What's the best evidence for evolution?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard,

You underestimate my ability to conduct research and overestimate the infallibility of your theory.

What makes you think I've underestimated your ability to do research? Go for it! Show us the evidence you find!

But please, don't pretend I have ever claimed "my" theory is infallible. You know I do not think that the theory of evolution is "infallible."

The questions I raise are the same questions raised by well educated scientists who have legitimate doubts about macro evolution. And why is that? Because the theory lacks the verifiable evidence necessary to declare it a fact. When you personally present it as a factual dogma, that too can be misleading. I don't doubt your sincerity one bit and I really do respect your broad spectrum of knowledge, but is does not mean that you have a corner on the truth.

The questions you have presented would not be put forth by any "well educated scientist." That's why they are so easy to refute. Most of them are ridiculous creationist talking points based on gross ignorance of basic science, let alone the advanced science that requires a lifetime to master.

You have confused legitimate questions about aspects of the theory with denial of the facts that support the theory. Your confusion appears to be based on you uncritical acceptance of anything creationists say. You have no scientific knowledge to understand why those questions are so absurd. I have explained why, but you simply reject my answers without showing any error in anything I wrote.

I present nothing as "factual dogma." I present verifiable facts that are substantiated in the literature.

I never claimed to have anything like a "corner on the truth." But now that you bring it up, it is your dogmatic religion that you are projecting on to me. Your entire world view is based on the dogmatic assertion that YOU have a "corner on the truth" (along with everyone who agrees with you). And the irony is that you know there is no verifiable evidence supporting your dogma.

To most laymen the terms, spontaneous generation and abiogenesis equate to the same result, life from non-living things, unassisted by a creator, or "spontaneous life" if you will. The term Spontaneous Generation is obsolete and rightfully so and I assume that Abiogenesis will most likely reach the same dead end, and when it does, you can be sure a new term will arise disguising the same old concept, life from the non-living. It's really nothing more than a circular game of semantics.

And that's why the average "layman" is totally unqualified to make judgments about the validity of the science of evolution! They don't even understand something as simple as the difference between spontaneous generation and abiogenesis.

To say that spontaneous generation is equivalent to abiogenesis leads directly to the first false "evidence against evolution" that I refuted earlier in this thread concerning the "Law of Biogenesis." The people who produced that argument are either grossly ignorant or deliberately deceptive. In either case, they are unqualified to inform anyone about anything concerning evolution.

The term spontaneous generation is not obsolete. Real scientists know what it means.

There error has nothing to do with a "circular game of semantics" except in as much as they deliberately confuse terms to make false assertions and so to deceive people. Science is built upon precision of terminology. Creationists deliberately confuse terms to deceive people.

Someday, it may be established that God did set life into motion with the conception of one cell from which all living creatures evolved, after all, time is no factor to Him and He is certainly capable of accomplishing it in that manner, and if that day comes, God's true children will accept it. Why shouldn't they?

Finally! A point of agreement.

But for now, it is open to debate and there are some very good questions about the theory which remain unanswered for both the commoner and the educated.

Debate is great! Debate is what drives science forward.

Believe me Richard when I say that I am as open minded a Christian as they come because I place no limits on my Father in Heaven. I simply begin with His Word as the starting point and trust Him to reveal things to me little by little, line upon line and precept upon precept.

I believe you my friend.

I shall call it a day now and head for bed to, as Luke 1978 has said... Sleep Well!

I remain your friend.

John

Sleep well my friend. Rose is giving me that look too - time for bed. We had quite a vigorous day. I hope tomorrow our conversation will be a little more mellow.

Your friend in truth,

Richard

[David M]

Time Out!!
It’s time to call a time-out, have a break, and recoup. End of round one!
Instead of a boxing match, it looks more like a street brawl. Punches (points) should be exchanged; instead there is much lashing out (pointless words). Nevertheless, let’s sit down, have a breather, and think about what to do in the next round. We all want to hit home and give knockout punches, but I doubt that is going to happen.

We all know there has been ignorance in both the Creationist and Evolutionist camps. Lies out of ignorance have gone forth. Alas, those lies have crept into the textbooks and now on to the internet; including the likes of Youtube videos. There is an abundance of lies (“crap”) that has built up over the years and remains, so it is difficult to get to the truth, because of the perpetuated lies that have to be waded through. What can be done is to expose the lies in each camp and then both camps agree on which lies exposed can be discarded and confined to the rubbish bin.
This thread could do with a moderator who is impartial and has no belief in Creation or Evolution. I am unable to be moderator in this process, because I am biased towards Creation; not that I believe everything all Creationists say. I seek to find the elements of truth in both camps that might be considered common ground. Creationists cannot agree doctrines contained in the Bible, so it is not surprising that Bible scholars have their own ideas as to what was involved in Creation. The Bible does not attempt to explain Creation in scientific terms. The Creation story is the most basic account giving some sort of order starting at the beginning and ending with the pinnacle of all life forms; that is man and woman. The Bible explains the purpose of life, whereas Evolution has no purpose to explain.

For hardcore Evolutionists and Creationists, we can we remove the Bible/God altogether from the debate. If Creationists win the argument for intelligent design, then there is the need to explain the intelligence behind the Universe and then we can introduce God and God’s word(the Bible).

Evolutionists need to prove how the Universe came about and needs to prove a connection between all living life forms (plants and animals). From when the elements were first formed out of the Big Bang (theory), Evolutionists haved to prove it is possible for the first cell to evolve from which all other living cells evolved.

Creationists need to prove that everything has come about by intelligent design.

Neither camp (up to now) has given evidence that is provable to the satisfaction of the other camp. Evolution and Creation remain theory. The best thing to do is report findings that are evidence to support the theories until a one of the theories eventally is proven (which might never be achieved).
There is no halfway house that will satisfy both camps (as much as I/we would like to think there is). Hardcore Evolutionists and Creationists are unable to compromise. A compromise means that intelligence has to be accepted by the Evolutionists. If both compromising Evolutionists and Creationists accept there is intelligence behind Evolution and Creation that is where the discussion can switch to a separate theological discussion about God. The god of the Bible supports Creation, whereas men’s ideas of god can invent a god who creates and then lets life evolve. For the purpose of this debate, the God of the Bible can be kept out of the debate until the theory of Evolution or the theory of Creation is proven or a compromised theory is proven.

What are the challenges?

• Evolution has to prove the intermediary steps existed whereby it is possible that complex structures evolved.
• Evolutionists have to prove how the interdependence of animals and plants came about gradually when neither can exist for any length of time without the other and where one species depends on the other as food for their sustainability.
• Creationists have to prove intelligence created everything..
• Evolutionists have to prove no intelligence is required for evolution to begin.

It would appear from the list that Evolutionists have more to prove than Creationists though it only takes one challenge to be insurmountable to defeat the theory.
Please contribute to this list of challenges if I have missed any.

Can compromises can be made? Here are two to think about.

• Creationists have to accept that each day could have been much longer than 24 hours allowing for a creative process over a very long time which includes room for evolution.
• Evolutionists have to accept intelligent design which also enabled evolution to proceed from a certain stage.

Should we all go away now until we can come back with a piece of evidence to submit? Then as each piece if evidence is put forward for debate, it can be debated without digressing into other areas.
Unless we have some structure to this type of debate, I cannot see it leading to any conclusion other than to agree to disagree. Until then, there will be a lot of frustration and heated words which do not help the discussion.

This is all I can say. From here on, I shall bow out of the discussion until the discussion continues in a reasoned way. Let’s find a moderator who is not an Evolutionist or a Creationist to keep the debate on track. Compile and agree an agenda by which an intelligent and rational debate continues. Failing this, I wish you all well in continuing as we have been doing.

David

[jce]

So you think the thousands upon thousands of highly intelligent expert scientists are what ... all part of a big conspiracy? All liars? Insane? How do you account for the fact that if the science were false it wouldn't work? If a theory is false in any other field, it is quickly rejected. Why are biologists so confident their theory is valid?

And how is evolution offensive to God? It says nothing about God at all. Is General Relativity offensive to God?

And I don't see how evolution allows man to be a "God unto himself." That seems like a non sequitur.

Richard, allow me to apply your logic from post 71:

"So you think the thousands upon thousands of highly intelligent theologians are what ... all part of a big conspiracy? All liars? Insane? How do you account for the fact that if the Bible were false it wouldn't work? If a faith is false in any other field, it is quickly rejected. Why are theologians so confident their faith is valid?"

Now I'm off to the river with our grown chidren and our 11 grandkids to celebrate the holiday for a few days.

Happy 4th to all!!!

John

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Time Out!!
It’s time to call a time-out, have a break, and recoup. End of round one!
Instead of a boxing match, it looks more like a street brawl. Punches (points) should be exchanged; instead there is much lashing out (pointless words). Nevertheless, let’s sit down, have a breather, and think about what to do in the next round. We all want to hit home and give knockout punches, but I doubt that is going to happen.

Good call David!


Blessed are the peacemakers!

We all know there has been ignorance in both the Creationist and Evolutionist camps. Lies out of ignorance have gone forth. Alas, those lies have crept into the textbooks and now on to the internet; including the likes of Youtube videos. There is an abundance of lies (“crap”) that has built up over the years and remains, so it is difficult to get to the truth, because of the perpetuated lies that have to be waded through. What can be done is to expose the lies in each camp and then both camps agree on which lies exposed can be discarded and confined to the rubbish bin.

Yes ... there is a place for rubbish.

I love the idea of coming to agreement. "Opponents" are the most valuable people, because when they challenge my views they are really helping to remove weeds of error from my garden of truth ... for free! And that's a wonderful service that I like to return to others.

This thread could do with a moderator who is impartial and has no belief in Creation or Evolution. I am unable to be moderator in this process, because I am biased towards Creation; not that I believe everything all Creationists say.

The moderator's job is to keep unruly members from getting out of line and disrupting the forum. Even though our recent conversation got very heated, most people seemed able to focus on the issues, and there was nothing I would have wanted to moderate no matter what side I was on. I think we've done very well without a moderator. CWH is free to say "evolution is bullshit" and I'm free to respond in kind when appropriate. Thankfully that kind of "discourse" has not taken over. We're all adults here. It's a very free zone - and I'm pretty liberal about free speech. I don't see any posts from either side that would need moderation.

I seek to find the elements of truth in both camps that might be considered common ground. Creationists cannot agree doctrines contained in the Bible, so it is not surprising that Bible scholars have their own ideas as to what was involved in Creation. The Bible does not attempt to explain Creation in scientific terms. The Creation story is the most basic account giving some sort of order starting at the beginning and ending with the pinnacle of all life forms; that is man and woman. The Bible explains the purpose of life, whereas Evolution has no purpose to explain.

It seems like a non sequitur to say "evolution has no purpose to explain." Evolution is science, and no science explains things like "purpose." You don't reject chemistry because it doesn't explain "purpose."

Of course, there are many creationists who reject geology and astrophysics because they contradict their beliefs about the age of the earth.

And so we see that science is just science, and most religions couldn't care less about it except when it contradicts one of their dogmas. That's the source of all the conflict - religious dogmas.

For hardcore Evolutionists and Creationists, we can we remove the Bible/God altogether from the debate. If Creationists win the argument for intelligent design, then there is the need to explain the intelligence behind the Universe and then we can introduce God and God’s word(the Bible).

Evolutionists need to prove how the Universe came about and needs to prove a connection between all living life forms (plants and animals). From when the elements were first formed out of the Big Bang (theory), Evolutionists haved to prove it is possible for the first cell to evolve from which all other living cells evolved.

Creationists need to prove that everything has come about by intelligent design.

I really love the way you are trying to clarify the debate! It is very helpful, lucid, and logical.

Neither camp (up to now) has given evidence that is provable to the satisfaction of the other camp. Evolution and Creation remain theory. The best thing to do is report findings that are evidence to support the theories until a one of the theories eventally is proven (which might never be achieved).

Here I must interject that there is no equivalence between Evolution and Creationism as "theories." Evolution is a true scientific theory based upon millions of observations and tested by hundreds of thousands of scientists. Creationism is nothing like that at all. It's not even a "theory" - it's just a religious dogma. Neither it no Intelligent Design (which is really just a Trojan horse for Creationism) are "scientific theories" because they have no theory other than "Goddidit" and they cannot make any testable predictions. And worse, Creationism is generally contrary to consilience of science. It just doesn't "fit" into the web of knowledge that is so tightly integrated. There are no conflicts of any kind between Math, Physics, Biology, Geology, Chemistry, Astronomy ... until "Creationism" come along and crashes the party, stepping on everyone's toes, stumbling around like a drunk, dancing entirely out of step, knocking over folks' wine glasses and shouting during the arias. It's nice that Creationism got a fancy new modern (1950s style) Intelligent Design suit, but it takes more than a suit to make a man. All science cares about is results, and Creationism simply can't provide them.

There is no halfway house that will satisfy both camps (as much as I/we would like to think there is). Hardcore Evolutionists and Creationists are unable to compromise. A compromise means that intelligence has to be accepted by the Evolutionists. If both compromising Evolutionists and Creationists accept there is intelligence behind Evolution and Creation that is where the discussion can switch to a separate theological discussion about God. The god of the Bible supports Creation, whereas men’s ideas of god can invent a god who creates and then lets life evolve. For the purpose of this debate, the God of the Bible can be kept out of the debate until the theory of Evolution or the theory of Creation is proven or a compromised theory is proven.

What are the challenges?

• Evolution has to prove the intermediary steps existed whereby it is possible that complex structures evolved.
• Evolutionists have to prove how the interdependence of animals and plants came about gradually when neither can exist for any length of time without the other and where one species depends on the other as food for their sustainability.
• Creationists have to prove intelligence created everything..
• Evolutionists have to prove no intelligence is required for evolution to begin.

It would appear from the list that Evolutionists have more to prove than Creationists though it only takes one challenge to be insurmountable to defeat the theory.
Please contribute to this list of challenges if I have missed any.

Can compromises can be made? Here are two to think about.

• Creationists have to accept that each day could have been much longer than 24 hours allowing for a creative process over a very long time which includes room for evolution.
• Evolutionists have to accept intelligent design which also enabled evolution to proceed from a certain stage.

Should we all go away now until we can come back with a piece of evidence to submit? Then as each piece if evidence is put forward for debate, it can be debated without digressing into other areas.
Unless we have some structure to this type of debate, I cannot see it leading to any conclusion other than to agree to disagree. Until then, there will be a lot of frustration and heated words which do not help the discussion.

This is all I can say. From here on, I shall bow out of the discussion until the discussion continues in a reasoned way. Let’s find a moderator who is not an Evolutionist or a Creationist to keep the debate on track. Compile and agree an agenda by which an intelligent and rational debate continues. Failing this, I wish you all well in continuing as we have been doing.

David

Very interesting suggestions David. Thank you! I will review them more and get back to you.

All the very best to you, my rational peace-making friend!

A very happy 4th to you and yours,

Richard

[CWH]

It is interesting to read testimonies of Evolutionists turn Creationists. Many are well known scientists. Of course, there are testimonies of Creationists turn Evoluntionists but the issue is if the theory of Evolution is so good why did they turn to Creationism?

Do real scientists believe in Creation?

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-ed...entists.html#4

"I have seen anti-creationists claim that all true scientists support Evolution, and that those who support Creation are not really scientists and that their credentials are less than legitimate. Is this true?"
-Frank

It is true that during the 20th century, many scientists accepted Evolutionism, in part or in whole. As secular science writer Richard Milton recently observed:

"An important factor in bringing about the universal dominance and acceptance of Darwinian evolution has been that virtually every eminent professional scientist appointed to posts in the life sciences in the last 40 or 50 years, in the English-speaking world, has been a convinced Darwinist. …These men, as well as occupying powerful and important academic teaching positions, were also prolific and important writers whose influence has been widespread in forming the consensus." 1
These names include such men as Gavin de Beer, Julian Huxley, J.B.S. Haldane, C.H. Waddington, Ernst Mayr, Theodosius Dobzhansky and George Simpson.

Despite strong pressure to accept evolutionism, many intelligent and experienced scientists either openly or secretly dismiss Evolution as highly unlikely or impossible. In the 1980s, researcher and lecturer David Watson noted an increasing trend that continues today, disturbing those who want evolutionism to be perceived as the accepted scientific consensus:

"…A tidal wave of new books… threaten to shatter that confidence - titles like Darwin Retried (1971), Macbeth; The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (1982), Hitching; The Great Evolution Mystery (1983), Taylor; The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution (1984), Fix; Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities (1984), Cohen; Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (1987), Lovtrup; and Adam and Evolution (1984), Pitman. Not one of these books was written from a Christian-apologetic point of view: they are concerned only with scientific truth - as was Sir Ernst Chain when he called evolution 'a fairy tale'." 2

As Science Digest reported:

"Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities… Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science." 3
One example is the late Dr. Arthur E. Wilder-Smith, an honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates. He held many distinguished positions. 4 A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design.

"The Evolutionary model says that it is not necessary to assume the existence of anything, besides matter and energy, to produce life. That proposition is unscientific. We know perfectly well that if you leave matter to itself, it does not organize itself - in spite of all the efforts in recent years to prove that it does." 5
Secular researcher Richard Milton summarized the current world situation: "Darwinism has never had much appeal for science outside of the English-speaking world, and has never appealed much to the American public (although popular with the U.S. scientific establishment in the past). However, its ascendancy in science, in both Britain and America, has been waning for several decades as its grip has weakened in successive areas: geology; paleontology; embryology; comparative anatomy. Now even geneticists are beginning to have doubts. It is only in mainstream molecular biology and zoology that Darwinism retains serious enthusiastic supporters. As growing numbers of scientists begin to drift away from neo-Darwinist ideas, the revision of Darwinism at the public level is long overdue, and is a process that I believe has already started." 6

Partial list of Creationist scientists
(past and present)

600+ voting scientists of the Creation Research Society (voting membership requires at least an earned master's degree in a recognized area of science).
150 Ph.D. scientists and 300 other scientists with masters degrees in science or engineering are members of the Korea Association of Creation Research. The President of KACR is the distinguished scientist and Professor Young-Gil Kim of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. Ph.D. in Materials Science, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute / highly distinguished / inventor of various important high-tech alloys.
(Note: The following list is very incomplete. Inclusion of any person on this list is in no way an endorsement, nor does it necessarily indicate anything about their religious beliefs.)

Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)
Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)
Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.) [more info]
Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert) [more info]
Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)
Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)
Thomas G. Barnes (physicist) [more info]
Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)
Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)
David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)
Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist) [more info]
Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee) [more info]
Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)
Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)
Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy) [more info]
Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)
Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)
Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer) [more info]
Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve)
Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist) [more info]
Duane T. Gish (biochemist) [more info]
John Grebe (chemist) [more info]
Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction)
William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)
George F. Howe (botanist) [more info]
D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist) [more info]
James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)
Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables)
John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist) [more info]
Leonid Korochkin (geneticist) [more info]
Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist) [more info]
Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)
Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)
Frank L. Marsh (biologist) [more info]
Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)
James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)
Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)
Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)
Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)
Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist) [more info]
Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer)
Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)
William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases)
John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)
Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)
Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)
James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology / developed the use of chloroform)
Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)
George Stokes (helped develop science of fluid mechanics)
Charles B. Thaxton (chemist) [more info]
William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)
Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist) [more info]
Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)
Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology)
A.J. (Monty) White (chemist) [more info]
A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert) [more info]
John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology)
A more thorough list of current (and past) Creationist scientists is not provided for two reasons: (1) A complete list would be extremely lengthy, and (2) Some scientists would rather not have their name made public due to justified fear of job discrimination and persecution in today's atmosphere of limited academic freedom in Evolutionist-controlled institutions.

More Lists:

http://www.creationists.org/former-e...cientists.html

Emeritus Professor Tyndale John Rendle-Short - From (theistic) evolution to creation
For Prof himself, educated at Cambridge and brought up with his father's writings, theistic evolution (or its variant, progressive creationism) was the natural direction for him to take. His odyssey to being chairman of one of the most effective creation science outreach ministries in the world was overseen by the Lord's hand in countless ways, both large and small.


Charlie Lieberts - (Chemist)
Charlie Liebert’s idea of a good time back in New Jersey was to drink beer with a bunch of buddies and mock Billy Graham on television. A self-described “atheistic evolutionist,” Liebert would ridicule the fact that he and his friends were “sinners.”


Dr. Gary Parker (Biologist)
"I was very consciously trying to get students to bend their religious beliefs to evolution."

"Evolution was really my religion, a faith commitment and a complete world-and-life view that organized everything else for me, and I got quite emotional when evolution was challenged." Dr. Gary Parker's testimony as to how he went from teaching evolution at the college level to being a leading spokesman for Biblical creationism. - See the full story at From Evolution to Creation: A Personal Testimony


Dr. D. Russell Humphreys (Physicist)
While neither of the two links we have for Dr. Humphreys states that he was a former evolutionists and atheist, we know this to be true from a 1999 debate he participated in at Harvard University in which he stated these things. See this interview with Dr. Humphreys at: Creation in the Physics Lab.


Dr. Alan Galbraith (Watershed Science)
"I attended a creation seminar arranged by my pastor. I had only been a Christian for some four years or so, and was still a convinced evolutionist. I have to admit that I went with the attitude — what can this pastor, whose last science course was probably in junior high school, tell me about the area I know so much about?" See Recovery from evolution (Alan Galbraith interview)


Dr. Donald Batten (Agriculturist)
As a young Christian in boarding high school I naively thought that 'science was facts' and tried to believe in evolution and the Bible by accepting the notion that 'God used evolution', days-are-ages, 'progressive creation', etc.


Dr. David Catchpoole (Plant Physiologist)
Until his mid-20s, David was an ardent evolutionistic atheist, but a personal crisis while working in Indonesia brought him to embrace Christianity. However, for a decade he struggled to reconcile popular evolutionary beliefs with the Bible...


Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith (3 Doctorates and a NATO 3-star General)
The late Dr. Arthur E.Wilder-Smith, an honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates. He held many distinguished positions. A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design. His background is referenced in footnote #4 at Do real scientists believe in Creation? - ChristianAnswers.Net.

Dr. Robert V. Gentry - (Physicist)
According to modern evolutionary theory, our planet originated from the accumulation of hot, gaseous material ejected from the sun, and the Precambrian granites were among the first rocks to form during the cooling process. University science courses convinced me that the evolution of the earth was just a part of the cosmic evolution of the universe. As a result I became a theistic evolutionist. Years later I began to re-examine the scientific basis for that decision. My thoughts turned to the age of the earth and the Precambrian granites. Were they really billions of years old? See Dr. Gentry's Book Overview. See his web site at Earth Science Associates.

God Bless Creationism.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard, allow me to apply your logic from post 71:

"So you think the thousands upon thousands of highly intelligent theologians are what ... all part of a big conspiracy? All liars? Insane? How do you account for the fact that if the Bible were false it wouldn't work? If a faith is false in any other field, it is quickly rejected. Why are theologians so confident their faith is valid?"

Now I'm off to the river with our grown chidren and our 11 grandkids to celebrate the holiday for a few days.

Happy 4th to all!!!

John

Good morning John,

It's a new morning!

Our friend David M has introduce some fresh rationality to our conversation. We should applaud him.

Now as for you analogy. I think it is entirely fallacious on every point.

Your question about how I could "account for the fact that if the Bible were false it wouldn't work?" is based on the false assumption that the Bible "works." I see no evidence for that at all. I don't even know what it means. In what way does the Bible "work"? When I said that science "works" we all know what I mean. Just look around you - computers, airliners, modern medicine. Science works. That's all it has going for it. Your attempt to make an equivalence between Science and the Bible makes no sense to me at all.

And your assertion that "If a faith is false in any other field, it is quickly rejected" is obviously and entirely false. We all know that people hold to false religious "faiths" no matter how much the evidence contradicts their beliefs.

And finally, your question "Why are theologians so confident their faith is valid?" makes no sense because all theologians differ with many other theologians in fundamental ways. They have no common edifice like Science. Muslim theologians directly contradict Christian theologians and Christian theologians directly contradict Christian theologians from other sects. So there is no equivalence of any kind with Science which enjoys broad acceptance based on verifiable facts.

I hope you enjoy your celebrations of Independence Day!

Richard

PS: I am still hoping you will take a few minutes to answer post #71. I truly think it is an irrefutable refutation of the argument that Christians could not have gone around Jerusalem proclaiming the empty tomb if it was false.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I'd still like to know if there is one anti-evolutionist who knows anything about the theory they oppose.

If you are an anti-evolutionist, prove that you know the best evidence for the theory you reject! Come on, I dare you!

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I'd still like to know if there is one anti-evolutionist who knows anything about the theory they oppose.

If you are an anti-evolutionist, prove that you know the best evidence for the theory you reject! Come on, I dare you!