Creationism - Why it is valid.

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by kendemyer, Feb 4, 2004.

  1. kendemyer

    kendemyer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe creationism is valid. I think the following information offers support for creationism.


    WHO WINS THE CREATIONIST/EVOLUTIONIST DEBATES?

    http://members.shaw.ca/mark.64/hcib/whowins.html

    http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC0104W1E.htm


    THE FOSSIL RECORD SUPPORTS CREATIONISM


    Completeness of the fossil record:

    "There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world."—*Porter Kier, quoted in New Scientist, January 15, 1981, p. 129.

    "Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums now are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species. The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track."—Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma (1988), p. 9 [italics ours].


    Some specific examples of the fossil record:

    "...I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation." - E.J.H. Corner, Prof of Botany, Cambridge University, England.
    E.J. H. Corner, “Evolution” in Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (eds.), Contemporary Botanical Thought (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97

    "Fossil remains, however, give no information on the origin of the vertebrates." —*Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 7, p. 587 (1976 edition, Macropaedia).

    "No fossil of any such birdlike reptile has yet been found." —* World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, p. 291 (1982 edition). (regarding reptiles becoming birds)

    "The fossil record does not give any information on the origin of insects." —*Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 7, p. 585 (1978 edition; Macropaedia).

    "Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans - of upright, naked, tool-making, big-brained beings - is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter." - Dr. Lyall Watson, Anthropologist. 'The water people'. Science Digest, vol. 90, May 1982, p. 44.

    "No fossil or other physical evidence directly connects man to ape." —*John Gliedman, "Miracle Mutations," Science Digest, February 1982, p. 90.

    "Even this relatively recent history [of evolution from apes to man] is shot through with uncertainties; authorities are often at odds, both about fundamentals and about details." Theodosius Dobzhanski, Mankind Evolving, Yale Univ. Press, 1962, p168.

    To see more relevant quotes regarding the fossils of other kinds of plants/creatures please see this link: http://evolution-facts.org/a17c.htm


    An essay: The Fruitless Search for the Missing Link by Jerry Bergman

    http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BMissingLink...essSearch49.htm


    Are there any transitional fossils?

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3076.asp

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter3.asp


    QUOTES FROM SCIENTIST AND OTHERS

    http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7547/cequotes.html

    http://www.evolutionisdead.com/quotes.php

    http://www.nwcreation.net/quotes.html


    YOUNG EARTH ARGUMENTS

    http://www.age-of-earth.com/

    http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/youngearth.html

    http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/youngearth.html

    http://www.apologeticspress.org/defdocs/2001/dd-01-16.htm


    EXCELLENT ESSAYS ON CREATIONISM


    Failures of Macroevolutionary Model: http://www.probe.org/docs/5crises.html

    Origin of life essay: http://www.macrodevelopment.org/library/meyer.html

    general essays: http://www.apologetics.org/articles/articles.html


    MAIN CREATIONIST SITES

    http://www.answersingenesis.org

    http://www.icr.org

    http://www.discovery.org/csc/

    http://www.creationism.org


    I also believe there are other science and logic arguments against the non-theistic and eternal universe position.


    THE UNIVERSE IS NOT ETERNAL

    http://www.ldolphin.org/studynotes/evidence.htm

    http://www.apologeticspress.org/defdocs/2001/dd-01-17.htm

    http://www.godandscience.org/slideshow/sld010.html


    IS GOD ETERNAL?

    http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c039.html

    http://www.carm.org/questions/God_created.htm


    BIG BANG THEORY PROBLEMS AND CRITICISMS

    http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr2003/r&r0305ad3.htm

    http://www.origin-of-the-universe.com/Orig...he-Universe.htm

    http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-216.htm

    http://www.christiancourier.com/feature/december99.htm

    http://www.apologeticspress.org/docsdis/2001/dc-01-04.htm
     
  2. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,968
    Likes Received:
    128
    Maybe you might narrow the topic down a little bit.

    Saying "Creationism is valid" is a little bit like saying "War is bad".

    It's sure to cause debate but the conversation will be going off in all directions.

    Rob
     
  3. kendemyer

    kendemyer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dear Deacon and Brother in Christ:

    I posted this for two reasons:

    1. I wanted to give people the very best arguments I could find and let them decide for themselves. Off the Baptist Board, my profession is persuading people so I wanted to put forth the most persuasive arguments.

    2. I wanted the web to pick up this post and so creationist would incorporate this information into their websites which I think would be helpful.

    I am content to let the string go where it may because I do not think I could put a more persuasive argument than was contained in my first post. Plus, I think I gave plenty of resources for the person who seriously wants to investigate the issue.
     
  4. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'll second the call for narrowing of the topic a little. You really are calling for an unreadable thread by plastering so much material at once. On the websites you have posted that I am familar with, books could be written on their mistakes and errors. I could go for pages just on the few quotes about the fossil record that you posted. Is it possible to distill this grapeshot down into a couple of cannonballs representing your very best arguments of evidence that indicates a young earth? You said you "wanted to give people the very best arguments" but I do not think that quotes from 20+ year old encyclopedias are exactly the most convincing pieces of evidence against the state of the art. Doesn't bode well for the rest of the references.

    For the fun of it, I will take one quote and make one response to it although the quote deserves a book on its own. The response concerns something I just learned about and I am curious how YECers will respond. I couldn't get anyone to respond to it in the thread in the Politics forum.

    There is a class of virus called retroviruses. Now they are capable of inserting their DNA into the genome of a host which they have infected. Sometimes, this snip of DNA is inserted into the reproductive cells of the host. When this happens, the snip of viral DNA will be passed to the descendents. When you look at the human genome, you find that a significant portion of the "junk DNA" is these snippets of retroviral DNA. About 5% total of the human genome is made of these pieces of virus DNA. Each human has a large number of these segments. Each segment contains the exact same DNA sequence from the virus and it is found in the exact same place on the chromosome. This is because all humans have shared a common ancestor from whom we have inherited all these little snippets of viral DNA. I am sure you have no problem with the assertion that all humans are related.

    Now, what happens when we begin to look at the DNA of other apes besides humans? Well, as it turns out, they have most of the exact same viral DNA snippets in the exact same place as humans. Non-ape primates also share many of these same markers, but not as many as the apes. So when you look at the genomes of the various apes and primates, these genetic markers can used to trace out evolutionary relationships between the various species. By looking at the mutations that have occured in these markers, it is possible to also infer a timeframe for to various common ancestors.

    Now, how do we explain these markers? Well, pieces of viral DNA are actually found in all creatures, there is nothing special about primates. But the shared markers among the primates does tell us something. It shows that we all inherited them through a common ancestor who had in its genome all of the markers that we share with the other apes. The few markers that we do not have in common can tell us where the common ancestors between the various species fit. Simply put, common descent predicts that we should share these markers with the other apes and that is exactly what we find. And we find it in a pattern consistent with the relationships determined by other methods such as morphology and other genetic methods.

    I do not know how you address these markers in a YEC paradigm. YEC states that all the various "kinds" were created separately. So YEC would predict that species that are not of the same "kind" would not share ANY of these pieces of viral DNA. The humans would have different pieces than the chimps who would have different pieces than the bonobos who would have different pieces than the gorillas who would have different pieces than the lemurs and so on. In fact, different humans would have vastly different collections of viral DNA in their genes because it would take a while for that number of infections to have occurred to get that much DNA in our genomes. (Looking at the differences in these markers from human to human would let you determine how quickly they are added. There is hardly any difference so they are added very slowly.) But that is not what we see. These are foreign peices of DNA that do not code for proteins so the common designer argument cannot be applied. They were not their to begin with! They're foreign!
     
  5. kendemyer

    kendemyer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dear Readers:

    I rechecked my material and I found out some big bang material snuck through. I hate the big bang theory because explosions cause disorder and not order. Here is my replacement for the first link regarding the non-eternalness of the universe. Please ignore the http://www.ldolphin.org/studynotes/evidence.htm citation although I do think he made some good points besides his big bang reference. Also, I also have added some Christianity and Science material that I think is very interesting.

    THE UNIVERSE IS NOT ETERNAL

    http://godevidences.net/lawsofscience.html


    CHRISTIANITY AND SCIENCE

    http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/

    http://www.carm.org/issues/science.htm
     
  6. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    No attempt yet to narrow the field. Oh well, this could be fun.

    http://members.shaw.ca/mark.64/hcib/whowins.html

    http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC0104W1E.htm

    The first reference flatly declares that creationist always wins the debates. Of course who determines who wins a debate? Is it the one with better information or the better debater? Science is not decided by public opinion. There is a very rigorous process for ideas to go through. Peer review tends to weed out the ideas that are lacking. Many scientists are leary of other scientists who take their work to straight to the people. The general population is not well enough educated in the sciences to make good decisions on such things. Without that knowledge, they are easily swayed by that which sounds good but that cannot stand up to real scrutiny.

    But anyhow, that first reference does not really make any arguments against evolution, so I do not see why it was included. There are, of course, some arguments from incredulity. But not being able to understand something is not the same as it being impossible. He also uses Hoyle's calculation for the odds of a bacterium randomly evolving. The problem is evolution is not random, it has powerful tools such as natural selection. So the calculation is invalid.

    Now the second reference was quite intriguing. There are some really interesting quotes in there. I know what the author was trying to do, but I am surprised that he left such things in there. Since YECers are so fond of quotes, I am going to pull several straight off the page. Please see the original website for the context and the references.

     
  7. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    A quote over forty years old. I am glad the science has advanced since then. We know have many fossil plants and a decent understanding of the developement of green plants. For a quick primer see

    http://www.palaeos.com/Plants/default.htm

    It is not overly in depth, but you get the picture.
     
  8. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    An almost thirty year old quote. Again, we know a little more now.

    We have a few fossil between the two. There is Pikaia gracilens. It is an invertebrate and the earliest known chordate. Then there is Yunnanozoon lividum an early cephalochordate from the Cambrian period. Then there is another early chordate Haikouella lanceolata that strongly resembles vertebrates but does not yet have a body of bone. You also have Myllokummingia believed to be among the first vertebrates. There are some other fossils if you are interested.
     
  9. kendemyer

    kendemyer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    see next post
     
  10. kendemyer

    kendemyer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dear Sir:

    1. I used 20 year old Encyclopedia references because the macroevolutionary hypothesis people have about 100 years to find transitionals at that time and did not do it. I did give a link for more current citations. see: "To see more relevant quotes regarding the fossils of other kinds of plants/creatures please see this link: http://evolution-facts.org/a17c.htm "


    2. Regardless, the creationists according to the evolutionists themselves win the majority of debates. I confirmed the WSJ citation myself. Plus at my university the State University of NY at Buffalo this is what happened at the creationist/evolutionist debate:

    The evolutionists started to lose the debate. Finally, he stormed out of the debate hall but yelled before he left, "you may have disproved evolution but you did not prove creationism!"

    3. I think the Bible has tremendous corroborating testimony of prophecy to show it is "God Breathed" and I think it is bad theology to say that God's slipped up in a few places or mislead people - especially when the evidence contraindicates the macroevolutionary hypothesis. Please see my "Prophecy: The Bible has no equals" post in this forum which was done yesterday.

    4. I should have included one more websites. the website: www.trueorigins.org which specializes in refuting macroevolutionary hypothesis arguments.

    I did some research on retroviruses about a year ago and it appeared that there were not many that matched up when we look at the total number of retroviruses in a human being. I read there are about 30,000 endogenous retroviruses embedded in each persons DNA a human being but only 7 that match between humans and apes as far as placement. I guess I would say,"Why so few?" The number could have increased since I studied the issue about a year ago via the web due to increased knowledge. I do not think we know about the DNA and its interaction with endogenous retroviruses to say if there is some reason why it may insert in various areas.

    Plus we must remember there is a reason why man and other animals have genetic similarity. We have to eat the same food. And it does not surprise me that apes which have some outward appearance similarities would share some DNA similarities.

    Here are some sites which discuss the endogeneous retroviruses further:

    http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/uncausedcause.htm

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1125dna.asp

    http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1e.asp#pred21


    Here are some other resources taken from http://www.reasons.org/resources/new_reasons/200312.shtml?main (you will have to go to the site to click/access the resources):

    "Are endogenous retroviruses proof for human evolution? Increased understanding of this form of “junk” DNA reveals that they do indeed have function and are consistent with Intelligent Design, rather than being evidence for descent from a common primate ancestor. Discussed on Creation Update, airdate 10-14-2003.
    Theodora Hatziioannou et al., “Restriction of multiple divergent retroviruses by Lv1 and Ref1,” The EMBO Journal 22 (2003), 385-94.
    Clare Lynch and Michael Tristem, “A Co-opted gypsy-type LTR-Retrotransposon Is Conserved in the Genomes of Humans, Sheep, Mice and Rats,” Current Biology 13 (2003), 1518-23.
    Catherine A. Dunn, Patrik Medstrand, and Dixie L. Mager, “An endogenous retroviral long terminal repeat is the dominant promoter for human B1,3-galactosyltransferase 5 in the colon,” PNAS 100 (2003), 12841-46.
    Vera Schramke and Robin Allshire, “Hairpin RNAs and Retrotransposon LTRs Effect RNAi and Chromatin-Based Gene Silencing,” Science 301 (August 22, 2003), 1069-74.
    Related Resource: "Junk" DNA Not So Junky, by Fazale “Fuz” Rana
    Product Spotlight: Top 10 Scientific Discoveries of 2003, Creation Update. Call 800-482-7836 to order."


    Here is what a person said at a forum designed for creation/evolution discussions:

    "In response to Void's post about retroviruses, I was wondering if they have found those same viruses in any other organism, or are the humans and chimps the only ones they have studied?

    Also, out of 30,000 retroviruses in the human genome, only 7!?! were also found in the same place as chimps retroviruses? I mean, it's quite possible that over 10K+ years of existance, or whatever the time may be, humans and chimps probably could have contracted those same 7 retroviruses sometime or another.

    These retroviruses could have been very specific in the areas of infection, esp. the 7 that infected both humans and chimps, because, is that not the nature of viruses to be specific to their hosts?
    Again, this process is rare and fairly random, so finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry. This doesn't necessarily have to be very rare, if the retroviruses were as prominent as AIDS or some other widespread virus. And all it takes is for one person to get it in the right place and only one chimp to get it in the right place to develop this similarity. After many years of reproduction, it would eventually infect the whole population, at least the population that the infected organism or their decedents had contact with.

    So I don't see how rare and unique this occurence is."

    taken from: http://www.youdebate.com/cgi-bin/scarecrow/post.cgi?forum=3&topic=1017&type=reply

    I now bow out of the debate have given the believers plenty of resources to end the "monkey business".

    [ February 05, 2004, 11:35 PM: Message edited by: kendemyer ]
     
  11. kendemyer

    kendemyer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    Lastly, I would say that the macroevolution hypothesis people have been more judicious as far as not attacking each other since the emergence of the creationists in the last 25 or so years. For example, the neo-darwinist and punctuated equilibrium people no longer attack each other as intensely. I think they have also been more judicious as far as letting out juicy quotes that the creationist can use.

    I would say regarding the above phenonoma that a key tenet of science is being compromised and that is the principle of falsification which is crucial in science.

    In short, there is no subsitute for truth telling and human ego should not play a part. But of course it does since science is a social enterprise.

    I would also say that the macroevolutionary people seem to always appeal to tomorrow/manana as confirming their hypothesis. They have had over 100 years! Enough is enough!

    I have also edited my material to say, "to see more specific or recent quotations". I do like Encyclopedia references and I checked one recent Encyclopedia reference and it still said the same thing! I would not be surprised if some of the others did too.

    I now bow out of the debate since I think I have provided more than enough resources.

    Here are more resources organized a little better for those who wish to continue debating:

    DIRECTORY OF CREATIONIST SITES AND ARGUMENTS


    MAIN CREATIONIST SITES

    http://www.answersingenesis.org

    http://www.icr.org

    http://www.discovery.org/csc/

    http://www.creationism.org

    http://www.trueorigins.org


    WHO WINS THE CREATIONIST/EVOLUTIONIST DEBATES?

    http://members.shaw.ca/mark.64/hcib/whowins.html

    http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC0104W1E.htm


    LARGE DIRECTORY OF CREATIONIST SITES

    http://members.aol.com/dwr51055/Creation.html


    EXCELLENT ESSAYS ON CREATIONISM


    Failures of Macroevolutionary Model: http://www.probe.org/docs/5crises.html

    Origin of life essay: http://www.macrodevelopment.org/library/meyer.html

    general essays: http://www.apologetics.org/articles/articles.html

    THE FOSSIL RECORD SUPPORTS CREATIONISM


    Completeness of the fossil record:

    "There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world."—*Porter Kier, quoted in New Scientist, January 15, 1981, p. 129.

    "Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums now are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species. The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track."—Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma (1988), p. 9 [italics ours].


    Some specific examples of the fossil record:

    "...I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation." - E.J.H. Corner, Prof of Botany, Cambridge University, England.
    E.J. H. Corner, “Evolution” in Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (eds.), Contemporary Botanical Thought (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97

    "Fossil remains, however, give no information on the origin of the vertebrates." —*Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 7, p. 587 (1976 edition, Macropaedia).

    "No fossil of any such birdlike reptile has yet been found." —* World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, p. 291 (1982 edition). (regarding reptiles becoming birds)

    "The fossil record does not give any information on the origin of insects." —*Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 7, p. 585 (1978 edition; Macropaedia).

    "Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans - of upright, naked, tool-making, big-brained beings - is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter." - Dr. Lyall Watson, Anthropologist. 'The water people'. Science Digest, vol. 90, May 1982, p. 44.

    "No fossil or other physical evidence directly connects man to ape." —*John Gliedman, "Miracle Mutations," Science Digest, February 1982, p. 90.

    "Even this relatively recent history [of evolution from apes to man] is shot through with uncertainties; authorities are often at odds, both about fundamentals and about details." Theodosius Dobzhanski, Mankind Evolving, Yale Univ. Press, 1962, p168.

    To see more specific or recent quotes regarding the fossils of other kinds of plants/creatures please see this link: http://evolution-facts.org/a17c.htm


    An essay: The Fruitless Search for the Missing Link by Jerry Bergman

    http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BMissingLink...essSearch49.htm


    Are there any transitional fossils?

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3076.asp

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter3.asp


    QUOTES FROM SCIENTIST AND OTHERS

    http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7547/cequotes.html

    http://www.evolutionisdead.com/quotes.php

    http://www.nwcreation.net/quotes.html


    YOUNG EARTH ARGUMENTS

    http://www.age-of-earth.com/

    http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/youngearth.html

    http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/youngearth.html

    http://www.apologeticspress.org/defdocs/2001/dd-01-16.htm


    THE UNIVERSE IS NOT ETERNAL


    http://godevidences.net/lawsofscience.html

    http://www.apologeticspress.org/defdocs/2001/dd-01-17.htm

    http://www.godandscience.org/slideshow/sld010.html


    IS GOD ETERNAL?

    http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c039.html

    http://www.carm.org/questions/God_created.htm


    BIG BANG THEORY PROBLEMS AND CRITICISMS

    http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr2003/r&r0305ad3.htm

    http://www.origin-of-the-universe.com/Orig...he-Universe.htm

    http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-216.htm

    http://www.christiancourier.com/feature/december99.htm

    http://www.apologeticspress.org/docsdis/2001/dc-01-04.htm


    CHRISTIANITY AND SCIENCE

    http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/

    http://www.carm.org/issues/science.htm


    ONLINE CREATIONISM BOOK (UNIQUE)

    http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ441.html


    FALL OF MAN AND CREATION

    http://www.ldolphin.org/Ruin.html

    [ February 05, 2004, 11:55 PM: Message edited by: kendemyer ]
     
  12. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is a paper for you.

    http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/reprint/71/1/437.pdf

    In the fourth paragraph you will see reference to up to 25 matches between humans, other apes and other primates for just ONE particular element.

    Here is a really nice paper ( http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/96/18/10254.pdf ) that uses 8 particular sequences to build evolutionary trees for primates. If you disagree, feel free to point out the errors of the methods.
     
  13. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    Another quote old enough to ignore some recent finds.

    Of course this quote ignores the oldest example of a perfect example of a birdlike reptile or a reptilelike bird, Archaeopteryx.

    Today we have quite a few fossils of reptiles with various birdlike traits moving on to weak flying feathered creatures right on up to full fledged birds. We'll look at a few. There is a class of dinosaurs called theropod dinosaurs who have many birdlike traits. A typical eample is Sinosauropteryx, which was a small dinosaur about four feet long and covered with feathers. Caudipteryx came later. It was a slightly smaller dinosaur, about the size of a turkey. Unlike Sinosauropteryx, Caudipteryx had feathers that were different lengths on different parts of its body. Unenlagia is another small dinosaur, this time with front arms that were better adapted to flapping type motions. You also have Protarchaeopteryx. This creature is still flightless, but now you are starting to get very close to birds. Microraptor is a tiny dinosaur, smaller than Archaeoptery, and is very close to the birds. Confuciusornis is known as the oldest flying dinosaur. It shows important details of the transition of the forearm of the theropods into the wing of birds as it has mixed traits from both. Of course there is Archaeopteryx. After that, you start tracing the actual development of birds with creatures such as Confuciusornis, a primitive bird.

    There are several other transitional fossils I failed to mention if you are interested in learning more. The key point is that we have plenty of birdlike reptiles.
     
  14. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is mostly true. There are only a handful of early insect fossils and none that give a clear insight to their initial evolution. Later, however, there are a plethora of fossils.
     
  15. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    Another old quote. Well as it turns out, we are starting to find some fossil apes. As opposed to springing "out of nowhere," we now have the first ape who is also believed to be the last common ancestor of all apes. It was a creature called Proconsul who lived about 20 millon years ago. It was preceeded by "proto-apes" Propliopithecus, Aegyptopithecus, and Aegyptopithecus. Continuing on down towards modern apes, a number of transitionals are known, including Sivapithicus, Limnopithecus, Ouranopithecus, Dryopithecus, Sivapithecus, and Kenyapithecus.

    So, apes actually do have a fosil record.
     
  16. kendemyer

    kendemyer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    To: Evolutionists on this forum

    I was testing my material on this forum. I took into consideration the input provided. Before I tell you the results I would like to make three comments.

    1. The current World Book Encyclopedia that is online has the same identical quote regarding birds.

    2. My next post will not be argueing creationism but will provide a important foundation for subsequent posters to this string.

    3. Nobody has responded to the argument that the integrity of the Scriptures as far as it being God breathed is shown in my essay, "Prophecy: The Bible has no equals" that is posted in this forum. If the argument for prophecy is powerful (and I know it is), the question is raised, "Would God inspire error or intentionally misrepresent what happened regarding origins?"

    With that being said here is my updated and expanded material and I do appreciate the input that others have offered:

    DIRECTORY OF CREATIONIST SITES AND ARGUMENTS


    MAIN CREATIONIST SITES

    http://www.answersingenesis.org

    http://www.icr.org

    http://www.creationism.org

    http://www.discovery.org/csc/


    WHO WINS THE CREATIONIST/EVOLUTIONIST DEBATES?

    http://members.shaw.ca/mark.64/hcib/whowins.html

    http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC0104W1E.htm

    (I read the Wall Street Journal article quoted in the first link. It was an science professor from the Univerisity of MN and evolutionist who was quoted as saying the creationists "tend to win the debates").


    THE FOSSIL RECORD SUPPORTS CREATIONISM


    Completeness of the fossil record:

    "There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world."—*Porter Kier, quoted in New Scientist, January 15, 1981, p. 129.

    "Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums now are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species. The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track.

    The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us? ... The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record."

    Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma (1988), Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition, Master Books, p. 9


    Quote regarding the general state of the fossil record from a senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History:

    "Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record.

    You say that I should at least 'show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.'

    I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record."

    Dr. Colin Patterson,
    Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London "Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems," [1984], Master Book Publishers: El Cajon CA, Fourth Edition, 1988, p89


    Quote from author, paleontologist and curator of invertebrate paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History, Niles Eldredge and co-author Ian Tattersall who is Curator, Deptartment of Anthropology, American Museum of Natural History).


    "Darwin himself, ...prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search ...

    One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong.

    The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way."

    Niles Eldredge & Ian Tattersall,
    'The Myths of Human Evolution', 1982, p. 45-46


    A widely read evolutionist and scientist speaks regarding the fosssil record:

    "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." Mark Ridley, 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831


    Some quotes regarding the fossil record that are more specific:


    "...I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation." - E.J.H. Corner, Prof of Botany, Cambridge University, England.
    E.J. H. Corner, “Evolution” in Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (eds.), Contemporary Botanical Thought (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97

    "If the genealogies of animals are uncertain, more so are those of plants. We cannot learn a great deal from petrified plant anatomy which shows different spades at different times, but no real phylogeny [transitional plant species changes] at all. There are simply fascinating varieties of the plants we have today—some new species of course—plus many extinctions: but algae, mosses, pines, ferns and flowering plants are all clearly recognizable from their first appearance in the fossil record." —Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 181.

    "We do not know the phylogenetic history of any group of plants and animals." —*E. Core, General Biology (1981), p. 299.

    "Fossil remains, however, give no information on the origin of the vertebrates." —*Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 7, p. 587 (1976 edition, Macropaedia).

    "No fossil of any such birdlike reptile has yet been found." —World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, p. 291 (1982 edition). (regarding reptiles becoming birds)

    "The fossil record does not give any information on the origin of insects." —*Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 7, p. 585 (1978 edition; Macropaedia).

    "Insect origins beyond that point [the Carboniferous] are shrouded in mystery. It might almost seem that the insects had suddenly appeared on the scene, but this is not in agreement with accepted [evolutionary] ideas of animal origins." —*A.E. Hutchins, Insects (1988), pp. 3,4.

    "The common ancestor of the bony-fish groups is unknown. There are various features, many of them noted above, in which the two typical subclasses of bony fish are already widely divergent when we first see them." —*A.S. Romer, Vertebrate Paleontology (1988), p. 53.

    "....squirrels have evolved in patterns that seem to differ in no important ways from their living relative Sciurus. Since Sciurus is so similar to what is apparently the primitive squirrel morphotype, it seems to fit the concept of 'living fossil.’" –*R. Emry and *A. Thorington, "The Tree Squirrel Sciurus as a Living Fossil," in Living Fossils (1984), p. 30.

    "Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans - of upright, naked, tool-making, big-brained beings - is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter." - Dr. Lyall Watson, Anthropologist. 'The water people'. Science Digest, vol. 90, May 1982, p. 44.

    "Unfortunately, the fossil record which would enable us to trace the emergence of the apes is still hopelessly incomplete. We do not know either when or where distinctively apelike animals first began to diverge from monkey stock . . Unfortunately, the early stages of man's evolutionary progress along his own individual line remain a total mystery."— *Sarel Elmer and *Irven DeVore and the *Editors of Life, The Primates (1985), p. 15.

    "No fossil or other physical evidence directly connects man to ape." —*John Gliedman, "Miracle Mutations," Science Digest, February 1982, p. 90.

    "Even this relatively recent history [of evolution from apes to man] is shot through with uncertainties; authorities are often at odds, both about fundamentals and about details." Theodosius Dobzhanski, Mankind Evolving, Yale Univ. Press, 1962, p168.


    LARGE RESOURCE OF QUOTATIONS REGARDING THE FOSSIL RECORD

    http://evolution-facts.org/a17c.htm


    FIVE MUSEUM OFFICIALS SPEAK REGARDING THE LACK OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3076.asp


    MORE INFORMATION REGARDING THE LACK OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS IN THE FOSSIL RECORD

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter3.asp


    THE SEARCH FOR MAN'S MISSING LINK CAME UP EMPTY

    Large number of articles: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/...nthropology.asp

    More examples of false missing links: http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr2002/res0205b.htm

    An essay: The Fruitless Search for the Missing Link by Jerry Bergman

    http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BMissingLink...essSearch49.htm


    WHY THE FIRST LIFE ON EARTH DID NOT ARISE NATURALLY

    Excellent origin of life essay: http://www.macrodevelopment.org/library/meyer.html

    More articles on the origin of life: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/origin.asp


    FIVE SHORTCOMINGS OF THE MACROEVOLUTIONARY HYPOTHESIS

    Five Failures of Macroevolutionary Model: http://www.probe.org/docs/5crises.html


    OTHER ESSAYS ON CREATIONISM

    General essays: http://www.apologetics.org/articles/articles.html


    QUOTES FROM SCIENTIST AND OTHERS THAT LEND SUPPORT TO CREATIONSIM

    http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7547/cequotes.html

    http://www.evolutionisdead.com/quotes.php

    http://www.nwcreation.net/quotes.html


    YOUNG EARTH ARGUMENTSTHAT SUPPORT CREATIONISM

    http://www.age-of-earth.com/

    http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/youngearth.html

    http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/youngearth.html

    http://www.apologeticspress.org/defdocs/2001/dd-01-16.htm


    LARGE DIRECTORY OF CREATIONIST SITES

    http://members.aol.com/dwr51055/Creation.html


    THE UNIVERSE IS NOT ETERNAL

    http://godevidences.net/lawsofscience.html

    http://www.apologeticspress.org/defdocs/2001/dd-01-17.htm

    http://www.godandscience.org/slideshow/sld010.html


    IS GOD ETERNAL?

    http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c039.html

    http://www.carm.org/questions/God_created.htm


    BIG BANG THEORY PROBLEMS AND CRITICISMS

    http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr2003/r&r0305ad3.htm

    http://www.origin-of-the-universe.com/Orig...he-Universe.htm

    http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-216.htm

    http://www.christiancourier.com/feature/december99.htm

    http://www.apologeticspress.org/docsdis/2001/dc-01-04.htm


    CHRISTIANITY AND SCIENCE

    http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/

    http://www.carm.org/issues/science.htm


    ONLINE CREATIONISM BOOK (UNIQUE)

    http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ441.html


    FALL OF MAN AND CREATION

    http://www.ldolphin.org/Ruin.html
     
  17. kendemyer

    kendemyer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is the material that provides a important context to the creation/evolution debate. I post this for subsequent posters to consider.

    Here is something I wrote (which is based on something a Christian apologist wrote at the following Australian magazine called Investigator Magazine plus a Jewish site. http://ohr.edu/special/books/gott/truth-3.htm (Jewish site. I am a Christian and not Jewish but I thought the essay was well done)

    You raised the best question of all I thought. Is proving an inerrant Bible possible? That seems to be the $64,000 question doesn't it?

    Here is a scenario:

    You are in a cab. A doctor is in the cab next to you. Suddenly, you feel immense pain in your midsection. You tell the doctor where it hurts. The doctor proceeds then to ask you some questions. The doctor then says, "I think we need to rush to the hospital. I think you have an acute problem with your appendix. You ask the doctor: "Are you absolutely sure? Is it possible it is something else?" The doctor says, "Well it is possible I guess that it is something else, but I strongly recommend we rush to the hospital right now." You say, "Well, If you are not absolutely sure I am not going to the hospital. I am going to visit my girlfriend."

    I would say the above illustration shows the difference between moral certainty and absolute certainty. I would argue that we can have great moral certainty regarding inerrancy based on our intellectual abilities. I also would say that in everyday life we constanty make decisions using moral certainty and not absolute certainty. I also know from experience and the experience of others that God can and does reveal Himself, His thoughts regarding Scripture, also He reveals what wants for us to those who diligently seek Him. Do all diligently seek Him? The Bible says indicates that few do seek God, but He is available.

    So how can one attain this moral certainty regarding the great reliability of the Scriptures - namely Bible inerrancy - using the brain I believe God has given us? One way Christians try to pursuade others, and I would not recommend this, is to do the following: argue about the fossil record gaps using a lot of respected scientists and examples, quote other scientists and examples regarding the richness of the fossil record created by the over 100 million fossils recorded in natural museums, quote neo-darwinists and punctuated equilibrium scientists bickering among themselves over germaine matters, and lastly, quote a evolutionists saying in the Wall Street Journal on June 15, 1979 saying "the creationists tend to win the debates." I know this type of debate and have seen it and even particated in it myself in it myself. At best, I think it can only eliminate an objection to the Bible. Plus, I have seen the two sides go at it for days or weeks or months without much being accomplished. Also, I do not think it is going to persuade people of Bible inerrancy or Christianity. I know that many Christians try this method to show that Christianity and the Bible is valid and sometime it may even be very helpful but it is not going to create a revival. I do think that the discussion certainly has its place though and hence many this board's forums have a place (Here is something I created that indicatea that creationists have a strong case by the way: http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=180 )


    Here is what I believe is a better way:

    Since this is a science forum I will illustrate things in a scientific manner. Inductive logic, which science uses, is where we generalize from particular items to general conclusions.

    Following this logic, if the Bible regularly turns out true regarding matters we can verify and its detractors in error in the long run, we can expect more of the same. In life, if a individual is regularly reliable we are more likely to trust him the next time.

    Now I would argue that we should strive to first examine the things that are easiest attainable and then move up step by step in difficulty during this verification process of the Bible. I have given the examples, of the hyrax, lions, cobra, and stars where the consensus of scientists were wrong and the Bible proved to be right in the long run.

    See:

    http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BLions87.htm (Lions)
    http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BBritannicaCobra38.htm (Cobra)
    http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BHyrax18May1991.htm (Hyrax)
    http://www.bible.org/docs/qa/qa.asp?StudyID=141 (stars)

    There are other examples as well in science. I am sure if you will do a study of Christian apologetics through a Christian bookstore or though the web resources I have given you will see more examples. Given my time constraints I have I cannot offer you more at this time (I said I cannot debate. Starting tommorow I am putting more hours in with my work plus there are other matters as well).

    Now here is a very important question. What is the Bible's batting average in terms of being right in the long run on historical matters? I you look at the forward the a new Oxford Bible Commentary edited by John Barton and John Muddiman you will find that they take a "chastened historical criticism" approach. Is Barton or Muddiman a Bible inerrantist? No they are not. But I think it is fair to say that they are admitting that the Bible's critics have been proved historically wrong in many cases. If you do further research you will see this was accomplished though archeaology and other methods.

    Here is something else I wrote on Bible inerrancy which might be of interest to some people:

    Many skeptics, though not all, approach the whole debate between skeptics and Christians as if it were a "tabla rasa" debate that started just recently. I would submit there is a long pedigree of Bible statements being proved true and a long pedigree of skeptics assertions being overturned. I cited the comments of the John Barton and his co-editor in the recent Oxford Bible Commentary to support this claim ("chastened historical criticism") plus I gave other examples. If you want further elaboration of this fact I suggest the following link (the article that was written by a Australian Christian apologist which I briefly mentioned earlier: http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm
    (see the essay "The Bible: Tested, True, Triumphant")


    Believe it or not skeptics have sued a Christian over the issue of Bible inerrancy (Dr. Rimmer trial)
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    In America, it is hard to think of something that is not sued over. Bible inerrancy is no exception to things sued over.

    There was a very flamboyant man by the name of Dr. Harry Rimmer. I have heard some negative reports about Dr. Rimmer by both sides of the Christian/skeptic aisle and whether they are true or untrue is not of paramount importance to me so I never checked out the reports (He was sued over Bible inerrancy and I was most interested in the results of the trial and the trial itself). I heard about Dr. Rimmer from my teaching assistant for my calculus class in college and I got a big laugh out of the following story because it seemed humorous that someone would offer a reward to anyone finding an error in the Bible as a challenge and that some people would later sue over the issue of Bible inerrancy:

    I believe for about a decade Dr. Rimmer offered a reward to any skeptic who was able to find an error in the Bible. If memory serves, I believe the reward started off small but quickly was upped to $1,000. Dr. Rimmer was sued twice by skeptics and Dr. Rimmer won both cases.

    Here is a partial synopsis of his trials:

    http://www.asa3.org/archive/ASA/199909/0029.html


    WHAT THE DR. RIMMER TRIAL DEMONSTRATED

    Corporately the antagonist of Christianity has over 1,700 years to sift through the Bible in order to find any factual errors or contradictions. The Rimmer trial shows the weakness of their position. I believe rightly does the Bible say: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise....Where is the wise man?... Where is the scribe? Where is the debator of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?...The grass withers. The flower fades but the Word of God abides forever."


    SOME ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY REGARDING THE BIBLE

    Here is some interesting information I found at another website:

    "No other book has been so chopped, knived, sifted, scrutinized and vilified. What book on philosophy or religion or psychology or belles letters of classical or modern times has been subject to such a mass attack as the Bible? With such venom and scepticism? With such thoroughness and erudition? Upon every chapter, line and tenet?"

    Bernard Ramm


    The author of the website writes:

    "So many sceptics, Kings, Emperors, Priests, philosophers and revolutionaries have tried to destroy, disprove or deny the bible over the last few thousand years, yet it's circulation continues to grow. What is the reason for the success of the bible in spite of these almost overwhelming attacks? Is it merely a coincidence? Maybe it is due to the reliability and quality of the book, as we have seen in this chapter, or could there possibly be a divine influence behind all this?"

    the last two paragraphs were taken from:http://www.stilez.freeserve.co.uk/apol/int2.html


    Some notes on Rimmer Trial for those who are interested:

    Here is commentary on the quail from this site:

    http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_05_04_04.html


    "Even granting miraculous provision, one would have to read this as excessive, according to the critics. McKinsey objects:

    A homer is 10 bushels; thus the least gathered by anyone was 100 bushels. "Estimating 120 quail to the bushel gives 12,000 quail to each person, a rather large accumulation to say the least."
    Given the distance around the camp covered (27.8 miles all around), and supposing a height of two cubits (three feet), and each quail occupying 27 square inches, McKinsey calculates that there would be "29 trillion quail or 12,000,000 quail per Jew."

    This would indeed be quite the supermarket, but a few things are being read wrong from the get-go. First of all, a homer is not 10 bushels, but just over 5 bushels. Second, while this passage can be read as referring to the quail being three feet deep on the ground, the grammar can also be read as indicating that this was the height at which the birds were flying when they were caught or knocked down. Finally, the group that gathered, "the people," does not refer to the entire nation of Israel; it may refer to a group of any size. In this case, the size of the group that gathered quail is indicated implicitly by verses 23-24, which refers to the plague that followed and that "they buried the people that lusted" -- who were these people? According to 11:4, it was the "mixed multitude that was among them fell a lusting" and incited "the children of Israel" to complain about the lack of meat. So then, how many quail were there? It can't be said without knowing the exact number of the mixed multitude, but there is certainly no reason to go bellowing about numbers like 29 trillion. (Quail were known to produce huge flocks, though: Pliny tells of a boat that sank because of the number of quail that alighted on it.)"


    Ultimately, I believe that the God who created this non-eternal universe could send 2,000 Pliny type flocks of quail.


    Here is some commentary on the other verse mentioned in the summary of the Dr. Rimmer trial - namely the clean and unclean animals going into the ark:

    http://www.lookinguntojesus.net/ata20010429.htm (I like this one the best)

    http://www.tektonics.org/arkbeasts.html (discusses the Hebrew)

    http://www.apologeticspress.org/faq/r&r8612c.htm

    The next material will discuss how Bible prophecy supports the doctrine of Bible inerrancy
     
  18. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    One of the difficulties in the debate is compelling and convincing evidence can be presented by the scientists and the creationsists just dismiss it without any reason for doing so.

    Viruses are indeed specific as to the hosts they infect. But that specifity ends at the crossing of the cell wall. Once inside the nucleous, when it comes time to insert their genetic material, they are indiscriminant as to the location in the giant chromosone that is used.

    A great anology that has been used before is to consider a person who has prepared a copyrighted map he sells and another person unfairly copies his map and also sells it. So the original map maker takes him to court.

    "Your Honor," he says, "The defendant copied my map. I can prove it because when I prepared my map, I inserted some false streets, seven of them. Those streets do not exist in reality - they are there just to catch forgers like the defendant."

    "Your Honor," says the defense attorney, "It is true that the bogus streets are to be found in my defendant's map. But there are, after all, only seven of them, and there are hundreds and hundreds of streets in a map this large. Surely you will admit this could be a coincidence. After all, there are some streets also in this map that don't really exist that aren't in the other map."

    Does that defense make any sense? Of course not. For those streets to exist, in the same place in the map, means the one was copied from the other.

    The existence of just seven retro viruses inserted into the genome, in the same exact locations, and being equal to each other, is sufficient proof that the chromosones in humans and the chromosones in chimpanzees were both copied over all the ages from a common source, in exactly the same way that seeing the fake streets in the other map maker's map is sufficient proof the maps had a common origin.

    I do not mean to assert that there are only seven retro virus matches. I'm using your figure here. I'm saying you appear to be seriously underestimating the quality of the evidence, based no doubt on your ideological opposition to the concept.
     
  19. Todd

    Todd
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2004
    Messages:
    246
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have enjoyed this lively, thought-provoking debate between the two of you. It was done in a spirit of kindness and scholarship, and for that you are both to be commended. I will say up-front that I believe in a young Earth that was created within the period of six literal days as stated in Gen. 1. You have both provided more than enough scientific reasons for your positions, but I have not seen the theological side of the argument developed near as much. For the sake of brevity and time, please allow me to make one very pivotal argument in favor of a young Earth, and observation, and then a recommendation.

    For years scientists have been telling us that dinosaurs roamed the Earth before mankind, and that they became extinct before the period that "Homo Erectus" became "Homo Sapian." The glaring theological problem with such reasoning is that it asserts that death entered the world before the fall of man in the Garden of Eden some 6000 years ago. Yet, Paul clearly and quite emphatically stated that death entered the world only after the sins of Adam and Eve (see Romans 5). Thus, it would have been impossible for anything to have died before the Fall, for sin had not yet entered into the world.

    Of course, this position can only be accepted if one accepts the Word of God as fully inspired and inerrant. As Pastor, that it what I pray that people will understand this issue is all about. It's not simply an issue of science vs. religion per se, but it is much more an issue of what you believe about God and His Word. If one chooses not to believe in God, they will probably never believe in any concept of a young Earth for that would violate their atheistic worldview. If one seeks to explain away the first 11 chapters of Genesis as allegorical in order to preserve an atheistic view of creation, that person has made himself the sole arbiter of truth and his arguments should immediately be cast to the dogs for being inconsistent at best.

    Further, I noticed that our anti-young Earth friend made a sweeping deduction when he concluded that the genome similarities are concrete evidence of common ancestry between apes and humans. That may make a scientist feel good when he lays down at night, but such reasoning would never hold up in a classroom of Logic. It's amazing that evolutionists do this all the time though - "There are some keen similarities, and based on those similarities we are to conclude that apes and humans share a common ancestor." Any course in Logic 101 will teach you that similarities prove nothing except that similarities exist. Thus, while the similarities presented were thought provoking, in and of themselves they can prove nothing.

    For all those really interested in this debate, make sure you check out the new book by compiler Tom Vail "Grand Canyon: A Different View." The reason I recommend the book is because the most often used critique of the young Earth position is that it is void of any real, significant science. You will not be able to get through Vail's book without seeing that there is much compelling evidence for a young Earth (that is if your search is an honest one). Multiple examples directly from the Canyon seem to disprove any notion of an Earth that is billions of years old. You can purchase the book at one of the following links:

    CBD Homepage

    Amazon Homepage

    Thanks for allowing this Pastor to participate in the debate. Scripture and the sciences unashamedly point to a young Earth - it is my prayer that all involved will see this not simply as an issue of study, but a pivotal doctrine of our Christian faith. God bless!
     
  20. kendemyer

    kendemyer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    To Todd:

    Amen! And again I say amen! I hadn't planned on posting again to this string but your last posting deserved a hearty amen!

    Also, there has been no reply regarding my proof that the Bible was inspired and is God breathed argument either. see at the Baptist Board: "Prophecy: The Bible has no equals" at this address:

    http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=002038

    If the Bible was inspired and God breathed (and the link above provides powerful evidence it is) did God intentionally tell "white lies" to people and tell an account which does not match to the macroevolutionary hypothesis? I think we need to remember the angels cry, "Holy, holy, holy" and God does not inspire "little white lies".

    I also think we do not know enough about DNA and endogenous retrovirus interaction to speak intelligently. Plus it seems inconsistent that the evolutionists assert abiogenesis yet cry the endogenous retroviruse in the human genonome are somehow compelling because the odds point that way (and I dispute those odds). I think the abiogenesis hypothesis is equally contraevidence as the macroevolutionary postion. I am not sure how random the process of endogenous retroviruses are in various kinds of organisms and what the similarities of those organisms would bring to bear on the situation.

    Sincerely,

    Ken

    [ February 06, 2004, 06:50 PM: Message edited by: kendemyer ]
     

Share This Page

Loading...