Evolutionists, why are you here, and what is your goal?

I have been often told that if you want to debate someone who believes in evolution. All you have to do is put up a forum or website that promotes creation and they will come. When I put up my first website and forum I found this to be very true. Because once one evolution believing person finds it, he makes sure that his peers know that it exists. And they all come and look.

Which by the way actually helps the visits of any creation site. It's like free advertisement. Which actually give the creation site or forum a kick start. Which means that the evolutionist dislike for creationists actually helps the creationist out in getting started. So the attempt to cause havok or shut down actually plays a role in getting the forum or site noticed by other people. And puts their site more firmly into any search engine. Like when you type in yec into the Google search engine ( http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1T4ADBF_enUS270US270&q=yec ). My site is the first on the list. I did not pay to get there. It's because of the fans who hate my site so that promote my site to the number one spot.

But I often wonder, why is it that they feel the need to search out a creation site?

My opinion is this: The challenges of creation to evolution cannot go unchallenged because evolution is not as established as a scientific theory as evolutionists would have us believe. In fact, because it cannot maintain this position without constant defense, those who do believe that it does have to not let any creation claim stand unchallenged because that would make people think alternatively from evolution to ponder other things.

If evolution was so embeded in being a scientific theory (mountains of claimed evidence), the creation challenges would just bounce off and no one would even have to defend it. And if they did, "only" science would be needed to defend it.

But when it comes to evolutionists responding to a creationist. Science is not the only thing you will see. So what this shows is a weak theory exalted to a position it cannot maintain, which requires it's believers to resort to unscientific means to defend it. These tactics are not in anyway connected to science. But are used as if they are.

And even though evolution is not claimed to be a religion. I have seen evolutionists evangelize people to their way of thinking. That is what it is when you come to a Christian forum or blog with the sole purpose of taking away believers to believe what you believe.

Evangelize: To explain ones beliefs to another in the hope that they might wish to adopt them.

Is not that what you guys do when you come here and try to convince people that creation is a lie? So your sole purpose of being here is to evangelize for evolution. If not then explain why you are here, and what your goal actually is? and I bet you cannot explain it without making it sound just like you are evangelizing just like a religion does.

This is not a creationist site. Have you read the title of the forum?

Why are you here, ikester?

I came here to talk on the mercury forum and it was there that I was asked to watch Kent Hovind videos. I knew virtually nothing about creationism and I was pretty surprised that people believed these things in this day and age. So I had a look at this other forum here and saw that hardly any evolutionists were talking on it, and I started to post. If Russ hadn't been so enthusiastic about Hovind, I would never have come here. Blame him if you are looking for someone to blame.



No, I think we're simply looking at the human capacity to cling to a rigidly-held belief no matter what the evidence says to the contrary. Sometimes people say, as we've seen in another thread here, that they're going to cover their ears and not listen anymore, because they do not yet want to deal with the facts. This is called cognitive dissonance. Another choice a person can make is to synthesize the new evidence and alter their world view, though this is admittedly difficult for anyone and takes some courage. Glenn Morton managed it; I assume you've heard of him in your years of debating.

Tell you what. Why don't you start posting some threads showing us how creationism is real and scientific, rather than complaining about those who give evidence that it is not. Presumably that's why you're here, yes? To put forward some evidence for your own position?

I'd just like to support this statement of Linda's as it's applicable to many posters here. If creationism is such a solid science then there is absolutely no need to get emotional. All one needs to do in its favor is: present evidence, present evidence, present evidence. And then support that evidence with further evidence when someone tries to argue against any point you've made. Because it's not a personal attack, it's a debate. Just as I wouldn't get offended if someone tried to tell me that the Earth revolves around the sun due to gravity. It's not anything for me to get upset about.

You're obviously a new poster here, ikester, and in your short time here posting you have swooped down upon us all with vehemence and strong emotion. Why not try putting your emotions aside and adopt a more objective outlook? Look at the evidence and discuss it, if you disagree what is being alleged about it then say why and provide some evidence of your own. Because no one here is out to hurt you. They're holding a debate. Imagine if I tried holding a debate where I wished to prove a very questionale idea and then got upset emotionally every time someone tried to tell me I'm wrong. I certainly wouldn't get very far.

That can be said for both sides of the issue.



And this also is not a one sided action as you imply here. I have out debated a few evolutionists who then refused to debate me anymore, or left the forum. And this also goes for a few e-mail debates I have gotten into as well.

The reason I usually quit a debate is when I find a evolutionist to be into Narcissism: Self love based on self image or ego. Evolution seems to feed this problem because you can always make a new reality for every situation so that you always look like you are Always right. In other words, it feeds a know it all attitude.



I have heard the name, but I have no idea who the person is.



Okay, I tell you what. Let's see if science will allow anyone who wants to believe freely in creation work a NASA, go into space, control all evidence that comes from any sector of science. Then I would believe that you could be non-bias when you look at creation evidence.

Here's ia an example, just in case you don't get my meaning here. Let's say the Hubble Telescope was put up by a creationist group. And all the stuff they were looking at they were applying to creation and the Creator.

Would you trust this information because it comes from a "group" that only has "one goal"? And that is to prove creation and a Creator. Of course you would not because you could clearly see there was an agenda here.

Now, you see what I see about all of science. Science has the agenda to prove evolution only because that is all that is "allowed to exist" as the main theory in science. Not even other evolution idea that go outside of Darwinism is allowed to even be considered.

Which by the way proves that science now has an agenda which makes all it's claims and discoveries conform to that agenda while all other evidence gets rejected or ignored. And that agenda has such a grasp in the science field that if anyone, including a another scientists, dared to challenge this agenda. Would have their credibility destroyed.

Agendas causes everyone involved to become bias towards any other idea. And it also causes anyone who would challenge the agenda to become bias about there own ideas because that is the only way you can match the same bias that is presented to you.

In fact, if evolution were the only thing that science was trying to prove, then anytype of evolution would be looked into and researched, and money spent on to prove evolution. But we all know o so well the politics of Darwinian evolution. And what happens to anyone that would challenge it from either side of the fence.

Any theory that has to operate under such total control in my opinion is no longer a theory. Because all theories have to be questionable and therefore falsifiable. The main reason no one can even come close to falsifying it, is not because of the claimed mountains of evidence, but is because it is so well protected by Darwinists who will go to any length to do so.

In fact, name any other evolution idea that was ever looked at for more than 5 minutes since Darwinism took total control of the evolution theory?

Now name any other evolution idea that challenged Darwinian evolution that was researched and the same amount of time was spent on it to make sure it was not a better alternative.

There will never be no other theory, idea, etc... That will ever has as much money, man hours, papers written, more ideas added to, and support mechanism made to conform to it, then evolution has.

And because it is now intertwined into every aspect of science. To falsify it would bring change so many fields of science. That just from that alone would not even make it feasible as being falsifiable.

Don't believe me? Ponder removing evolution theory from science. Then ponder the trickle down affect on every field of science.

Now ponder all the papers that will become useless and thrown away. All the man hours that become useless and thrown away. All the fields of science that will basically close up because evolution is the only reason it exists. All the money spent that cannot be returned.

In fact name one area of science that you could look towards that evolution has not become intertwined into it some how? You cannot.

So to make evolution falsifiable is to make all of science falsifiable and that will never happen. So science has basically made evolution unfalsifiable because it's very core of all that it is, is now part of every part of what science is and wants to become.

Question: How does a theory get that much control over a whole area of reasearch and still remain a falsifiable theory?

Example: Let's take the theory of gravity. It affects everything and could be considered a varible in every experiment. But you don't see it taking control of every aspect of science just because it can affect every area of science.

Now how do you think that for some reason that Darwinian evolution has to have such control as a theory in science, but yet theories like gravity don't? Yet both can affect all fields of science but only one demands control?

Now since we have separated what is different from the evolution theory and all other theories. We will use deductive reasoning to find out what going on.

Since total control is not a theory issue, then what is it really connected to? Man. Man's wants and man's needs. So let's define control so we make sure we understand...

Control: power to direct or determine; "under control". Exercise authoritative control or power over; the activity of managing or exerting control over something;

Now we take and add Narcissism: Self love based on self image or ego. To "control", and what do you have?

You have man who wants and needs evolution to be true. That is the factor that is added to the theory of evolution that makes it have to have control. But why control?

What is the main opponent of evolution? The only other "belief" that deals with origins of life that challenges evolution on every level. But how does a belief challenge a theory?

Because the word theory makes the action of believing sound scientific. Because if you take away the meaning of what a theory is. The only explaination left is that you "believe" in evolution. And belief takes faith. And even today with the word theory around, people still say: I "believe" in evolution.

Belief and faith is a heart felt issue. And heart felt issues will make people say: Evolution is a true fact. Which is a oxymoron statement if evolution is to remain falsifiable.

But now we get to the core of why control is needed.

Because belief and faith is a heart felt issue, it also makes the theory become a personal issue. It's about like making evolution the most important thing in a evolutionist's life. Just like "belief" in God becomes the most important thing in a Christians life.

So do you see? Two "beliefs" colliding because they conflict. And if not, then scientifically explain why evolutionists waste so much time competing with a religious belief if what they believe does not fall into that same category as well? So basically, how does a non-religous belief compete with a religious one unless it is a belief in itself disguised as a theory?

Do you, or do you not "believe" in evolution?

What do the people who run it support? I don't see evolution post being pasted to the top section of the C vs E of this forum do you?

And if evolution were the main subject, I would not have joined.

And if your beloved scientific theory could maintain it's status on scientific methods and arguements, you would not be resorting to snide remarks, categorizations, and personal attacks. In fact, you would be the main representative of how every scientific debate should remain scientific. But that is not what we see now is it?

Wow, that's quite a post.

The problem that I see here is the basic assumption that all scientists are liars who have a conspiratorial agenda. You believe this so fervently that you have already written more about this assumption than, I hazard to guess, the combined total of other creationists here, and that's saying something.

You've probably heard this before but I'll say it again. I'm about as religious about evolution as I am about gravity. I accept it because there is so much empirical evidence for it. I've seen lots and lots of creationist claims by now and I haven't come across a single one that didn't have some kind of flaw in its science or some misunderstanding of how we know things work. This is why I accept evolution and not creationism.

However, if you would like to provide evidence for your own position here, maybe you can be that one person I've encountered whose claims have no misunderstandings or scientific flaws. How about it?

I'm happy you understand part of where I'm coming from.



You should have really asked instead of assume this. I believe that many people in science are decieved. I don't believe that all lie on purpose. Let me quote an interesting verse from the bible about this.

jas 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

Knowledge of sin is what makes sin a sin. If a person does not know he is being deceived, then his deception he would be innocent of. So I would never tell one of you guys you are going to hell because I don't know if you know the truth and just reject it. Understand?

But on a side note, while we are talking about this verse. This also applies to those who never heard of Christ or God. They cannot be condemned of a sin or a gift they knew not of. For how can a rightous God condemn people of a sin or choice they never had?



Mountains of the same type of evidence that says what has already been said. Is not moving forward. It's just a reconfirmation of what has already been claimed.

Gravity? Do you know it's source? Do you know what it is? But you believe it because you can observe it right?

Did you know that 50% of the claimed process of evolution is not observable and never will be?

Example: Can you show the millions of years of evolution process so I could observe it? Takes to much time don't it? Now why do you think that more than 50% of any evolution video is now animation? Animation is not needed where observable evidence is present. Think about it.



I have yet to see any evidence from either side of the issue that does not have questions that cannot be answered, or a flaw that cannot be solved. But this does not mean that either evidence is not viable. Does sit?

Suggestions again: please read past posts here so that you understand what's already been discussed. Topics which are fresh for you here aren't necessarily fresh for us. We've had a lot of discussions about what evolution is and how it is studied. RAZD wrote some threads about this.

And also, calling scientists liars, or deceived, really makes little difference: you still need to put your money where your mouth is. Find a thread to maker some specific claims backed up by evidence, otherwise you are doing nothing but making ad hominem remarks. You might also like to explain somewhere why the Bible should be taken as evidence that scientists are lying or deceived, which means explaining why what the Bible says should be believed over any empirical evidence. Thanks.

Would you kindly point out where in this thread I have made a snide remark, categorization and personal attack against you so that I may know not to offend you in future posts?

Thank you in advance!

The current moderator evidently supports creation but the name of the forum is Creation and Evolution. The name of the forum is not Creation, nor is it Creation and Creation. If I were an evolutionist and wished to host a forum for people to discuss both sides I would give it the same name. My personal stance on the debate, even as a moderator, is of little consequence to the forum I'm hosting. Moreover, the description of the forum ends with the question: What do you think? This is clearly an invitation for both sides to offer ... well ... what they think. You ask why evolutionists come here to post. The forum name asks what everyone thinks. Personally, I wouldn't ask someone what they think if I didn't want an answer.

It is clear that you think evolutionists should not be posting here -- or at the very least you are questioning their motives for doing so. Having said that, there are forums out there for creationists to discuss amongst themselves exclusively. I would encourage you to seek one out if evolutionists debating here bothers you. Because unless the current moderator changes the forum name (and fat chance of that!) you can expect to hear both sides of the debate.

Do those of you who are atheist or even strict evolutionists think we have spirits? Souls? (The combination of our spirits and bodies...) Do you think after we die its just over? Ever lost loved ones? How do you look at those things?

I was an atheist and didn't believe in souls, but then I had a near death experience after being extremely ill (I really feel it was more of a complete death and rebirth experience though, as I didn't get near death I went beyond death and came back) and my whole life changed. I know god quite directly...never had to pick up the bible to know him(though I have after the fact)...but I still do believe in evolution.

I believe in many of the holy texts of India and not just in the bible though, and many other sources state the world to be much older than the bible does.

After giving the creationist viewpoint some serious consideration my belief didn't change at all, and I'm very open to new ideas.

I will say that I don't think evolution could ever happen without god, as I don't believe anything inert or alive could exist without having a source.

Who knows though...I've changed so much in the past 6 years that some day I could believe in strict creationism...but as of yet I certainly haven't been convinced. I really don't think it matters much either way though, as I believe your personal connection to god, and not the idea of how we got here, is much more important.

That is really neat GD...about your near death (or death) experience. Have you ever read Return From Tomorrow? This guy died for over 10 mins. I think, and he remembers the experience in great detail. It would be interesting to find your take on things after that in more depth. I just know that one day all things will be revealed... and it will not contradict what has already been revealed.

Does evolution ever save anyone? Where are the evolution revivals where people come to God because evolution was preached? Where are the theistic evolutionist missionaries?

jn 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

The reason evolution can never do this regardless of what you believe. Is that God is not in it. God has the drawing power to the Son. Which means all things that draw people to Christ first have to be approved of by Father God.

What evidence would you accept? Temporal only? Not my problem that you do not have the senses to see beyond the physical. But then again, that is how you would control a debate is by dictating to the rest of us how the debate will progress. And what evidence is allowed.

If you can only confine my search to this thread then you are hiding what you really do. Makes no difference to me if you feel the need to be right on this issue about your posts in this thread.

I have to wholeheartedly agree with Ik.

I have posted on this forum much information about the ability for mankind to deceive himself. I have clearly pointed out (to LL especially) that knowing ourselves is a first step to understanding just how deceptive we can be towards ourselves. Reading the Bible is a great way to begin knowing ones-self.

I have pointed out that this is at the heart of the problem we are speaking about on this thread.

For example, if you want to create a following of people and make some money, you need only to produce something that appeals to people. This is pretty easy to do.

For example, make and sell really good fudge and you'll make some money. This is why every store in the world puts hundreds of candy bars (etc.) in the checkout lane; Because all you need is a suggestion of what already appeals to your nature and you will bite, and this is especially for children because they have not achieved maturity (mastery over their nature) as adults have (or should have).

Furthermore, we all know that candy is bad for us, but (some of ) we eat it anyway because we weigh the consequences (or not) or deny, whichever is easier (requires less energy, i.e., denial).

The Bible, on the other hand, is the opposite. It does not appeal to our "nature". Instead, it appeals to the spirit, closely associated with our intellect.

The Bible explains that there is war between the spirit and flesh (the battle between the heart and the mind) and part of our "job" here in this life is to grow up and overcome the desires of the flesh. We should mature, acquiring a "new nature" that comes with the knowledge of spiritual things.


"For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other..."
(Galatians 5:17)


The fleshly desires are centered around self...


"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."

(Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].)


Spiritual desires center around what the Bible calls the "fruits of the Spirit", and is good for the whole, focusing on others:


"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law."
(Galatians 5:22-23)


Now, how many of these attributes do you see in children. Few, right?

Why?

Because they have not achieved maturity. Unfortunately, neither do many adults.

What a place the world would be if all people worked to achieve the fruits of the spirit.

Now, over time, this war evolves into a physical reality of grand proportion.

Why?


"From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?"
(James 4:1)


Over time, those who are intent on making more money, achieving more power, satisfying more of their fleshly desires, step on the toes of those who want to live simply, purely, and in the Spirit. These toes represent freedoms and God-given rights.

Eventually, those who "desire" begin to oppress those who have achieved (some degree) of maturity, and so you have the world condition. In fact, those who are not spiritually mature often war against others who are not mature.

On a more personal level, the individuals who live in denial and those who are not prone to denial begin to become repugnant to each other. The mature desire self-sufficiency and self-governing through personal responsibility and respect for rights of others (focus on the benefit of the whole—constitutional republic). The immature lean toward all-sharing, powerful peace-keeping government, and negotiable (as punishment) rights in exchange for a strong peace-keeping government (focus on self-indulgence-communism).

(Ironically, the outward stated position of communism—benefit of the whole—turns out to be exactly the opposite of what it is marketed to be.)

The mature recognize their own (and other's) selfish nature and work to improve themselves, buffering themselves thereby needing little (small) government.

The immature, not recognizing their selfish nature believe that all are good and therefore are all too willing to impute much power into government.

In the current political world, these two opposing natures are used to divide people by nurturing and focusing on their differences. Those who divide the people use this division to overcome the middle class by bankrupting government and removing industry (manufacturing).

Finally, when the middle class is gone, you end up with Red China: A large, powerful, oppressive government lording over bike-riding, stone-throwing peasants. The middle class has been removed as they present the only formidable force against a large, corrupt, greedy, "immature" government. The "lording" government explains away the misfortunes (bankruptcies, devaluation, etc.) as being by natural processes when in reality, they have been manipulated to produce this result.

So long as the social programs continue to provide bribeous handouts to (a sector of) the masses, (a sector of) the masses continue to enjoy the free ride and continue to vote for those who promise to keep it coming.

This is our current condition. This is the reason for the 2-party system. This is the reason for the mountains of false scientific evidence supporting evolution:

Because knowledge of the Bible and the rights and personal empowerment is affords to people is counterproductive to the purpose of creating large, powerful, centralized government.

I have recently stated that evolution is only a social control, and I mean exactly that. So long as masses of people remain in a state in which they don't understand their own nature and they don't understand the remedy for it and the great benefits afforded by the remedy (stated directly—so long as the masses don't know who they could be), they will continue in a poor and oppressed condition, a condition that is especially beneficial to powerful land owners, multinational corporations, and international bankers, the same vast minority who work so hard to keep this liberating knowledge of the Bible from us (or to discredit it).

The Bible provides the liberation from this condition, but so long as those controlling the mass media keep (some of) us ignorant of the Bible by misinformation and slander, (some of) us will continue to live a life without knowing the great benefits of personal-responsibility, and these will, without fully realizing the far-reaching effects of their own personal denial, be used to oppress those who have chosen to (and have had the courage to) know the truth and to face ourselves.

Evolution is nothing more than candy in the candy store, and the store owner is more than happy to keep selling it to us. So until we are mature enough to cease our feasting and quit our denial, we will continue be fat and to live a life lacking the quality, vibrancy, and purpose that we could enjoy if only we would buy from the vegetable stand.


"An old Cherokee is teaching his grandson about life. "A fight is going on inside me," he said to the boy.

"It is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves. One is evil - he is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego." He continued, "The other is good - he is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith. The same fight is going on inside you - and inside every other person, too."

The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather, "Which wolf will win?"

The old Cherokee simply replied, "The one you feed.""


"Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed."
(John 8:31-36)

Hi, Jeanie!

You seem to be inferring that atheists and evolutionists fall into one category -- or at the very least share parallel beliefs. I don't find this to be true at all. Evolution no more invalidates religion than does gravity. Evolution could very well be the method of creation with which one's god or gods chooses to employ. I don't see any reason why evolution and religion oppose one another. Not for one second. Consequently, I don't see why even the "strictest" of evolutionists can't be, for example, a devout Christian or Shinto. And that should be all the answer one needs as regards their thoughts on the concept of spirits and the soul.

I have absolutely nothing to hide nor am I "really doing anything" other than taking part in a healthy debate. True, I make my fair share of sarcastic comments and, admittedly, two wrongs do not make a right. Despite this, you'll note that my sarcasm is limited to posts where sarcasm is already steered in my direction.

So, in the case of this particular thread and toyou as a poster in general, I have not made one snide remark, categorization or personal attack. Indeed, I am not guilty of the latter two accusations whatsoever in any thread or against any poster. For example, I never say things like "Oh you creationists are all alike". i.e., categorization. Nor have I ever ostracized an individual poster rather than their argument. i.e., personal attack.

Again I encourage you to look at the arguments being made in this forum and try and tackle them (rather than trying to tackle the poster or getting emotionally upset). If you'd care to debate fairly and openly, I'll swear never to make even the subtlest of snide remarks (to you or any poster for that matter) provided you in turn focus on the information being presented in the argument and not the individual themself. Put aside your illustrious contempt and enmity for other posters and let's have a conversation about evolution and creation. I am more than willing!

What sort of evidence for creationism would be acceptable-? If you are claiming it is a science, then scientific evidence is needed. Not lecutres about the "evils" of evolution, not more lectures (Russ) saying "know thyself" etc.

There are plenty of theists in the world. The vast majority of them are peace-loving, well-meaning people. And their views do not conflict with the discoveries of science. What we're looking at in this particular forum is the belief some people have that their faith requires them to claim that the earth is 6000 years old and that all life was created as it is now.

As I've stated elsewhere, if you want to call this "creation science," and if you want it taught in schools, then you need to show how it is science. There is no logic in then claiming that it should be exempt from the scientific method, which includes presenting evidence for claims.

Now if you're happy to call creationism a religion, and to say that everything is a miracle of God, then I doubt if many people would try to argue with you. What I find particularly objectioniable is the fact that if I lived in certain states in the US, my child might get a science teacher who wants to teach creationism as a valid alternative to evolution.

If this really is what you want, then you need to show it's a valid alternative. Evidence for that here is lacking so far.

Pwcca, Jeanie was just wondering about what people would believe in, whether they were atheist or strict evolutionist, if they didn't believe in the soul. I don't think she was trying to lump everyone together at all, just curious about how other people cope with life if they didn't believe in a higher purpose.

As someone who didn't believe in souls/god earlier in life and I do believe in them now, I do realize that my life lacked a lot of meaning about the after death part. I believed before that dying was just like a deep sleep you never woke up from. Needless to say if I believed that when I became very mercury toxic I would have just killed myself because the prospect of sleeping forever doesn't sound that bad.

Heya.

Yeah, I know. I didn't mean to imply that she was necessarily lumping them together in one category as such. However, by aiming the question at evolutionists it directly infers that they may very likely be alongside atheists in this belief system.

I don't mean to quibble it's just that this forum is a haven for the assumption that evolution contradicts religion and this is just simply not the case.

I never said evolution saved people, but I personally do believe evolution can contain god as its an active dynamic process in which life becomes more intelligent and adapted to this world.

Anyone who is really inquisitive will start questioning the bigger picture, such as why was I born and whats going to happen after I die, regardless if they are only taught evolution.

Experience of the divine is more important than any words or belief in your origin. Words are an ok substitute until you get real experience of the holy father, but words can only inform and make you form beliefs when experience will transform you and make you know the truth, not just believe in it. This is the different between a saint and a preacher, and I will only trust in saints who I believe have had a lot of direct contact with the lord and not just book learning. Believing in evolution has never blocked god from reaching me which is why I don't participate in the whole evolution/creation debate much as that is not the important issue.

GDawson - pretty profound words there. I really would like to hear about your experience even if in private... It must be very sacred to you. I haven't died, but have felt I have known God all my life - sometimes more than others. I have felt His love from early on, though. Sometimes I think we can get caught up in the fear of Him but He is pure love. The plan is completely fair...

Well that's good, it means you are not dishing it out unless it is dished at you first. That shows more maturity on your part than some posters here who think this forum should be an anything goes forum.

I apologize if I categorize you with immature people.

Does not evolution also speak of the evils of Christians? If you think not I can leave several links to evolutionist sites and forums that will correct that.

Separating the parts of creation that make creation what it is, is like me telling you that you cannot speak about millions of years of time, or abiogenesis while expressing how evolution works. Evolution without abiogenesis is like creation without a Creator.

Also I have notice that even though I make sure to try and answer every point in your posts, you do not do the same with mine. So either you show me the respect I show you by answering each part, or like you I will ignore most of what you say.

Ah! Then the ones that are not lying are deceived. Of course those PHD biologists, geologists, physicists and astronomers are too stupid to figure out that the few lying scientists are giving out false information. These people have only reached the pinacle of their chosen fields so we can't expect that they'd actually know anything at all about their profession. Surely, they can't know as much as a Christian school science teacher, or you who excelled in....I'm sorry, I didn't pick up on what your profession was.

No matter....I'm sure you know much more about the geologic arrangement of the crust of our planet than any of those geologists working for the oil companies, or mining companies.

I'm sure that your work allows you much more access to genetic research than those imbeciles that based their disertations on it.

So Muslims don't sin against Christ by believing that He is not the Savior nor the Son of God? I assume that depends on what you mean by the word "know". Does "know" mean to comprehend or does it mean to just hear about something?

If they don't understand the truth can God condemn them? What does the bible say about this?

Yet the process of evolution was used to predict new fossils that would be found and what sedimentary layer they would be found.
Additionally, the field of genetics confirmed the relatedness of the animals that evolution biologists stated would be closely related.

Creation Science Theory has made what predictions, exactly?

The Biblical creation supports:

1) Mutation.
2) Micro-evolution.
3) Speciation.

This is all a part of kind creation. If a bird changes, but still remains in the "bird" kind, it is not deviating from the reproduction commandments that God gave during His creation of all life upon this planet. And all of this supported changes within a kind is the only processes of change that can be observed.

It does not how ever support macro-evolution of species becoming another total different life form. And this process cannot be observed either. And never will be. Why? How can one observe a process that is claimed to take millions of years?



The problem with this way of thinking is that you make it sound as if someone who believes in something has to totally believe everything that is said. Which makes all said ideas and theories unfalsifiable.

The other part is that you have a conflict in who you will allow your master of direction to be.

Example: Creation and evolution are opposites. So when it comes to the conflict between the two, you have to decide who is lying, and who is telling the truth.

Which by the way, make both beliefs combined into a oxymoron that makes no sense.

Nice combo. Double standard & misdefining a term, all in one small package.

Deception and lies = empirical evidence? That sounds familiar, actually. I may have to take a peek at some of the old threads myself.

In the meantime, I doubt there ever has been or ever will be much conflict between the Bible and observations. Most folks don't define 'evidence' as "the conclusions of evolutionists", but RAZD has started a trend around here.

Using private definitions in this manner is deceptive.Evidence is lacking?
http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=34879#Post34879 sure indicates otherwise.

I followed up with a little more detailed look at radiohalo evidence. http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=34908#Post34908

LindaLou...

Well, LindaLou has a limited set of responses to evidence.
1.) Call it "Pratt"
2.) Ad Hom
3.) Try to change the subject, usually by claiming that the "mountains of evidence for evolution haven't been addressed, and must be immediately"
4.) Fail to see it

I have attributed #4 to evogoggles, but she says this is in error. At the moment, I'm evaluating the other possibilities, but the evogoggles hypothesis looks pretty strong.

We have conducted extensive experiments, and each time the subject encounters evidence, we see the same responses. Our sample size is quite large, so I'm confident our results can be reproduced.

You forgot the option that creation occurred and evolution is the means by which God got it done.

If you don't believe that is an option, could you explain why it must be ruled out?

I see you have ruled out the combination of the two. I assume you have a better explanation of why you decided to limit God's capability than that it is an oxymoron.

That's cool Pwcca...I'm just trying to understand where you guys are coming from. I'm glad its not an atheistic viewpoint in general.

I really do wonder, though, how some of you do make sense of the soul with regards to just coming into existence....those of you who do think that.

Just some notes, ikester7579:

Good, then we are agreed about evolution (the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation) always occurring within species (and hence being microevolution), and we are also in agreement about descent from common ancestors (dogs will always be descended from dogs, speciation always occurs within the same "kind" as it is the division of a parent population into two or more daughter populations.

We may disagree over how far back you can go and how many original common ancestors were involved, but we are in agreement about the process from that point forward.

We are also in agreement about this too: biological evolutionists (the ones actually involved in the science of evolution) due not support a species evolving into "another total different life form" ... leaving aside for the nonce the question of how different is different ...

It may surprise (though it shouldn't) some people to find that evolution does not claim that, for example, there was a single dinosaur species one generation and birds the next.

Seeing as we both agree that this "process" does not occur, why would we expect to observe it?

What we both expect to occur is:

And not only should we expect to see this, we actually do. Frequently. Every organism has mutations, DNA they did not inherit from their parent, and every generation of every species shows changes in hereditary traits in their populations from the previous generation. There are also several instances of speciation that have been recorded, not surprisingly these are a bit more rare than just plain old evolution within a species, as it usually takes some other mechanism to cause reproductive isolation, and a few generations of reproductive isolation to qualify, but it happens.

This of course raises the questions of when\how do "total differences" occur, which raises the question of what you mean by "total differences" and ultimately this gets down to the question of what qualifies as "enough difference" to satisfy a creationist that "macroevolution" has occurred. Evolutionary scientists are satisfied that "macroevolution" has occurred when speciation has occurred: there is "enough difference" for reproductive isolation to be maintained.

Part of the problem is what is "different enough" - can it be quantified?

Are a kangaroo and a rabbit different enough? Both are vegetarians with large hind feet that jump away from predators ...

What about sugar gliders and flying squirrels?

Yet strangely the kangaroo and the sugar glider share more common genes, than either with rabbits or flying squirrels, and rabbits and flying squirrels share more common genes that either with kangaroos or sugar gliders. Curiously the fossil record also shows common ancestors between kangaroo and sugar glider and between rabbit and flying squirrel than between these two groups (marsupials and placental mammals).

This is one example among many of "convergent evolution" ... all of which shows that "difference" is not a good measure of diversity.

ummmmm ... not really: the concepts and theories can still be falsified, it's just that this fact isn't recognized by the person who "totally believes" the concept/theory/whatever ... and this process is known by the term cognitive dissonance (where the falsification evidence is rejected ... along with anyone associated with it ... in order to maintain the (total) belief).

Exactly: cognitive dissonance. Which will it be, reality or belief?

Example version #2: Creation and evolution are not opposites, but two parts of the same process.

Yes, when it comes down to a conflict between one concept and another, the question comes down to how you validate truth, what do you use to test what is a lie and what is the truth.

A rather obvious signal that there is something wrong with the precepts. If the logical structure is valid and the conclusion is a contradiction, then one (or more) of the precepts is false.

In this case we see that version #2 does not result in this contradiction, therefore it is a more likely valid precept than the other version.

So logic can be used as one test of validity. An ancient band (Aristotle and the Greeks?) went large on this approach. Can you think of others?

Enjoy.

And then you would be pushing "theistic evolution". Which is a oxymoron belief.



No problem. Evolution is the direct opposite of creation (I'll leave a list further down). So it denies creation by a Creator totally. It leaves no room for when sin happened. It leaves no room for when man obtained a soul (how did the soul evolve?). And it leaves no reason for Christ to come to earth to die for our sins. And because God is the Alpha and Omega, evolution denies God's Alpha by denying His Creation of all life and the universe. And if God has no Alpha, He has no Omega, and therefore cannot exist.

Here is the list of opposites:

C: Earth before sun.
E: Sun before earth.

C: Oceans before land.
E: Land before oceans.

C: Light before sun.
E: Sun before light.

C: Fish before insects.
E: Insects before fish.

C: Plants before sun.
E: Sin before plants.

C: Bird before reptiles.
E: Reptiles before birds.

C: Man was created from solid matter.
E: Man evolved from liquid matter.

C: All life came from both solid and liquid matter.
E: All life came from liquid matter only.

C: All life must reproduce within a kind.
E: All life must reproduce and evolve outside of their kind.

C: God created man.
E: Man created God (out of need).

C: Man brought death into the world through sin.
E: Death brought man into the world through evolution.

C: God gave man a soul that could be saved.
E: Man has no soul that can be saved.

C: God exist in a spiritual dimension.
E: There are only temporal dimensions.

C: There is good and evil.
E: There is no good or evil because we do what we have to so that we can survive.

C: There is eternity.
E: There is no eternity.

Etc...

The main reason that Evolution is the direct opposite of creation starts with what happened to Darwin on the Beagle. When he stepped on board, he was a Christian with a degree in theology. He even pondered becoming a missionary.

While on broad he read a book written by a Bible scoffer named Charles Lyle. In Lyle's book, he constantly took pot shots at the Biblical creation in explaining his idea of the geologic column. By the middle of the voyage Darwin's faith was weakened. By the end of the voyage he was pretty much an atheist.

When Lyle died Darwin said:

And later Darwin expressed his atheism by making this comment about the Bible:



In 1876, in his Autobiography, Darwin wrote,



In 1880, in reply to a correspondent, Charles wrote,

Evolution was Darwin's Answer to what he suspected as God's betrayal (lie). So in order to make it his type of revenge against God for this, almost every aspect had to be the direct opposite of God's creation. How else could one explain how someone could write a theory that was the direct opposite on every issue of creation unless they were actually using the Bible to make sure that it was?

The list above is 15 things and is not all of the list. How do you get 15 out of 15 opposite unless it was planned that way?

Now you look at how these opposites are used everyday to attack a Christian's faith. Now would you not say that Darwin got his perfect revenge?

Ikester, it would be helpful if you could make your claims about "kinds" in one of the threads about the ark. The one about "how did Noah fit all those animals on the ark" would seem appropriate. Otherwise, as has been the case here many times, comments on other subjects get lost in the shuffle. This may be why you seem to be finding it tricky to discover past conversations here about subjects you are raising. The "search" facility here can be helpful.



Man, I'm just in awe at the chip you've got on your shoulder. Going around with so much anger inside of you can't be pleasant. You of course are aware that evolution is the change in hereditary traits over time. So no, it does not speak of the evils of Christians. In fact, the last poll I looked at said that 40% of US scientists were theists. Most of them, being in the US, will be Christian.



No thanks, I'm not interested in people exchanging hate messages. Maybe you've encountered some and maybe that's why you're so angry, I don't know. I'm sure there are immature evolutionists out there just like there are other immature people. But there's certainly no need for it, because comments with evidence are all that's required in a debate. In my experience it tends to be creationists who stray away from this and get frustrated because the evidence isn't there to support them, but any creationist willing to present evidence for their views here is quite welcome to do so and I'd eat my socks if any evolutionist here reacted in anger.



What do you mean by "separating the parts of creation"?

Abiogenesis is a separate theory from evolution. We can see a great deal of evidence that life has evolved. That's the pure and simple, and it's still going on today. If abiogenesis were falsified it would not change the fact that we have evidence of life having evolved. It is possible that life started with self-replicating molecules but you're welcome to speculate as much as you like. Abiogenesis does not yet have the volume of evidence supporting it that evolution does; a lot of work is still to be done in that area.



You really are a charmer, thank you very much

Actually, I have a new teaching job starting in 3 weeks' time and I have 9 classes to prepare. I also have a daughter to look after during the summer holidays. Forgive me if I can't spend hours addressing every point in your long posts. I don't feel a need to address long spews of ad hominem remarks for a start. But if you'd like to try to be a little more succinct, I will do my best to respond to what you say, and do let me know if you feel I've missed out anything important.

You are very fortunate that evolution has never blocked God from reaching you and that's wonderful. However, don't be deceived in assuming this is the case for all others, because it is evidentally not the case. Many have had their faith eroded over time due to evolution. Some may not succumb, others more vulnerable often do. I would not consider belief in origins unimportant....Consider this quote carefully -



If the foundations are rocky (unstable) - put in doubt, or in conflict with another- it can impact it to such an extent, that the rest of it can eventually topple down. The reason for our hope, is in the word of God (the Good News of salvation), which connects and follows on from what happened in the beginning. Grass roots Christianity. The one that doesn't simply rely on one being "swept away by "feel good" spiritual feelings", but rather grounded in the word, truth, which which the Holy Spirit Himself inspired and what our beliefs rest upon. One cannot build castles upon sand and expect them to remain standing.

Now, if we cannot really trust the things proposed in the beginning, pointed out clearly, directly in plain language....(that the rest of the word stands upon) what then do we rest our faith upon?



Jesus Himself has through scripture, referred to the old testament truths and confirmed them (re-affirmed). He knew the necessity of one supporting/affirming the other.



Here too we see in 1 Timothy

As Ikester has listed, the beliefs of Evolution and Creation are polar opposites. I have also listed the same somewhere in a previous post. The same argument frequently comes up "evolution can be reconciled with creation". This is not even honest, let alone plausible. Either one must make a liar out of God, or a liar out of man with this belief. Consider that God created all things in the beginning, GOOD. Our world, according to God, did not arise out of many years of death/suffering and evolution. Rather it began as He intended (perfect). Free from the effects of sin, death did not exist. What kind of God would create the world from the getgo with death and suffering, if nobody had yet exercised their free will? It was DISOBEDIENCE, that brought the curse. And the disobedience came from two people who had FULL knowledge of right and wrong. Degenerates they were not. Nor were they half evolved creatures, with half evolved knowledge. They were perfect in form and intellect, made in the image of God. These were the first two people God Himself created and God being perfect and unlimited, hardly needed a rough copy! or a drawing board to sit around and wait for it all to evolve over millions of years of death and suffering, since He Himself tells us all things were created good. Rather, it is original sin that has set the path for degeneration as time has gone on. Ageing, sickness/suffering, death, survival of the "fittest" are the result, NOT the starting point.

That's if one believes in God at all and His word. It makes perfect sense, since it lines up for Christ's reason for coming and dying on a cross, reconciling us with the Father.

What our two first parents did, has been remedied by Christ, and the invitation to each and every human being is there and available for all (without exception).

Then I guess we don't have much to talk about if that is how you feel about everything I say. If what I say is a waste of your time, then what you say is also a waste of my time. That is what you implied when you said: address long spews of ad hominem remarks. No problem.

I'll ignore you like I ignore RADZ. The rest of your post I'll ignore to let you see how it feels when someone treats what you say as if it means nothing. Because I was going to explain why I have the attitudem but since it would be considered long spews of ad hominem remarks, I'm not wasting my time.

If you look at what I said, I said you do make a lot of ad hominem remarks. I've ignored these for the most part and have pulled out points which seemed to be relevant to the topic under discussion. Since you've come here you've graced this forum with some long passages about how evolutionists are evil, ungodly deceivers. This has something to do with the topic of evolution, or science in general . . . how? And why would you expect me to respond to these kinds of comments? I'm not interested in name-calling, it's a pointless waste of time.

In all honesty I asked you to let me know if you feel I omitted something which you think is important. If you would rather play childish games of "I'm not paying attention to you" then you're going to run out of evolutionists to talk to here, which would put you in rather an odd position.

It would really be refreshing if our conversations could focus on the subjects themselves, and evidence. You seem to get very caught up with emotions and wanting to demonise evolutionists including those here with whom you've only been speaking (or purportedly ignoring) for a few days. Like I said, I don't know why you're so angry, but instead of taking it out on us here maybe you'd like to try having a civil, respectful debate? If the whole subject gets you so worked up, why do you seek out more of the kinds of people you seem to hate in order to get into more disagreements with them?

Ah! So, according to you, God cannot use natural processes to accomplish His goals.

Nowhere in the theory of evolution is the existence of God denied. Sin happened the first time for the same reason it happens now...we have free will. Because sin happens and God decided that Christ must be sacrificed in order for God to forgive those sins, Christ had to be the sacrifice.

"Alpha" stands for "beginning" and "Omega" stands for "ending". If evolution did truly happen as put forth in the theory, how does that prevent Christ from being the Beginning and the Ending? Please be specific in your answer.



Basically, your reasoning is that evolution does not line up with your interpretation of the Bible in that you believe the Genesis account is actual history and not a story that explains the nature of God and the existence of death and the evils of this world.


The loss of faith by an individual in the face of facts that appear to contradict his beliefs is not a testament to the "antiGodness" of those facts.



People use the fact that storms hurt and kill people all over the world as an excuse to attack the Christian's faith. Do you deny the existence of storms, their effect on populations, or the science of meteorology? The misuse of something to attack your faith says nothing about it's existence or truth.

You expect the plan of God for the salvation of the world to be destroyed if Christians accept the theory of evolution? I guess you only read Psalms 11:3 and not the rest.



Psalm 11 is about the steadfastness of the Lord toward the righteous in the face of attacks of the enemy.


Did Moses write Genesis?

He also knew that a story did not have to be historically accurate in order to convey a spiritual truth...hence the parables.



That would be Paul, not Jesus. It also does not reference the means by which God chose to create the universe, the world, and everything. It just tells how denying that God created the universe is foolish and can lead to reprobate behavior.

What translation are you using to put the word "science" in this place? Here's what my Bibles have where you put "science"

New International Version: knowledge
New American Standard: knowledge
Amplified Bible: knowledge and spiritual illumination
New Living Translation: knowledge
King James: science
English Standard: knowledge
Young's Literal Translation: knowledge.

What does Strong's say the word is? The Greek word is "gnosis". Strong's says it could mean knowledge, spiritual knowledge or science. The English used when the King James version was translated, had "science" and "knowledge" as interchangeable words.
Add to this the fact that 1 Tim is about how the teaching of the church is to be conducted, and it seems rather clear that Paul is not writing about the conduct of astronomy or biology.

So men cannot be wrong in their interpretation of the Bible without being liars?


So you say that death is not GOOD. Then God ordering the death of the Midianites was an Evil thing? I thought God didn't practice evil?
Additionally, which part of God's curse, as stated in Genesis, says that death is one of the things God had to add to the world? A quote from the Bible would be your best support for this.

God said Adam would die on the day he ate of the fruit. But Adam didn't die on that day. So, what was this "death" that Adam brought into the world, apparently not physical death since that would make God a liar.

Please support your contention that the "death" brought into this world by the first sin is actually physical death. Bible passages are the preferred method of support in this case.


And if there really wasn't a tree of the knowledge(science?) of good and evil, then sin doesn't exist and Christ was unnecessary? I don't see the logical leap here.

Hmmm...I guess with is why I don't believe in creationism. It just doesn't make sense to me even after seeing all that I've seen. I really feel that many parts of the bible (old testament) are symbolic to mans nature but I personally don't believe they should be interpreted literally. When one has deep spiritual visions they are crammed with symbolism...anyone who has visions or even dreams can tell you this...and a lot of the old testament was recorded by people who have had grand visions of god.

Anyway...Thanks Linear, your responses in this thread have been consistently pointing out what I thought should be pointed out, so I appreciate you saving me the time .

Regarding the adherance to religious scripture, I stumbled into a wonderful quote by sheer happenstance last night when reading a book by Stephen Laberge. In it a chapter begins with a very sound piece of advice.



I believe that it is the failure to recognize this by creationists and/or biblical literalists (if I can coin such a term) that leads them to frequent displays of emotion, avoidance of information and ultimate frustration in these discussions - as is witnessed by numerous such posters here.

If a divine being stood before me now and presented me with a magick tome, instructing me to not only abide by it but also indicated that all truth comes from it and nowhere else and then if I were later to find that evidence before my very eyes contradicted what this .. "entity" .. had written, what choice would I have but to accept the newer, more compelling (not to mention visible) evidence?

I seem to have missed reading a whole page here. I'd never read the comments you've replied to, Linear. Sometimes when I click on a thread it seems to take me to the most recent page of posts and I don't always notice that there are previous new posts on a previous page.

Nice quotation, Pwcca. Buddhism contains a lot of wisdom.

Frequent displays of emotion have been expressed on both sides, so not sure what your point is on that one....I guess once again in an attempt to discredit the opposition? Perhaps you feel any display of "emotion" means it's not true? Hmmmm, well I'd think very carefully then about evolution if that's the case. We've seen strong displays of emotion from most on this forum and this is to be expected in any debate. Whether political, religious, scientific, etc etc. So once again, you've failed to make any point except your ongoing need to provoke.

I agree with you on the next paragraph. I would be very careful to take anybody's "word" for it, which is why we're debating on this forum right? All visions require testing also, even if they appear to come from God Himself. Theories also require testing. One needs to have something to test it by, if you do not have that, what do you have? Absolutely nothing. There has to be the truth and what you believe that"truth" is, will be your testing rod. We believe the truth is God's word. The fact you don't agree really makes no difference at all. When I look around me, I see evidence of design, not chance random processes that are responsible for this, as all things are run by laws/order. It is also common sense. I also see the evidence in God's word in my own life, and other people's lives. The events in the bible, I believe to be actual events. You may not, that's your belief, you've chosen not to. Your ideas of evidence, may not be shared by ours.

I, too, am unsure of Pwcca's intent in pointing out our tendency to snap at each other in defense of our beliefs. Since he has tended to be on my side I probably overlook what you see as provocative behavior. However, not much as I overlook and justify my own behavior. I could learn a lot from Christ's example, as could we all.

I also see design. Our disagreement is in how this design was put into place. Industrial Engineers design the means by which things are made. They don't design the item itself but their intellect provides for its assembly.
Chemical engineers design the means by which processes are manipulated to produce complex chemical compounds from extremely simple substances. They don't make the substances react, but put the environment around those substances in such a state that the complex compounds are formed. For me, God is the ultimate engineer. He made everything by putting into place a few simple physical relationships which he knew would result in us.

Is the change in your life due to your adherence to the historical accuracy of Genesis or is it really due to the teachings of Christ concerning your relationship with God and other human beings? Almost all of the changes in people who become believers are in their perception of themselves, their relationship with God and their renewed relationship with others. Do these changes really depend on the six-day creation being something more than a parable or fable?

True, we all do it. I think the tendency to overlook the behaviours of those on the same side is also typically human, because you got "allies" in a sense when someone is on your own "team". Childish as it sounds, adults aren't any better! Yep, totally agree, everyday is a challenge to be more Christ-like and most of us fail often. It takes humility to admit that. Your comments are appreciated.



Hmmm. I'm not sure Linear, because for me, I always believed in His word from beginning to end....which may have seemed "naive" to some who feel it's just not "intellectual" enough to be true. But for me? I always saw God's word as being clear and plain for all (children/adults alike), though admittedly there are areas that we could all debate about.

Though at one time I doubted after hearing evolution, so in my mind, I then decided that God must have had the appearance of an ape like creature (this is the child's reasoning I had, because I was only a kid). I did not doubt God at all, so somehow, in my childlike mind, I then tried to fit in this view with God's word. I remained somewhat confused, didn't look into it further (just a kid), but again kept coming back to God's word (as stated) prevailing (for me). It is a challenge to anybody's faith and something a person will have to figure out themselves (with prayer). Someone else may make the decision to feel that it was not done exactly as stated and perhaps they have problems fitting it into the world view.... (but I had no problem at all fitting it in). I saw no reason not to, considering the world around me in all it's laws/order/design, rather confirmed it, than opposed it....that's how I saw it and still do.

But again, this was not a conversion for me. I called myself a Christian simply because I believed in Christ, but did not understand much more. I didn't take God's word seriously at all. I just decided what was right according to what "I" decided. Or what I felt was relevant to the "Times". without considering God Himself and HIs word are the same now and forever. Took much more than that (occult dabbling/involvement) and unfortunate experiences that chastened me a lot. Treating God a bit like an "accident/emergency God", only there when things got bad...eventually I found this wasn't working so well and my experiences with the occult became frightening and not something I could get myself back out of. I tried other means, they failed miserably. Then, I decided to get more serious with God (everything else had let me down) and the problems were almost IMMEDIATELY resolved. I have also had other frightening experiences to where the name of Jesus was finally used by me in desperation and again, incredible response. Now this is not with everyday suffering! He's allowed me to go through more than I care to discuss on here. So much so, that it was very very difficult for me to believe in Him many times in my life. I have turned away from Him more than once and became almost a total atheist, but somehow, not sure what, there was spark that remained and I didn't put it out completely. I realised without Him, the deadness I THOUGHT I felt was increased substantially. So much so, I felt like the walking dead. Perhaps others do not experience this, but I did.



Well, anything is possible Linear. Perhaps we will all be surprised to find out exactly how it was done and what exactly happened and it will then make perfect sense. But for me? At this time? I have no issues believing and taking God at His word in exactly as stated. It may "seem" foolish, but as none of us were there or have seen what exactly happened, I have n issue believing it as is. I know God can do anything and can do so immediately in just the way stated in the bible if He chooses. I don't see that as being "beyond" Him, since nothing is beyond Him. It says 6 days....I have no issue believing exactly that. Since His power can produce instant miracles, OR slower acting ones.....6 hours wouldn't be beyond Him had He wished to do it that way, 6 thousand years wouldn't if he chose to do it that way. I believe in the 7 day week (6 days of work, one day rest) just as God set the example for us from the beginning. HOwever, one could claim that God's week was "different" from ours and on a scale we cannot quite fathom. AGain, I'm not sure and until I find out for certain, I accept His word as given, since everything else in His word is accepted by faith. No, not brain washing, because I have been a cynical person too and don't accept all I'm told either. But the power of Christ has been felt and experienced by me at different times in my life. Also, witness to a supernatural miracle overseas, seen by thousands has been profound. But I also believe investigating the "stories" in the bible, which have been done, and it seems there are evidences that what was told, may have been exactly that! Depends on what the person takes onboard as being evidence or not.

So yes, I believe in an awesome God and I see nothing as being beyond Him. I do know one thing, humans are limited and flawed and bias. Interpretations/evidences are so often changed due to finding out more. The more we know? The more we find out we don't know. I figure it's an awesome mind blowing universe and one I believe has an awesome purposeful/intelligent, design behind it. How one believes that came into being, is really up to us. We have a brain/intellect which we should use. But I think we too often forget that intellect (which is flawed) can sometimes override what God whispers to the spirit at times....

This is just my view Linear. Not something I expect everybody else to take onboard. But I do stand up for my belief and express it as others have done on here.

Ah! So according to you, you have no intention of honestly discussing issues here. That's exactly what you say each and every time you so blatantly try to pretend people have said things they haven't said.

That, and "everyone reading this forum is a complete moron."

We know from scripture God created "man" from the dust of the earth and breathed a living soul into Him. In fact, when we talk about "natural processes"... who created nature? How is it "unnatural" to believe things happened in just the way it was stated? If one believes in God, He created nature and nature is in subjection to Him. So what's so "unnatural" about believing in the scriptual account as is? God spoke and it was. He only has to SPEAK something into existing. If He's the Creator at all, He is not at all limited by "time", since He Himself created time. He has no beginning, nor an end. There is no reason why He required billions of years of evolution to achieve a thing. It seems scripture indicates immediate creation, or have I read it wrong? God spoke, and so it was. Did he have a billions of years "stutter"?

No offense, but I don't know if instantaneous creation can be written off so readily, as I see no reason why it could not have occured as God stated. Miracles/supernatural events are often instantaneous when it's God doing the work. He does not seem to require time, unless of course He allows a slower healing for reasons of His own.

According to the bible, God breathed life into the first two human beings and instructed them, and all other life to be fruitful and multiply (reproduce after their own kind). And all living things tend to gravitate to their own kind and do just that. You get deviations of course, perversions, but the majority follow the natural instinct/law implanted within us.

I honestly do not see the issue with this at all. Since nobody knows otherwise what took place in the beginning, is it not reasonable to assume that perhaps God was actually telling us the truth all along? I sure hope so, or if that's not the case, how can we then be sure of the promises of Christ? Or believe them in the way they are stated? One can see how compromise and uncertainty can start unravelling the entire thing. If one questions the Genesis account OR the way it was told, it is not unreasonable to assume it can then be done with Christ. This is how it can lead to confusion and in some cases disbelief.

Not all of course, some retain their faith in Christ irrespective of origin beliefs. I find that pretty astounding, but all power to them. You're correct though Linear, salvation is through the blood of Christ on the cross NOT genesis, but consider why it was done? Where did it begin? If one unravels or screws with the beginning, it can certainly do it to the rest. Some people aint quite so resilient! Since we do not know EXACTLY how things were done, we only have God's word as stated. I'd not shift too far from that if I were a Christian, as I will be held accountable for making statements that God did not make, nor were they hinted at. You might continue to believe and all power to you, but others can really have their faith undermined. We're all different and some can start to contemplate "if I cannot trust the first account as God told it, why then should I trust the way Christ told it?"

It can and does happen. And sadly unnecessarily too. There is no reason to doubt Him and the way He told it.

I have not seen posters like RAZD, LindaLou -- sorry, you seem to disagree with me on this one but you as well LinearAq -- lash out angrily when their statements or observations in a debate are under attack. I simply see them retort with information and logic. We all make comments from time to time and that's one thing, but a summary glance at any of SoSick's posts, the tongue-in-cheek bet I made regarding CTD and his inability to post politely, and our new fellow poster ikester7575 and his insatiable fury at ... I'm not exactly sure what ... are basically what I'm talking about here. People attacking the poster and not the post.

On many occasions I have to ask repeatedly to get an answer for something, often followed by making an entire post entitled by my question. I very well could be wrong but I translate this and the aforementioned anger as frustration due to the inability to answer all the questions. You have to understand that what the creationist side of the debate is saying is that they know more than scientists who have devoted their entire lives to studying these things (geology, etc.). And that may very well be possible. Maybe CTD really is so knowledged and has spent so much time out in the field that he's somehow discovered that every scientist is wrong and their entire foundation for learning has been one big farce -- and that they (the scientists) don't even know this! And if it is true, it simply takes a display of evidence. If I were so knowledged as this I would have no need to get upset every time I'm asked for evidence. I'd just say "Here, dude, check this out" and I'd show them what I'm talking about. Heck! I'd want them to know, want them to be on my side. So I certainly wouldn't say things like: oh you evil evolutionists! I wouldn't call LindaLou a pig or filth. I wouldn't time and time again call evolutionists atheists since the two are not one in the same.

You don't see the evolutionists in this forum make posts like: Christianity, the big lie. Or: Why are Christians so slow to give up their beliefs? Or: Creationists, why do you come to post in this forum when you're not welcome? Etc. Evolution has no need to disprove Christianity or any other religion for that matter.

Hi Pwcca, do you think we could get back to what we have been discussing on here, instead of provoking the very problem you're complaing about? Seriously, your posts do much to stir problems and are often full of bias anyway (something we've all seen frequently).....

You responded to my initial post on this thread with criticisms that didn't even match the intention I had, or how I even came across....I've re-read it and cannot figure out why you'd want to start something over it, when there was really nothing there to start it with. Over emotional?....I've re-read the post and can honestly not figure out the problem. I was expressing my view of biblical statements and how there are strong differences with evolution and the biblical creation account. What exactly did I say or do in that post to warrant you trying to start this?

I'm wondering actually if it irritates you when there is just not enough fighting? I was doing ok on this thread until now. Thank you! Why did you wish to renew problems between people on this thread I wonder?

I'm confused. Can anybody let me know please what in my initial post warranted this even starting from Pwcca? Or do we need to have accusations continually renewed because he's not satisfied with less fighting?

You don't think the title of this very thread is provoking enough? Can we get back to discussing what, exactly? That evolutionists are evil-doers and that their motives for coming to this forum (a forum devoted to both sides of the debate) are suspicious? I'm replying to something that has been said. While that may seem provoking to you, it is I who have been provoked by the original post itself, not the other way around. I realize that this isn't a statement you, personally, are making but when you ask if we can get back to the subject at hand (in this thread) ... well ... that is the subject at hand. I'd be only too happy to discuss something more concrete and mature in another thread but I have no intention to back down when hostile statements (again, not by you personally) have been made.



Fair enough. I won't contest against that statement. This does, however, insinutate of your own volition that you agree posters CTD, SoSick and ikester do much to stir problems and are full of bias in their posts too. Could I ask that you make the same request of them?



Could you point out which post in particular you're talking about? As of this post there are 6 pages and I know I've posted numerous times throughout this thread. Thanks.



On the contrary. Part of the reason I don't bother to post a great deal about evolution like LindaLou and RAZD do so skillfully is because it's very difficult for me to even begin a debate when my opponents in a discussion routinely employ ad hominem, red herring, quote mining and all the other tactics which other posters have observed time and time again. This is the only forum where I've come across such posting styles. I post regularly in another, completely unrelated forum, and have been a member there for literally 10+ years. I find it engaging when someone is on the other side of the debate from me. Often times they make intriguing observations that I hadn't thought of. The tone there is neither argumentative nor hateful. Instead it's more of a "Dude, check this out, for real. Things aren't quite how you're interpreting them. Let me explain further" type of approach.



See my original remark regarding the very name of this thread. Again, I ask you to consider how you would feel if you saw a post entitled "Christianity: What a Joke!"



Bex, I'm wondering actually if it irritates you when there is just not enough fighting?

Are you certain you're not practicing what is known in the psychology world as projection here?

That was the only conclusion that I could come to. ikester said that Evolution denies the Creator. Since Evolution is a process that occurs because of how life replicates itself and how the environment affects the survivability of organisms with different traits, I assumed that ikester was saying that these natural processes could not include God.

Unless he meant that the Theory of Evolution denies God. Then that is a different matter. My reply would be that I don't see anything in the theory stating that God does not exist.

The Theory of Gravity does not mention God either...does that mean the Theory of Gravity denies God?

Actually, I can only think of one right now.

That's mighty kind of you



That's mighty kind of you too. We've got a couple of people here now with a lot of scientific knowledge at their fingertips though, knowledge that I would have to research for the most part, and still probably not understand as well as they do. I tend to see the "whole" picture and don't worry too much about the fine details, but in debates it's those details you have to present. I could tell you a lot about what we know of the natural world in general, it's those darn specifics LOL. I usually read/hear about them initially, think "OK, that's pretty convincing," and then forget about them. Maybe it's like Sherlock Holmes put it -- the brain is like an attic and once it fills up, you want to make sure it's not full of clutter.

I won't be making any long posts here for the foreseeable future though for two reasons. One, I've realised what a mountain of planning I've got to do for the end of the month when the autumn term starts; and two, I think I'd rather not engage too much with posters who are full of anger and hate and who direct it at me because they see the label "evolutionist." We've seen an interesting display of Christian attitudes and behaviour here haven't we? One other creationist here implied a little while back that it's OK to treat all non-fundamentalists in this way because they're sinning heathen who are going to burn in hell. They're a charmer too.



I agree completely. I love it when I debate on equal terms with someone, each of us having good knowledge of the subject, and the other person brings up ideas I'd never considered. It can really be enlightening learning about a different point of view. Somehow I ain't getting those good vibes here right now.

Bright blessings.

This statement does not flatter you in the least. It is not logically possible to arrive at your claimed conclusion from an honest look at what Ikester7579 said. One could not even remotely approach it, and everyone knows this.

So again, you have chosen to insult everyone. Not what I'd call a brilliant strategy.

Hey y'all, I wanted to address a few things said in the past few messages. First, Linda - with regards to the states (mine being one of them : ) wanting to put creation into curriculums, you can rest assured it would only be a class offered with a different viewpoint. They won't take the actual science out. The teachers are told what curriculum to use, but from what I've seen, they do at least talk about the differing viewpoints whether in text or not anyway here (for the most part). Most are pro-creation so already offer up another viewpoint while having to teach the theories.. From what I've heard, they are trying to establish some classes more religion based, but kids would have the option there. I think the main beef is that evolution is pretty much touted as the only truth when it is, indeed, still a theory. They just want the other side to also be represented, but it would likely be in a religious format.

And now...just to throw in here and give a different viewpoint as a creationist (with an old world slant but not purely so).... And first let me say I am not trying to start anything. I AM a Christian. I know a couple of you on here witnessed SoSick's tirades when I told her I was Mormon (a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints). But my viewpoint is different on some counts than that of Ikester's as an apparently more fundamental Christian.

I didn't grow up any particular way. My parents were believers, but not church goers. They had both been soured on organized religion. My sister and I went to church together from the time I was 3. She was 4 years my senior and we always went to one church or another. Baptist, Church of God, other Baptists, other Church of Gods (more pentecostal types), Salvation Army, etc. I am not a conformist. I would go completely against society if I believe what I'm doing is right. Not that I do it just to be different, but the point is, if I believe something is of God...you will find me there. For example, as a young teen ager (and pretty I might add) I even looked into a church where I wouldn't be able to wear any make up and could only wear dresses and look like a dork, but the way they had me kneel on the floor and chant, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus to work myself up into a frenzy to get the gift of tongues was a complete turn off.

Anyway - We grew up with a father who had served in the Korean war. No one knew this till I found it out from an Uncle years after he'd died but he was a hero during the Pork Chop Hill battle earning two bronze stars. I'm sure he had post-traumatic issues, and was an alcoholic. He died at only 38 when I was 12. I was in 6th grade. The next year I entered Junior High which is already a searching and difficult time and I had just lost my dad. My brother who just died last year was selling pot from our house while my mother worked the day shift. My sister married quite young at 17 not long after daddy died. (She was nearly 16 when he died). I dabbled in a little experimenting briefly, smoked, drank, tried pot, made out, but had a bad experience, (was raped - I was just a baby at this time - 13) and then got back into religion. I got "saved" at a revival and felt really clean and good. Then my search ensued. I tried several different denominations. Had an older boyfriend for a while who was into zen, read up on reincarnation...I was hitting most of the bases. I settled for a time in a little country Church of God where my sister and brother in law went cause I was also looking for guidelines and at least this church had some. The reason I'm going into all this is that I had real questions which what Ikester said reminded me of when he quoted Darwin's supposed quotes. (On a side note: not sure what the source was there...but I've heard that Darwin was actually quite disturbed that people were running with the theory of evolution in a non-Christian way and that he has gotten a bad rap that way. I read that somewhere when I home schooled my girls - and the science teacher I last worked with as a special ed collab teacher (who had a near Doctorate) said the same).

Anyway - if Darwin said that about the New Testament being a damnable book....please do not distort this because I believe the Bible to be very much the word of God...but I can kind of understand that if he did feel that way. Back to my story explaining that viewpoint....
I had lots of questions about interpretations. I was at that age, for one thing, not being willing to just accept the status quo, and I could not understand why there were so many different interpretations of the Bible. My mother use to say, basically, to each his own. We use to argue about inheritance vs. environment... (She irritated me cause she always said I got things "from her." True, but there is also the environmental factor...) That is beside the point - (and we are very close now). But I could not accept, similar to what Russ said on another vein here - that it depended on how you look at it. Either it was true - or it was not. If Christ said something, what did He mean? Is it open to interpretation? In one sense, obviously I agree with Ikester and Bex implicitly conerning the creation and the basic tenets of the Gospel...but my long winded point is that I also could not accept the hell fire and damnation points made Biblically or by preacher's interpretations. It did not ring true to me. My sister use to tell me my father was going to burn in hell because he never accepted Christ as his Savior. My point is, for one thing, (excuse the pun) but how the hell did she know? But if he did not die in a "saved" state - knowing his character and nobility and having the love for him that I did (do) I could not see a loving Heavenly Father punishing my dad for the rough life he had lived which led him to the state he was in. He was not evil. I had a Mormon who had moved into my narrow minded little coal mining town in Southern IL. We discussed what happened after you die and it is the first time it ever made sense to me and was the most loving answer I have ever heard. (And completely Biblical....) I would have to expound on how we do look at life after death and this is long enough - but suffice it to say, that the Bible's wording has been changed through the centuries - there is no debating it. We (Mormons) adhere to its teachings and believe it to be true - so long as it has been interpreted correctly - but we also use other revealed scripture to help clarify some of the "plain and precious teachings" which were lost with the changing of meaning and things taken out. The Book of Mormon, for instance does speak of a burning hell, but goes on to explain that it is not literal (in so many words - I can find the exact reference if anyone is interested). Hell simply has to do with conscience and an awareness of what could have been. It is a state of mind. Both here and in the afterlife. The plan of salvation is perfect.... perfectly fair, perfectly righteous and of a perfect Father with perfect love. If we expect the atonement, Christ pays for our sins (which we still have to repent of, though, no free ride) instead of us and we are forgiven for them, but if not..we have to suffer the consequences. Christ's atonement meets the demand for the law's of justice and mercy.

If you get this far, too, Linear, why did you ask if Moses wrote Genesis? He did...and if you wonder why he did when he wasn't present then in body, at least,...it was through revelation. We have a more detailed account of how he received his information there. He was a prophet, of course, one of the greatest of all time and conversed with God quite literally.

Hopefully all this won't offend any Christians, but it shouldn't. SoSick got very offended when I said we believe the church was in a state of apostasy and that there was a need for a restoration, but that was not meant derogatorily toward her at all. Its not a judgment against her personally. I was only ticked at her when she started quoting a bunch of false anti-Mormon rhetoric without understanding what we're about or even trying to. With regards to other churches, though, I truly believe that no matter what you believe you will have a chance whether in this life or the next to hear the truth and accept it. Even if the fullness of the Gospel, though, isn't received, good people will reap the good lives they live. (I'd have to go into it..)

Anyway - I guess I see some of the accusing on here toward evolutionists as being judgmental and a little harsh. There is some arguing but mainly out of rebellion, I think, for that. I think there is something to evolution (adaption). I do believe, though, in a literal creation. But for whatever evidences that are true that are out there, there IS an explanation which we will one day know for sure. And they will be in harmony with a literal creation...with Adam and Eve as our first parents. And I believe it because it has been revealed. Some things are a test of our faith.... Maybe for some - it is this debate.

Turning it around, I too would respond to a thread aimed at Creationists and asking them "why are you here"? and stand up for my right to be here and debate (since the forum asks what we both think). But Pwcca, just remember something, I have not started any thread with the titles you mention..... nor have I said "evolutionists are evil doers" and I wonder why you felt the need to jump on my post on this thread that had NOTHING to do with either, wasn't even directed at you, was directed at a quote by another poster and my statements reasonable, coming from my own belief.

Can you explain to me where on this thread have I warranted you having a pot shot at me from my post? It is on page 4, post number #38820, lower than half way down. Now admittedly, my tendency towards getting emotional/angry exists, I do have a very intense side. But that post? I'm bewildered....I thought it was reasonable coming from my personal belief and not overly emotional at all. So your response to it was a bit confusing and started something totally unnecessary. Perhaps you ought to direct such posts where they are deserved? Rather than bring up the past to renew arguments? I can understand doing that if someone has once again used provocative language etc and needs 'reminding', but come on, my post on here was fine.



I don't have an issue if you wish to respond to provocations and unpleasant statements that you feel is unfair. However, when I see a bunch of evolutionists ganging up, or making false accusations, putting words in our mouths, that REALLY ticks me off. I'm well expecting arguments and provocations, but the other stuff is done frequently and at times, it deserves some kind of retaliation.



See, here again. What you consider bad posting techniques, I feel was legitamate, when the "quotes" have the sources given and I've already pointed out, that if they were slanderous (or attempting to be), the person in question can be in a great deal of trouble, considering name, source, everything is given. Sorry, but quote mining is not a dishonest practise, when done properly and sources are given. Red herrings and ad homin, etc etc, you guys continually accuse of the very things creationists feel evolutionists are doing. Same old thing Pwcca, your excuses of not really contributing to the forum with much material don't really add up, considering each side has done their best to post what they feel is evidence. Admittedly, it does often revert to petty fights, but not much material is also on this forum for people to read and view and make up their own minds. Not that anybody is OBLIGATED to post material, they can read. But the fact is, if you feel it's really so bad and our side is just producing nothing, then nobody is forcing you to remain on here. Why do yourself the disserve of staying if that's the case? Surely there must be some reason you like to read....I can't imagine you just stay on here to enjoy the fights? It's been a long time now, if you use the excuse of "i'm just waiting for creationists to post evidence" this is just downright dishonest. You can find much material in many previous posts that you can observe and make your own mind up. If you continue to claim nothing has been presented, then I hardly see why you'd waste your time staying.



Yes, you mentioned that in the past more than once I recall. Not much I can do about that Pwcca, I didn't make the thread, nor am I the owner of this forum....pehraps you could instead direct your offense in the right direction? I have already said to you before "yes I would find that offensive" and you thanked me for being honest.....now you're at it again. But what does this have to do with my post on here, which you aimed at? This is what started this with me, the fact you unfairly criticised a reasonable post to start and renew older arguments.....where in that post did I provoke this?



No, I find it gut wrenching to be honest and often I get on this forum with my heart racing. It makes me sick. I have tried recently to keep from hitting back and keep posts as reasonable as possible, but this has not been easy and at times I bite my tongue. But, I still have the right to share what I believe.. You now trying to turn as though it's "projection" makes no sense, when you started this with my original post on this thread for reasons I cannot understand....that is the point here. WHY DID YOU ANSWER MY POST IN THE MANNER YOU DID WITH NO PROVOCATION?

Hi Bex. I do think there is some amount of reaction to replies on both sides that is more based on emotion than on facts and evidence - we are human.

To put it simply, if I can, creationists are here because they think there are some issues about science in general and evolution in particular that need to be resolved with religious views, and that they can do this through debate, while "evolutionists" are here because they think there are some issues about science in general, and evolution in particular, that need to be resolved with religious views, and that they can do this through debate.

We certainly are not here to shout at each other and simultaneously closing our ears to the opposition, as that accomplishes nothing for either end of the spectrum.

Yet this is the reaction that leads you, SoSick, ikester, etc to label posts as "hateful" ... when the most I can see is that they are contradictory, using evidence and logic to present a position that is different from the one you or SoSick or ikester thinks is true.

You can hate a well reasoned and evidence supported argument, but that does not mean that the argument based on logic and evidence is hateful, or that the poster is posting it out of hate.

Take the issue of the Grand Canyon going through a high point along the ridge the canyon crosses:



Is posting the simple facts of objective reality, evidence anyone can verify from numerous sources, of the canyon location geological structure of the ridge hateful?

I don't think so. Not if you want to claim that different interpretations of evidence are equally viable - as you need to apply this to all the evidence.

Is it hateful to point out that the position that Hovind makes is falsified by this evidence?

I don't think so. It is a simple fact shown by the objective evidence, the reality is that there are sections of the ridge north and south where any presumed overflow would erode the ridge before it got to the height of the Grand Canyon section.

Is asking for anyone that is a creationist to explain this fact of reality, and how it requires a biblical flood in the process hateful?

I don't think so - not if you want to present creationism as a viable alternative to science in schools.

Calling Hovind a liar could be construed as "hateful" - especially if it was unsupported and unfounded.

Saying that Hovind has presented a falsehood - and demonstrating how and why it is a falsehood - is not necessarily hateful, it can be just calling a spade a spade.

So if you hate this fact of reality, and you don't know how to resolve it with a creationist model, do you feel that the person posting it must hate Hovind because they posted such facts of reality?

Just curious.

Enjoy.

(Glad you liked the escape key information - I learned from another site where everyone had an animated icon and some were much worse ... one was hilarious: a chicken doing the "chicken dance" ... until you saw it 20 zillion times ... I think of it as a guy poking his head in to see both sides)

Hi Jeanie, just a few points.



I'm not sure what you're suggesting to be honest. Science needs to be taught in science lessons, and religion needs to be taught in religious studies classes.



I certainly hope not. IMO a science teacher who believes in creationism must necessarily be excluding much scientific evidence and is either poorly educated, or deluding themselves. Sorry to be so blunt; and maybe they'd do a fine job of teaching other aspects of science, but I can't imagine they'd be presenting evolution so well, nor can I imagine that they would be honestly presenting the problems with creationist "science."

There have been major court rulings preventing creationism from being taught as science, which is why we now have "intelligent design." They never stop trying and they've had some recent success in pushing their agenda in certain schools.

This is why I often ask people here to demonstrate what creation "science" is. Notice that there is very little to support it in this whole forum. Instead, creationists mostly spend their time trying to pick holes in the theory of evolution because they think that by default this must show creationism to be the only valid alternative theory.

When we talk about "theory" though, keep in mind that a theory is not just an idea or a hunch. A hypothesis does not become a theory until it has been through rigorous testing and peer review. If any data comes to light which contradicts it, it has to be changed to accommodate that new data. (Notice that creationists are unwilling to change their own ideas about creation in the light of evidence, which usually requires them to ignore or misinterpret that evidence in order to fit it in with what they think MUST be true.) Gravity is a theory. Does that mean that we should be in serious doubt about its ability to explain a phenomenon? How would we have all those satellites in space and be sending people to the moon if we weren't confident we understood pretty well how it works?

Another thing I suggest is to read any one thread on this forum and try to have an objective look at who is presenting evidence and who is refuting it with their own evidence. I suggest starting with the thread about the Grand Canyon and the flood. One of the strongest pieces of evidence there IMO is uranium dating of the erosion of the rocks. No creationist has been able to explain how this is erroneous, though they're keen to claim that it's all lies. And none of them can say much about the fossil record apart from it's just coincidence that it is sorted all over the world, despite the fact that we have so much evidence for the evolution of some species (such as foraminifera) that they can be used by geologists and archaeologists as index fossils.

These do not sound to me like equally scientific points of view. If a creationist here can show they have an understanding of science and the theory of evolution and can intelligently refute this with scientific evidence for their own position, then they might be able to make a valid point about it being taught as an alternative. No one here has come close to this and the posts here speak for themselves if you look.

You are not sorry for being blunt. This is the way evolution has taught you to think about anyone who disagrees with you on the evolution issue. Evolution has to have total absolute control of the education department, like a dictatorship. Or it's soon loses it's status.

That is why you would prefer that teachers get fired for not believing it, correct? Or you would not have suggested that they not teach science.

With all due respect, Bex, if you didn't say something then why are we having this discussion ad nauseum? While that may sound terribly rude of me, if you are as emotionally upset about this as you've said...



...then why do you keep bringing it up? If I were that bothered about something I'd just let it go, knowing that bringing it up repeatedly will only make me feel more sick to my stomach.



Where have I taken pot shots at you, individually, Bex? Post #38820 is a post written by you, not me. It might be easier for me to reply to your question if you show me my direct quote with a post number (so that I can see in what context the quote has been extracted). Odds are I was not speaking to you. To Bex. As regards this post, I have been, by and large, speaking to those people who see evolution as hate filled evil spawn. If that does not apply to you, then you have no need to reply.

I've said this before, I'm saying it now and I will in all likelihood say this again in the future. When I use the term you in a discussion it is not always directed at any one individual. Regrettably, the English language lacks a plural form of the word you. If it helps, in future posts I will post more carefully with my use of personal pronouns.

Pwcca, it's not "ad nauseum" to question someone making the same ole accusations about creationists (emotional etc).

I'm just letting you know that when you refer to "creationists" doing this, or doing that, right in the middle of a discussion including me on this thread (in response to my post) , which was doing just fine without your unnecessary input, it's not abnormal to get irritated.

Emotion is not a bad thing by the way! Isn't that also what makes us human?. If someone types up false accusations, puts words in my mouth etc, as has been done frequently on this forum.....um yeah I just might get somewhat emotional/angry. Haven't got quite the ability to shut off and debate like a robot yet.

Thanks RAZD. Absolutely!

Linda Lou, you misunderstood what I was saying. (I do get wordy). Basically if I understand right, the classes WOULD be religion classes or presented as such... They just want that side represented more cause it isn't at all now. But teachers do teach the theories.... they have to. Obviously, though, (this is high school...) the part about how we began is questionable or, at least, inconclusive. The last BIO class I subbed in the last couple of months of school it was left open ended in videos shown, etc. when we went through it. It is mainstream. Some curriculums are more biased. I really only think it is fair to present it to be the theory that it is. No one can say it is absolutely true. You get upset thinking true science isn't taught, but it gets my goat when it is taught as absolutely factual cause it just isn't. Obviously the deeper you get into science the more you would get into the fine details, though. I doubt most of you on here are speaking on just a high school level and if you don't have above that you are obviously very into science and read up on it. They don't get as in depth that I'm aware of or have seen at least. But basic BIO is taught in the 9th grade year here, too, when they are Freshman (usually unless they didn't pass). They skim it more. I could be wrong, but I think that is the only time its covered. I know the points they cover most, no matter what are what they need for the tests, more with genetics, biomes, that kind of stuff. I could look through my curriculum I have from when I home schooled to be more accurate. I used both Christian and non. Of course there are variances with every school and school system.

That is a my understanding about what they want, though. The only real debate as far as I'm concerned with evolution is how man began. Obviously the earth is old...but creationism can also be consistent with that. Of the science teachers I've talked to, even in college, they believe more in old world creationism. That isn't only in the south either.

I think its a good thing. Obviously they have to teach solid science... they just want both viewpoints represented. I home schooled my kids when they were younger, though, anyway. That's another forum, though.

You CAN learn about science without believing it all started from apes or bacteria.

RAZD: It is a simple fact shown by the objective evidence, the reality is that there are sections of the ridge north and south where any presumed overflow would erode the ridge before it got to the height of the Grand Canyon section.

Jeanie: Hey RAZD, can you (or anyone else) explain how this explains that there was or wasn't a flood in your perspective?

I think evolutionism is a legitimate subject for study as an historic phenomenon. It's a disservice and a disgrace that students are kept in the dark about the origins of this religion.

That sounds like a suggestion to read the older threads & find out. Quite the bold bluff!

But religions like evolutionism are exempt. Note that Darwin applied the term "theory" to his speculations in the very first edition of his book. He pioneered the abuse of the term.

False. Both onion coat and the "geologic column" were formulated and in time rejected by creationists. Knowing they didn't match the evidence, evolutionists glommed onto them.

Thanks, Jeanie, that's a good question:

It doesn't. It just means that this geological formation is not evidence made by a biblical flood.

The problem with proving there wasn't a flood is that you cannot prove a negative. You can't prove that pink unicorns don't exist, for example, because you have not seen all of the universe. This is why science sticks with theory as an explanation of evidence, but held tentatively and discarded when invalidated.

Example:
(1) observation: no pink unicorns have been observed.
(2) theory: there are no pink unicorns.
(3) invalidation test: find a pink unicorn.

Note that theories are often stated as assumed truths in order to form invalidation tests, but this doesn't mean that they are true.

Getting back to the biblical flood and the Grand Canyon, we can show that the formations in the Grand Canyon are not consistent with flood flows, we can show that the formations in the Grand Canyon are consistent with long term normal stream erosion, however the biblical flood could still have occurred before the canyon was formed, before the ridge was uplifted, or before there was a river there at all.

Enjoy.

Pink unicorns, RAZD? We're getting dangerously close to the flying spaghetti monster here

Jeanie, yes I think I misunderstood your earlier post in part. And yes, you are right that there is less evidence currently for the theory of abiogenesis, so your videos were representing that accurately from the sound of it.

Apes-to-humans, however, is different from abiogenesis. We have evidence from the fossil record which has been dated in a variety of ways. There are all those intermediate hominids such as australopithecines, which show gradual changes over time, becoming more human-like -- not just in facial appearance but in many aspects of bone structure, and in tool kits found with them. There is also the genetic evidence that Russ2 has been discussing about number of alleles, and how this points to humans having been around longer than a few thousand years and coming from a larger genetic pool than two individuals; and there's mitochondrial Eve. I'm sure not all of this is taught in science classes but the person who says "I don't think we evolved from apes" would need to explain how these bodies of evidence fit with their statement.

I see you approve of unscientific snide remarks. It proves to me everytime it's done just how weak the theory is that you guys resort to this. Then other have to support it as well.

In fact, why don't you guys bring up the flyinf spaghetti moster? It seems to be the only alternative when you cannot debunk the evidence. Other wise, please explain why such tactics need to be used?

I see you've chosen to completely ignore the point RAZD was making about logic. I was having a joke about the terminology he used, but it doesn't mean that what he's saying is wrong. Some advice: why not try to understand the point the poster is making before you get your feathers ruffled and whinge again about how unfair everyone is.

Well maybe like in the other threads, I could make logical points about how evolition connects to Hitler, Dawkins supporting Eugenics, and evolution connection to columbine in every post as a response to the pink unicorns.

Like I said before and will repeat. You guys stop and so will I. But you won't because this is the only way you guys can maintian control when you cannot debunk the evidence.

The more you do it, the more it solidifies this in my mind.

OK, let's look here at what's being said. RAZD stated:



RAZD is making a point about how scientific theory works. He has shown you the logical steps in this. I don't see any logical fallacies in what he has said; what I see is that you object to his word choice, which is a personal preference but not a falsification of what he has said.

You are now claiming yourself that valid evidence against evolution would consist of connecting it to Hitler, eugenics, etc. What you seem to be failing to understand is that the theory -- the change in heritable traits in populations over time -- explains the evidence from a wide variety of scientific fields. However you try to tar people who call themselves evolutionists does nothing to invalidate the theory itself, any more than claims about atrocities committed by Christians in the past invalidates Christianity itself. (As Jeanie observed, that was my point about Christian slave owners.)

What you seem to have been avoiding, since you quit the Grand Canyon debate, is any conversation which actually deals with the scientific details of evolution or an old earth.

Well let's see:

Example:
(1) observation: Hitler kills Jews and uses evolution as one of his excuses.
(2) theory: Evolution is a theory of death.
(3) invalidation test: Find more current evidence that people minds are altered by evolution to kill those less evolved.

Evidence: Columbine.


Evolutionist trying to harm a creationist.


etc...

Do you like the way I demonstrated how a theory works. Like RADZ I did it in a way to make sure that it mocks evolution instead of creation. And make evolutionists mad. Do you see anything wrong with it? Can I use examples like that?

Except a few logical problems, ikester.

You've introduced new elements that are not in your "theory" and showing them won't affect the theory. This is a false structure and not comparable.

points introduced:
peoples minds being "altered"
that some organisms are "less evolved" than others.

This last one is contradicted by the ToE: all organisms alive today are the result of the same amount of evolution, they all have different traits than previous populations.

But not all of his excuses. Going from "one of" to "all of" is a logical fallacy.

Plus anyone can use a theory as an excuse for bad behavior, that doesn't mean that the theory of evolution led Hitler to kill Jews.

The ToE is a theory about life as well as death: without continuation of life there is nothing to evolve, and without differential success in survival and reproduction no traits would be selected. When you kill all of a population without regard to traits in the population there is no evolution.

I know you are unhappy, but the facts are the facts, and reality never promised to fit your opinion or belief. In science when the facts show a concept to be invalid it is discarded and science moves on, no matter how much the concept was treasured.

Enjoy.

(1) observation: no abiogenesis has been observed.
(2) theory: there is no abiogenesis.
(3) invalidation test: find abiogenesis.

Bet she'll "see a logical fallacy" now!

I don't see one. However, if you claim this and scientists find the right mix of conditions to observe abiogenesis, would you say that your theory has been invalidated?

Let's try another one:

(1)Observation: No creation of a fully formed organism from nothing has been observed
(2)Theory: There was no creation of a fully formed organism from nothing.
(3)Invalidation: Observe the creation of a fully formed organism from nothing.

In a nutshell: "I don't see any evidence for X, therefore I am going to hypothesise that X does not exist, until evidence to the contrary appears."

Quite reasonable. But as you asked, Linear, the question then becomes whether you are willing to change your views when evidence to the contrary does appear.

You have to be careful about the first part of the statement above, however. If there is the possibility that X exists, there may never be any evidence uncovered until someone goes to look for it.

Linda, I actually subbed in the class connected to the department head and asked her very briefly (I'm acquainted with her...not out of the blue) what she thought about the debate. Her response was that she "doesn't care." Yet she doesn't go there with the kids and, personally, believes in the creation but believes we probably evolved but doesn't know... I looked through the book they are using for Physical Science, too, and - no - not going over that. Must just be in Biology for freshman. I may've assumed incorrectly with a generalization about teachers...I'm sure I did - but I've heard some in passing stating in the teacher's lounge state they have discussed it (from a Christian viewpoint) when kids have wanted to talk about it. Teacher's share their personal viewpoints. They don't teach it as fact but a belief. The special ed teacher who led the class discussion today mentioned the beginning and left it open... (including Adam) but it wasn't part of the curriculum but more an example tying in something. Forgot what. They are just going over scientific methods at this point, lab safety, basic stuff they always go over at first. Still - these things stated aren't proven to be scientific law.

I'm curious, though, at this point and reading everything I can from my end...that doesn't mean what is on the web, but from my faith's body of literature on the subject. (Based on scripture but modern revelation as well...) I've just been reading up on how Abraham was shown in vision the endless worlds that are out there....before they had telescopes. It was revealed to him the revolutions of the various planets within our galaxy compared to earth's and the planet closest to God's abide. (Much much larger with a rotation which would take a thousand years in our time). Moses was given insight obviously as well. He wrote Genesis, but we use another book of his as well which goes more in depth. I know I learned long ago about the 4 corners....trying to find that. Obviously it's also used as a way to term basically all across the earth, but its quite literal in a way that has been revealed scientifically but it's actually above the earth if I remember right. It's been a long time since I learned of it.

I didn't send in a video?? But things get mixed up on here.

Ikester. I'm unsure why anybody would be fooled. The snide remarks, false accusations and all the other tricks played are dotted throughout this forum and have indeed provoked similar or angry retorts (and rightly so).

Just to let you know. Russ (the owner) and Laura both have had to face Linda and cut her down about her false accusations (bordering on slander) on this forum. So no, hopefully nobody is fooled.

False claims of "Christians" on here were made by Linda on (I think the bible thread) that had us apparently referring to her as "dumb" and telling her she was going to hell. She knew full well it wasn't myself, Russ, or CTD who had made such claims, but she does it hoping others will think we have. Until she's faced, then she tends to back down a bit or claim "well it wasn't you".....then you wonder "then where and whom and how was it said"?????

I seem to recall that Pwcca used some sarcastic reference on here about name calling (from our side) towards Linda (pig) .....I'd like to know, where/when have we ever said such a thing to Linda (or anybody)? Do they hope that it'll go unnoticed and they can continue to make these statements hoping readers will assume we have been involved in stating such things?

Problem is, if this behaviour is not exposed, the continuation of attempting to discredit and destroy our reputations on here will be left unaddressed.

Ikester, before you arrived on this forum, CTD was a rather lone voice and copping quite a bit from the 4 of them at onetime. Whatever complaints they all had, they all felt the need to gang up on one person. Linda was COCK OF THE HOOP, absolutely revelling in it and even making statements that creationists run away because of the evidence..etc etc...enjoying it thoroughly.

Suddenly you come on here and give a little of what's been dished out and naturally you are not liked for it. But I feel it's unfortunate that someone has to do this, but in a sense, it's LONG overdue. I actually had to get on and stand up for myself, because even absence was being used to make false statements....this of course was intended to make us all look bad, until I got on and once again reminded Linda that this forum has never been heavily trafficed, most on these forums are here for health reasons and if she really preferred a forum with more traffic, she could go there instead. But she won't. I had to pretty much explain why I don't tend to engage much in the debates of such topics on here nowadays, as it takes a lot out of me to put together the information and make sure it's done as well as I can (a bit like typing essays). It really is tiring and stressful sometimes.

Then she stated it wasn't me she had aimed it at....then who? Since creationists apparently all run away from evidence, I wonder who or what forum she's referring to? If off-topic personal debates are not wanted...then tell me why it's instigaged and provoked?

I'm just glad you joined Ikester, because though CTD didn't seem bothered at all by them, he was still one creationist mainly battling 3 or 4. I felt that the forum could do with another passionate creationist interested in this topic enough to engage them and give as good as they dish out. Because frankly, CTD would be going it mostly alone. Unless another creationist had as much interest to join in the subject of these debates.

We all know is not uncommon in debates for unpleasant comments and emotions, but please be careful of the slanderous statements you may find yourself on the end of or having words put in your mouth that you had never even stated. Because once you respond in like manner? Then you'll be accused of that and it'll be used against you as well.

Thanks LindaLou and LinearAQ.

Here's an example of invalidation:

Obserrvation: No living Ivory Billed Woodpeckers have been observed for over 50 years, longer than any individual Ivory Billed Woodpecker is known to live.

Theory: Ivory Billed Woodpeckers have gone extinct and no longer exist.

Falsification test: find an Ivory Billed Woodpecker

http://www.birds.cornell.edu/ivory/more_info/

Enjoy.

Linda: If there is the possibility that X exists, there may never be any evidence uncovered until someone goes to look for it.Here's an example of invalidation:

RAZD: Obserrvation: No living Ivory Billed Woodpeckers have been observed for over 50 years, longer than any individual Ivory Billed Woodpecker is known to live.

Theory: Ivory Billed Woodpeckers have gone extinct and no longer exist.

Falsification test: find an Ivory Billed Woodpecker

Jeanie: EXACTLY!!!! How are you going to find God unless you go looking for Him??? EH??? Got you there!

Thanks Bex, for your perspective on biases.

Yes, I've been so affected by what he says that I no longer reply to ... oops?

ikester is good at dishing out insults, I agree, but that doesn't make a good argument and that doesn't mean he can debate the issues any better than CTD does.

And if insult is the only response he has to facts that show a concept to be invalid, then perhaps it is best that he remain silent.

Enjoy.

Thanks Jeanie,

Or her, or them ...? How can you look objectively when you use any preconceptions?

Enjoy.

Because I have done my homework....

How can you find God, either, with your preconceptions? He is there for the finding.....our one Father in Heaven...(and our Savior... who actually helped create the world - but only God created us humans). Elohim...

I know this doesn't constitute your idea of a debate - but you can't ignore that I got you on your logic!! Seriously, though, if you aren't sure why wouldn't you search THAT side out? Its a lot more meaningful than believing what you do. What made you believe what you do? Inquiring minds want to know!!!

Well RAZD, depends on what you consider insults. Are they insults if they are deserved, and provoked or long past due? I feel it's become a touch more fair recently.

No longer 4 to 1. You can read past most of the insults if they are just the typical bites, but not so easy when you find yourself having to get on and stand up against slander.

What you consider "no evidence", may not be shared by the readers. It's always a wise move to remind readers on here to use their brain and go read posts from the beginning themselves, rather than take "someone's word for it". And hey, if you're correct? The posts will speak for themselves, without requiring you to 'say so'.

Jeanie,

So have I. I find no contradiction here, no logical trap, no denial of the wonders of existence. Personally I find most religions rather confining for any God I can envisage, but I think they all have some kernels of truth.

One has to wonder what the purpose is served by so many different religions, so many different sects within each religion, if it isn't to make you think out side the box each presents.

There are many paths to the top of a mountain.

Enjoy.

I agree about all the religions. And about the top of the mountain.... What is confining to you? I honestly want to understand.

Actually Moses got his revelations on the top of mountains. They're one of the most spiritual places on earth....

Not meaning to be personal... (about what is confining). It isn't always as ideal as its supposed to be, but the commandments, including purity, actually allow for more freedom in a sense. Freedom from guilt, distrust, etc. And eternally I want to still be - uh - a woman. (Rather than an angel..)

Thanks Bex,

We could define an insult as any false comment that attacks the character of a poster rather than the message, the argument, that is being presented.

If we all strive to refrain from this behavior - taking time to comment to anyone who crosses it no matter what "side" they are on - then we should be able to discuss things like adults.

Yes they are still insults. Yes they are sometimes deserved. The question is whether we can grow beyond this.

If the point is to get beyond the insults to actual debate about the issues, then anyone can point out that statement {X} is an insult, rather than engage in tit-for-tat behavior.

How does "fair" enter into discussing the issues and the evidence? A statement is either true or false, and if evidence shows it to be false, then it is false. Fairness has nothing to do with reality.

And being told to "scroll up" does not mean that the evidence is there either.

If the perception of what is or is not evidence is different then the question is whose definition of evidence is correct. CTD likes to claim that conclusions are not evidence, yet he seems to provide nothing other than his own conclusions in many arguments. To me evidence is some aspect of objective reality, such as the physical height of the ground around the Grand Canyon where it crosses the Kaibab (uplift) plateau. When I say that the land north and south of the Grand Canyon is lower, and then post the picture, it isn't lower because I say so, but because the picture shows that this is so. We could argue that the picture is based on conclusions, but that would not change the elevations of the ground would it?

I find the whole issue about numbers and balance and fairness to be irrelevant. The question is whether the argument is true or not, not how many people make it. You demonstrate that your argument is true by presenting evidence and showing valid logical development of the argument from the evidence.

The picture of the Grand Canyon shows that Hovind's position is false, as either the ridge has uplifted since the canyon started to form or it hasn't, and if it hasn't, then water had to run uphill and then along a hillside to carve the canyon in it's current location. It isn't an insult to Hovind to post this, it is the truth shown by the actual elevations of the ground.

Enjoy.

I would agree. I had a friend once that would often tell me of going on a mountain by herself to speak with God. She said that she would get more answers there than anywhere else. I have never tried it, but will one day.

Gosh Bex, this is an interesting depiction of me.

I've apologised here for the way I talked about Hovind a few months back. I still stand by what I said, but the way I said it was not something I'm proud of. If you think I slandered Hovind, though, can you quote where you think the slander is? And we can talk about it. I've recently been accused here of slandering other creationists like Austin, until I explained that he had deliberately set up some radiometric dating exercises to fail so that he could claim that radiometric dating was unreliable. You'll find that I can always back up what I say here with evidence.

You do seem to pick up on things I say and assume they are directed at you, I'm not sure why. You and Russ, whatever your personal biases, have always been polite posters. You don't use silly language to try to ridicule your opponents and you have at times in the past made serious attempts to back up your claims with evidence -- well, you more than any other creationist here I think. But we have had 3 other creationist posters who have made it clear that they really do want to have a "go" at evolutionists in whatever disrespectful way tickles their fancy. How representative are they of other fundamentalists? I don't know, but they're outnumbering you and Russ here with their posts. I certainly do not think they are representative of how Jesus says we ought to treat others, and this is the faith they claim to follow.



Can you please refer me to the posts in question? This is obviously your opinion but I'm not sure that others here would agree. Let's look at what I said and they can make their minds up.



You mean I shouldn't have been trying for the upteenth time to pin CTD down to backing his statements up with some evidence? Look here at how many creationists are willing to discuss science. We've got conversations like this one going on, but no one seems to want to get down to the actual issues. We've had claims, for example, that the Grand Canyon was carved by a global flood, but no one is trying to refute any of the geological evidence on that thread. I don't know if I used the words "run away" from the evidence, but should I have said "avoid" instead maybe?

That's a pretty good summary of my own thoughts RAZD. When I was 18 I discovered the writings of a researcher in comparative mythology called Joseph Campbell. I'd never had any religious education apart from in my own religion, and what I learned just blew my mind. The spiritual box I've grown up in was suddenly much too small, and there were many things to be learned. There still are . . . always.

Well Linda, you like to use general statements, even to describe "one" individual. It's kind of hard not to comment on it as it seems to repeat itself, even after one thinks it's been resolved. Yes you apologised about Hovind, and you've every right to consider him as you wish. I wasn't referring to that.

I feel the need to say something in defense of myself and others, as Christians/Creationists are often accused of saying some pretty outrageous nasty stuff like "pig" "dumb" "going to hell" etc. Hey, if one person has really said this to you, you'd be wise to address them, unless it's been a collective insult from us all, then I'd understand. But it hasn't!

CTD's apparent "running away from evidence" was again used by you to describe creationists in general. Should anybody really have to keep facing you about this to salvage reputations on here? What you consider running away from evidence, again may not be shared by others. Keep in mind the information (or lack of) in posts are usually evident to the viewer who is pretty clued up. Others more ignorant on the topic, may of course be "swayed" by this kind of commentary.

You & RAZD created that straw man; why should anyone else back it up? Especially when it's such a healthy individual! You're lucky he lacks offensive capacity, that's what I think. Judging by his endurance and skill, you guys'd be in a world of trouble.

What "straw man"? If you look at my post above, no one has refuted that evidence there. If there is creation "science" to refute it then I'm wondering where it is. What you've said just now is further indication that it does not exist.

I guess their (and maybe your?) actions were not guided by the following:



or



I am not innocent of the need to follow this same advice, but I am trying to curb my desire to shoot back. If you feel that I am not doing a good job of this in the future, you have my permission to remind me of it.

Kent Hovind stated that the lakes were formed by the flood. He goes on to say that the sudden overflow of those lakes toward the lower land in the southwest caused the rapid erosion of the Grand Canyon. If there were no global flood then, according to Hovind's proposition, the lakes wouldn't exist. Therefore, the rapid erosion could not have occurred and the Grand Canyon wouldn't be there.

Saying the Grand Canyon is a result of the Global Flood is not a strawman.

Additionally, the rapid draining of those lakes, again proposed by Hovind, would be categorized as massive flooding toward the lower level land in the southwest.

If you disagree with my rendition of what Kent Hovind has proposed, please provide your interpretation of what occurred to form the Grand Canyon. Then we won't have to be constantly building "strawmen" and can debate honestly.

Ah, thanks. I can see what CTD was trying to imply with "straw man" now. Every once in a while his comments are not completely clear.

Take a look at your nested LL quote. "Carved by a global flood" is clearly a strawman. Thanks for your contribution to making it abundantly clear.

So in the mysterious opinion of CTD, how was the Grand Canyon created? And why does this method explain the evidence better than river erosion and an old earth?

It's unusual for me to be debating someone who refuses to clarify their position. Is there a reason for this reticence? Other than a silly little attempt at a wind-up, that is? Bearing in mind what's been said elsewhere about manners I hate to put it that way, but blow me if I can see any other reason for it. I'm assuming that you yourself know what your position is.

I'm assuming if Linear can figure it out twice, you can figure it out once.

lINEAR: I am not innocent of the need to follow this same advice, but I am trying to curb my desire to shoot back. If you feel that I am not doing a good job of this in the future, you have my permission to remind me of it.

Jeanie: and doing a great job of it!

Interesting argument CTD:

Are you claiming that not one creationist has claimed that the Grand Canyon was carved by a biblical flood? Have you seen the Hovind video? Read ikesters comments? Note for the record that a straw man is a weakened or diluted version of the actual argument:

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but Hovind states that the canyon was carved by the sudden release of water left behind by the flood when it breached the Kaibab ridge, and ikester has several times mentioned the flood as a cause of the erosion of the Grand Canyon.

There is also a book Grand Canyon: A Different View, by Wilfred A. Elders

Are you saying that none of these people have said the canyon was carved by a biblical flood?

Of course you could show that the statement "the Grand Canyon was carved by a global flood" is a weak, misrepresented, or totally false portrayal of creationist explanations for the Grand Canyon by actually showing what the creationist explanation is and what is missing from the statement "the Grand Canyon was carved by a global flood" ... as once again it is easy to claim that a logical fallacy has been committed, it is another to actually demonstrate that this is so, and to claim it when in fact no straw man representation was used is a falsehood.

Enjoy.

razd: Personally I find most religions rather confining for any God I can envisage, but I think they all have some kernels of truth.

One has to wonder what the purpose is served by so many different religions, so many different sects within each religion, if it isn't to make you think out side the box each presents.

There are many paths to the top of a mountain.

lindaLou:

That's a pretty good summary of my own thoughts RAZD. When I was 18 I discovered the writings of a researcher in comparative mythology called Joseph Campbell. I'd never had any religious education apart from in my own religion, and what I learned just blew my mind. The spiritual box I've grown up in was suddenly much too small, and there were many things to be learned. There still are . . . always.

So, Linda, do you also find religions confining for a God? I thought at first it had to do with lifestyles and possibly does, but can you clarify how you mean that and what is confining? Like churches confine God? Is that it? RAZD?

My daughter (17 - pretty little thing) just bought a t-shirt that say's "I can't. I'm Mormon" She thinks its funny but she adheres to the teachings and is proud of her virginity. I know some like to have a little wine...(or whatever) so our religion in particular can seem too confining. My husband had to come to grips with that one : )

Linda, are you an Intelligent Design thinker? I thought you did at least believe.... I personally think all this knowledge can kind of veer you away from true wisdom. That may sound vague but so does the statement made I'm referring to.

Your evosickness must be even more advanced than I thought!
http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=37904#Post37904

Already covered.

Sadly CTD this does not answer the question. The issue is whether or not any creationist has used the biblical flood as a cause for the formation of the Grand Canyon, not how many articles you can present that don't discuss this.

Please explain how this article, Grand Canyon in Arizona, posted on AiG, is not about the formation of the Grand Canyon by a biblical flood:

So the flood made the ridge and then cut it. Looks like the Hovind concept eh?

Unfortunately we have already falsified that concept.

Enjoy.

No. It's not about any creationist. It's about creation science. I've never claimed no creationist exists who isn't well-educated on every topic.

The article clearly does not say the flood carved the canyon. How many articles can you supply that support what I say? Quite a few, I expect. Sad part is: that was written by a layman, and it's still not what RAZD needs. Shoot, he may have the uplift part right. I wish I could remember it better.

I think CTD is having a little joke.

Jeanie, I'm not sure where you picked up the idea that I believe in intelligent design. I did say that I don't think evolution is incompatible with the idea of God having created life and used evolution as a means of developing it.

You would best define me as an agnostic, and also a bit of a mystic. I believe that God literally comes from all things, including the interconnectedness of life. We are God, everything is God. I don't personalise the transcendent, I don't see a person in the sky who designs everything and rules all our fates. It's more of an Eastern philosophy and it isn't very Biblical, but there you go.

How does any knowledge veer us away from wisdom?

Nothing like new age and witchcraft (mystic is just a lower belief, but is the same thing). No wonder you hate creationists like myself so. You think gods are in everything, and anything is okay. People like myself bring God's word which is against all that. So you take the belief as a personal attack on what you believe. So all of this stuff you spewed at everyone who disagreed with you was more based on your religion of new age, and less on evolution. You were just using evolution as a cover.

Well it's interesting that the "god in the sky" comment is used in such a flippant simplistic offhand manner to describe our Creator and note the obvious disdain for any "laws" or "rules" (yet notice they require them in daily life, both for their own children and their own protection in society and would be outraged if they were not able to be exercised) . Contradiction in terms.

The One responsible for the earth and all those inhabiting it, has the right and ownership over all, to apply laws for our own good and protection.

At any rate, the "God in the sky" is substituted for..... "god IS the sky", if we are to consider "we are god" "everything is god, nature is god".

What does the bible tell us about substitute beliefs that rather focus on the creation, rather than the creator? (note this is not a description of someone personally when I quote this, but there are some sobering words for all):













And though this has been repeated before, it fits in nicely amongst these quotes and is worth repeating:



Here is a quote that fits in with the above, to show why one is without excuse:

Ikester, I'm well aware that fundamentalists wouldn't approve of my personal beliefs. And I don't expect open-mindedness from you either. Jeanie asked me a question and I directed my response to her.

I don't hate creationists, I don't hate anyone. You just seem determined to think that I do, and you view all evolutionists' posts in this light apparently. This says more about your own convictions than it does about mine.

I'm simply amazed at all the assumptions you've made about me here. You've got a new label for me now, and it appears to be adding extra fuel to your fire. Do you ever get tired of stereotyping people?

I'll tell you what. Save the "you're going to burn in hell, you evil heathen" speeches for other people who you think want to hear them (though I can't imagine who would), and let's focus on the issues here.

Quote

I'll tell you what. Save the "you're going to burn in hell, you evil heathen" speeches for other people who you think want to hear them (though I can't imagine who would), and let's focus on the issues here.

Nobody here has said that to you, though you've accused us in the past regardless. You're not overly concerned about false accusations, so no surprise to see some premature ones....

Anyway, ones own conscience will end up being the accuser, when we are all faced with the truth about ourselves and will no longer be able to live in denial. Not a very pleasant thought for any of us.

As much as you have decided we're all gods, let me know when you manage to master the power over life and death as Christ has done.

At any rate, the deviation from the topic was not started by myself or Ikester. Feel free to get back to the issues.

Just a couple more points. It's easy to miss comments like this because I don't read insult-laden posts very carefully.

Have you heard of chi? In Eastern philosophy, it is the energy of all living things. The Chinese accept its existence like they accept that the sky and the earth exist. I didn't say that I believe the transcendent is merely chi because while i believe that chi is part of it, there's more to it than that. I won't elaborate because I can't imagine you're interested.

However, I wonder why you seem to assume that I think "anything is OK." Maybe it is a new concept to you that non-religious people can still live by a moral code and be peaceful and loving. I don't need 10 commandments in order to know that it's not good to kill people or to steal things.

Maybe at some point you might try opening that door in your mind just a little and considering that ideas which are different from yours may not be as evil or hateful as you are quick to think. Just a thought.

Yep, it's disagreement that you have a problem with. And we are all fundamentalist for doing so. What a laugh.



Well when all you do is say hateful stuff and support everyone that does the same thing. What do you expect me to think? Since I have been here you have only said one nice thing, but it was followed up with the same spew as usual.



And what was that you just called me? Findie? You are getting what you dish out and all you can do is whine? You are as immature as RADZ is.



I'm not wasting my time telling you what you already know. It's your choice and you have made it. Which also means there is no excuse. Not my problem.

Based on the claims you are making here, you are a Biblical literalist and a YEC. I wasn't aware of anyone but fundamentalist Christians who believed these things but if I made a mistake, please correct me.

It's interesting that you seem to think that giving scientific information is "hateful."

Assumptions you made in your previous post:

-- That I practise witchcraft. I don't, though I know people who do and they are kind and loving people.

-- That I hate creationists. I don't. Hating a group of people for being that group of people isn't a healthful way to think.

-- That I think "anything is OK." I don't, and I'm not sure why you think that should be the case.

-- I was just using evolution "as a cover," whatever that means.

I've never seen any evidence that's made me think that evolution could be wrong, and I was a Christian for 18 years. I am not an evolutionist because I am a "new ager," as you put it, and I'm not sure what you mean by that either.

Whereas the only assumption I've made about you here is that you are a fundamentalist. If you aren't, then what word would you use?

I think this assumption of her "using evolution as a cover" is a little over the top. Unless this was revealed to you by the Holy Spirit, there is nothing in her posts that indicate she is covering up something else.

Additionally, your post seems to be nothing more than a mild attack/insult on her beliefs. I thought the point of your "insulting" threads was to get us to stop all that.

Actually, Linda might think that is a compliment.

Perhaps if you responded to the "evidence" that RAZD posts instead of allowing his "innuendo" affect you emotionally, the debates could move forward.

If you feel insulted by him, tell him what he said that insulted you. Be the bigger man...that's what the apostle Paul said to do in Romans...isn't it?

Actually, I thought Jesus did make it our problem with the Great Commission. Perhaps I am wrong here?

So what is the creation science explanation CTD?

Sadly, what LindaLou and I have been talking about is that creationists have used - and continue to use - the flood as the cause of the Grand Canyon, and you do not get to redefine what we were talking about to suit your argument.

I'll take this as agreement that some creationists have used the flood as the cause of the Grand Canyon. I'll also agree that this may be due to a lack of education on some of the finer points.

Note that we also have repeatedly asked for your explanation, so the lack of information "about creation science" and how it explains the process is not our failure. When people go to AiG and see articles like the one quoted it is not their fault if the information is wrong is it?

If you want to move the goal posts you need to define the new location.

This is just playing semantic word games, that it wasn't the flood but the drainage of the flood waters -- they are still saying that without the flood the canyon would not be like it is. This is like saying that it wasn't the dog that broke the vase, it was the wagging tail of the dog that broke the vase.

No, the sad parts (two) are:

(1) this concept is invalidated by the topography north and south of the Grand Canyon:



and (2) that this "dam bursting" concept does describe how the scablands were formed:

http://www.nps.gov/iceagefloods/d.htm
And, as we have seen, the scablands do not look like the Grand Canyon. At all.

Note that there are no (not one) sinuous meander in all of the scablend flood flow formations. Note that there is evidence of water flowing around obstacles. There are also several areas of braided flow patterns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braided_river
So high flow (steep energy gradient) and lots of sediment creates braided rivers and low flow (flat energy gradient) and little sediment creates meandering rivers.

Enjoy.

You already know it, and so does everyone else. The great flood deposited sediments which were subsequently eroded.

You have what Kent Hovind said, you have AiG, you have my posts, you have Linear's posts which show he figured it out twice.

How long will you persist?

It's clear even to Linear (sometimes) that your strawman is distinct from the actual creation science theory.

If you think I've agreed to any such thing you're deluded. But it does not matter. We were not discussing creationist mistakes - we were discussing the theories of creation scientists as summarized by Kent Hovind.

You haven't demonstrated an error in the AIG article. Neither have you demonstrated that it matches your straw man.

Not at all. The dams could've broken up to 200 or 300 years later. Some of the sediments had time to start hardening. This is not a single event.

It's a tad late to try to claim I'm playing word games. You've been losing to this straw man for quite a while now.

Thanks for supplying such a nice example of a false analogy. Let's stay with the dog theme & see how it should go. Your version: I stink and my knee is bleeding because I stepped on a dog and fell. Real version: I stepped in dog poop.

I'll consider taking the braided river stuff to the proper thread. Pretty obvious why there isn't a braided river in the Grand Canyon, IMO.

Thank you for this clear and simple statement. Now can you tell us what you believe it was eroded by?

Now we can start looking at the evidence in the canyon itself, and whether or not it points to the canyon having been eroded from sediments which were deposited in a flood 6000 years ago.

How would you explain the uranium dates for the erosion of the rock there, which indicate a timespan of millions of years? Post 37735

How do you explain the presence of paleosols within the rock layers, which are only formed from dry land?

How do you explain the presence of an aolian (wind-deposited) sandstone layer? Post 38224

How do you explain the presence of metamorphic rocks and an angular unconformity?

I'll stop the questions there for now. Feel free to respond in your own time.

I love you LindaLou....

All that it would take is to prove age dating wrong which is easily done.

Question: If all of the universe came from the same matter in the Big Bang, why does not all matter date back to that Big Bang? If age dating was 100% accurate, that all planets, and all matter would date the same age. But they don't do they?

A closer more likely event that shows age dating wrong. The moon is said to have formed from the earth from a meteor impact. So the moon is of the same matter as the earth, correct? Why the age difference?

Is there such a thing as cross contamination in age dating? Yes there is. What this means is that if a fossil, that dates a few thousand year old, is buried in a geological layer that dates a millions years old. Given time the layer will cross contaminate the fossil to date the same age as the layer does. This is why layers date the fossils, and fossils date the layers so well.

Hi Ikester,



Radiometric dating of igenous rock dates the time at which is cooled and crystallised. Cosmogenic dating dates the amount of exposure to cosmic rays that rock or ice has undergone, in effect dating the amount of time the surface has been exposed. Those are two I know off the top of my head. The uranium dating in the Grand Canyon discussions is also a way of doing this.



Current theory is that a planet-sized object smashed into the earth very early in its history, during what we call the era of heavy bombardment. The fragments of the moon came together to form the moon billions of years ago. So it is more or less the same age of the earth, as radiometric dating of moon rocks tells us.



The radiometric dating methods of rocks are not used on fossils. If we are doubtful about the age of a fossil, and whether or not it has been found in situ (as opposed to having been washed there from elsewhere, for example), there are various methods that can be employed. It can be compared with index fossils present in the same rock. A fluorine analysis can also be done:



Again, these are just the ones I know off the top of my head. I am not a scientist and I'm sure there are others. If you have a specific example here that you would like to discuss, please let me know.

I know she thinks that is a compliment. RADZ can never do no wrong. RADZ worship.

So you prove my point. Their are variables that make it inacurate.

But what's funny about your claim about cooling off and crystallising is that volcanic rock should always date new because it has to cool after coming up from the mantle. Does this rock date new when dated after it cools?

This is old stuff, ikester,

If they are so inaccurate, then why do they produce consistent ages?

http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm
There's more.

You can also read Radiometric Dating, A Christian Perspective, by Dr. Roger C. Wiens
He then goes on to describe each method used, the pros and cons for using it, and how accurate each one is.

It is easy to show that the earth is much older than any YEC model, as there are several dating methods that rely on annual layers and that can be cross-checked with radiometric methods, and these too are found to correlate with one another, even though one depends on steady rate of age (layers) and the other depends on decay along an exponential curve (e^kt).

It is also easy to find rocks and things that date "young" because they are new formed, and thus the existence of "young" items in an old earth are not a problem.

The existence of "old" things in a young earth is not possible, and thus they contradict and invalidate the young earth concept.

Enjoy.

Allrigthy, I missed LL's above post to me so shall try and address...

LL: Jeanie, I'm not sure where you picked up the idea that I believe in intelligent design. I did say that I don't think evolution is incompatible with the idea of God having created life and used evolution as a means of developing it.

You would best define me as an agnostic, and also a bit of a mystic. I believe that God literally comes from all things, including the interconnectedness of life. We are God, everything is God. I don't personalise the transcendent, I don't see a person in the sky who designs everything and rules all our fates. It's more of an Eastern philosophy and it isn't very Biblical, but there you go.

How does any knowledge veer us away from wisdom?
ith the following conversations:

Jeanie: I am more "up" on the labels now, (but don't like labels in general) and guess I assumed from what you had responded to me in the past that you did believe in God in a more traditional sense. Now all your posts make more sense. My honest belief, though, is that you are not completely at peace about this. You're back to be hardened now...but I've seen you not be so. Of course I can't say that with any certainty, but it's a sense I get. You actually think even the way some Christians do when they think He is all around us. Not so unique, actually. The mystic is just spiritual in whatever form. How in the world though, can you say believing in a God ruling the universe is not Biblical?

As far as knowledge veering from wisdom...that IS biblical and I see it happening here. You think you are self sufficient in your own reasoning powers or the theories of man. For one thing it is an empty way to be and feel. And it surely isn't in line with true wisdom.

On that note, though, I don't blame you for leaving the Catholic church. I'm not meaning to be insulting to the good Catholics out there......but they were the original apostate church. Plain and precious truths of the Gospel have been removed centuries back including the nature of God and our relationship to him. Catholics don't even use the whole Bible, do they? I'm not sure about that one, but not what I'm basing this on. They were what I call the first compromise between church and state. The govt. took on Christianity and put it in their own form to rule with.... No wonder you became disillusioned.

Actually I can understand what you're saying about energy....the spark of life is what it is and its actually spirit. Yes - its quantifiable scientifically!! But God is most definitely a higher being in who's image we are - literally - with an immortal body. He rules this universe and beyond and lives pretty far beyond us actually. But we are His. He has set up the heavens around us.

The moon is to rule the night...and no matter how it was formed from existing matter was put here...by design.... You guys can't get past the finite.... That is because only the Holy Ghost can teach you of things that are eternal and you aren't listening.

I think you guys try to complicate everything. You posted recently, LL, how you didn't know how the prophecies, I think it was, had anything to do with your life. Did you mean the ones pertaining to other times? How about the ones pointing to modern day events? Bex posted a bunch of those if I recall. I could come up with a bunch more, too, but imagine you are turning a blind eye. The difference is - the stuff you guys discuss is, honestly, above my head on some things. I would have to really get into it to speak on it intelligently. But it doesn't prove anything regardless. It really is like a religion to you, though. I am not threatened by it, though, because I know that whatever is TRUE will be consistent with revealed truth. You have forgotten something deep within the recesses of your being.. We are here on this earth to learn to live by faith and to prove ourselves. You are not going to find peace this route..... Knowledge is good! Wisdom is better.

Jeanie, it's just that I think we're shifting away from the focus of the discussions here and muddying the waters for everyone else. If we're going to have this discussion then I think it needs to be in a more appropriate forum area.

One big question here though: surely knowledge is truth? Why would you say that Truth leads away from wisdom?

I'm also a little hesitant because, correct me if I'm wrong, Mormons believe that they won't go to heaven unless they convert a certain number of people in their lifetimes, which is why so many of them go door-to-door. I do not want to be converted and I would not like anyone to try. If that's really not an issue here then I'm happy to talk elsewhere.

LL: correct me if I'm wrong,

Jeanie: DEAD WRONG. We believe just like it says in the Bible. If even one soul....

I saw hope in you if you want to know the truth.... Any faith is better than where you stand. Just faith. You've lost yours. Its sad. I have every write to post as you. Look at the thread anyway????????????????????????????

I've just been trying to find this post to edit it and try to phrase things a little less bluntly. I am blunt at times and don't mean to offend.

I hope you're feeling better soon. Maybe this is not the place to be when you are poorly? I don't come here to debate when I'm poorly. It's not exactly the place people go for support and sympathetic conversation.

Thanks - I'm sorry about my little tirade on the other thread. I'm laughing now. I am a bit hot headed if pushed enough and if all the circumstances are right, but it's ok. I know you are very analytical. I am too in different ways : ) Sorry if I'm being analytical toward you. Not meaning to do it in a negative way.

That really is a strange concept of Mormons thinking we have to convert so many to get to heaven. Haven't heard that one before.... (I feel like crap....)

It's OK Jeanie.



Well I try to be. People with a more scientific bent tend to see me as a bit of a space case because of the things that I consider to be possible (though I can always give reasons). It's why creationists debate with me and why materialists on other forums flock to argue with me too (though I've had enough of that for now). Always caught in between, me. LOL.