Replies

"Liberals filter thought pervasively in public schools, MSM, and even universities BUT NOT our beloved and hallowed halls of science!!! Does not compute... "

I think it's safe to assume that Liberals flourish anywhere that there is no true accountability, or where an historical predilection has led to their dominance in a particular field.

Thus the beloved and hallowed halls of science often constitute unfriendly or at least unfamiliar territory to them. You have to back up your theories with evidence.

I find it intriguing that this discussion is even taking place, for the basic premise here is a matter of provability.

It is demonstrable that selection of particular characteristcs produces change. Whether that selection is done by a horticulturist, a dog breeder, a farmer, or the cold and ruthless hand of Nature matters little to the end result -- desirable characteristics lead to successful breeding, and undesirable traits lead to extinction.

None of this is theoretical. It is careful, neutral, and repeatable observation.

Darwin's conjecture related to "The Origin of Species" not the origin of life. He deduced, logically enough, that sufficient change would constitute a change in species, especially over the course of innumerable generations. Observation and logic would appear to be unassailable, but here we are.

What constitutes a different species? The definition is clear, and it can easily be reached once sufficient change has been developed in the respective genomes.

What has any of this to do with Creation? Nothing. Nothing at all. Life was created, and then it changed. It changed when Man was ejected from the Garden, and it has changed many, many times before and after that event. And all of those changes served to diffract the existing species into further and further differentiation and specialization.

Creation, and evolution, are not in conflict, and never have been, except by those who appear to not understand the concept of the scale of time.

Time means nothing to God. A billion years could be devoted to a vagrant thought, or a furious productivity could ensue in the blink of an eye. Time is meaningless to God, for He is beyond it. What an awesome God!

But still there are those who wish to belittle Him, by saying that He has to conform to their limited concepts of a sufficiency of time.

Let us forego that discussion for a moment, and consider Space. Unending Space is even more vast than the limitless expanses of Time. The Big Bang is widely thought to have occurred thirteen billion years ago. But no one knows the limits of Space.

In all that limitless Space, then, do you think that God is not operative throughout the Universe?

Why then would you insist on constraining His sphere of influence to only a few thousand years?

NicknamedBob remarks appear in italics:
I think it's safe to assume that Liberals flourish anywhere that there is no true accountability, or where an historical predilection has led to their dominance in a particular field. I concur, this is readily apparent to me regarding evolution. If it were not so then the creation theory would be allowed equal airtime in classrooms and the MSM. Whatever else you’ve said that I omitted I generally agree with. However, don’t expect another reply from me since your positions appear to float so freely all over the evolution/creation debate.

I find it intriguing that this discussion is even taking place, for the basic premise here is a matter of provability. The basic premise here is does your starting point disregard the Bible? Mine does not. I’m very well aware that most do not include the Bible for any point of scientific reference. Furthermore, most think this is unscientific – I disagree. The Bible records much scientific fact - before these same scientific facts were discovered by mankind.

It is demonstrable that selection of particular characteristcs produces change. I agree but only within species. I have examined much evidence for transitional species and I remain completely unconvinced. One should not ignore the variety of fossil life that appeared (by evo dating in the Cambrian age) full and abundant instantaneously rather than reflecting eons of evolution from one-celled life to multi-cellular life. Also since the beginning lots of species/sub-species have gone extinct but no new ones have arisen imho.

None of this is theoretical. It is careful, neutral, and repeatable observation. Sorry to disagree yet again, but all science is biased, not neutral – often the bias is hidden though. And if it were beyond theoretical then these debates would cease.

Darwin's conjecture related to "The Origin of Species" not the origin of life. He deduced, logically enough, that sufficient change would constitute a change in species, especially over the course of innumerable generations. Observation and logic would appear to be unassailable, but here we are. Actually I believe he only inferred intra-species evolution and he never actually gets around to origin of species. If wrong, please provide quote and chapter/page. Splitting hairs here too - origin of species versus life (Did you mean origin of universe?).

What constitutes a different species? The definition is clear, and it can easily be reached once sufficient change has been developed in the respective genomes. Easily reached!? Sure – if you completely ignore everything Michael Behe points out in Darwin’s Black Box regarding microbiology. Basically, the growth of scientific knowledge has continually widened the gulf for jumping from one species to another. Do you realize how many millions of different permutations are needed for just 1% difference in DNA?

What has any of this to do with Creation? Nothing. Nothing at all. Life was created, and then it changed. It changed when Man was ejected from the Garden, and it has changed many, many times before and after...

Creation, and evolution, are not in conflict, and never have been, except by those who appear to not understand the concept of the scale of time. I'm totally confused by you're statements here? Evolution is completely opposed to creation and a creator God! "No conflict"(?) - Are all the FR postings here are just so people can play devils advocate? Not sure why you would even reference the Garden (of Eden) – which is it God, natural selection, or (shudder) both?

In all that limitless Space, then, do you think that God is not operative throughout the Universe? Indeed, I most definitely believe God is operative throughout the universe!

Why then would you insist on constraining His sphere of influence to only a few thousand years? I have not constrained His sphere nor would I ever even think it possible. Simply relying on His Word here - just the same I take it on faith that creation was accomplished in six literal days. If the Bible had described evolution and/or millions/billions of years then these debates would dry up.
I truly don't expect you to agree with my view of origins let alone the vast majority of FR folks, not in the scientific community, nor even the entire world (esp. regarding old age-dating of the universe) - I know I'm in a very small minority (some would like to confine me to the attic along with their wierd old aunt). By my reckoning there are myriad problems trying to equate present species populations and planentary conditions with millions (let alone billions) of years.

I think of it like this. Whenever working on a story problem first try to extrapolate an approximation then check your answer for reasonability (in this case I look to the Bible). I'm aware that several radio isotopes age-date the Earth to 4.5 billion years BUT that answer appears completely unreasonable in the Biblical perspective. So for me there is a high probability some errors and/or assumptions are yet to be corrected in the math (hint: uniformitarianism for one).

If you think you can change my mind then you would first have to disprove the Bible - conclusively. Even then I admit I would remain very very skeptical. The Bible is my source of faith, reasonability, history, and even to a limited degree science. IOW when science and the Bible disagree, I'll continue to trust the Bible.

Mankind is fallable and (esp. regarding evolution) prone to myriad fabrications. Having read quite a few books on the subject, I'm simply shocked how often whole cloth fabrications have appeared in the ToE. Even more troubling is when major portions of evidence are discredited, they still are presented as 'valid' in most evolution textbooks, papers, and discussions (you might start with the book Icons of Evolution). Better yet - for all of you evolutionists out there - please provide upto 10 scientifically proven major milestones of evidence supporting ToE - only those that have not been discredited, if possible.