News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

Why Does The Evolution Faith Persist?

The best answer was provided by an honest evolutionist. Take a moment to ponder this powerful thought.


"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].

Gotta love the titles of these threads. Not a loaded question is it?

Evolution is not a "faith." I see evidence that the earth is old. I see evidence in the fossil record and genetics that life evolved and continues to do so. I'm sure you've heard this many times before, but this is the same as accepting that anything else in the physical world exists. It's not a desire to believe, it just appears to be the nature of reality.

I also do not believe it has to follow that because evolution happens, life has no meaning or purpose. First, there are many theists who believe that evolution is God's way of creating. Secondly, in my case, I see relationships between living things, and I think there's a lot we don't understand about how all things are related, and possibly what exists or happens that we cannot see and currently have no empirical way to measure. I am not a nihilist and I don't have a burning desire to see everything as being pointless. I don't know anyone who does, and everyone I know personally, accepts evolution as fact.

If I had the time, I would start a science thread here. At the moment my family and students are top priority. But it would be nice to see science being discussed. After all, that's what evolution and all its related fields are. Curiously, this is a subject that is often avoided here.

If the evolution forum was limited to discussions of science, the evolution fairytale would never come up.

The fact is, evolution is a myth created as an attempt to discredit the Bible. Evolution is littered with false studies, bad research, and just plain disinformation.

The tactics are no different than those used against the herbal industry. The industries who stand to lose business from the science behind herbal science launch disinformation campaigns littered with false studies, bad research, and just plain disinformation.

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."

—Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France].

You said...

They certainly accept it by faith because it has not been observed and therefore falls outside the realm of science. This is why it it properly referred to as a "faith" (or religion).

You have stated yourself that religions do nothing more than attempt to control people. How right you are, and how ironic that you submit to the very thing you despise.

The evolution myth is nothing more then a social control. If you believe in the myth, you are the controlled.

Lies In The Textbooks

Linda Lou,

It is good to see you.

I wonder if someone has ever lined up the things presented in this video against whatever it is evolution thinks... Is this accurate? (The circular reasoning???) Although I don't think the creation took only 6 literal days... (at least 6,000 but no one really knows) I most definitely believe man only goes back that 6,000 years. Even believing the creation may've taken roughly 6,000 years makes the earth young....so I guess I am in actuality a YEC. (Although believe the earth's materials were taken from eternal matter which was organized for our purposes). This would not reflect on life....

Anyway...this is good. I wish that guy wouldn't chew gum, though. (Gum chewing irritates me.. : ) I have a tape somewhere buried from when I homeschooled which gets into the sedimentation issues and flaws with carbon dating.

The fact that the earth contains a molten hot center has not been "observed" but most people accept it based on the surrounding evidence which leads people to infer this. According to the self-same logic as yours, belief in a molten core is a faith. (Though I fear I may be barking up the wrong tree because something tells me YECs don't accept that the earth has a molten core - indeed or a mantle or tectonic plates for that matter.)

I believe that two cups of jasmine tea a day makes me feel better given that my general sense of physical well being typically coincides with days I've had two cups. However, I haven't "observed" the physical changes taking place inside my body to know if this is really true. It's just something I believe based on the data I have. It's something I accept. Is this a faith? Is this my religion?

The fact of the matter is, at the end of the day, it's very clear what is meant by the words faith, myth and religion. It's not science and it's not evolution. Calling it as much is a mere attempt to redirect the accusations lain upon yourself. Even if evolution were disproved tomorrow none of it could be construed as faith or religion, it would simply be a mistake - very much like a mathematical mistake. The people who thought they had the equation all figured out (only to later discover they were wrong) are not "keepers of the faith", disciples of the equation, or practitioners of the divine math gods.

To add to that, the difference between the use of the word believe in the sentence "I believe the color blue matches your eyes quite nicely" and "I believe that there are two gods, one possessing a male Aspect and one a female" are astronomical.

Of course YECs (I'm not really an "ist") believes in a molten core and tectonic plates, etc. ????????????? You could argue those same points WITH religion, too, though. How do you know what experiences a person has had which have proven their beliefs to them??? I know what happens to a person after they die and have been visited by those who have passed over. Do you believe in life after death? And if we have spirits after we die, why not before????? Answer THAT one.

Hey Jeanie,

The problem here is that you are dealing with two (2) evolutions.

One is the science of evolution, that studies the diversity of life as we know it. This evolution "thinks" that hereditary traits change in populations from generation to generation.

The other "evolution" is a false straw man created by religious fanatics that pretends it is a social program in opposition to christianity. Notice that Russ's quote refers to atheism and the word "evolution" is not mentioned in the quote at all. Not further that the people are referred to as "evolutionists" and that this is the only (tenuous) link they can make. This is part of the straw man system: call someone an evolutionist and then discuss other aspects of the person that have nothing at all to do with evolution (or even science).

Note further that it uses the logical fallacy of the "appeal to authority" so that by calling these people evolutionists that implies that evolution is responsible for what they believe, and because they are "authorities" that this is implied to apply to evolution. As LindaLou pointed out, what people believe is not caused by evolution or influenced by it -- there are christian people that accept the science of evolution. There is in fact a whole association of christian scientists, so the implied link between evolution and atheism and as a social program in opposition to christianity is obviously a falsehood.

So he needs to evolve eh?

Please see the "A Well Aged Earth" thread. Perhaps you can offer something more than SoSick's incredulity and silly diversions.

I will note that the Carbon-14 ages correlates with the tree ring ages and climate changes, and suggest that that be your starting point. Note that climate is also recorded in the tree rings by the ring widths, so when the carbon-14 varies in accordance with those climate changes (being subject to climate variations) AND with the age recorded by the rings you have a two-fold correlation.

I have bumped the other thread for your use to discuss this further.

Enjoy.

Thanks RAZD. I actually appreciate you helping me form a groundwork here to start from. So far I have to agree, though, that the Methusalah tree could have withstood the flood. But I'll look at the other links. I have to get ready for bed...but I'll be back : ) I do believe in the first science of evolution as stated. Obviously there is truth to it to a point at the very least.

My daughter is actually on her way back to Idaho from California where her and her husband worked this summer and visited some of the parks there with the sequoia's, etc. (I assume this is one of those...)

You really don't believe a flood happened??

Thanks Jeanie

No, they are Bristlecone Pines.

Which doesn't explain the bits and pieces of wood lying on the ground that match the tree rings and the carbon-14 levels going back to 8,000 years ago (long before a flood if not too old for the earth). If from before the flood, why didn't it float away? If the wood was rooted trees at the time of the flood, then you still have and earth that is too old. Certainly the wood is scattered on the mountainside in a manner that is not consistent with the deposition of floating material.

Furthermore, buried under those living Bristlecone Pines are some sedimentary layers of rock containing those ancient shells that are from mature marine environments with individuals that were 10, 20 or 30 years old when they died in situ, when that rock was muddy sea bottom. Although these layers are nearly eroded away, the Sierra Nevadas are also actively rising due to continuing tectonic activity (they are one of the youngest mountain ranges).

http://www.sierrahistorical.org/archives/geology.html

That's a lot of deposition and erosion to account for and still have living trees growing on the mountain top that date older than the flood.

I see absolutely no reason to believe that a biblical flood occurred. There is zero evidence I am aware of to support such a concept, in spite of continually asking creationists for real objective evidence.

Enjoy.

Hi Russ,

Many of the points in your posts have been addressed here but I'll pick up a few.



The thing is, there's the fossil record. Some species can be traced back in it for millions of years, such as foraminifera.

Then there's the geological column, and dating methods. In the Grand Canyon thread, at least three of these were discussed: uranium and cosmogenic dating (which measure the amount of time a surface has been exposed to the sun), and radiometric dating. So far the only attempt a creationist here has made to discredit radiometric dating has consisted of semantic obfuscation and a convincing demonstration of a lack of understanding of the maths and science involved in the subject. For me, scientific dating methods (including the agreement in dates when different labs compare their results) are very strong evidence for an old earth. If you wanted to claim that these methods are erroneous, which is easy, then you would need to provide some evidence for why this is so -- maybe not so easy, but you are welcome to attempt to do so.

There's also genetic evidence of relationships among species. It can also show us which species are not directly related: neanderthals and homo sapiens, for example.

Contrary to your claim above, this is all science. There are many scientific discussions here also which have been developed by evolutionists. I am always asking creationists to explain how creationism is scientific but to date I have never received a straightforward answer to this question.



We can see evidence of evolution in the fossil record and genetics, and of an old earth in the geological column and via dating methods. These aspects of physical reality appear to me to be no more opposed to the Bible than gravity or the moon going round the earth. What's more, the first scientists who began amassing evidence for an old earth were Christian creationists. I don't expect they were deliberately setting out to discredit the Bible when they studied rock strata. They wanted to learn about the world around them and made some interesting discoveries.

One more point here. You said:


This is news to me. Can you provide a quote?

I'm not an atheist and I'm not anti-religion. We all know that religion can function as social control, though this is not always the case, and when it does it's not always a bad thing. If the social control is to tell people to behave themselves and not be nasty to one another, then I can't imagine anyone would object to it. I'd rather not have a dogma tell me what to do, personally, though that doesn't mean I don't also live by a moral code.

I know a lot of theistic evolutionists. Attempts here to portray evolution as a social system which requires people to be atheistic, amoral and hedonistic, are obvious straw men because while you might be able to find a quote from someone who thinks this is so, the vast majority of people who accept evolution see it as no more or less than part of reality in the same way that the earth orbits the sun. Accepting that there is a change in heritable traits in populations over time does not mean that we are obliged to behave in a certain way, nor does it mean we must abandon religion.

For that matter, of all the atheistic (sometimes evolutionists, sometimes not) people I have known, every single one has been the exemplary model of kindness and sound morals. I'm not here to trash talk Christianity but I've worked in many an office where the die-hard, ostentatiously Christian personas were exemplary models of abusive, self-destructive personalities. Now that's not to say every Christian I have known was, just the ones who were overtly Christian, always going on and on about the bible (to an obsessively compulsive level, not a healthy, 'I embrace my faith' level); yet I've never met one full-fledged 'I believe when you die you simply cease to exist' atheist who fell into this category.

I am not an atheist, but I oppose anyone who feels the need to demonize atheism simply for the sake of assuaging their own religious scruples (or lack thereof). Historically speaking religion, not atheism, has sparked more atrocity the world over. For every example you show me of atheism being used for malefic purposes, I'll show you ten where religon did the same - in spades.

Can someone please explain how this "version of evolution" was threatened by the findings of Guillermo Gonzalez in the field of astronomy?

Funny that. I have met quite a few atheists who have been amongst some of the most unpleasant individuals I have ever met and many fundamentalists the most warmest and down to earth people I've met, which was part of what drew me into the church. Otherwise, I may never have made such a decision. I certainly wasn't born into it. I think however, that those seeking to find fault with the "opposition" will do so and conveniently forget the faults of those on their own side, whilst being hyper alert to the faults of those who are not. We've seen that on this very forum.

Yes I have certainly met some Christians who have been a poor example of Christ, and that was offputting to me and not something that ever encouraged me to come to God. Though, in hindsight, I had a bible and could have learned straight from Christ, rather than seeking an excuse by picking out 'bad christians' to put myself in the "clear".

However, there are many who are a wonderful example. I don't consider Christians out there telling people what they want to hear, watering down Christ's strong words, editing aspects of the gospel, tickling ears of their friends, or shutting up about Christ wonderful examples. They too could be considered "Christians" in quotes only. And I myself have come under that catagory more times than I care to admit. It is not easy at all to be strong and faithful to the word.

However, they will be much more liked by those who cannot stand fundamentalists It's far more comfortable to have "Christians" in quotes, than the real deal who both practise the gentleness, humility and kindness of Christ, but also reveal the reality of sin and consequences (of which is loathed by many). It is a rare thing to reach such a state, as most of us fail to be truly Christ-like. But efforts do not go unnoticed by God.

Christ said that we would be hated by the world, just as He was. The fundamentalists are typically the most hated and criticised of anybody and this should come as no surprise. In fact, one should probaby expect it. If Christ went through it, should we expect any better than He?

Whilst we're on this topic, One should also not forget the institutions/organisations out there offering constant help to their fellow man (free), that are Christian based. It is all to convenient for people on a mission to putdown fundamentalists to forget so much of the good, which far outweighs the "bad".

And many truly Christian people have been a big reason why I managed to survive my years of torment and sickness without taking my own life. Prayer, faith, and sheer determination did much for my survival and has for many people. I have friends who are not fundamentalists whom I have a lot of feeling for. But it is not always easy when things get onto certain topics and I feel the free and easy way they proclaim their worldly ideas, but somehow it's never ok for me to express the Christian ideas. Suddenly the atmosphere changes and it all becomes very very uncomfortable.

So basically we're supposed to shut up and go along with the world? Or do we do as Christ did and tell it like it is, regardless? Because the world does not go along with Christ and even He told us that the road to Heaven is narrow and few who are who follow it.

LindaLou: I'm not an atheist and I'm not anti-religion. We all know that religion can function as social control, though this is not always the case, and when it does it's not always a bad thing.

Jeanie: Joseph Smith was quoted as saying "we teach them correct principals and they govern themselves." I don't like being controlled anymore than anyone else does. But guidance is nice.

LindaLou: Accepting that there is a change in heritable traits in populations over time does not mean that we are obliged to behave in a certain way, nor does it mean we must abandon religion.

Jeanie: I do accept evolution to this point....I don't mean to sound rude toward any group in saying this, but isn't that just accepted as truth??? It obviously happens. I remember driving through Canada as we moved to Alaska and seeing a furrier than normal cat. This isn't exactly the same thing, but obviously this cat had adapted to its environment. Moose up there are bigger as are the grizzlies. Not sure exactly why... But to a degree evolution DOES happen. (And the trees are very puny up close to the arctic circle for obvious reasons). But I also don't debate the earth may be very old. I don't know how long each creative period took, but I do not think each day happened in a 24 hour period as we know it in time. Sorry...I've said this before.

However, I don't get why accepting these facts would cause some to think we actually formed through chance... I'm supposing if there are Christian folk who believe in evolution it is only to a point.... But, of course, no one really knows or can prove any of it. There can also be lots and lots of variables that have affected the "evidences" pointing to or away from creation or evolution. Personally I can accept certain aspects of evolution, but believe each type of being was created after its own kind and didn't evolve from each other. The common DNA we hold is not "evidence" to me. I don't know enough about the various homineds, etc. (sp??) to think up an explanation...but am sure there is one.

For me, I believe in the creation....but also that part of that includes the ability to adapt and change as would be necessary. Just for example, when something goes wrong in our bodies, other systems compensate. Doesn't mean your body doesn't get out of balance...sometimes literally with bone structures. (The atlas bone is out so the rest of the body shifts to compensate..) Can't think of a more in depth example right now, but hopefully the point is made. (Like how starving the system with extreme dieting or actual famine causes the metabolism to slow...there could be a million examples). Aren't those examples in a general way of evolution??? (Adaption at least). To me, those things are further PROOF that we were created by a higher intelligence. But there is no way to me that a dog was once a fish.... I'll find some things said about that, but it will be a LDS source.... It has been discussed on here before and is Biblical. The whole "kinds" thing.

Actually there are better examples of what i was trying to say with the bodies adaptive mechanisms...just trying to make a point...

I'm still on a learning curve here with all the "ists." (And I don't mean that smart alecky). Bex...you have a pure heart in my eyes. Without guile : ) We all have to be willing to be introspective and see fault within ourselves if we are going to progress in anyway as a person. May I ask what exactly a fundamentalist is and do you consider yourself one? Are the majority of the Christian posters on here that?

Perhaps atheists are sometimes idealistic people who have been disillusioned with people??? Or have a hard time coming to terms with some of the horrors they have seen in this life? Personally I don't blame God in those instances because I've had faith in him for a long time now and have felt His care and existence since I can remember. He is there when I seek Him out....But it also does me a lot of good when I see good examples of those of faith. Or just random acts of kindness. The other night at Kroger in line a woman handed us a coupon to use with our groceries for an instant $5 off. It was about to expire and she wasn't spending enough to use it, but we were. It was so nice! I was sick and, honestly, in a bad mood before that. People were seeming so rude and getting on my nerves, but she melted that away.... Changed my whole attitude. I honestly think, too, that God uses us to reach each other, so our examples definitely do matter. Maybe sometimes its all people have to hold onto.... This doesn't even apply to just believers - to any group. We need each other...

RAZD: I see absolutely no reason to believe that a biblical flood occurred. There is zero evidence I am aware of to support such a concept, in spite of continually asking creationists for real objective evidence.

Jeanie: I've never really questioned it so haven't seen a reason to gather "evidence" but have watched Discovery channel shows! : ) There are claims out there the ark has been possibly found...or can be seen in Turkey. But personally I see lots of things as evidence. The great salt lake being one... I imagine you have something to refute that. But nothing I've read in the threads prove anything to me.... Haven't read through all you've sent yet, but the tree thing (bristle cone, not sequoia, excuse me : ) But I come from a different viewpoint. I come to the discussion with faith the flood did happen and see things as possible evidences rather than trying to find evidence it happened before I will believe. Ever heard of the principle, "Faith precedes the miracle?" That works on a lot of levels. What if you approached it with an open mind and prayerfully? I'm not afraid of the truth. Whatever it is....but I'm quite certain a flood DID happen because the Lord has revealed it through his prophets down through the ages and even history has repeated its event over and over....before communication happened globally. Lots and lots of variables could have caused changes in the environment to alter what seems as proof either way since then. I don't know enough about science to state its accuracy in testing, but, still, the "evidences" used to claim it didn't happen seem to be based on some rather circumstantial evidence. I can't explain it...but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Hi Jeanie,

Thank you for the kind words . I wish I had a pure heart! Something most of us have to work on daily.

A fundamentalist is a person that takes the biblical word literally, which means from beginning (foundation), to the new testament and Christ's sometimes sobering messages. Regardless of whether we like certain aspects of what Christ said or not. Unfortunately watering down, omitting, or changing aspects that we don't like to hear, doesn't change the basic fundamental truths and such a person can be in grave danger of heresy. Not something I would wish to answer to God for. We take scripture at face value, without abandoning our common sense for figures of speech (metaphors/similes, whether single or extended) - e.g. the parables of Christ are stories to teach moral lessons (e.g. the prodical son). We take the history of the bible literally, as stated. All archeology again and again supports this literal stance.

I am a fundamentalist. Until Christ Himself changes and alters His basic truths, then why should we? And the bible tells us, He does not change. He is the same then, as He is now and will always be. What a comforting thought. Would we really have Him any other way? And to be honest, everything I have read in the bible is set out for our own good, not our undoing or misery. Yes there are some tough truths and temptation surrounds us our whole lives, but what a reward for the person that fights the good fight. All designed to help us get into Heaven, where God wants everybody. Even suffering has great meaning and we only have to look at Christ on the cross to see that.

Comfort for the afflicted, the poverty stricken, those with deformities or seemingly useless lives full of brokeness have their hope in the cross and in the ressurrection. This life is far from "all there is".

Thanks Jeannie,

Being one what? Refute what? It is water that has been concentrated by evaporation, just like the dead sea, in a low spot not connected to the ocean.

Water tends to run downhill and collect in low spots, and water that does not have an outlet will concentrate salts and minerals as the water evaporates. There are many places in the world with salt flats. The oceans are salty for the same reason.

I'm curious why you think this is evidence for anything other than a lake at a low point.

Well water runs down hill, that makes it possible yes? Birds fly, so that makes it possible yes?

The problem is that there are facts that contradict biblical flood stories and young earth myths.

Now wave your hands and say "and Magic happened" ...

You'll excuse me if I stick with the objective evidence of reality, rather than indulge in wishful thinking to support a fantasy for which there is no evidence.

Enjoy.

Jeanie you said:


Yes, we can see adaptations like this in many different species. And we can see changes happening, a classic example being domestic dogs which were bred from wolves. Humans faciliated the process but it is the same process.

The question following this would be: if we can see small changes like this happening, then what is to stop those small changes from continuing so that over a long period of time they add up to larger changes? This is exactly what we see in the fossil record. We do not see fish turning into dogs, but we do see gradual change which becomes significant if we look at strata separated by large timespans.

The creationist who denies this process has to explain where the boundary between "kinds" is. Presumably they believe that these gradual changes have to stop at some point. So where is that point and how is it defined? What is a "kind" and what sort of variation do you accept within a kind? Are birds and dinosaurs the same kind?

I have not yet seen a good creationist explanation for why small changes cannot add up to large changes over time.

Hey LindaLou! I've been trying to find this one to answer. I worked today and our air has been out or leaking, actually, so we had to turn it off and we've been dying.... Anyway, I will address this now. Nice to see a nice friendly face on here right now : ) (You sound like you're doing well??)
You said: The creationist who denies this process has to explain where the boundary between "kinds" is. Presumably they believe that these gradual changes have to stop at some point. So where is that point and how is it defined? What is a "kind" and what sort of variation do you accept within a kind? Are birds and dinosaurs the same kind?

Jeanie: I've been trying to find this to copy and paste, but will need to type....

"Pres. John Taylor wrote as follows: "The animal and vegetable creations are governed by certain laws, and are composed of certain elements peculiar to themselves. This applies to man, to the beasts, fowls, fish and creeping things, to the insects and to all animated nature; each one possessing its own distinctive features, each requiring a specific sustenance, each having an organism and faculties governed by prescribed laws to perpetuate its own kind. So accurate is the formation of the various living creatures that an intelligent student of nature can tell by any particular bone of the skeleton of an animal to what class or order it belongs.
"The principals do not change, as represented by evolutionists of the Darwinian school, but the primitive organisms of all lving beings exist in the same form as when they first received their impress from their Maker.... If we take man, he is said to have been made in the image of God; for the simple reason that he is a son of God; and being his son, he is, of course, his offspring, an emanation from God, in whose likeness, we are told, he is made. He did not originate from a chaotic mass of matter, moving or inert, but came forth possessing, in an embryotic state, all the faculties and powers of a God. And when he shall be perfected, and have progressed to maturity, he will be like his Father---a God; being indeed his offspring. As the horse, the ox, the sheep, and every living creature, including man, propagates its own species and perpetuates its own kind, so does God perpetuate his...
"Paul in speaking on the resurrection, refers to the different qualities of flesh as follows: 'But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, and another of fishes, and another of birds.' (1 Cor. 15: 38-39).
"These different qualities seem to be inherent in the several species, as much so as the properties of silver, gold, copper, iron, and other minerals are inherent in the other matter in which they are contained, whilst herbs, according to their kind possess their specific properties, or as the leading properties of earth, air, and water, are distinct from one another; and hence, on physiological grounds, this principle being admitted, and it cannot be controverted, it would be impossible to take the tissues of the lower, or, indeed, of any order of fishes, and make of them an ox, a bird, or a man; as impossible as it would be to take iron and make it into gold, silver or copper, or to produce any other changes in the laws which govern any kind of matter. And when the resurrection and exaltation of man shall be consummated, although more pure, refined and glorious, yet will he still be in the same likeness without variation or change in any of his parts or faculties, except for the substitution of spirit for blood." (Mediation and Atonement, pp. 160-161).

THere is more to add but for now, am going to send so I don't lose it. Also visitors coming over. I know I'm going to get flack...but there you have it : ) (From the religious folk...)






















































































































































eased him, and to every seed his own body. All flesh is not the same flesh; but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts

You said:

OOps, sorry for the long space - sat on the space bar or something. Anyway - LL, got your question last night and took a while to find it to answer.....

Thanks Jeanie but I don't actually see an answer here for these questions:



Do you think you could address them directly in your own words?

I'm not feeling any better BTW, just have a bit of time to write here, and it looks like the forum is back to working the way it was.

Basically the stopping point is with the various "kinds" as stated in the article...

I'm not feeling well either... Sorry to hear you aren't. I'm stressed out about some personal issues. I'm afraid John wants to move and it literally scrambles my brain...

As far as the issues, honestly, people on here aren't really open to new truths from what I can see. People have their own minds made up. So its a round and round debate. If I thought I could offer light that wasn't going to be pounced on by pretty much all groups debating I would gladly share ideas, but the issues don't concern me much anymore although have learned a lot or at least, actually, grown stronger in my beliefs. I have so much I need to do that I'm not doing, though. I think I'm avoiding them....

I know I've said it before, but i'm going to at least take a break. I don't know if things getting back to how they were before is good??? I guess "science" is being discussed again, but, again, its pretty much repeating itself. I'm not going to change what I feel to be true. And, apparently, neither is anyone else.

I'll be checking in here and there, but need to get more accomplished. I've aggravated my poor carpal tunnel and ignored my real life. I guess I needed this for some reason. My husband is going out of town for a couple weeks, so will likely get bored and check in then, but consider me a ghost for a while unless you want to PM me. You take care Linda. I appreciate your way of putting your questions.... Actually everyone on here is fine. I just have things I need to be focusing on. There is a hiring freeze here and they are barely using subs right now even. The other day the math dept. instead of having subs come in used other math teachers which they weren't very happy about! I subbed cause one of them called in sick, but that was the only reason. I may start back to school. I've been really thinking about that - whether I want to. Have mixed feelings. It has been a long time since I've worked in the medical field and things have changed plus the school lost my transcript! I could still try...but think if I'm going to work in education I should get certified. I worry about my brain.... Need to pop some Gingko...nothing keeps it sharp like using it, though! I've definitely realized I don't want to be a regular teacher...special ed. It is my thing : ) I'm a natural. I needed to reassure myself of that. I just feel so old to be starting into this. But John is even older and slowing down.

I hope your school year starts off well. Do stay in touch!!!

And yet, I'm back!!! LOL : ) If I can be more specific in some specific way, let me know and I'll think about it : )

Hello Jeanie,

So then, even though we have no definition of what is a "kind" we can then test the concept.

We can look at the natural history that is captured in the fossils and at the record of carried mutations to see how far back heredity can be traced.

To test though, we do need some kind of metric for what amount of evolution is possible within a "kind" ...

Any thoughts?

Take care with the carpal tunnels, my wife has had both wrists operated on to fix hers.

Enjoy.

Thanks RAZD, it helps if I wear a brace on my wrist. Have to at night or I wake up without feeling, but now have to in the day, too. I'll likely end up needing surgery, too. Hope your wife is better now??

I know by memory some, fish, whales, fowls, creeping things, insects, Humans, of course, beasts of the field, cattle,

Jeanie, thanks.

Yes her CTS is better and she is back at work, although she has some scar tissue on the wrist of one hand. The doc says it will go away in time, just hope he is not talking geological time ...

All fish are one kind? Does this include dolphins, whales, seals?

Are all cows, sheep, horses, goats one kind? Where do camels fit in?

All insects are one kind? Do you realize there are more types of beetles than all the mammals, reptiles and birds put together?

No mention of bacterias, are they non-kind?

I think that if you pursue this further you will find that the term "kind" cannot be a biologically distinct grouping, but that is my opinion (from having been down that road several times with others).

Personally I don't think a biological classification was meant, but rather a generic term, different types of fish, different kinds of fish, as examples.

Enjoy.

I always prefer to see honest words from evolutionists rather than the other kind. Anyone care for another example?

Source

Worthy of consideration, but most of those who really need to consider it won't.

Oh But They Will Try, (((( Smiles ))))

Even if they have to put it together themselves and explain to us what it is. For those who truly want to believe it,that is.

They will try and keep trying to find a way.



I just got this thing in the mail from the ACLU and of course lots of people want their civil rights and liberties protected.
But then it asked the question...

Or what if your child's high school started teaching " Intellegent Design " alongside evolution in biology classrooms?

Actually alot of people who do happen to get their letter and want their civil liberties to be protected as well, would probably be happy about it.

To see alittle balance there in teaching about what they don't want to teach our children about so much the complexity and intelligence in life.

And the things they really don't know while they act like they have it all covered. I see it as bias and propaganda directed toward the youth of today.

So one sided.
Yet the faith still persists in our schools.
They should teach them about pigeon democracy
every bird in the flock gets a vote!

Good Posts!

I'm pleased to report I did get a nice smile out of that one.

Their arrogance is hilarious.
Amen. Their koolaid stands are far from the point where they can honestly claim "mission accomplished".

There are quite a few positive indications the sleeping giant may yet awaken. History is about to repeat - the question is: which chapter?

Why Does the Evolution Faith Persist? Because.....

"Most people don't want the truth--they're looking for answers to confirm their prejudices."

"Denial of truth is acceptance of a lie. The two are one and the same."

"When you're on the side of truth, there is no good argument against you."
------
'looks like they're "...still sitting on the space bar."

The above three quotes are right here on this forum. You will find them in the 'Bytes of Wisdom' section possted by the Administrator of this forum. How true

Over 2,000 years ago Pontius Pilate, Roman procurator of Judaea & Samaria asked a profound question:
WHAT IS TRUTH

He asked this question of Jesus, who had just said, "Everyone that is of the truth heareth my voice."

Interesting enough, Pilate also said , "I find in him (Jesus), no fault at all."

Please read it for yourself in the best seller book, The Bible- JOHN Chapter 18:37 & 38.

Yes, what 'goes around, comes around'....history does repeat itself. When will we humans ever learn???

The wisest man to ever live was King Solomon. He tells us, "This is the conclusion of the whole matter, fear God and keep his commandments. For God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil." Ecclesiastes 12:13 -

Thank you CTD, Russ, and Lynn. Judgment Day is coming soon!

Yes, ((((( Smiles ))))

I do hope the sleeping giant may yet awaken. I believe alot of our young people being taught evolution today in our schools are not seeing the other side of the coin so they believe those with a different point of view expecially a Christian one is not intellgent and still sucking on straw. Like we we are living out on the farm in the boonies somewhere and don't know what we are talking about. But even from just reading this site or viewing all the other research out there it should be obveise we do have some sort of clue of why we believe what we do and lots of people that stereotype those who do not believe in evolution probably never really researched the many sources and DVD's out there on the other side of the coin. Like what intellegent design are you talking about???

And this is so true.

A Trial Without A Defense Is A Sham.
Business Without Competition Is A Monopoly.
And......
Science Without Debate Is Propaganda.

Thats what it is looking like more and more at our public schools. Instead of just educating our children.