Come on - this guy did a bad piece of work, and even a moderately well-informed layman can spot the holes in his thinking. It isn't his conclusion that I object to, it is his reasoning. Which is unfortunately weak to the point of absurdity.
Why the change in subject? Let's assume for the sake of the discussion that evolution is bunk. You claim (I thought) that you had a credible alternative theory. But you won't produce any scientific evidence for it. Why is that?

If you are suggesting that both creationism and modern evolutionary theory are just dogma that have no evidence in their favor, then why are you so upset when someone believes in one theory in the absence of evidence instead of another? Perhaps I assume that Lysenko was correct, and species evolve from some "inner need" that causes the inheritance of acquired, non-genetic characteristics.

There is no evidence for that, either. Why is is any worse than creationism?

Regards,
rs0522

Dr. Smur, thank you for the response.


I would be interested in reading this paper. Would you happen to have the reference to the paper as I have been unable to locate, or determine which is, the specific paper you referred to when I searched the Nature site?




I understand this argument concerning "recapitulation." I also know that Ernst Haeckel faked his drawings to support his contention. Yet those very drawings continue to be used in various textbooks.




No, I am not referring to speciation. Speciation is "predicted" by both the Evolution and Creation Models.

I have looked at many, certainly not 16,625 individual references, concerning speciation. In all cases I have seen, they fit "equally well" with both Models.

I AM intrigued by the evidence and it's apparent "argument" for "rapid speciation" instead of the standard "millions of years" requirement that is postulated by the Evolution Model.

Perhaps what I can do is to post a few articles that scratch the surface for you to review and offer comment about.




That is a valid hypothesis requiring further investigation. It "fits" within the Evolution Model, but I would suggest that it also "fits" (the necessity for mitochondria and chloroplasts) equally well within the Creation Model as being vital to the survival of the organism.




I would agree. If fact, one of the areas in need of correlation is the concept of "Expression" of the genes in similar organisms.


Thanks again for your time and input. I look forward to more discussion with you, even though my Biology is a bit "rusty" since graduation.

One other area of question concerns your reference to HIV (and all viruses for that matter):



1. Regardless of changes in genetic code (and/or sequence), has the virus become something "other than" a virus?

2. Are viruses "living" organisms?


I look forward to your comments.

Respectfully,
FH

Oh come on, RS. Let's not start "playing games" now. I could just as easily ask you some "unproveable" question and imply that if you can't answer it then it "proves" the Evolution Model is wrong. For example; " Perhaps if we picked a specific claim - for instance, please demonstrate in some falsifiable manner that life arose from non-living chemicals roughly 70 million years ago."

What I COULD do is evaluate the data to see how it "fits" with, or how the data found correlates to "predicitions" that would be consistant with the Creation Model and/or the Evolution Model.




I would submit that your arrogance and dogmatic belief in evolution are leading you the conclusion that I am "unwilling" to cite "evidence" in support of the Creation Model. You are attempting to use emotion to instigate an argument, rather than have a discussion of the subject, including "opposing" views and interpretations of the same physical "evidence" that supposedly "proves" the evolution model.

All you did was to "dismiss out of hand" the articles that I posted (in fact you refused to even comment about one of the two articles). That is HARDLY a discussion, much less a scientific refutation of the material and conclusions.

So please spare us the histrionics of your unsubstantiated appeal to "irony."




I believe that your prejudice, not scientific inquiry is showing. What, perchance, have YOU posted in "14 pages" (by the way, my screen shows currently 6 pages to this thread. Perhaps you are using some measure other than Base 10 for counting the number of pages) that proves evolution? Get real, rs0522. However, to set the record straight, I HAVE posted proof of creation from THE authority on the matter, Jesus Christ. That is "insufficient" for you because you "presuppose" molecules to man as the WAY that things arose.

Now, you CAN examine the "man" Jesus Christ, and you can arrive at a conclusion about his veracity and who he is. Whether or not you accept him as your Lord and Savior is a different matter entirely.




Further discussion with you would appear to be pointless. It might be "self-gratifying" for you, but I see little beneficial in discussing the subject with you considering your "hostile presuppostion and vitriol" if anyone "dares" to offer anything that "might" support creation rather than evolution.

It would appear that your "true intention" is the blind acceptance (perhaps brain-washing might be a more appropriate term) of "molecules to man" and a dogmatic refusal to even consider an alternative possibility. You stand, in that respect, in marked contrast to some of the best known evolutonists who have the "honesty" to know the limits to what has been, or might, be supported by the facts (evolution and creation as the models). If you'd like, I could quote some of their own "conclusions" on the matter for you.


Regardless, various issues will be discussed on this thread as time passes. Feel free to read anything you wish. But I doubt that any of it will "meet with your approval." Consider this, there have been many "theories" that have been touted as "proof" of evolution and taught as definitive FACT. "Facts" as we all know, don't change. Yet MANY previously held "facts," or "proofs," of evolution and the Evolution Model have been subsequently proven false or in need of serious revision. Taking your attitude, the "failure" of one of those theories, or "FACTS," should negate the entire Model of Evolution. But evolutionists simply discard the previous "fact" and come up with another way to "explain" the facts. In one respect, evolution is evolving in the evolutionist world. The creation model PREDICTS what is actually seen and found in nature and does not have to be constantly manipulated to "Fit the facts." For example, Punctuated Equilbrium versus Gradual Change over MUCH time to account for the LACK of "missing links," to use the Layman's term for the gaps.





With all due restraint and respect, rs0522, YOU brought up the idea of "other alternatives." I did not. In fact, there are NO other alternatives and I wanted you to clarify your statement, not us it as yet another attack on creation or my belief in creation as a Model on which to evaluate the evidence.

OK, FH - I’ll attempt to answer your earlier question to me about the “building”. Here it is:


Noting the disagreement between mixing the origins of life on earth vs speciation through evolution, I’ll answer assuming you are referring to life origins here.

Constructing a building is simply a mechanical assembly of pieces. The pieces do not spontaneously interact to form “new” pieces - with the possible exception of concrete. A chemical reaction occurs when Portland cement is mixed with water. Otherwise, all the assembled pieces could be disassembled back to their individual forms - more or less. Nails could be removed from boards, etc. It would be extremely difficult to reconstitute sawdust back into boards, but the sawdust is still wood. It’s basic composition didn’t change.

On the other hand, I expect that the origin of life on this planet was rooted in a chemical process that produced new compounds - whether by chance or by a diety. The pieces weren’t just nailed or glued together mechanically. Further, in chemical processes, differing substances may have an affinity for each other and upon being in the same vicinity and with the right environment (temperature, pressure, etc.) actually do spontaneously combine - and are not easily “disassembled.” Hydrogen and oxygen exist in elemental form, in compounds with other elements, and together to make water. Nothing like building a building, but not requiring an engineer, designer, nor intelligence either. But you certainly know all this. Why ask the building question? - because it’s a popular distractor easily seized by the gullible?

So, your turn to respond to some of my earlier questions:

From a few pages ago:

“According to Morris, fungi were not part of the original creation. They were not among the categories listed in Genesis 1, and as decayers they would not have their form until after the Fall. Thus, Morris's own theology requires new "kinds" to originate after the creation. How can that be?”

And:

“Because the "mutations" topic has now been breached, here's something else to chew on to go along with the Flood.

I'm not a biologist - but I did lose a son to cancer. I had LOTS of time and resources sitting in the hospital to learn as much as I could to make sure no stone was unturned in my efforts to save him.

According to the creationists, all humans alive today are descended from 8 people who got off the Ark. Anyone who understands junior high genetics will know that 8 people have between them a maximum possible of 16 different alleles for each genetic locus (in reality, the 8 people on the Ark would have had even FEWER, since some of them were descended from others and thus shared alleles, but for the sake of argument let's give the creationists every possible benefit of the doubt and assume that they were ALL heterozygous and shared no alleles at all in common). That means, if the creationists are correct that "most mutations are deleterious" and that "no new genetic information can appear through mutation", there can not be any human genetic locus anywhere today with more than 16 alleles, since that is the MAXIMUM that could have gotten off the Ark.

But wait, today we find human genetic loci (such as hemoglobin or the HLA complex) that have well over 400 different alleles (indeed some have over 700 different alleles). Hmmmm. Since there could have only been 16 possible on the Ark, and since there are over 400 now, and since 400 is more than 16, that means that somehow the GENETIC INFORMATION INCREASED from the time they got off the Ark until now.

That raises a couple problems: (1) if genetic mutations always produce a LOSS in information, like the creationists keep telling us, then how did we go from 16 alleles to over 400 alleles? (2) if these new alleles did not appear through mutations, then how DID they get here? Poof?

But wait - there’s more: According to creationists, not only must these new alleles have appeared after the Ark, all of these mutations must have appeared in the space of just 4,000 years - the period of time since the Big Flood they say. That gives a rate of BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS, which add NEW GENETIC INFORMATION, of one every 10 years, or roughly two every generation - a much higher rate of beneficial mutation than has ever been recorded anywhere in nature. Nowhere today do we see such a rate anywhere near so high.

So, the obvious questions: (1) what produced this extraordinarily high rate of non-deleterious mutations, AND (2) what stopped it? (indeed, what stopped it conveniently right before the very time when we first developed the technological means to study it?)

But wait - not done YET: Since less than 1% of observed mutations are beneficial (the vast majority of mutations are indeed deleterious or neutral and have no effect), that means for every beneficial mutation which added a new allele, there should have been roughly 99 others which did not. So, to give us roughly 400 beneficial mutations would require somewhere around 40,000 total mutations, a rate of approximately 100 mutations in each locus EVERY YEAR, or 2,000 mutations per locus for EACH GENERATION.

But wait, we’re STILL not finished: In order for any of those mutations to be passed on to the next generation to produce new alleles, they MUST occur in the germ cells - sperm or egg. And since any such high rate of mutation in a somatic cell (non-sperm or egg) would have quickly produced a cancer, if the creationists are right this mutation rate could ONLY have occurred in the germ cells and could NOT have occurred in any of the somatic cells. If one of our resident creationists can propose a mechanism for me which produces a hugely high rate of mutation in the germ cells while excluding it from any other cells, a Nobel Prize in medicine surely awaits - such information would be critically valuable to cancer researchers. Maybe my son could have been saved. But alas, no such mechanism exists. The rate of mutations made necessary by our starting point, the Ark, would certainly have killed all of Noah’s children before they even had time to have any kids of their own. In order to produce 400 beneficial alleles in just 4,000 years, humanity would have been beset with cancers at a rate that would have wiped us all out millenia ago.”

Since they clearly have more direct knowledge than I, perhaps smur and rs can weigh in. I kinda expect they’ve seen this stuff before.

WAT

A request for some kind of evidence strikes you as "playing games"?

I don't understand - you seem to be alternating between asserting that creationism is unprovable, and citing this crap from the ICR as proof.

Which is it?


No, actually it is more because of your failure to do so, and attempts to change the subject when the topic is brought up. But again, if you have any positive evidence, now might be a good time to trot it out.

If you can't, I think we are justified in speculating as to why that might be.

No, I am afraid this is an inaccurate assessment of my posts. I offered a few, fairly basic objections to the pseudo-scientific drivel of the second article, which I note you have declined to address.

I refused to comment on the first because, as I mentioned, I am not clear on what exactly it was meant to establish. I didn't understand it, in other words. I suspect you don't either, and that you simply cut and pasted the first piece that used a lot of big words and presented an argument you couldn't follow, in hopes that it was saying something meaningful.


I think I will merely leave the above as a testimony to unintended humor.


Again, could you make up your mind as to whether creationism is a scientific theory, or not? I am getting whiplash from the flipping. Thanks in advance.

Again, the only trouble with the above is that you haven't produced any evidence to support creationism.


Or, perhaps, a dispassionate examination of the evidence, all of which appears to be on one side. And that side ain't yours.
Well, thanks ever so. If I ever entertained any doubts as to what permission I needed to read, your post would certainly set my mind at rest.
I'm sorry, but this is more horse hockey. There are lots of other theories besides creationism and the theory of the evolution of species thru natural selection, which is why I mentioned Lysenko. The trouble with Lysenko is the same as with creationism - it doesn't fit the available evidence. So we don't accept them.

The fact that evolutionary theory is revised as new evidence becomes available is one of the things that makes it a scientific theory instead of dogma. And it also demonstrates that scientists don't blindly accept the theory of evolution. They test it, and if they find something that doesn't fit the model, they change the model.

Creationists don't do this. Even your ICR cite finished up with a quote that he was not going to change his ideas if the evidence for them didn't hold up.

Clinging to an outmoded notion, as you accuse evolutionist theorists of doing and which is actually characteristic of creationists, means we are talking dogma, not science.

Evolutionary theory isn't dogma, because it changes. Creationism is, because it won't.

Regards,
rs0522

Oh, and WAT, I am sorry to hear about your son.

Regards,
rs0522

WAT, thanks for the response. Bear with me if you will and I'll get around to responding. I'm currently "up to my eyeballs" in troubleshooting problems for some of my clients right now.

For the record, however, I want to make something crystal clear, if there may be any misunderstanding up to this point. I separate in my mind my "feelings" toward you and this discussion and your experience as a person. NO ONE should have to suffer infidelity and NO ONE should have to endure the loss of child. My heart aches for you and your loss. I have spent some time "touring" St.Judes and meeting and talking with children and some of the researchers looking for cures. I have a particular "soft spot" for children. In fact, the only two times that I "could not" work anymore for the day both involved the death of children. I still vividly remember the first one, including his name and the precise "time of death," 12:07 p.m., as nothing could be done to stop it. He walked into the E.R. and approximately half an hour later, he died from internal bleeding from a torn liver that happened in an accident at my college.

My mother worked a good portion of her life with terminal children, none of which lived beyond the age of 5. In the case of those children, it was primarily genetic abnormalities that was the cause (i.e., microencephaly, anencephaly, hydrocephaly, etc.). So please understand that on a strictly "human" level, I understand and empathize with your loss. In my case, we lost our 5th child due to an ectopic pregnancy...it hurts no matter what the cause.

If you'll pardon me this, at least this one time...

God bless

I appreciate the comments. Really.

Through either "random chance" or the grace of God, go I - and probably many of us.

My son's disease was neuroblastoma. Almost undocumented beyond early childhood. It's a particularly insidious form of cancer that frequently develops in the womb. - and almost just as frequently develops and spontaneously regresses without ever being detected - either mutating to a benign form or succombing to the immune system. One of us reading this thread likely contracted neuroblastoma in childhood. Hopefully science is making progress on its detection and cure. I've not kept up with the research since my son died. I'll take this up again when my surviving son has a child, given the potential for a familial connection.

WAT

WAT, I can't imagine how it must feel to lose a child like that. I'm so sorry for you.

FH, I am having a really busy week and can't answer all your Qs right now. The reason you probably couldn't find the reference is that it was in Science, not Nature - sorry about that. Here is the link http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/310/5746/287

and here are a couple of other similar refs.

Marin, B; Nowack, Eva C. M.; Melkonian, M. A plastid in the making: Primary endosymbiosis. Protist 156 (4) : 425-432 DEC 2005

Keeling, P J. Diversity and evolutionary history of plastids and their hosts
American Journal of Botany 91 (10) : 1481-1493 October 2004

... one thing I love this site is that everyone is on the same side in the end... there are much bigger issues than debates about science and religion.

To ForeverHers:

In post "#3041770 - 06/21/06 07:39 AM" you said that God must be truthful because "a liar cannot be God." You also said:


Fair enough. It is evident, then, that if it can be proved that God is not what he claims to be, then he is a liar and cannot be God. I'm sure you'll agree that God must be omniscient.

I here present what I believe is absolute proof that either God is not omniscient, or is a liar. I'm sure you'll agree that this applies equally to God the Father and God the Son.

In Jerusalem there exists a structure known variously as the Western Wall or the Wailing Wall. It has long been a holy place for Jews. Today, Jews pray and worship in front of the small remnant of some 28 meters long that remains unburied. The wall is actually about 450 meters long, but most of it is buried under the walls of buildings built alongside it. Details can be found here, among other places:

http://mosaic.lk.net/g-wall.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wailing_Wall

The Western Wall was part of the Second Temple complex of buildings, and was largely built by Herod the Great. Now, Matthew 24:1,2 states in the New International Version bible:


Note my point: Jesus clearly prophesied about all of the temple buildings, that not even one stone would be left on another. Yet the Western Wall attests that Jesus' prophecy failed. Thus, Jesus was a false prophet. If he was a false prophet, then he was either a liar, or he did not know what he was talking about. If he was a liar, you've said that he could not be God. If Jesus did not know what he was talking about, he was not omniscient and cannot be God. Either way, the fact that Jesus' clearly stated prophecy failed proves that he is not God. If the Bible cannot be trusted in such an important matter as the nature of Jesus as God, then it cannot be trusted any more than any other human writings, and so putting one's faith in other of its claims, such as that the God of the Bible created everything, has no more value than putting faith in the writings of David Koresh.

Thus, there is no reason to believe in creationism rather than accepting the huge amount of scientific data that proves that evolution has occurred.

AlanF

Wow AlanF you registered on an infidelity forum to post that drivel? I'm impressed.

To ForeverHers:

In post "#3042392 - 06/21/06 09:29 PM" you said:


Not quite. Here you appear to be assuming that Mt. Everest was always at about the same height as it is today, and that fossils somehow became lodged in sediments that settled on its top. That is far from the truth. The entirety of Mt. Everest is comprised of sedimentary rock, and those sediments go a lot deeper than the average level of land that one could call the base. Indeed, recent investigations indicate that the crust of the earth is on the order of 60 miles thick in the Himalayan Plateau, which is about twice as thick as normal continental crust.

According to plate tectonic theory, when the Indian Plate began colliding with the Asian Plate some 20 million years ago, it gradually raised the Plateau to its present height (minus erosion, of course), thus lifting all of the previously low-lying sediments to a great height. These sediments were deposited much earlier, at times when the region was below sea level. The folding and twisting of the entire region is easy to see on a good geologic map. The Himalayas have obviously been pushed to the north of India, and large mountain ranges have been squished out hundreds of miles to the east and west of India.


This last statement is what indicates that you think Mt. Everest was always about its present height.

Whatever, your use of the word "animals" indicates that you think fossils of creatures besides normal denzens of the sea can be found on Mt. Everest. Not so. Only normal sea creatures are found there. Otherwise, why would you wonder how normal sea creatures got to where normal sea creatures lived?


Quite right.

[/quote]Water seeks it's own level lacking something to constrain it. So SOMETHING must have been "different" in the past and NOT uniform to what we have today.[/quote]

That's right. Plate tectonics explains things neatly. India's collision with Asia raised the Himalayas during the past 20 million years. Today, the rate of uplift in the Himalayas is between one and ten meters per thousand years.


This is such a gross oversimplification that it's virtually completely wrong. That notion means not what you say, but that physical laws and general physical phenomena have always, within certain bounds, been the same. Why would one expect physical laws to change over time, unless one has extremely solid evidence?

Thus, tectonic plates have been moving around for a very long time, and the various forces that move them have acted according to set physical laws, and mountain building and eroson have been acting all during the earth's history. That in no way implies that Mt. Everest has existed throughout earth history -- which is what your line of argument implies. Your next statement proves this:


As with most young-earth creationists I've seen deal with this topic, you misrepresent reality. It is true that geologists, in the main, until the past few decades, leaned towards "strict uniformitarianism", which means that not only have processes operated uniformly through time, but have operated at the same rates at all times, leaving little room for occasional unusually severe event. But that doesn't mean that geologists haven't known perfectly well that catastrophic events, such as huge volcanic eruptions, have occurred. However, that leaning has gone the other way since roughly World War II, as geology has progressed rapidly based on massive amounts of new information.

One of the most spectacular examples of a flooding catastrophe that changed geologists' views was the discovery by J Harlan Bretz of massive flooding in eastern Washington and Oregon, and Idaho and western Montana, around 14,000 years ago near the end of the last "ice age". Today, catastrophes of various magnitudes (e.g., the "hundred year flood", the "thousand year flood") are recognized as being normal parts of uniformly operating geological processes. But to say, as you do, that there has been a big change in this is simply not so. There has just been a shift towards recognizing that large events have played a bigger part in geology than was thought a few decades ago.


Actually, this so-called "flood geology" explains hardly anything. Nor can it account for many phenomena that standard geology has no problem with. It is essentially a lot of hand waving and special pleading based on the need to interpret Genesis literally. It is not based on science, but attempts to mold science to a narrow interpretation of Genesis.


Nonsense. I'll give you one counterexample here, although I could give a lot more. During the past 40 years studies have been made of the growth patterns of ancient coral reefs. It has been found that the daily growth of corals adds a new, microscopically thin layer of lime to the coral skeleton. Not only can daily lines be seen, but monthly and yearly growth patterns are there. Obviously, today there are about 365 daily lines in each yearly pattern. However, in ancient corals the number of daily lines per year increases the further back in time you look. Thus, Carboniferous corals (about 300 million years) show about 380 lines per year, Devonian corals (about 400 million years) show about 400, and Cambrian corals (about 500 million years) about 425 lines. This is perfectly consistent with the physical observation and theoretical necessity that the moon's revolving around the earth is gradually slowing down due to tidal friction in the oceans, and the earth's rotation is also slowing down. That amounts today to a slowing of about 1.6 milliseconds per year per century. None of this can be explained by "flood geology", although it wouldn't surprise me to see some of the usual special pleadings appear.

AlanF

::::Wow AlanF you registered on an infidelity forum to post that drivel? I'm impressed.

BK, what about you explaining to us exactly how AF's comments are drivel?

AN

Anyname - more that he registered specifically on an infidelity site to post it.

I have no intention to be drawn into this debate - suffice to say I am firmly in th ecorner of special creation. I have no idea why FH is wasting his time here.

:::::Anyname - more that he registered specifically on an infidelity site to post it.

This is an open forum and this thread is not about infidelity. We do not know AlanF's situation. If a pro creation poster chose this thread as a starting point, would you have complained then? You say you have no wish to debate this topic yet you chimmed in with an opinion? At least FH attempts to back his beliefs with an explanation.

AN

But it is his time to waste. On the other hand, that thought had occurred to me too.

More than that, I have been trying to work out the math. My curiosity is is how much time it takes FH to write these posts. It would take me hourse each day. I guess he has a better or more efficient method.

To believe in something without proof takes faith. So we are just seeing the argument between two religions in this thread. No different than arguments between religions through the ages. As long as they don't start shooting each other, it is harmless enough.

Anyname, with respect, General Questions II is in the infidelity forum sub section. This whole debate shouldn't be here. Just my not so humble opinion of course. A pro-creation poster - well probably not but then again I really don't understand what FH thinks there is to gain by starting this thread in the first place - so a bet each way if you like.

I haven't offered any opinion either (other than to declare my colours) so why do I need to back it with anything? I don't intend to get drawn into pointless arguements. It's not like anyone here is going to be convinced by anything from the other side - it's just a fruitless arguement.

Why have you resurected your MB career in this particular thread anyname?

piojitos - to perhaps set your mind at ease, let me answer your comments and musings directly.

It is my time to SPEND however I wish, and I began this thread specifically to talk with Myschae about some of her questions.

Don't waste your time with the math. Unless you know all the variables it is hard to do the "figuring." Suffice it to say that it takes me a "fair amount of time" to either type a response or do research when necessary. The "why" I "bother" with this is that I enjoy science. The fact that the majority of others either don't believe in God and are left with nothing BUT evolution as a model (molecules to man) or they choose to reject the Scripture, as written, to clearly reveal HOW things began and that God established the "physical laws" of the universe is no reason to "run" from a discussion of the topic. "Difficult" questions can be asked of both sides, but most evolutionists will not CONSIDER the creation model simply because it REQUIRES a creator, rather than blind random chance and the idea that unthinking chemicals can "create" vast stores of new information that is REQUIRED in living things.




I happen to agree with you, though some of the posters would "violently (and already have) disagree with your calling belief in the evolution model a "religion." It is, by definition of "faith" and "belief," but what they really mean by their definition of those terms is belief in a monotheistic God that they can't give "scientific method-like proof" of existence. Neither can they prove evolution of "molecules to man" that way, but that does not stop them from "believing" it anyway. Nevermind that the "evidences" found in the world fit equally well, or in many cases better than the evolution model, into the Creation Model.

This is precisely the sort of reasoning that causes strident objection on the part of evolutionists to the teaching of the Creation Model as an equally valid model of "how things got here."

And for the record, while I can't speak for anyone else, I have no intention of shooting anyone. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

:::::Why have you resurected your MB career in this particular thread anyname?

Because I'm very interested in this debate. I like to know whether what I believe can be substantiated. I'm not a big advocate of "don't confuse me with the facts, I've made up my mind". Not that I haven't tried that approach - but it didn't work for me.

AN

Anyname, I, for one, really don't care WHY AlanF is posting, though I have my speculations. He is, obviously from his posting, an ARDENT anti-Christian, totally against any Christian (thought, person, or belief) who feels that HE is the omniscient one who knows better than God, while displaying his total lack of knowledge (aside from what WAT would call "quote mining" in attempt to attack Christians) of Scripture or the Christian faith.

I'll respond to him, simply because his false accusation "requires" an answer lest those who might read his innane attack might assume "silence implies agreement."

But to me, it is also quite probable that he is here SPECIFICALLY to attack me, Christianity in general, and the Creation Model simply because he is (by way of is posting) and avowed atheist. He likely got this site, let alone the forum and the specific thread, from someone who is either a member or an unregistered lurker who is dealing with infidelity. I think it's safe to assume that anyone faced with current infidelity in their lives, would have "more important things to do" than attempt to "prove that Jesus was a liar." It took me, as one example, years AFTER beginning to deal with infidelity, to enter into discussions about evolution and creation as models of "how things came to be."

And I really do appreciate your comment that I "at least" attempt to offer "another" explanation of how things got here. I make no argument that "science alone" can prove either creation or evolution, only that they are two valid MODELS (depending upon one's biased presupposition) by which data can be evalutated for "Fit" with the basic tenets of each model. Admittedly we often get "sidetracked" into specific areas, but that is why such a discussion takes time and patience. There is, short of believing in Jesus Christ, no "one" area that proves or disproves either model. It is ultimately up to each person to evaluate the data in the light of both Models and to decide (choose) which Model "best fits what is actually found." It takes time to "sift through" erroneous assumptions about each Model (such as the Creation Model not allowing mutations and variations within the various Kinds that were created).

Understand that those who embrace "Science" as some sort of "godlike" answer are misapplying science. They ASSUME a position and reject alternative explanations as to WHY something is found or observed simply because that is a requirement of the Evolution Model. There CANNOT be a "creator" in the "molecules to man" approach (even for those Theistic Evolutionists who try to straddle the fence).

A dogmatic assertion needs some basis in truth, it would seem. So evolution is "lifted" to the level of "truth" without any proof, simply because the alternative is the only "way, truth, and life," the one who DID create everything. Understand that Christian creationists base their Model on the Scripture and the person of Jesus Christ.

But that does not mean that scientific data cannot be evaluated within the framework of the two models without getting into "religion." It is not the data itself that is question, it is the interpretation of that data by those who reject ANY possibility other than "molecules to man."