Replies

All the references which you dismiss had ideas in them. Why not argue the issues rather than attacking the sources. If the sources are invalid, I would think a rock professor could dismiss the contents without breaking a sweat.

I've spent years arguing with young-Earth creationists. It's a waste of time and effort. They're immune to evidence, too lazy to learn more than superficially about the science they criticize, and invoke the miraculous when you effectively critique their ideas. You are the one seeking to overturn hundreds of years of science (astronomy, geology, physics, chemistry, biology, etc.) supported by millions of research projects done by tens of thousands of scientists. I think it's up to you to to the legwork showing how we're wrong (and not by juvenile semantic arguments quoting encyclopedia articles).

There is nothing narrower than the mind of a learned liberal professor. You must get rave reviews from you student evaluations. It appears that brow-beating passes for teaching in your classes.

Yes, I'm a professor. I am in no way liberal - you're just exhibiting your anti-intellectual bigotry (professor=liberal). I never brow beat students either but I do try to teach them to think and require that they support their arguments with verifiable evidence - not anecdotes or feelings.

I'm also an evangelical Christian and have taught geology classes at two well-respected Christian Colleges where geologists are not young-Earth creationists (YECs). I've extensively read authors like Henry Morris, Ken Ham, Duane Gish, among many other YECs, have publicly debated some, and attended their talks and conferences. Virtually all the YECs I meet in the pews have never even cracked open a basic science text (yet they "know" we're all atheistic liars).

"...verifiable evidence.."

That's the nub of discussion. Where is the evidence that one species' genetic material evolved over the eons to produce a new species. By that standard alone, you are a poor student of your own field of expertise.

I'm going to tell you to your face; An evangelical Christian you are not. The first tenet of evangelicals is that God created us in him own image.

Longevity is not the gold standard of evidence of proof...Earth-center of the universe, flat earth, diseases the result of evil spirits, etc. Those are all "scientific" positions held by the learned of their time. If the discussion were closed by the constraints which you place on evolution, where does that get us.

Just demonstrate that genetic mutations are viable as a process of new species formation. Mutations are fatal to the mutant. How many generations of fruit flies have been artificially modified genetically --- we still have fruit flies. Not enough time you say. Think of the amount of time it would take to in a natural setting.

The whole evolution argument is based on anecdotes, the fossil records. Taking those disparate examples and ordering them in a comprehensible way is very much in the tradition of the human mind. The human mind can not leave a mess. It will order the mess. Doesn't mean it's correct.

I find some problems in your posts. Being familiar with the fallacies of logic, I just attempt to see how they factor into your argument.

You attempt to change the debate to an attack against the "young earth creationists" I don't remember when the age of the earth entered this debate, could it be that you introduced it as a strawman?

You appeal to the authority of "millions" of research projects, yet you fail to identify a single one or their subjects or results. You talk of "tens of thousands of scientists, yet never identify any or their results. You challenge the reader to do the legwork to refute their unstated (by you) findings.

I don't have an interest in this particular debate, I'm satisfied that there are things that we do not know. But...as a Professor, I'd expect better logic from you, in short sir...You argue like a liberal democrat.

I've spent years arguing with young-Earth creationists. It's a waste of time and effort. They're immune to evidence, too lazy to learn more than superficially about the science they criticize,

I'm also an evangelical Christian

Some "Christians" are also too lazy to learn more than superficially about their own religion.

In the Mark:10 Christ (root word for Christian) says that God created man. Yes, Jesus was a young-earth creationist. Later in Revelations 3:14 Jesus Himself says He was there at the beginning of Creation, an eyewitness to it all.

Some Christians through out the Old Testament as useless. Leaving them with only the New Testament to go by. Some even throw out Revelations, but a Christian cannot disregard the Gospel itself.