[Heath Sherratt]

Evidence
Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.

The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.


We all exist in the present—and the facts all exist in the present. When one is trying to understand how the evidence came about (Where did the animals come from? How did the fossil layers form? etc.), what we are actually trying to do is to connect the past to the present.

Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a ‘time machine’. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.

On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.

Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.

Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions.

That’s why the argument often turns into something like:

‘Can’t you see what I’m talking about?’

‘No, I can’t. Don’t you see how wrong you are?’

‘No, I’m not wrong. It’s obvious that I’m right.’

‘No, it’s not obvious.’ And so on.

These two people are arguing about the same evidence, but they are looking at the evidence through different glasses.

It’s not until these two people recognize the argument is really about the presuppositions they have to start with, that they will begin to deal with the foundational reasons for their different beliefs. A person will not interpret the evidence differently until they put on a different set of glasses—which means to change one’s presuppositions.

I’ve found that a Christian who understands these things can actually put on the evolutionist’s glasses (without accepting the presuppositions as true) and understand how they look at evidence. However, for a number of reasons, including spiritual ones, a non-Christian usually can’t put on the Christian’s glasses—unless they recognize the presuppositional nature of the battle and are thus beginning to question their own presuppositions.

It is of course sometimes possible that just by presenting ‘evidence’, you can convince a person that a particular scientific argument for creation makes sense ‘on the facts’. But usually, if that person then hears a different interpretation of the same evidence that seems better than yours, that person will swing away from your argument, thinking they have found ‘stronger facts’.

However, if you had helped the person to understand this issue of presuppositions, then they will be better able to recognize this for what it is—a different interpretation based on differing presuppositions—i.e. starting beliefs.

As a teacher, I found that whenever I taught the students what I thought were the ‘facts’ for creation, then their other teacher would just re-interpret the facts. The students would then come back to me saying, ‘Well sir, you need to try again.’

However, when I learned to teach my students how we interpret facts, and how interpretations are based on our presuppositions, then when the other teacher tried to reinterpret the facts, the students would challenge the teacher’s basic assumptions. Then it wasn’t the students who came back to me, but the other teacher! This teacher was upset with me because the students wouldn’t accept her interpretation of the evidence and challenged the very basis of her thinking.

What was happening was that I had learned to teach the students how to think rather than just what to think. What a difference that made to my class! I have been overjoyed to find, sometimes decades later, some of those students telling me how they became active, solid Christians as a result.

Debate terms
If one agrees to a discussion without using the Bible as some people insist, then they have set the terms of the debate. In essence these terms are:

‘Facts’ are neutral. However, there are no such things as ‘brute facts’; all facts are interpreted. Once the Bible is eliminated in the argument, then the Christians’ presuppositions are gone, leaving them unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts. Their opponents then have the upper hand as they still have their presuppositions — see Naturalism, logic and reality.

Truth can/should be determined independent of God. However, the Bible states: ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom’ (Psalm 111:10); ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge’ (Proverbs 1:7). ‘But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned’ (1 Corinthians 2:14).

A Christian cannot divorce the spiritual nature of the battle from the battle itself. A non-Christian is not neutral. The Bible makes this very clear: ‘The one who is not with Me is against Me, and the one who does not gather with Me scatters’ (Matthew 12:30); ‘And this is the condemnation, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the Light, because their deeds were evil’ (John 3:19).

Agreeing to such terms of debate also implicitly accepts their proposition that the Bible’s account of the universe’s history is irrelevant to understanding that history!

Ultimately, God’s Word convicts
1 Peter 3:15 and other passages make it clear we are to use every argument we can to convince people of the truth, and 2 Cor. 10:4–5 says we are to refute error (like Paul did in his ministry to the Gentiles). Nonetheless, we must never forget Hebrews 4:12: ‘For the word of God is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing apart of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.’

Also, Isaiah 55:11: ‘So shall My word be, which goes out of My mouth; it shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall certainly do what I sent it to do.’

Practical application
When someone tells me they want ‘proof’ or ‘evidence’, not the Bible, my response is as follows:

‘You might not believe the Bible but I do. And I believe it gives me the right basis to understand this universe and correctly interpret the facts around me. I’m going to give you some examples of how building my thinking on the Bible explains the world and is not contradicted by science. For instance, the Bible states that God made distinct kinds of animals and plants. Let me show you what happens when I build my thinking on this presupposition. I will illustrate how processes such as natural selection, genetic drift, etc. can be explained and interpreted. You will see how the science of genetics makes sense based upon the Bible.’

One can of course do this with numerous scientific examples, showing how the issue of sin and judgment, for example, is relevant to geology and fossil evidence. And how the Fall of man, with the subsequent Curse on creation, makes sense of the evidence of harmful mutations, violence, and death.

Once I’ve explained some of this in detail, I then continue:

‘Now let me ask you to defend your position concerning these matters. Please show me how your way of thinking, based on your beliefs, makes sense of the same evidence. And I want you to point out where my science and logic are wrong.’

In arguing this way, a Christian is:

Using biblical presuppositions to build a way of thinking to interpret the evidence.

Showing that the Bible and science go hand in hand.1

Challenging the presuppositions of the other person (many are unaware they have these).

Forcing the debater to logically defend his position consistent with science and his own presuppositions (many will find that they cannot do this).

Honouring the Word of God that convicts the soul.

Remember, it’s no good convincing people to believe in creation, without also leading them to believe and trust in the Creator/Redeemer, Jesus Christ. God honours those who honour His Word. We need to use God-honouring ways of reaching people with the truth of what life is all about.

Naturalism, logic and reality
Those arguing against creation may not even be conscious of their most basic presupposition, one which excludes God a priori, namely naturalism/materialism (everything came from matter, there is no supernatural, no prior creative intelligence).2 The following two real-life examples highlight some problems with that assumption:

A young man approached me at a seminar and stated, ‘Well, I still believe in the big bang, and that we arrived here by chance random processes. I don’t believe in God.’ I answered him, ‘Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness. So you don’t know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. Young man, you don’t know if you’re making correct statements or even whether you’re asking me the right questions.’

The young man looked at me and blurted out, ‘What was that book you recommended?’ He finally realized that his belief undercut its own foundations —such ‘reasoning’ destroys the very basis for reason.

On another occasion, a man came to me after a seminar and said, ‘Actually, I’m an atheist. Because I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in absolutes, so I recognize that I can’t even be sure of reality.’ I responded, ‘Then how do you know you’re really here making this statement?’ ‘Good point,’ he replied. ‘What point?’ I asked. The man looked at me, smiled, and said, ‘Maybe I should go home.’ I stated, ‘Maybe it won’t be there.’ ‘Good point,’ the man said. ‘What point?’ I replied.

This man certainly got the message. If there is no God, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality? How can one even rationally believe that there is such a thing as truth, let alone decide what it is?

 

[TheMontashu]

Heath you make me laugh, think about this point. We do not know how god works or much of anything about god. So it very well could be that god has a difrent sense of time, then it would be possable for god to have created the world in seven days and so on and so forth. For all you or I know a day for god could be a billion years. God could have spent what we would think of as an eternity creating man and earth and beast. I respect were you are coming from. I am religious myself but the bible in my opinion does not explain evorything. I belive religion is a guide on how to live your life as a good person, not a literal version of what happend in history (although based on fact).
I am not saying you should question your faith, but I do think you should think about the idea that god isn't human and could (who knows for sure) be effected by time difrent than ourselfs


O and by the way you totaly ignored us jews who read the same creaton story as that of christians

 

[jaydee]

Creationism starts with the supposition that god created everything, and tries to make the observational evidence fit the story, though in my mind it has never done an even mildly credible job. Evolutionism started with observation and the collection of evidence, followed by postulation of possible hypotheses. It has not done a completely credible job yet, but I think it fits the evidence much more closely and the theory leaves a lot of room to work with without falling apart. Intelligent design is just one more attempt at rationalizing creationism and is like explaining a watch by saying that all the parts were produced by magic, but then someone came along and put them together. There is just no logical reason to believe it.

 

[GumbaFish]

"I will illustrate how processes such as natural selection, genetic drift, etc. can be explained and interpreted. You will see how the science of genetics makes sense based upon the Bible."

Maybe I missed it but you never got to this, and I'm not being a smartass.

 

[Heath Sherratt]

Heath you make me laugh, think about this point. We do not know how god works or much of anything about god. So it very well could be that god has a difrent sense of time, then it would be possable for god to have created the world in seven days and so on and so forth. For all you or I know a day for god could be a billion years. God could have spent what we would think of as an eternity creating man and earth and beast. I respect were you are coming from. I am religious myself but the bible in my opinion does not explain evorything. I belive religion is a guide on how to live your life as a good person, not a literal version of what happend in history (although based on fact).
I am not saying you should question your faith, but I do think you should think about the idea that god isn't human and could (who knows for sure) be effected by time difrent than ourselfs


O and by the way you tottaly ignored us jews who read the same creation story as that of christians

Lauren, explain your post. When did my post say God was aman? When did it say that the earth was created in six days and that was literal? Jews are only Jews if they are one inwardly, it is a culture, not a ethnicity. The Jews were Hebrew. I ignored no one. I agree, God is outside of time and that there is scripture to back that up. He says that one day is as a thousand years and I don't think he meant it literally. He was making a point. I got it. You on the other hand have confused me. Please explain.

 

[TheMontashu]

Lauren, explain your post. When did my post say God was aman? When did it say that the earth was created in six days and that was literal? Jews are only Jews if they are one inwardly, it is a culture, not a ethnicity. The Jews were Hebrew. I ignored no one. I agree, God is outside of time and that there is scripture to back that up. He says that one day is as a thousand years and I don't think he meant it literally. He was making a point. I got it. You on the other hand have confused me. Please explain.

I am saying basicly that god did create earth but did it through evolution. I belive in evolution and all of that kind of thing but belive god was the one conrtolling it. And yes heath I know that my religion is a culture as well as a religion, I spent a month over the summer in the holy land, and I have a deep routed faith in god. (although untill about a year or 2 ago was questioning my faith)

 

[Heath Sherratt]

First I would like to say that I do not believe that we are all accidents that evolved from algae.

 

[TheMontashu]

First I would like to say that I do not believe that we are all accidents that evolved from algae.

Well we do share something like 40% of the same genes as algae. You are entitled to your opinion. I personoly like to question thing ESPECIALY the bible, and trust scientists research more than a book written something like almost 4000 years ago for the old testimate and almost 2000 for the new one.

 

[Heath Sherratt]

Yeah, by 40 authors on three continents in 6 or so different languages, and they all have the same message. Pick 66 other books with those same mathematical requirements and find a common thread much less 300 prophecies fullfilled by one man. You obviously don't know what evolution means and haven't been reading any of the posts. Please answer my questions as i have responded to yours. H

 

[TheMontashu]

Yeah, by 40 authors on three continents in 6 or so different languages, and they all have the same message. Pick 66 other books with those same mathematical requirements and find a common thread much less 300 prophecies fullfilled by one man. You obviously don't know what evolution means and haven't been reading any of the posts. Please answer my questions as i have responded to yours. H

It never says that got was is a man only that we are created in it's image, nor does it say god literaly created in 6 days. I am not going to tell you that jesus is not the mesiah I do not know for a fact, but I do not belive he his. He was the son of god but god did create man so therefor evory man on earth is gods son. One thing I do know is jesus was a jew, he was born, lived, and died a jew that is a fact. You are entitled to your belife in christianity and I respect how devoted you are to your faith, but I fermly belive that I am a part of gods chosen people and there is nothing you can do to cinvince me otherwise.

 

[Westy]

Science is actually a liberal conspiracy. Sciencey type things like Nukular weapons, integrated circuits, electrical generation and transmission, modern medicine, internal combustion engines, rocket and space type stuff, genetics, radio, television, telephones, cell phones and airplanes are actually miracles, the liberal scientific conspiracy just takes credit for it. Bastards.

The second letter of every third word in a Sanskrit translation of the bible it explains all this when read backwards with a mirror while smoking paint chips and handling serpents.

 

[GumbaFish]

bueller...bueller....seriously explain how you think genetics and drift etc are explained in your way of thinking.

 

[Transcend]

Yup, it is certainly reasonable to take as scientific fact a sbook that has been translated a dozen times, over 4000 years, by 40 some odd authors.

Ever played the game "telephone" in grade school? Exactly.

 

[GumbaFish]

The second letter of every third word in a Sanskrit translation of the bible it explains all this when read backwards with a mirror while smoking paint chips and handling serpents.

well played

 

[sanjuro]

After reading your post, Heath, one thing you reaffirmed for me after many discussions with you:

Christians are great debators!

P.S. Loren is how TheMontashu's name is spelled.

 

[Heath Sherratt]

It never says that got was is a man only that we are created in it's image, nor does it say god literaly created in 6 days. I am not going to tell you that jesus is not the mesiah I do not know for a fact, but I do not belive he his. He was the son of god but god did create man so therefor evory man on earth is gods son. One thing I do know is jesus was a jew, he was born, lived, and died a jew that is a fact. You are entitled to your belife in christianity and I respect how devoted you are to your faith, but I fermly belive that I am a part of gods chosen people and there is nothing you can do to cinvince me otherwise.

Loren. The rules for conversations or debates go like this. I say something, you respond. You say something I respond. You have neither contributed to this thread or responded to anything I have said to you. If you continue to go on ignoring me, i will return the favor. If you would like to talk to me about something other than what this thread is about, by all means call me. Fong has my info. Otherwise, contribute or don't bother. This is not the time or place.

 

[Heath Sherratt]

Transcend. You think with a name like that you would grasp something other than yourself.

 

[Heath Sherratt]

"I will illustrate how processes such as natural selection, genetic drift, etc. can be explained and interpreted. You will see how the science of genetics makes sense based upon the Bible."

Maybe I missed it but you never got to this, and I'm not being a smartass.

Sorry. I'll explain as best I can. Genetic drift for example. Time magazine published an article a few years ago about a DNA sampling of a cross section of women worldwide. The test covered women of all the major ethnic classifications. The article, titled "Mother Eve," showed that the DNA characteristics of all the many women tested went back to one single woman.
Scientifically represented already in the Holy Bible. Gods very Word to His people.

 

[Heath Sherratt]

Also, one last post before I turn in tonight. I have given objective views from both secular scientists and Biblical views from the Word of God. You all have returned nothing. Not something from secular scientists, nor anything from the Bible to refute anything I have printed for you. How is this a debate? i have been met with hostility, anger, name calling, doubt and pomp; but no tactical, scientific evidence for the evolutionist. I leave you with this...Evolution assumes a gradual upward progression in genetic mutation. For things to have evolved from non living material into living, complex organisms-all by accident. The truth is, the opposite actually occurs in evry single case, according to the scientific laws of physics. All energy and matter are governed by the laws of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics states that everything in the universe is going from a state of organization and complexity and is running downward, degenerating toward chaos and disorganization. The law commonly known as entropy. Visit your nephews room or the nearest junk yard for you proof. Everything loses energy and eventually runs out of energy. You should see me at the end of the day.
The fact is, there has never been any proof in either the fossil record or natural life indicating even one trace of evolution. It takes just as much if not more faith to believe in it.
Brother and sisters, this is a battle for your minds and for your souls. You are not a descendant of a tiny cell of primordial protoplasm. You are not the blind and arbitrary product of time, chance, and natural forces. your closest living relatives do not swing from trees and eat peanuts at the zoo. You are not flying through lifeless space with no purpose, no direction, no control, and no destiny but final destruction. You did not come from nothing, going nowhere, and will end your brief cosmic journey beneath six feet of dirt, where all that will become of you is food for worms and bacteria. these are the lies of the destroyer. The destroyer of life and liberty. The fact is- You are a special creation of a good and all Powerful God. You are the climax of His creation, the magnum opus of the greatest artist ever to exist. Beyond Dali, beyond Picasso, beyond Tupac. You are created in His image, with the capacity to think, reflect, change. Animals can't do that. You are not their kind. Not only is your kind unique, but you are unique amongst your kind. He loves you so much that He gave His only Son for your sake, that you might know Him further and enjoi the benfits of being the son of the King of the universe. You choose which you want to believe. I'll do my best to help inform you along the way. You see, there is a family out there that needs you, that loves you and can't wait to help you discover the majesty of yourself and the eternal majesty that is our Creator. Sleep tight. See you tomorrow.

 

[Transcend]

The fact is- You are a special creation of a good and all Powerful God.

I'll do my best to help inform you along the way.

Actually I am the creation of a sperm and an egg, which met one night in January, 1978 in the back of an Austin Mini I believe, maybe that explains why I am so short?

Also, please don't.

 

[narlus]

Dali...ok....Picasso....yep....Tupac? you lost me there.

heath, the difference between faith and truth is one which is blurred by the fundamentalists. read some stephen j gould if you want some fascinating treatises on evolution...good stuff. RIP, SJG, scholar and red sox fan.

 

[Kevin]

I really dont understand why people even bother to discuss about this.
Neither party will ever give up their beliefs so its a neverending story.
I just dont see the point cause I couldnt care less about how all of this began. I just know its a mess right now and thats definitly to blame on both evolution and relegion.

 

[TheMontashu]

Also, one last post before I turn in tonight. I have given objective views from both secular scientists and Biblical views from the Word of God. You all have returned nothing. Not something from secular scientists, nor anything from the Bible to refute anything I have printed for you. How is this a debate? i have been met with hostility, anger, name calling, doubt and pomp; but no tactical, scientific evidence for the evolutionist. I leave you with this...Evolution assumes a gradual upward progression in genetic mutation. For things to have evolved from non living material into living, complex organisms-all by accident. The truth is, the opposite actually occurs in evry single case, according to the scientific laws of physics. All energy and matter are governed by the laws of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics states that everything in the universe is going from a state of organization and complexity and is running downward, degenerating toward chaos and disorganization. The law commonly known as entropy. Visit your nephews room or the nearest junk yard for you proof. Everything loses energy and eventually runs out of energy. You should see me at the end of the day.
The fact is, there has never been any proof in either the fossil record or natural life indicating even one trace of evolution. It takes just as much if not more faith to believe in it.
Brother and sisters, this is a battle for your minds and for your souls. You are not a descendant of a tiny cell of primordial protoplasm. You are not the blind and arbitrary product of time, chance, and natural forces. your closest living relatives do not swing from trees and eat peanuts at the zoo. You are not flying through lifeless space with no purpose, no direction, no control, and no destiny but final destruction. You did not come from nothing, going nowhere, and will end your brief cosmic journey beneath six feet of dirt, where all that will become of you is food for worms and bacteria. these are the lies of the destroyer. The destroyer of life and liberty. The fact is- You are a special creation of a good and all Powerful God. You are the climax of His creation, the magnum opus of the greatest artist ever to exist. Beyond Dali, beyond Picasso, beyond Tupac. You are created in His image, with the capacity to think, reflect, change. Animals can't do that. You are not their kind. Not only is your kind unique, but you are unique amongst your kind. He loves you so much that He gave His only Son for your sake, that you might know Him further and enjoi the benfits of being the son of the King of the universe. You choose which you want to believe. I'll do my best to help inform you along the way. You see, there is a family out there that needs you, that loves you and can't wait to help you discover the majesty of yourself and the eternal majesty that is our Creator. Sleep tight. See you tomorrow.

You may be right in that all life is broken down, but due to the Law of Conservation of Mass- Mass is neither distroyed nor created during chemical nor physical change. When the body breaks down it is not turning into nothing, the atoms break apart and form into new compounds. Matter never trully disapears, and as far as us being broken down by worms and such, they use the energy from our bodys to live and repruduce and then are eaten. Once a worm is eaten the creature then uses its energy to reproduce and so on and so forth through the food chain. It is a cycle of energy and life, Not of constant decay.

 

[Heath Sherratt]

Right, but you agree in Intelligent design, how is this an arguement for evolution?

 

[Changleen]

The fact is, there has never been any proof in either the fossil record or natural life indicating even one trace of evolution. It takes just as much if not more faith to believe in it.

You are blind.

Brother and sisters, this is a battle for your minds and for your souls. You are not a descendant of a tiny cell of primordial protoplasm. You are not the blind and arbitrary product of time, chance, and natural forces. your closest living relatives do not swing from trees and eat peanuts at the zoo. You are not flying through lifeless space with no purpose, no direction, no control, and no destiny but final destruction. You did not come from nothing, going nowhere, and will end your brief cosmic journey beneath six feet of dirt, where all that will become of you is food for worms and bacteria. these are the lies of the destroyer. The destroyer of life and liberty. The fact is- You are a special creation of a good and all Powerful God. You are the climax of His creation, the magnum opus of the greatest artist ever to exist. Beyond Dali, beyond Picasso, beyond Tupac. You are created in His image, with the capacity to think, reflect, change. Animals can't do that. You are not their kind.

You are soooo wrong about nearly all of that.

 

[TheMontashu]

Right, but you agree in Intelligent design, how is this an arguement for evolution?

It isn't you stated that evorything will eventualy run out of energy, I disagree with that and took out my chem book and found a counter example. Yes I do belive in Intelligent design but not in the literal sence that you seem to, I do belive god did create the earth and humanity but did it through evolution. God (in my opinion) took nothing and created something, but did not create a dog then create a cat. I think god did start with algea and allowed for genetic mutation, alowing for the earth to evolve into what it is today. I do not belive god has done much to effect the earth and its actions sence the evolution of man. (I hope that made sense to all of you, I have trouble expressing ideas through text)

 

[sanjuro]

The fact is, there has never been any proof in either the fossil record or natural life indicating even one trace of evolution. It takes just as much if not more faith to believe in it.

The theory of Evolution is just that, a theory. It is not a law, so could change or even be wrong. However, it explains very nicely how things came to be, and there are many other sciences which have been based on Evolution.

When the time comes when an experiment or discovery does not fit in with the theory of Evolution, then this theory will be modified or even discarded.

Intelligent Design might be a valid theory. Frankly, I know nothing about biology, anthropology, or any other science, so I cannot question the concept. However, the main proponents of ID are not scientists (William Dembski is a mathetician by trade), but religious leaders and philosophers.

I await acceptance in the scientific community, although I frankly do not believe it will ever occur. Until that point I only accept it as religious theory, not science.

 

[jaydee]

Also, one last post before I turn in tonight. I have given objective views from both secular scientists and Biblical views from the Word of God. You all have returned nothing. Not something from secular scientists, nor anything from the Bible to refute anything I have printed for you. How is this a debate? i have been met with hostility, anger, name calling, doubt and pomp; but no tactical, scientific evidence for the evolutionist. I leave you with this...Evolution assumes a gradual upward progression in genetic mutation. For things to have evolved from non living material into living, complex organisms-all by accident. The truth is, the opposite actually occurs in evry single case, according to the scientific laws of physics. All energy and matter are governed by the laws of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics states that everything in the universe is going from a state of organization and complexity and is running downward, degenerating toward chaos and disorganization. The law commonly known as entropy. Visit your nephews room or the nearest junk yard for you proof. Everything loses energy and eventually runs out of energy. You should see me at the end of the day.

Evolution does not assume "a gradual upward progression in genetic mutation". It assumes that as chance mutations occur that favor survival the individual creatures possessing that mutation will have an increased chance of survival and reproduction. This has nothing to do with conservation of the total energy contained in the universe. The concept of entropy is not at all at odds with evolution. You have intentionally misused a concept (with a convenient disregard for its real meaning) which applies to the universe in a general organizational sense and tried to force it to refute the theory that a species could change to its advantage over eons. With your reasoning, an individual human would begin a process of "chaos and disorganization" immediately upon birth. Nice try, but there are a number of steps missing from your ladder of logic. In fact, the theory of universal entropy supports the "big bang" theory, another theory that creationists expend a lot of energy trying to rationalize and sweep under the couch.

The fact is, there has never been any proof in either the fossil record or natural life indicating even one trace of evolution. It takes just as much if not more faith to believe in it.

And exactly which planet have you been studying to come up with this whopper? The earth abounds with fossil records spanning millions of years which show irrefutable evidence of the changes within species. Or did god go around burying these in different sedimentary strata just to laugh at his pet humans trying to figure it all out? Why are there no human and few mammal fossils dating from the time of the dinosaurs? Did god tire of the dinos and bake up a bunch of new creatures to amuse himself with? Or did they gradually arise from creatures that already existed, because their ability to adapt and survive far outstripped that of the dinosaurs? Which answer seems more logical to a thinking man? You can't smugly trot out BS like "The fact is, there has never been any proof in either the fossil record or natural life indicating even one trace of evolution" and expect anyone older than 7 to believe it.

Brother and sisters, this is a battle for your minds and for your souls. You are not a descendant of a tiny cell of primordial protoplasm. You are not the blind and arbitrary product of time, chance, and natural forces. your closest living relatives do not swing from trees and eat peanuts at the zoo. You are not flying through lifeless space with no purpose, no direction, no control, and no destiny but final destruction. You did not come from nothing, going nowhere, and will end your brief cosmic journey beneath six feet of dirt, where all that will become of you is food for worms and bacteria. these are the lies of the destroyer. The destroyer of life and liberty. The fact is- You are a special creation of a good and all Powerful God. You are the climax of His creation, the magnum opus of the greatest artist ever to exist. Beyond Dali, beyond Picasso, beyond Tupac. You are created in His image, with the capacity to think, reflect, change. Animals can't do that. You are not their kind. Not only is your kind unique, but you are unique amongst your kind. He loves you so much that He gave His only Son for your sake, that you might know Him further and enjoi the benfits of being the son of the King of the universe. You choose which you want to believe. I'll do my best to help inform you along the way. You see, there is a family out there that needs you, that loves you and can't wait to help you discover the majesty of yourself and the eternal majesty that is our Creator. Sleep tight. See you tomorrow.

Where do you get off making these kind of patronizing pronouncements? This kind of garbage denigrates humans and reduces them to the position of cute pets that need another 3 weeks of obedience classes, or semi-successful projects in the Pat Robertson Prep School for Young Godlings Grade 12 Science Fair. Maybe your pride and insecurity require that you distance yourself from the rest of living things, but there is no shame in being for a while a living part of this universe, no more and no less. Why can't we have the "capacity to think, reflect, change" without having to be a poor carbon copy of some other being? I don't know what happens when the pilot light goes out, and it wouldn't make a bit of difference to how I live my life. I am happy for you that your beliefs are what keep you warm at night, but please enjoy your world for yourself and refrain from preaching at and informing us poor lost sheep who are less fortunate than your exalted and enlightened self. If there is any kind of major dude(ss) out there, I'm sure he/she/it would be happy to see me live my life as a good person and would be embarassed beyond all belief with all this misguided adulation, glorification, and toadying laid at his/her/its feet.

 

[Changleen]

I await acceptance in the scientific community, although I frankly do not believe it will ever occur. Until that point I only accept it as religious theory, not science.

Fortunatley, all scientists in the world, except for a very very tiny minority in the US view creationism and ID as BS.

 

[Changleen]

...but no tactical, scientific evidence for the evolutionist.

If you actually believe that you have some sort of impairment.

I leave you with this...Evolution assumes a gradual upward progression in genetic mutation. For things to have evolved from non living material into living, complex organisms-all by accident. The truth is, the opposite actually occurs in evry single case, according to the scientific laws of physics.

The scientific laws of physics? I thought it was the other kind.

Evolution 'assumes' nothing. As Jaydee said you are applying the principal of entropy without a full understanding and in a way, way, way too generalistic sense. Until you can actually understand what you are trying to refute and the tools and phenomena you are attempting to do it with you are going to be laughed at by those who have bothered to pay attention and question things in life.

Your childish handling of the concept of entropy is in fact flawed by everything around you every day, can't you even understand that? Other more complex principals apply in entropy. Like most things in life it cannot be reduced to a one line statement that covers all situations and eventualities, as you'd know if you had studied it in any serious way. For example, the greater the flux in energy, there is a greater tendancy for complexity in it's disollution. To anyone with half a functioning imagination, it's not hard to see how this could easily have given rise to more complex chemical structures. If you can understand this you see it everyday all around you. Looking at atomic physics you can see the same potential created in fusion, fission and atomic decay. Maybe a higher intelligence initiated the universe and has somehow determined the fundametal rules of time and space, but frankly your level of biblical literallism is laughable and that's why you can't get a 'debate' out of people. Even the freaking catholic church is less retarded about this than you.

The fact is, there has never been any proof in either the fossil record or natural life indicating even one trace of evolution. It takes just as much if not more faith to believe in it.

Statements like this just make you look so ignorant. You clearly don't even understand the concepts of 'proof' or 'evidence' as they apply in science, so when you use them you look like a dick, let alone that what you've said is basically laughable to 99% of the educated world.

Brother and sisters, this is a battle for your minds and for your souls.

Well, you lost the first of those battles some time ago I think. Not a good start for your team.

You are not a descendant of a tiny cell of primordial protoplasm. You are not the blind and arbitrary product of time, chance, and natural forces.

Yup, God had a purpose for everyone and everything. Even the millions who have lived tiny short suffering lives in human created hells. Makes perfect sense.

your closest living relatives do not swing from trees and eat peanuts at the zoo.

99% of our genes are the same as these 'lesser creatures', dumbass. I can have viable organ transplants from creatures even further removed.

You are not flying through lifeless space with no purpose, no direction, no control, and no destiny but final destruction. You did not come from nothing, going nowhere, and will end your brief cosmic journey beneath six feet of dirt, where all that will become of you is food for worms and bacteria. these are the lies of the destroyer. The destroyer of life and liberty.

"I can totally state things that the evidence of my own eyes falsifies and be happy about it. See this rain? It's not real. It's sunny."

The fact is- You are a special creation of a good and all Powerful God. You are the climax of His creation, the magnum opus of the greatest artist ever to exist. Beyond Dali, beyond Picasso...

The climax? This is the top of the line eh? Seriously, you are ignorant and arrogant beyond belief.

You are created in His image, with the capacity to think, reflect, change. Animals can't do that. You are not their kind.

Dude, you are flat out wrong. I hope you don't have any pets. This type of arrogance makes me sick. My cats are more rational than you, and probably smarter.

Not only is your kind unique, but you are unique amongst your kind. He loves you so much that He gave His only Son for your sake, that you might know Him further and enjoi the benfits of being the son of the King of the universe. You choose which you want to believe. I'll do my best to help inform you along the way. You see, there is a family out there that needs you, that loves you and can't wait to help you discover the majesty of yourself and the eternal majesty that is our Creator. Sleep tight. See you tomorrow.

You are in no position to inform anyone of anything, other than the scary depths of your own delusions and denial about the world you live in.

 

[Changleen]

Sorry. I'll explain as best I can. Genetic drift for example. Time magazine published an article a few years ago about a DNA sampling of a cross section of women worldwide. The test covered women of all the major ethnic classifications. The article, titled "Mother Eve," showed that the DNA characteristics of all the many women tested went back to one single woman.
Scientifically represented already in the Holy Bible. Gods very Word to His people.

If 'Eve' as you childishly define her was true then EVERY WOMAN WITHOUT FAIL would be traced back to that single point. Anyway what you've referenced is a gross simplification of the study, probably as spun to you by Time magazine, that reputable scientific jornal. Way to shoot a hole in your own argument and not even be smart enough to realise.

 

[fluff]

If 'Eve' as you childishly define her was true then EVERY WOMAN WITHOUT FAIL would be traced back to that single point. Anyway what you've referenced is a gross simplification of the study, probably as spun to you by Time magazine, that reputable scientific jornal. Way to shoot a hole in your own argument and not even be smart enough to realise.

It's not impossible that the DNA of every woman alive today could be traced back to a single ancestor. All humans today are descended from the first humans. Our gene pool is relatively small given our total numbers.

Interestingly enough that means that a huge percentage of Italians who come from Rome can truthfully claim to be direct descendants of any (and perhaps even all) of the Roman Emporers. Personally I am a direct descendant of William the Conqueror (and probably an indirect one too).

 

[MudGrrl]

"I have given objective views from both secular scientists and Biblical views from the Word of God. You all have returned nothing. Not something from secular scientists, nor anything from the Bible to refute anything I have printed for you. How is this a debate? i have been met with hostility, anger, name calling, doubt and pomp; but no tactical, scientific evidence for the evolutionist."


This whole passage smacks of the typical ID way of argument.

-You build lengthy posts and include some scientific terms that would befuddle the average American (thermodynamics, anyone?), let alone yourself and somehow bastardize them to fit in with the bible, but don't mention the bible (though I am happy that you aren't denying your true motives, Heath).
-When someone points out that there is a gigantic amount of proof (see fossil record), you revert to the 'evolution is just a theory' argument.
- Somewhere along the way, you manage to insult the intelligence of those who support evolution (you did this in your first post, bravo!)
-You feel persecuted somewhere along the way... "You all have returned nothing...I have been met with hostility, anger, ..."


It's good to know that nothing changes.
But then, why would it?

You don't 'believe' in Evolution.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a ‘time machine’. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.

On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.

Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.

Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions.

This is a fallacious argument. You have created a false dichotomy by dividing people into 2 groups; those who accept god and must reject evolution, and those who accept evolution and must reject god. The truth is that there are those who both accept god and evolution (including Christians.) Those Christians have the same presuppositions as you, but accept evolution, because evolution is NOT based on presuppositions as it is not a belief system.

Those arguing against creation may not even be conscious of their most basic presupposition, one which excludes God a priori, namely naturalism/materialism (everything came from matter, there is no supernatural, no prior creative intelligence)

Here you are confusing Philosophical Naturalism with Methodological Naturalism. Methodological Naturalism flows from the scientific method. The scientific method does not rule out god a priori, but since we do not have ways to test for the supernatural, we understand that methodological naturalism is the best approach we have to understanding/explaining the world around us. If one could come up with a test for the supernatural, then science would use it.

A young man approached me at a seminar and stated, ‘Well, I still believe in the big bang, and that we arrived here by chance random processes. I don’t believe in God.’ I answered him, ‘Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness. So you don’t know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. Young man, you don’t know if you’re making correct statements or even whether you’re asking me the right questions.’

The young man looked at me and blurted out, ‘What was that book you recommended?’ He finally realized that his belief undercut its own foundations —such ‘reasoning’ destroys the very basis for reason.

You either do not understand what "random" means in a scientific concept, or you do and you misled that young man on purpose. Also, making pronouncements on what is the "right way" or "wrong way" to evolve is making metaphysical, unscientific assumptions. Things have evolved the way they have, and there has never been a right or wrong way, except in that more fit organisms survive.

On another occasion, a man came to me after a seminar and said, ‘Actually, I’m an atheist. Because I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in absolutes, so I recognize that I can’t even be sure of reality.’ I responded, ‘Then how do you know you’re really here making this statement?’ ‘Good point,’ he replied. ‘What point?’ I asked. The man looked at me, smiled, and said, ‘Maybe I should go home.’ I stated, ‘Maybe it won’t be there.’ ‘Good point,’ the man said. ‘What point?’ I replied.

This man certainly got the message. If there is no God, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality? How can one even rationally believe that there is such a thing as truth, let alone decide what it is?

Here you present us with another false dichotomy. Either there is god or there is no reality. The problem is that reality can exist or not exist independently of the existence of god. There is no logical requirement for divine presence for reality to exist. Also, the other problem with your example is that with an omnipotent being, who is able to warp space, time, etc. there is no expectation that one's house would be there when one arrived home. There is no expectation that the physical laws will be upheld from one instance to the next. God could simply change them on a whim at any time and we might float off into space.

Yeah, by 40 authors on three continents in 6 or so different languages, and they all have the same message. Pick 66 other books with those same mathematical requirements and find a common thread much less 300 prophecies fullfilled by one man.

This is not a credible argument. The differences in the Testaments are vast, not to mention the differences in the books and the differences in the chapters. There is a serious theological discussion about the differences in the orders of creation simply between Genesis chapters 1 and 2.

Evolution assumes a gradual upward progression in genetic mutation. For things to have evolved from non living material into living, complex organisms-all by accident.

1. That is a conclusion, not an assumption.
2. You must define accident in this sense for your statement to have any meaning, as well as the scope of what you are arguing against. Are you simply arguing against abiogenesis or all of evolution?

The truth is, the opposite actually occurs in evry single case, according to the scientific laws of physics. All energy and matter are governed by the laws of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics states that everything in the universe is going from a state of organization and complexity and is running downward, degenerating toward chaos and disorganization.

Snowflakes are a good example of why you are wrong on this. Also, check this page:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html

The fact is, there has never been any proof in either the fossil record or natural life indicating even one trace of evolution. It takes just as much if not more faith to believe in it.

Once again you are incorrect:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

If you are really convinced that evolution is from the devil and rules out god a priori, then you should similarly convict all science of the same offense. All science operates under the same rules (the scientific method.) I suggest that you worry every moment of every day whether you will fall off the Earth or not. I suggest that you carry an umbrella with you even on days when the forecast is for sunshine, because god could cause it to rain at any moment. I suggest you go to your church the next time you are sick and have them pray for you instead of going to your doctor.

Further, you've tried to make evolution into a belief system instead of the scientific theory that it is. From there, your argument is that your belief system is just as valid, which it is not (from a scientific point of view.) Science has a strictly defined set of operating parameters based on no a priori assumptions, while religion does not. When scientists disagree, there is a mechanism for determining who is right and who isn't. When religious people disagree, we get schisms and holy wars. Really, what your argument boils down to is that you have read the Bible and interpretted it to say that Christianity and evolution are mutually exclusive. When the former Pope interpretted the Bible to find no conflict, which interpretation should I trust, yours or his? When other Christians who actually study evolution find no conflict, should I trust your interpretation or theirs? What is the mechanism that I should use to decide which interpretation is correct?

 

[DRB]

blah blah blah

How dare you come in here and make a coherent arguement on your first post? Gawd I hate n00bs.

 

[Westy]

There seem to be a lot of threads on this topic lately. It has been said before by others here, evolution is scientific theory, creation is a religious theory. Science and religion don't mix. Science is based on observation, math etc. Religion is based on faith. Trying to use science to prove faith or faith to create science is stupid. Scientists should not force their way to pulpits to tell people creation is wrong and religious folks shouldn't force their way into scientific realms to tell people evolution is wrong.

If anyone decides they need to go to bat to sell creation I think they would be better off trying to prove their theories are better than other faiths creation myths. How do we know that the universe isn't created on the back of a giant turtle?

 

[reflux]

How do we know that the universe isn't created on the back of a giant turtle?

"See the turtle of enormous girth, on his shell he holds the entire Earth."



Question: What is the evangelicals' position, if any, when it comes to life on other planets?

 

[Westy]

"See the turtle of enormous girth, on his shell he holds the entire Earth."



Question: What is the evangelicals' position, if any, when it comes to life on other planets?

And what if those aliens are gay, or pro-choice?

 

[Heath Sherratt]

It isn't you stated that evorything will eventualy run out of energy, I disagree with that and took out my chem book and found a counter example. Yes I do belive in Intelligent design but not in the literal sence that you seem to, I do belive god did create the earth and humanity but did it through evolution. God (in my opinion) took nothing and created something, but did not create a dog then create a cat. I think god did start with algea and allowed for genetic mutation, alowing for the earth to evolve into what it is today. I do not belive god has done much to effect the earth and its actions sence the evolution of man. (I hope that made sense to all of you, I have trouble expressing ideas through text)

Then explain sin. Explain the fall of man. If you believe the torah or the pentateuch then you would see that evolution could not exist because it eliminates the fall of man.

 

[Changleen]

Then explain sin. Explain the fall of man. If you believe the torah or the pentateuch then you would see that evolution could not exist because it eliminates the fall of man.

So, you are willing to ignore the evidence of your eyes and the combined intellect of 99% of the worldwide scientific community because their ideas, in your head, conflict with 'sin' (a highly scientific concept) and 'the fall of man', which is part of your story book and has no evidence for ever having been anything more than a made-up backstory. FFS, sin is nothing more than a moralistic concept, it is not a physical thing. You don't even seem to understand that.

You are using your holy books as evidence to disprove science. If you can't see the problem with that, you really need to be commited.