Replies

Yes, Yahweh *may* have said "Man," and man was so. But there is equal evidense pointing to the universe being the dream of Brahma or having been sneezed out the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure.

That is not quite what the account in Genesis one says. I must also respectfully disagree with your point about their being "equal" evidence for those other two ideas you name (realizing that the last was a humor attempt). There is far more evidence for the account in Genesis one than for the Hindu cosmology.

Heck, there is far more evidence for the Genesis account just in VERSE ONE than the whole Hindu cosomology. Genesis 1:1 states that the universe had a BEGINNING. That is in contrast to any STEADY STATE type theories which postulate that the universe has no beginning or end. These 'eternal universe' ideas have been discredited in favor of a cosmology consistent with the otherwise absurd idea that the entire universe was created from nothing. So teachers Genesis 1:1 and the Big Bang theory. Other religions have creation stories where the universe is made out of some eternal substance, or ideas that are even more discredited.

I understand that you are not claiming this evidence is a 'home run'. I am a bit sensitive on this point because so many otherwise intelligent evolutionists cannot seem to understand the difference between what the evidence plainly shows and the filter of their interpretation of that evidence.

A few threads ago I had an otherwise clever fellow seriously claim that evolution was well documented throughout the fossil record. His "proof" was that the fossil record showed that changes in the forms of organisms had occured!

He seemed impenatrably oblivious to the fact that the very focus of the debate was deciding WHAT FORCE WAS RESPONSIBLE for the changes shown in the fossil record. TO him, the very fact that new creatures were introduced to the biosphere was primie facie evidence that macroevolution must be true.

I'm glad you are not like that. YOu know that it is not a 'home run'. To even be a hit for either side, something about this data must show more support for evolution than for the Creationist subset of ID. THe fact that the two types of bacteria have building blocks that are in some ways similar is for the most part a wash.

I think Archeabacteria have proteins and DNA quite different from the other two types of cells. I could tout this as evidence that Creationism is true, since it is clear now that prokaryotes did not evolve from Archeans. You could retort that evolution happened twice. Another wash.

Discovering the truth in this matter is going to take a lot more objective thought than most are willing to put forth.

An excellent post, Ahban. My one qualm is your characterizing ID as a "subset of creationism." The variations in theory found in the school of "scientific creationism" all have one thing in common -- they maintain that God created the universe and purport to show that there is a scientific basis for this conclusion. ID does not do this. In essence, it states that any outcome is either the result of chance or of intention, and that there are valid scientific ways of determining which one applies to an observed outcome.

The article at the heading of this thread is a perfect example of unscientific method. It repeatedly takes as a premise (macroevolution) the very thing it hopes to establish as a conclusion (macroevolution). This is circular reasoning.

If a preponderance of the evidence suggests that life was brought into being by conscious agency and not by chance, what can one say of a "scientist" who refutes what the best evidence points to?