The Earth only 6,000 years old-perhaps more clear now than before
Thu, May 7, 2009
“Some models suggest that space-time expanded at a rate faster than lightspeed during a period of rapid inflation shortly after the Big Bang.”
From: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,519130,00.html
Some have said that the universe could not only be 6K years because it has taken millions of light years for the light from distant stars to reach our planet.
The Bible says:
ISA 42:5 Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out;
ISA 45:12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, [even] my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.
JER 10:12 He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.
So, it was God that “stretched out the heavens”, and he did it faster than the speed of light!
Thank you Jim, for sending this in.
Jerry,
You wrote:
“Correction…it was the “Punctuated Equilibrium” hypothesis that Stephen Gould, together with Eldregde in 1972, presented as an althernative to Dariwn’s “phyletic gradualism”…two totally opposing hypothesis!..in a bid to salvage evolution!”
Gunnar replies:
To salvage evolution? This is nonsense. There will always be discussions when it comes to areas where we have yet to find conclusive evidence for something, and this is a good thing. But no one wins scientific concensus without having masses of evidence supporting ones claim.
And whoever has the evidence on his side will ALWAYS win concensus. No matter what! Beautiful, isn’t it?
You wrote:
“Darwin wrote that to prove otherwise (gradualism) “my theory would absolutely break down”.”
Gunnar replies:
We now know a lot more than Darwin knew, largely due to fossil finds and DNA research. We know he was wrong on some things, but the main ideas still stand.
You wrote:
“In layman’s term: “a reptile would lay an egg and out of it would come a “brown furry thing.” Over time, with the help of chance, the “brown furry thing” would find a mate”.”
Gunnar replies:
What? No theory proposes this. Do you really think that’s what Gould meant?
But, let’s not jump all over the place. Give me your main reason for not accepting the ToE. What is your #1 evidence against it, and your #1 evidence for your side. You see, that’s really how science works, not by bashing the opposition, but by proving your case.
in the light of evolution no one can be absolutely certain of the existence of GOD, even though the evidience
of his existence if seen everywhere. for no one has seen Him in His full glory.
no one can prove absolutely that universal existence is a product of evolution by chance.
the evolutionist may point out some complicated thing that the creationist find hard to explain.
but nowhere did the bible says that he must have a scientific explaination.
Adam did not see GOD making him, or any other thing that was created include his wife Eve.
he had to look at the evidience and believe.
GOD,said in Habakuk, 2:4…but the just SHALL live by faith. Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he that cometh to GOD must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them diligently seek Him.
now if the evolutionist is right, and i spend my believing in a myth living a clean life, living and loving others, at death i have lost nothing.
But if the christian is right, the evolutionist has lost all.
Barry wrote:
“no one can prove absolutely that universal existence is a product of evolution by chance.”
Gunnar replies:
Of course not, no one is claiming that. The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with the universe coming to existence, and natural selection is not chance either. So you are here arguing against a position no one holds.
Barry wrote:
“now if the evolutionist is right, and i spend my believing in a myth living a clean life, living and loving others, at death i have lost nothing.”
Gunnar replies:
I strongly disagree with this.
If the Bible is a lie, is not the countless hours spent on studying it a waste? Would you really use the time on that if you weren’t religious?
There are profound statements in the Koran too, but no way am I going to spend any time on it.
Then there is the money spent on tithe, that could have been sent to Africa instead.
You don’t really think you haven’t lost anything if you are wrong?
And who are you to tell that a god would judge me for being honest with myself, not accepting evidence I don’t find credible? I am sure he/she would prefer someone being honest with the evidence, rather someone who believes just to be on the safe side.
Gunnar,
You wrote:
I simply commented on some major flaws in their argument.
Major flaws yeah? And your one is fool-proof? And who makes you the authoritative arbiter to go around calling people by derogatory terms? You know what a hypocrite is yeah? Someone who accuses another person of doing the very wrong thing he or she is doing…work it out.
You wrote:
It’s not up to Gould or anyone else to prove there is no higher answer, the burden of proof is on those making the claim. And we don’t have to reproduce whole transitions to show that evolution is sound science…
Oh really?? Think again…the burden of proof in a court of law is always on the person making a claim! In this instance, Gould made the claim that there is no higher answer, a scientific connotation for that matter. Again, if it is to satisfy the criteria of true science referred to in my earlier posting, where is the demonstrable, observable evidence to prove it? Proponents of evolution are actually arguing that these perfunctory “science fictional” fairytales are factual and substantial…an affront to the English language! That’s a gross misnomer! If evolution is founded on empirically obtained scientific findings, as you guys purported, where is the physical evidence, or a claim to a sighting of it, for that matter, of a mutational transformation? [Check out the definition for “Empirical” above and match it against the so call “evidences” for evolution. There is none! Again, a tautologically ridiculous blooper…The only reason why evolution cannot produce transitional prove is because you don't have any for "EVERY TRANSITIONAL" stage that had occurred all these millions and billions of years!
Proponents of evolution that, for reasons other than finding the truth, had a skewed perusal through the Bible and have always criticize Christianity to be based on blind faith…are you kidding? Which part of their selective and ignorant reading can’t they understand when Hebrews 11:1 says: 1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the EVIDENCE of things not seen”. [emphasis mine]. Listen to what Bible writers wrote: Daniel 7:2: 2 Daniel spoke, saying, “I SAW in my vision by night…” 9 “ I WATCHED till thrones were put in place…” John 1:14: 14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we BEHELD His glory…” The Bible is a Book of “evidential” accounts that history and archeological findings have substantiated and they’re the same evidences that Hebrews 11 is talking about.
You wrote:
We know that it takes Pluto 248.09 years to orbit the sun, but we haven’t known about it for more than 69 years, so how can we know?
At least that’s “observed” and calculated! And that’s what true science is about…And prior to Darwin, honourary scientists were Christians that were using science as a catalyst to understand the wonders of God; not this pseudo, unsubstantiated far-fetched claims guised as empirical science called evolution…show me “a corpse!” so to speak. Or at least some eye-witness account to an observed demonstration of a mutational transition! Where is it??? At this point you’d probably think: how about Lucy, the Piltdown man (ahem), etc etc. Let me say this. When pro-evolution archeologists dig up fossils with a pre-commitment to this ridiculous ideology, what would a thinking person perceive the excavators’ conclusion to be? It would be something like this: “voila! this is consistent with our theory!”. Well, what do you expect!? It is consistent with your theory because it doesn’t allow for any other thought! It’s TAUTOLOGICAL!!! Are you understanding?? Did the fossils come with labels like: “this bone is one million years old”…or is that what you guys make it out to be through a fallible scientific discipline that even Darwin himself ridiculed!!?? Oh, but then you guys “sort out” your THEORY to fit into your ridiculously far-fetching claims! Get real and scientific, for crying out loud!!!
You wrote:
Are babies born with defects? Do you think God creates each baby, or have just created people with the ability to continue on our own? See my point?
Is this a moral argument? Why would you do that, seeing that evolution came about through a vicious “survival of the fittest” kind of setting where “morality” is unheard of? mmmm…Your point is way off mark, pertaining to the character of God, it’s hard to see! This is what God says in Jeremiah 29:10, 11 to His people: 10 “For thus says the LORD: After seventy years are completed at Babylon, I will visit you and perform My good word toward you, and cause you to return to this place. 11 For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope”. Compare this to what Jesus says about Satan in John 10:10,11: “10 The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly. 11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep.” And He took what you deserve and what I deserve by dying a shameful death on the cross (as prophesied!)See Isaiah 53 and learn about the humility of God!
Here’s another one in Ezekiel 33:10,11: 10 “Therefore you, O son of man, say to the house of Israel: ‘Thus you say, “If our transgressions and our sins lie upon us, and we pine away in them, how can we then live?”’ 11 Say to them: ‘As I live,’ says the Lord GOD, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?’
There are numerous variables that contributes to the defective outcome of babies: genetically modified food we eat; hazardous habits parents might have etc etc…in other words, the sinfulness” (or unhealthy, if that makes you comfy…and the kind of attitude that leads to conventions like that in Copenhagen now…Corporate greed) of this world causes it. Here, I would like to use the “It is written” approach that my Lord and Saviour said to Satan, and this is what’s written…”Do not be deceived. What ye sow, that ye shall reap!”. Wow, isn’t that amazing!? These anomalies do not however, negate the fact that God has a PURPOSE in mind before COMMANDING into existence everything created, and they were “very good”! Look at the purposes of creation in Genesis 1: 6 “And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and LET IT DIVIDE the waters from the waters. 7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven TO DIVIDE the day from the night; and let them be FOR SIGNS, and FOR SEASONS, and for DAYS, and YEARS: 15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven TO GIVE LIGHT upon the earth: and it was so. 16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.” [emphasis mine]
Now, do you, in all honesty, see any hint of “an accidental mishap” in Gods creation? Compare this clear, unequivocal, unambiguous account to your big bang theory, for instance. Or Crick’s “Directed Panspermia”. This also begs the question: where do these aliens come from? Who gave them life? How do you answer to questions pertaining to “Abiogenesis”? How about the laws of thermodynamics? Or how about Gould’s “Punctuated Equilibrium”?. By the way, if you’re uncomfortable with me using “THEORY” to describe “evolution, here’s a dictionary definition:
1 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
2: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art
3a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory
That’s what I meant by “Evolutionary THEORY”! It’s all speculation. And should you erringly suggest that God created us to continue on our own, read and understand the Biblical texts provided above pertaining to the Genesis account. These are what some of the Bible writers say as well: Psalms 8:3,4: “3 When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, The moon and the stars, which You have ordained,
4 What is man that You are mindful of him, And the son of man that YOU VISIT HIM?” [just to name a couple and emphasis mine]. This is what compelled earlier scientists to study science, pre-Darwinism! Now, does that sound like a God that leaves us alone? He also said in Isaiah 1:18 – “Come now and let us REASON together”. When was the last time you reason out with the aliens in regards to evolution?
You wrote:
And whoever has the evidence on his side will ALWAYS win concensus. No matter what! Beautiful, isn’t it?
Definitely! If this is to be taken before a court of law where arguments are dealt with in a logical sequence, you will be arguing that somebody just got murdered but have no corpse to prove it! And judges don’t like people wasting their time! Once again, an eye-witness account is the best evidence in a court of law…Where are your eye-witness evidences?? Or in a more familial term: “Where are your demonstrable, observable, falsifiable evidences that can be utilized for the purposes of cross examination!??”. You have none! Unless you don’t mind arguing “CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCES” which evolution is in no way getting close to proving because there’s not even a hint of circumstances that would suggest otherwise (not evidence because you lack it, remember?). And do not erringly argue true scientific disclosures (meaning demonstrable evidences) as evolutionary because they are not…they satisfy the requirements of a First-Order discipline…you guys don’t, but more philosophical though.
This is what a profound prognosticator for evolution wrote: “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door” – Richard Lewontin: “Billions and Billions of Demons”; 1997.
Surprise, surprise! Did you see that? “Materialism is ABSOLUTE!”, even after admitting to its hypothetical nature! Amazingly nonsensical!
You wrote:
We now know a lot more than Darwin knew, largely due to fossil finds and DNA research. We know he was wrong on some things, but the main ideas still stand.
Oh really? What main idea is that…gradualism/uniformitarianism or instant mutation as Gould suggested? Again, what evidences do you guys have to prove Darwin was wrong, because there was none in its inception! And why was Mr. Crick quick to theorize the double helical strands of DNA soon after getting an award for it? See, scientists prove that DNA contains “INFORMATION” thus necessitating a Designer! See how his crooked scientific mind works? It’s amazing the extend people went through to keep God out of the picture!
You wrote:
But, let’s not jump all over the place. Give me your main reason for not accepting the ToE. What is your #1 evidence against it, and your #1 evidence for your side. You see, that’s really how science works, not by bashing the opposition, but by proving your case?
Considering the absurdity of the unsubstantiated/unobserved claims that evolution came up with which can be seen in my earlier posting as well as Lewontin’s assessment, it’s beyond me why you ask me the above question…unless you have a different definition to these terms: (a) Evidence; (b) Empirical etc etc (we don’t have any problem with TRUE science, you know? Like Isaac Newton who also wrote a commentary to the book of Daniel).
You wrote:
Do you really think it’s a coincidense that the only ones not accepting evolution is the people with a certain interpretation of their scripture.
One historian wrote that “when you make people think they are thinking, they will love you. But when you make them THINK, they will hate you”.We don’t accept evolution because it is just a big joke. Pertaining to the interpretation of scripture, the Bible says in Isaiah 8:20 – “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them”. Let the Bible interpret the Bible, for it also says in 1 Corinthians 2:14 that “spiritual things are spiritually discerned”…things that Peter says in 2 Peter 3:16 “..the unlearned and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the scriptures”.
You wrote:
Just like the Mormons are blinded by their faith in claiming there were huge settlements of jews in USA 2000 years ago, you are when it comes to accepted science. Do you at least acknowledge the possibility?
I’ve got a copy of the “The Book of Mormon – Another Testament of the Jesus Christ”. Do not even attempt to put Christianity on juxtaposition with Mormonism. This shows ignorance in your part (sounds familiar?). These are the reason why: (1) Mormons claim to be another Testament of Jesus and yet contradicts the Bible in every form. If someone is writing a testament about another person [eg: Mandela], a thinking person would expect that the book would mention the name Mandela, right? Not the case with this book..so much for being another testament of Jesus! They claim Jesus went to the Americas. Adversely, this is what the Bible says in 1 Thessalonians 4:16, 17: 16 “For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord”. This is the first resurrection where the saints will meet the Lord in the air! Christ Himself warns that false Christs’ will appear…and didn’t they!!! (b) the major wars and surmountable victories spoken of in the Book of Mormon cannot be substantiated by history, neither by Archaeological findings! (c) Christianity is not a blind faith, as you would imply. Again, it’s based on eyewitness accounts that are tangible and real to the extent that the apostles (except for one) died a martyr’s death for it. So please don’t insult your intelligence by being reckless and haphazard in your submissions. Let me ask you: Are you prepared to die in defence of the truthfulness of evolution? I am for my one.
God bless
Amen Jerry!
I especially liked this quote ‘One historian wrote that “when you make people think they are thinking, they will love you. But when you make them THINK, they will hate you”.’
Not to argue, but sometimes this text is applicable 1 John 3:12 “Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother’s were righteous.”
We just want THE TRUTH.
Joe Crews said: Millions of Christians have been intimidated by the high-sounding technical language of educated evolutionists, many of whom are vitriolic in their attacks on special creation. What we do need is more information on exposing the loopholes in the evolutionary theory; its base is so riddled with unscientific inconsistencies, often concealed under the gobbledygook of scientific jargon.”
I thank you Jerry for helping to EXPOSE the loopholes in the evolutionary theory.
My friends over at creation.com is great at doing this also. See?
“Many people will profess loudly that they do not believe in God because ‘science’ has proven that evolution explains our existence without God. But according to the NSES’ own stipulations, evolution fails the test they have put forth to qualify as true science.
In light of this, why do so many scientists, who ought to know better, blindly accept evolutionary notions of our origins, instead of at least considering the possibility of a Creator?
Science Evolution
1-Observational data Fail
2-Accurate predictions Fail
3-Logical Fail
4-Open to criticism Fail
5-Accurate information Fail
6-No presuppositions Fail
Perhaps Hebrews 11:6 is appropriate to cite in this context. It says:
And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.”
http://creation.com/is-evolution-scientific
I mean, God is letting the wheat and the tares grow together until the harvest. If he allows the creationists to get too much evidence it will only attract TIMESERVERS from the side of the evolutionists or even from the creationists and therefore the sin problem would not be eradicated. Since ONLY God can read minds he’s allowing people to show what type of “fruit” they will bear, see Luke 3:9. We are being WATCHED 1 Corinthians 4:9
‘… For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men. … ‘
So, God in all fairness has leveled the playing field.
Jeremiah 29:13 says “If you look for me wholeheartedly, you will find me ”
In other words, if a person truly wants to find God, they WILL find Him
……………………………….
I find that evolution does NOT give satisfactory answers to the problem of evil but the bible does
“… Nazism flourished in the most scientifically advanced nation on Earth, with a third of all science Nobel Prizes awarded up to that time.”
Not that creationists do not believe in TRUE science but I believe that a desire to worship is inherent in ALL humans; that’s why “religion” is so popular. As Albert Einstein said:”Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
Jerry,\n\nFirst of all, you should start using paragraphs. That large chunk of text is extremely hard to read.\n\nAnd since your post is very lengthy, covers many topics, and would take a long time to write in my own words, I will rely on other sources and links wherever useful.\n\nNow, let me comment on what you wrote:\n\nYou wrote:\n”Major flaws yeah? And your one is fool-proof?”\n\nGunnar replies:\nI never claimed that, but going by evidence is to me always the best way.\n\nYou wrote:\n”Oh really?? Think again…the burden of proof in a court of law is always on the person making a claim! In this instance, Gould made the claim that there is no higher answer, a scientific connotation for that matter. “\n\nGunnar replies:\nI don’t represent Gould, and will not answer for him. But the original claim for a higher being is put forward by religious people, and they therefore have the burden of proof for the existence of a god/gods.\n\nYou wrote:\n”Again, if it is to satisfy the criteria of true science referred to in my earlier posting, where is the demonstrable, observable evidence to prove it?”\n\nGunnar replies:\nDo you really think there is no evidence for evolution? For the last 150 years the ToE has been the most debated and tested scientific theory, and it stands firm on over 244000 peer-reviewed articles. Read here for evidence on it:\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/\nhttp://www.zoology.ubc.ca/~bio336/Bio336/Lectures/Lecture5/Overheads.html\n\nSome say that they accept that there is evolution within a species, but it doesn’t produce new species? Well, we have observed that:\nhttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html\n\nThe strongest evidence though, is convergence. Watch this video for more on that:\nhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgyTVT3dqGY\n\nYou wrote:\n”If evolution is founded on empirically obtained scientific findings, as you guys purported, where is the physical evidence, or a claim to a sighting of it, for that matter, of a mutational transformation?”\n\nGunnar replies:\nIf you haven’t seen any evidence, you may not have been looking very hard. I will refer you to the work of Richard Lenski and his research on 44000 generations of E-Coli bacteria.\n\nhttp://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html\nhttp://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.full.pdf+html\n\nYou wrote:\n”The only reason why evolution cannot produce transitional prove is because you don’t have any for “EVERY TRANSITIONAL” stage that had occurred all these millions and billions of years!”\n\nGunnar replies:\nWe don’t need to have fossils from every stage to prove evolution. Since every individual is an intermediate, between the previous generation and the next, it’s impossible to find them all. It’s not that one species stayed the same for x amounts of years, then evolved to something else. The change is constant, and each step is very small indeed.\n\nFossilization is rare, and happens only under certain circumstances, so it’s amazing we have the number we have today. And they speak volumes.\n\nYou wrote:\n”…not this pseudo, unsubstantiated far-fetched claims guised as empirical science called evolution…”\n\nGunnar replies:\nComments like this makes it really hard to take you serious.\n\nYou wrote:\n”…show me “a corpse!” so to speak. Or at least some eye-witness account to an observed demonstration of a mutational transition!”\n\nGunnar replies:\nDo you mean transitions between species, I have already linked to one. The reason we don’t have eye-witnesses to most, is that they take too long.\n\nYou wrote:\n”Where is it??? At this point you’d probably think: how about Lucy, the Piltdown man (ahem), etc etc. “\n\nGunnar replies:\nWhy would I mention Piltdown man? It was a fraud, and busted by people supporting evolution! Showing that things supporting evolution are not blindly accepted.\n\nYou wrote:\n”When pro-evolution archeologists dig up fossils with a pre-commitment to this ridiculous ideology, what would a thinking person perceive the excavators’ conclusion to be? It would be something like this: “voila! this is consistent with our theory!”. “\n\nGunnar replies:\nThis is nonsense. Predictions are made up front, and if the findings don’t fit it, science is rewritten. One good example of the brilliance of the ToE is Tiktaalik.\nRead here:\nhttp://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/\n\nEdward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin and Farish A. Jenkins predicted that they would find an intermediate between fish and amphibians when digging in rocks of the right age, based on the ToE. The prediction was fulfilled, showing that the ToE isn’t mere ’speculation’.\n\nYou wrote:\n”Oh, but then you guys “sort out” your THEORY to fit into your ridiculously far-fetching claims! “\n\nGunnar replies:\nWe collect evidence, and form the science around them. Not the other way around. A bunny in the Pre-Cambrian would sure turn things around.\n\nYou wrote:\n”Is this a moral argument?”\n\nGunnar replies:\nNo, I was not talking about morals at all. I was referring to your comment about \n\nYou wrote:\n”And should you erringly suggest that God created us to continue on our own, read and understand the Biblical texts provided above pertaining to the Genesis account. “\n\nGunnar replies:\nI don’t believe in any gods, but more than a third of Christians disagrees with you reg. the ToE. That’s no small number.\n\nYou wrote:\n” If this is to be taken before a court of law where arguments are dealt with in a logical sequence, you will be arguing that somebody just got murdered but have no corpse to prove it! “\n\nGunnar replies:\nIf the surrounding evidence is strong enough, you can do without a corpse. People get convicted like that every year.\n\nYou wrote:\n”And judges don’t like people wasting their time! “\n\nGunnar replies:\nBut they don’t form a conclusion before the evidence is presented.\n\nYou wrote:\n”Once again, an eye-witness account is the best evidence in a court of law…”\n\nGunnar replies:\nThis is completely wrong. People are shown to make mistakes, and this has resulted in the conviction of lots of innocent people.\nhttp://futurity.org/society-culture/can-eyewitnesses-trust-their-memory/\n\nYou wrote:\n”Where are your demonstrable, observable, falsifiable evidences that can be utilized for the purposes of cross examination!??”. You have none!”\n\nGunnar replies:\nJust because you haven’t looked for or seen any, doesn’t mean that there aren’t any. A modern animal in an old strata will do just fine. The bunny in the Pre-Cambrian will wreck the ToE. These are examples of how you can falsify the ToE. How would you go about falsifying a god?\n\nYou wrote:\n”This is what a profound prognosticator for evolution wrote: “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nWise words. Reality doesn’t always make sense, and we are better off going by science, following the evidence.\n\nYou wrote:\n”It’s amazing the extend people went through to keep God out of the picture!”\n\nGunnar replies:\nSure, that’s why we have the ToE. People actually believe in a god and wants to fool themselves by making up a scientific theory? That makes absolutely no sense.\n\nYou wrote:\n”Considering the absurdity of the unsubstantiated/unobserved claims that evolution came up with which can be seen in my earlier posting as well as Lewontin’s assessment, it’s beyond me why you ask me the above question”\n\nGunnar replies:\nIt’s to make the debate cleaner, and easier to follow. When tackling dozens of issues in each post, we only skim through them, not getting to the bottom of any.\n\nCome on, give me your best argument for Creation backed up by the necessary evidence, and let’s stay with it until we get to the bottom of it. You may prefer presenting evidence against Evolution, but if you want to show your case to be true I recommend you put something behind it.\n\nYou wrote:\n”One historian wrote that “when you make people think they are thinking, they will love you. But when you make them THINK, they will hate you”\n\nGunnar replies:\nDon Marquis was no historian, he was a journalist.\nAnd I think that quote goes well for people on your side. I have never encountered as hostile a people as some Christians since I started questioning my faith a little over a year ago.\n\nYou wrote:\n”We don’t accept evolution because it is just a big joke. “\n\nGunnar replies:\nIt’s not a joke at all. It has withstood rigorous testing for 150 years, and is one of the best grounded scientific theories we have.\n\nYou wrote:\n”Do not even attempt to put Christianity on juxtaposition with Mormonism.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nI am comparing how wrong you can go when putting faith before reality.\n\nYou wrote:\n”Let me ask you: Are you prepared to die in defence of the truthfulness of evolution? I am for my one.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nThat has nothing to do with the validity of my position. People from all kind of religions die for their faith. They can’t all be right, but they can all be wrong.\n\nDo you really think this is a valid argument?\n\n————————–\n\nI have now used lots of time responding to your post, also due to computer crash, which forced me to rewrite part of the text. I think there is a better way to use our time.\n\nI propose that we do this:\n1. We’ll ask one question/make one claim at a time, only one. Then we’ll together debate this question/claim to the end. We’ll then try to agree on a conclusion, and will not enter in new questions or claims in this process.\n\n2. The discussion must be structured, and any claim must be based on evidence from a recognized source.\n\n3. We will stay on topic.\n\nSince you refrained from presenting this in the previous post, I will go ahead:\n\nThe laryngeal nerve makes perfect sense in light of evolution. In fish it takes a direct route, in all mammals it runs from the brain, around an artery, and up again. In humans it’s a small detour, in giraffe’s it’s a ridicolous 15 foot detour.\n\nIn light of evolution it’s easy to explain this. How do you explain it in light of Creation?\n\nWatch this if you don’t know what I’m talking about.\nhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VV5UbYwqIMk
Correction:
People don’t get convincted every year without a corpse found, but it has happened in the past, and with improving forensic techniques it will most likely happen in the future as well.
Man, I see now that my post got all messed up, it wasn’t like that when I first saw it posted. What happened?
Trying to fix my messed up post:
Jerry,
First of all, you should start using paragraphs. That large chunk of text is extremely hard to read.
And since your post is very lengthy, covers many topics, and would take a long time to write in my own words, I will rely on other sources and links wherever useful.
Now, let me comment on what you wrote:
You wrote:
”Major flaws yeah? And your one is fool-proof?”
Gunnar replies:
I never claimed that, but going by evidence is to me always the best way.
You wrote:
”Oh really?? Think again…the burden of proof in a court of law is always on the person making a claim! In this instance, Gould made the claim that there is no higher answer, a scientific connotation for that matter.“
Gunnar replies:
I don’t represent Gould, and will not answer for him. But the original claim for a higher being is put forward by religious people, and they therefore have the burden of proof for the existence of a god/gods.
You wrote:
”Again, if it is to satisfy the criteria of true science referred to in my earlier posting, where is the demonstrable, observable evidence to prove it?”
Gunnar replies:
Do you really think there is no evidence for evolution? For the last 150 years the ToE has been the most debated and tested scientific theory, and it stands firm on over 244000 peer-reviewed articles.
Read here for evidence on it:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.zoology.ubc.ca/~bio336/Bio336/Lectures/Lecture5/Overheads.html
Some say that they accept that there is evolution within a species, but it doesn’t produce new species? Well, we have observed that:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html
The strongest evidence though, is convergence. Watch this video for more on that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgyTVT3dqGY
You wrote:
”If evolution is founded on empirically obtained scientific findings, as you guys purported, where is the physical evidence, or a claim to a sighting of it, for that matter, of a mutational transformation?”
Gunnar replies:
If you haven’t seen any evidence, you may not have been looking very hard. I will refer you to the work of Richard Lenski and his research on 44000 generations of E-Coli bacteria.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.full.pdf+html
You wrote:
”The only reason why evolution cannot produce transitional prove is because you don’t have any for “EVERY TRANSITIONAL” stage that had occurred all these millions and billions of years!”
Gunnar replies:
We don’t need to have fossils from every stage to prove evolution. Since every individual is an intermediate, between the previous generation and the next, it’s impossible to find them all. It’s not that one species stayed the same for x amounts of years, then evolved to something else. The change is constant, and each step is very small indeed.
Fossilization is rare, and happens only under certain circumstances, so it’s amazing we have the number we have today. And they speak volumes.
You wrote:
”…not this pseudo, unsubstantiated far-fetched claims guised as empirical science called evolution…”
Gunnar replies:
Comments like this makes it really hard to take you serious.
You wrote:
”…show me “a corpse!” so to speak. Or at least some eye-witness account to an observed demonstration of a mutational transition!”
Gunnar replies:
Do you mean transitions between species, I have already linked to one. The reason we don’t have eye-witnesses to most, is that they take too long.
You wrote:
”Where is it??? At this point you’d probably think: how about Lucy, the Piltdown man (ahem), etc etc. “
Gunnar replies:
Why would I mention Piltdown man? It was a fraud, and busted by people supporting evolution! Showing that things supporting evolution are not blindly accepted.
You wrote:
”When pro-evolution archeologists dig up fossils with a pre-commitment to this ridiculous ideology, what would a thinking person perceive the excavators’ conclusion to be? It would be something like this: “voila! this is consistent with our theory!”.“
Gunnar replies:
This is nonsense. Predictions are made up front, and if the findings don’t fit it, science is rewritten. One good example of the brilliance of the ToE is Tiktaalik.
Read here:
http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/
Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin and Farish A. Jenkins predicted that they would find an intermediate between fish and amphibians when digging in rocks of the right age, based on the ToE. The prediction was fulfilled, showing that the ToE isn’t mere ’speculation’.
You wrote:
”Oh, but then you guys “sort out” your THEORY to fit into your ridiculously far-fetching claims! “
Gunnar replies:
We collect evidence, and form the science around them. Not the other way around. A bunny in the Pre-Cambrian would sure turn things around.
You wrote:
”And should you erringly suggest that God created us to continue on our own, read and understand the Biblical texts provided above pertaining to the Genesis account. “
Gunnar replies:
I don’t believe in any gods, but more than a third of Christians disagrees with you reg. the ToE. That’s no small number.
You wrote:
”If this is to be taken before a court of law where arguments are dealt with in a logical sequence, you will be arguing that somebody just got murdered but have no corpse to prove it!“
Gunnar replies:
If the surrounding evidence is strong enough, you can do without a corpse. People have been convicted like that in the past.
You wrote:
”And judges don’t like people wasting their time! “
Gunnar replies:
But they don’t form a conclusion before the evidence is presented.
You wrote:
”Once again, an eye-witness account is the best evidence in a court of law…”
Gunnar replies:
This is completely wrong. People are shown to make mistakes, and this has resulted in the conviction of lots of innocent people.
http://futurity.org/society-culture/can-eyewitnesses-trust-their-memory/
You wrote:
”Where are your demonstrable, observable, falsifiable evidences that can be utilized for the purposes of cross examination!??”. You have none!”
Gunnar replies:
Just because you haven’t looked for or seen any, doesn’t mean that there aren’t any. A modern animal in an old strata will do just fine. The bunny in the Pre-Cambrian will wreck the ToE. These are examples of how you can falsify the ToE. How would you go about falsifying a god?
You wrote:
”This is what a profound prognosticator for evolution wrote: “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.”
Gunnar replies:
Wise words. Reality doesn’t always make sense, and we are better off going by science, following the evidence.
You wrote:
”It’s amazing the extend people went through to keep God out of the picture!”
Gunnar replies:
Sure, that’s why we have the ToE. People actually believe in a god and wants to fool themselves by making up a scientific theory? That makes absolutely no sense.
You wrote:
”Considering the absurdity of the unsubstantiated/unobserved claims that evolution came up with which can be seen in my earlier posting as well as Lewontin’s assessment, it’s beyond me why you ask me the above question”
Gunnar replies:
It’s to make the debate cleaner, and easier to follow. When tackling dozens of issues in each post, we only skim through them, not getting to the bottom of any.
Come on, give me your best argument for Creation backed up by the necessary evidence, and let’s stay with it until we get to the bottom of it. You may prefer presenting evidence against Evolution, but if you want to show your case to be true I recommend you put something behind it.
You wrote:
”One historian wrote that “when you make people think they are thinking, they will love you. But when you make them THINK, they will hate you”
Gunnar replies:
Don Marquis was no historian, he was a journalist.
And I think that quote goes well for people on your side. I have never encountered as hostile a people as some Christians since I started questioning my faith a little over a year ago.
You wrote:
”We don’t accept evolution because it is just a big joke. “
Gunnar replies:
It’s not a joke at all. It has withstood rigorous testing for 150 years, and is one of the best grounded scientific theories we have.
You wrote:
”Do not even attempt to put Christianity on juxtaposition with Mormonism.”
Gunnar replies:
I am comparing how wrong you can go when putting faith before reality.
You wrote:
”Let me ask you: Are you prepared to die in defence of the truthfulness of evolution? I am for my one.”
Gunnar replies:
That has nothing to do with the validity of my position. People from all kind of religions die for their faith. They can’t all be right, but they can all be wrong.
Do you really think this is a valid argument?
I have now used lots of time responding to your post, also due to computer crash, which forced me to rewrite part of the text. I think there is a better way to use our time.
I propose that we do this:
1. We’ll ask one question/make one claim at a time, only one. Then we’ll together debate this question/claim to the end. We’ll then try to agree on a conclusion, and will not enter in new questions or claims in this process.
2. The discussion must be structured, and any claim must be based on evidence from a recognized source.
3. We will stay on topic.
Since you refrained from presenting this in the previous post, I will go ahead:
The laryngeal nerve makes perfect sense in light of evolution. In fish it takes a direct route, in all mammals it runs from the brain, around an artery, and up again. In humans it’s a small detour, in giraffe’s it’s a ridicolous 15 foot detour.
In light of evolution it’s easy to explain this. How do you explain it in light of Creation?
Watch this if you don’t know what I’m talking about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VV5UbYwqIMk
Gunnar…
You wrote:
First of all, you should start using paragraphs.
Oh, so it’s not just what people’s opinions are that you think you have the rightful duty to curb but writing styles as well! How about double posting…is that ok? Yours was unnecessary. I understood what you said the first time round. My posting was lengthy simply because I gather from your reference(s) to the Bible that you’re quite ignorant to it, hence an expressed presentation of the Biblical evidences I referred to.
You wrote:
And since your post is very lengthy, covers many topics, and would take a long time to write in my own word…
The only topic I covered was the incredulity of evolution!
You wrote:
I never claimed that, but going by evidence is to me always the best way.
Easier said than done in your case.
You wrote:
I don’t represent Gould, and will not answer for him…
Ever heard of the term “guilty by association”? You are what you believe/endorse/support/represent…and you somehow believe what Gould believes, namely evolution, so that makes you vicariously liable. Don’t be shy…answer for him! The same way I’m answering for my God!
You wrote:
But the original claim for a higher being is put forward by religious people, and they therefore have the burden of proof for the existence of a god/gods.
We make that claim based on evidences of having DIRECT INTERACTION with God. Our proof is historically substantiated and recorded in the eyewitness accounts of the Bible. Evolution, through the scientific mind of Gould, on the other hand claimed otherwise, thus bearing an onus that needs to be scientifically proven, seeing that’s what he purportedly based his conclusion on…just a basic legal principle.
You wrote:
Do you really think there is no evidence for evolution? For the last 150 years the ToE has been the most debated and tested scientific theory,…
That’s right. Why? Because of it’s ridiculously unobservable claims that are presented as factual. Once again, DO NOT refer to other empirically obtained scientific data, seeing ToE does not fall into that category…it’s tautologically on its own!
You wrote:
If you haven’t seen any evidence, you may not have been looking very hard….
Are you saying the same about agnostic scientists as well???…get off your high horse and get real. You’re the one claiming mythical ideologies as “evidence” and “seeing” things that aren’t there! Myself and the other agnostic scientific minds can’t see it because it’s all in your imagination. That probably explains why you’re not looking at all!
You wrote:
It’s not that one species stayed the same for x amounts of years, then evolved to something else.
What!!!?? Are you saying there’s no evolving (evolution) into something else? You contradict the underlying premise of evolution! Of course they change into something else! Crickey!
You wrote:
The change is constant, and each step is very small indeed…
Change into what!? You mean the unobservable changes? Which lab do you guys observe these so called “small changes”? Again, ridiculous speculations guised as science.
You wrote:
Fossilization is rare, and happens only under certain circumstances, so it’s amazing we have the number we have today. And they speak volumes….
That’s not what Darwin thought! He says they speak volumes “against my theory!”, hence his cheap shot at Geology. What he did was make a claim to the truthfulness of his theory, IN SPITE of the fossil records! And can you tell me the specific “certain circumstances” you’re relating to? What are they called?
You wrote:
Comments like this makes it really hard to take you seriously
Another pompous demerital! How about this: Michael Denton, in his book concludes: “Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great COSMOGENIC MYTH of the twentieth century” (Denton,”Evolution: A theory in Crisis” p. 358)…you’re not gonna take him seriously for calling evolution a myth too, are you? I find it hard to take your arguments seriously because of its parallel to “a princess kissed a frog and it turned into a prince”…illogical and nonsensical. Fairytales. In your case, it’s science fiction at its worst!
You wrote:
Why would I mention Piltdown man? It was a fraud, and busted by people supporting evolution! Showing that things supporting evolution are not blindly accepted.
My apologies…that was a lame joke on my part…will not happen again. But I’m sure you’re familiar with “Peer Review?” Agnostics were breathing down their neck, that’s why they had to rectify it. In a court of law, that can be damningly deemed as collateral fact that affects the credibility of the witness, in this case, the inadmissibility of your evidence because such “professionalism” shows a motive of misleading by fraudulent means. The lack of cogency and inconsistency pertaining to the so called “substantiating evidences” of evolution denies it its probative value, therefore its credibility. Were not Francis Crick and Gould’s theories blindly accepted by the ToE community? There was no evidence whatsoever!
You wrote:
A. Jenkins predicted that they would find an intermediate between fish and amphibians when digging in rocks of the right age, based on the ToE. The prediction was fulfilled, showing that the ToE isn’t mere ’speculation’.
Of course it has to be based on ToE! Again, “true by definition”…Seeing that ToE does predictions based on science…what’s the next “species” that man will evolve into, considering the micro changes are constant? I’m sure you, nor the To E prognosticators would not have the slightest clue! Come on, be reckless and spill the beans!
You wrote:
I don’t believe in any gods,…
Thanks for validating the reason why you took up evolution. And you expect me to believe in fairytales???? You probably believe Rudolph can actually glide through the celestial sky carrying Santa …if the firmament is given the right temperature and age! This is what Psalms 14”1 says: “The fool has said in his heart,“There is no God…” I’d reconsider my position if I’m you. just a suggestion.
You wrote:
But more than a third of Christians disagrees with you reg. the ToE.
You seem to be lacking the ability to understand what an “oxymoronic” term means! Can a ToE exponent believe in God? This is exactly what you’re advocating and this is exactly why I had to literally show Biblical texts, hence the length of my posting! The Hebrew word “Yom” used in Genesis means a literal 24 hr day…tell those “Christians” to show from THE BIBLE passages that suggests those eons and trillions of years. Do their sins evolve for billions of years for it to be forgiven when they pray? The answer to pray is instant! Here’s what Daniel 9: 20 – 23 says: 20 Now while I was speaking, praying, and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before the LORD my God for the holy mountain of my God, 21 yes, while I was speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, reached me about the time of the evening offering. 22 And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, “O Daniel, I have now come forth to give you skill to understand. 23 AT THE BEGINNING OF YOUR SUPPLICATIONS [emphasis mine] the command went out, and I have come to tell you, for you are greatly beloved; therefore consider the matter, and understand the vision…Do you see any hint of evolutionary “gradualism” in the way God operates? The Bible moreover says that the wages of sin is death…how can that be if DEATH PRECEDES SIN (originated in Eden) through the evolutionary cycle that involves death and eradication of other species leading up to the stage of becoming perfect human beings? Nonsense! Moreover, a Christian is a follower of Christ. If this so called Christians are true to their claim, then they should also believe what Jesus says in His approval of the Genesis account in Matthew 19:4, 5: 4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? Which true Christian would read this and still believe in the eons and epochs of evolution? Again, you guys are seeing things that aren’t there. Your continual advocacy of this oxymoron makes me question your reasoning skills.
You wrote:
This is completely wrong. People are shown to make mistakes, and this has resulted in the conviction of lots of innocent people.
Read up on the Law of Evidence and you’ll see the credulity of your unsubstantiated outburst to be completely wrong! Mistakes in evidences come down to the competency and compellability of the witness which can be determined by factors such as: a child witness; a person of low intellect; a spouse/friend; and most dangerously would be police “verballing” (just to name a few). It has nothing to do with the “content” of the evidence per se. That is why an arbiter of facts is/are relying on adducing admissibility of legal evidences categorized as: (1) testimony; (2) documents; (3) real evidence to discharge the legal burden of proof to draw inferences pertaining to a set of facts presented before them as evidences. And AS A GENERAL RULE, “direct evidence” (or eye-witness) is weightier than hear says or circumstantial/indirect evidences. I could give you cases to both substantiate and satisfy the legal requirement of having an authority to a principle/statement but at this point I feel it wouldn’t make a difference to you. In the case of ToE, it would be quashed for lack of direct evidence, nor circumstantial. But then all logical sequences are immaterial to you guys!
You wrote:
Just because you haven’t looked for or seen any, doesn’t mean that there aren’t any. A modern animal in an old strata will do just fine….
Another blooper. An old strata should only contain “old animals!”. This goes against you. That goes to show that the stratification columns are arbitrarily applied at a whim when it suits you guys. Not surprising.
You wrote:
The bunny in the Pre-Cambrian will wreck the ToE. These are examples of how you can falsify the ToE. How would you go about falsifying a god?
Easy! Check out His claims revealed in His word and compare to the exactitude of the event being prophesied in history! How about calling Cyrus by name in Isaiah 45 as His instrument, about a hundred yrs before Cyrus was even conceived! The birth, life, crucifixion, burial and resurrection of Christ? See, a large part of the Bible is prophecy and its fulfillment is impeccable! God mentioned the succeeding world kingdoms in a chronological order in the book of Daniel. So if another kingdom arise instead of having the Medes/Persians as the next kingdom after Babylon and the Grecians/Greece after the Medes/Persians as God said He would establish, then the Biblical account is false…see how easy it is!? And that’s [PROPHECY] the basis for God’s challenge to other “gods” in Isaiah 40:21-24: 41:21 Produce your cause, saith the LORD; bring forth your strong reasons, saith the King of Jacob. 41:22 Let them bring them forth, and shew us what shall happen: let them shew the former things, what they be, that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or declare us things for to come. 41:23 Shew the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods: yea, do good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together. 41:24 Behold, ye are of nothing, and your work of nought: an abomination is he that chooseth you”. I’m submitting the same challenge: If you guys are so brilliant, as you would like people to think: PREDICT THE NEXT SPECIES THAT MAN WOULD EVOLVE INTO! Based on your findings! Impossible..
You wrote:[pertaining to Lewontin's ridiculous statement]
Wise words.
Wise?? You just proved your partial and selective edition of information by ignoring the rest of the quotation that shows the nonsensical and stupidity of evolution. But then nothing youse do surprise me anymore.
You wrote:
Sure, that’s why we have the ToE. People actually believe in a god and wants to fool themselves by making up a scientific theory? That makes absolutely no sense.
You just shoot yourself in the foot again! (and a possible foot in mouth!). You were arguing about the rationality of Christians (believing in God) accepting ToE (an unprovable pseudo scientific theory that leaves God out the door) and now you’re advocating the absurdity of Theistic/Evolutionary amalgamation! No one will ever take you seriously for having double standards so please make up your mind.
You wrote:
Come on, give me your best argument for Creation backed up by the necessary evidence, and let’s stay with it until we get to the bottom of it.
An amazingly short memory…I gave you two postings (plus what the others wrote) and you still ask for an argument? You’re starting to sound like a broken record! I once said to you not to insult your intelligence by being haphazard in your submission??? I take it back. It is obvious that regurgitation and recklessness is your specialty.
You wrote:
You may prefer presenting evidence against Evolution, but if you want to show your case to be true I recommend you put something behind it.\
Once again, selective memory and recklessness regarding previous evidences. We have “eye-witness accounts/direct evidence” where God SPOKE to the children of Israel directly as well as to the writers of the NT. For instance: If someone is to ask me: How did you know Gunnar exists? I will tell them: “I had a “direct” debate with him over the internet pertaining to the issue of evolution…are you understanding? Or you can totally disregard the history of an ethnic race, namely the Jews, which expressed the existence of God and their dealings with Him through history and propose that their historical existence is not scientific therefore not true!
You wrote:
Don Marquis was no historian, he was a journalist.\nAnd I think that quote goes well for people on your side. I have never encountered as hostile a people as some Christians since I started questioning my faith a little over a year ago…
I was referring to Will Durant in one of his presentations. And the quote is a brilliant description of people like Richard Dawkins and his kind (resort to diminishing langauge which doesn’t surprise me when you start calling people on this site “arrogant” and “ignorant”). And your faith was probably theistic/evolutionary in nature which we’ve just firmly established to be nonsensical. In other words, you never had a “faith” to begin with so stop kidding yourself.
You wrote:
I am comparing how wrong you can go when putting faith before reality.
Faith before reality? Sounded like ToE’s “theory before digging up supportive evidence” as you stated above!. Listen to what one of the most brilliant scientific minds in Albert Einstein says: “If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts”. How true is that regarding ToE! We have evidence, then faith…read Hebrews 11 (and the rest of the Bible!). This is what the book “Steps to Christ” says in p105: “God never asks us to believe without giving sufficient EVIDENCE upon which to base our faith. His existence, His character, the truthfulness of His word, are all established by testimony that appeals to our reason; and this testimony is abundant. Yet God has never removed the possibility of doubt. Our faith must rest upon EVIDENCE, not demonstration. Those who wish to doubt will have opportunity; while those who really desire to know the truth will have plenty of EVIDENCE on which to rest their faith”. Does that sound like faith before reality?
You wrote:
That has nothing to do with the validity of my position.
How convicted are you about ToE? See, my position is more than just an intellectual understanding. It is a personal relationship which can only come about if you KNOW that what you’re believing in is real. How about you?
You wrote:
People from all kind of religions die for their faith. They can’t all be right, but they can all be wrong.\n\nDo you really think this is a valid argument?
First of all, you are already wrong! Secondly, as Christians, we take an informed and intellectually appealing step into the Light of God, an experience that is unimpeached and strengthen through personal testimonies and history. There are definitely truckloads of religions available but has any of these religious founders make claims tantamount to Christ’s claims? Apart from claiming to be prophets, has any claimed that he is God? Christ did! And if you look at Mohamed’s grave: OCCUPIED. Buddha’s grave: OCCUPIED. Joseph Smith: OCCUPIED. Christ’s grave” VACANT! Know why? Because He went back to where He said He came from: Heaven. Affirmed by Biblical/historical accounts.
You wrote:
I think there is a better way to use our time….
Definitely!..which makes this my last posting!
You wrote:
I propose that we do this:\n1. We’ll ask one question/make one claim at a time only one. Then we’ll together debate this question/claim to the end…
You cannot put an issue of this magnitude in isolation! But I suppose that’s what you guys do. The big picture guides and determines the logical reasoning in a relational/parallel setting. The big picture we have is founded on this four interrogative issues that is wise for you guys to adopt: (1) Where we came from/ God created us; (2) Why are we here/ to show forth the praises of Him that created us to a dying world; (3) How do we live/ Be holy for I am holy…morality; (4) Where are we going/ To be with the Father and Son in heaven! Isn’t that beautiful and logically plausible?? How about you guys? Waiting to be evolved in death to a worm???
You wrote:
We’ll then try to agree on a conclusion, and will not enter in new questions or claims in this process.
Agree?? Are you kidding?? What could be a probable cause for that? If you’re suggesting a proselytizing debate (why else would you try to be convincing?) then it’s not going to happen. And a waste of time really…time that you can use constructively to hone up your evolutionary argument, and time I can well spend drawing closer to my God and Creator through the reading of His Word.
You wrote:
The discussion must be structured, and any claim must be based on evidence from a recognized source…
Your submissions are probably the unstructured ones and lacking evidence because my ones do! How about history and the amazing scientific discoveries of unexplainable disposition that science keeps coming up with? Match them up against the claims of the Bible! I dare you! What would you consider “a recognised source?” ToE? A thinking person would not even consider its illogical, unscientific paradigm as a basis for intelligent exchanges!
You wrote:
Since you refrained from presenting this in the previous post, I will go ahead:\n\nThe laryngeal nerve makes perfect sense in light of evolution. In fish it takes a direct route, in all mammals it runs from the brain, around an artery, and up again. In humans it’s a small detour, in giraffe’s it’s a ridicolous 15 foot detour.\In light of evolution it’s easy to explain this.
Really!?? But first let me point out that you cannot conclude without a beginning so let me ask you: How and where does the laryngeal nerve come from? But then that’s what ToE does…trying to explain something that another Being has already brought into existence! If a writer is equivocal about someting, the best person to ask is ther writer her/himself. Body parts function exactly the way God created them to be…Listen to what King David of Israel said in Psalms 139: 13, 14 – 13 “For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. 14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully (Hebrew root word also means “reverently”) and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works…” These are elaborated upon by true science. See, the nerve was placed in there by God for the sufficient function of His creatures! Do you ever wonder how the human body has its own cleaning system and healing properties? Would that come about as an accidental fluke?… something you guys espoused! Science is still trying to figure out the full capacity of the human brain, even with the available observance via fMRI. Michael George Pitman, a professor of biology from University of Sydney has this to say: “Every organism is organic through and through in all its parts, and nowhere are these, not even in their smallest particles, mere aggregates/collection of inorganic matter”. That includes the laryngeal nerve, the brain, the artery, the eye (the formation and mechanism of which stupefied Darwin!) etc etc…in other words; they are not there as a collection of inorganic matter (Abiogenesis rings a bell?) So, where does the laryngeal nerve come from? Science moreover established that “life begets life”. Jesus said: “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life”. He commanded nature into being and and gave them life!
You wrote:
How do you explain it in light of Creation?
AGAIN, read my (and other people’s) postings. But most of all, read the BIBLE.
God Bless.
You wrote:\n”Oh, so it’s not just what people’s opinions are that you think you have the rightful duty to curb but writing styles as well! How about double posting…is that ok?”\n\nGunnar replies:\nJust to make it easier to read. You really have a problem with that???\nMy double post was due to something happening with the formatting. Relax, man. You are getting worked up over nothing.\n\nYou wrote:\n”The only topic I covered was the incredulity of evolution!”\n\nGunnar replies:\nThe ToE us a huge field, you know perfectly well what I mean.\nAnd, incredulity??? Just because you don’t understand it doesn’t mean that others don’t.\n\nYou wrote:\n”Easier said than done in your case.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nThat’s funny coming from someone basing his worldview on faith.\n\nYou wrote:\n”Ever heard of the term “guilty by association”? You are what you believe/endorse/support/represent…and you somehow believe what Gould believes, namely evolution, so \n\nthat makes you vicariously liable. Don’t be shy…answer for him! The same way I’m answering for my God!”\n\nGunnar replies:\nNo, it would be the same if you have to answer for the Catholic Church, since you both believe in the Bible.\n\nYou wrote:\n”We make that claim based on evidences of having DIRECT INTERACTION with God.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nYou site personal experience as evidence? It might be evidence for you, but your subjective experiences is not evidence for anyone else.\n\nYou wrote:\n”Our proof is historically substantiated and recorded in the eyewitness accounts of the Bible.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nSo how would you prove Creation? I have asked you for your #1 evidence. Present it.\n\nYou wrote:\n”That’s right. Why? Because of it’s ridiculously unobservable claims that are presented as factual”\n\nGunnar replies:\nNo, because people of faith has been attacking it out of fear. To this day not one valid counter-argument has been presented, and no alternative scientific theory have \n\nbeen put forward.\n\nYou wrote:\n”Are you saying the same about agnostic scientists as well???”\n\nGunnar replies:\nThey too go by the evidence. What is your point?\n\nYou wrote:\n”…get off your high horse and get real.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nYou got me all wrong. I’m on no high horse, and you better believe I’m real.\n\nYou wrote:\n”You’re the one claiming mythical ideologies as “evidence” and “seeing” things that aren’t there!”\n\nGunnar replies:\nWrong, my view is supported by millions of pieces of evidence, all pointing one way.\n\nYou wrote:\n”That probably explains why you’re not looking at all!”\n\nGunnar replies:\nI was a SDA for 16 years, I know that side very well.\n\nYou wrote:\n”What!!!?? Are you saying there’s no evolving (evolution) into something else? You contradict the underlying premise of evolution! Of course they change into something \n\nelse! Crickey!”\n\nGunnar replies:\nNo, you are misunderstanding completely. If you knew evolutionary theory you would know what I meant. Creationists seem to think that the ToE says that f.ex. monkeys \n\nstay the same for a long time, then evolves into something else. This is not how it happens. It evolves continually, every generation is a little different than the \n\none before, and will over time evolve into a new species. We have seen this happen in nature.\nhttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html \n\nYou wrote:\n”Change into what!?”\n\nGunnar replies:\nWe don’t know that ahead of time, but you are different than your parents. Now, that is a small change, but with each generation the change from your parents to those \n\ndescendants 1000 generations from now will increase.\n\nYou wrote:\n”You mean the unobservable changes?”\n\nGunnar replies:\nNo, we see it in nature all the time.\n\nYou wrote:\n”Which lab do you guys observe these so called “small changes”?”\n\nGunnar replies:\nYou can get you and your parents DNA tested, if you don’t believe me. You are not an exact copy, you are different. That’s the small step.\n\nYou wrote:\n”Again, ridiculous speculations guised as science.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nNo, just an unwillingness form your part to understand.\n\nYou wrote:\n”That’s not what Darwin thought! He says they speak volumes “against my theory!””\n\nGunnar replies:\nWe know Darwin was wrong about some things, and he only said it would speak against his theory if there were none. Since his death, we have found LOTS, evetrything \n\npointing to the ToE being the best explanation to life’s diversity.\n\nYou wrote:\n”And can you tell me the specific “certain circumstances” you’re relating to? What are they called?”\n\nGunnar replies:\nHere’s a good link on how fossilization works:\nhttp://www.paleontology.esmartstudent.com/fossilization.html\n\nYou wrote:\n”How about this: Michael Denton, in his book concludes: “Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great COSMOGENIC MYTH of the \n\ntwentieth century””\n\nGunnar replies:\nI’ve read some of his work, and he’s wrong. If you read up, you’ll see it too.\n\nYou wrote:\n”I find it hard to take your arguments seriously because of its parallel to “a princess kissed a frog and it turned into a prince”…illogical and nonsensical.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nIf you really think that’s representative for what the ToE says, you’re way off.\nThis is a typical straw man argument, where you misrepresent the opposition to more easily tear it down. If your example happened, it would prove the ToE wrong.\n\nYou wrote:\n”In your case, it’s science fiction at its worst!”\n\nGunnar replies:\nNo, it’s supported by millions of pieces of evidence, and over 99% of biologists and geologists. Science fiction would be claiming that a donkey once talked.\n\nYou wrote:\n”My apologies…that was a lame joke on my part…will not happen again.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nApology accepted.\n\nYou wrote:\nAgnostics were breathing down their neck, that’s why they had to rectify it.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nNo, this is not correct. It was revealed to be a fraud by other evolutionary scientists, showing that no one is interested in having errors present. Some scientists \n\nspend their whole lives studying very spesific phenomena, and is NEVER interested in studying something that is based on false claims. What a waste that would be.\n\nYou wrote:\n”But I’m sure you’re familiar with “Peer Review?””\n\nGunnar replies:\nI am, and it’s a beautiful thing. This prevents bad science to get out.\n\nYou wrote:\n”The lack of cogency and inconsistency pertaining to the so called “substantiating evidences” of evolution denies it its probative value, therefore its credibility.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nEvolution is consistent, and this makes it possible to make spesific predictions. The laryngeal nerve being one example. The fish has it, and we have it. We are \n\nbelieved to be descendants from fish from way back, so are the other mammals. We can then predict that this nerve is present in the other mammals, which it is. In us \n\nit goes from the brain, down in the chest around an artery and back up to the voice box. If the ToE is correct, we should see this in the other mammals as well, and we \n\ndo.\n\nThis is somewhat of a detour in humans, but in giraffes we would expect to see a ridiculous detour. Do we? YES! The voice box is 2 inches from where the nerve begins, \n\nbut it runs 15 FEET!!!! down into the chest, around an artery, and back up again. Prediction made, prediction fulfilled.\n\nThis is not alone definate evidence for the ToE, but it shows that it fits what we find very nicely. That also explains WHY the nerve is so long in giraffes, so much \n\nlonger than it have had to be. This example is to show you that falsifying the ToE is rather simple, but it holds up to every test.\n\nYou wrote:\n”Were not Francis Crick and Gould’s theories blindly accepted by the ToE community?”\n\nGunnar replies:\nNo, and a thousand times no. No theory is blindly accepted. Everyting goes through rigurous testing and peer review, and is dissected before getting anywhere. It is \n\nchecked out based on current understanding and present evidence, and will be reviewed if new evidence surfaces. No theory is sacred, and there are brilliant people \n\nlooking into every field of science constantly, ready to change it if the evidence points another way.\n\nYou wrote:\n”Seeing that ToE does predictions based on science…what’s the next “species” that man will evolve into”\n\nGunnar replies:\nIt can’t predict the future, but it can make predictions of the past. I’ll illustrate it rather simply: The modern horse has 1 toe, and early ancestors of it has 5. If \n\nwe find an intermediate, it would be expected to have to have 2,3, or 4 toes. If another trait has changed as well, let’s say the head has gotten smaller, we can \n\npredict that the head of these intermediates are a size in between. Do you see what I’m trying to get across? (not sure I explained it too well, but I hope you get it)\n\nYou wrote:\n”considering the micro changes are constant?”\n\nGunnar replies:\nThey most certainly are not constant. Where did you get that from?\n\nYou wrote:\n”Thanks for validating the reason why you took up evolution.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nMe not believing in a deity has nothing to do with me accepting valid science. The ToE is solid.\n\nYou wrote:\n”And you expect me to believe in fairytales????”\n\nGunnar replies:\nDo you believe a donkey once talked? That a man lived for 40 days and nights without drinking or eating? And that a man survived 3 days in the belly of a big fish? If \n\nso, yes.\n\nYou wrote:\n”You probably believe Rudolph can actually glide through the celestial sky carrying Santa …if the firmament is given the right temperature and age!”\n\nGunnar replies:\nNo, there is no evidence for that.\n\nYou wrote:\n”I’d reconsider my position if I’m you. just a suggestion.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nI will, if you can give me evidence. I’m not afraid to go with it.\n\nYou wrote:\n”Can a ToE exponent believe in God?”\n\nGunnar replies:\nMany do, and I take their word for it.\n\nYou wrote:\n”The Hebrew word “Yom” used in Genesis means a literal 24 hr day…tell those “Christians” to show from THE BIBLE passages that suggests those eons and trillions of \n\nyears.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nYou don’t take everything in the Bible literal, and neither do they. They see the story as not meant literally, which you do.\n\nYou wrote:\n”Which true Christian would read this and still believe in the eons and epochs of evolution?”\n\nGunnar replies:\nF.ex. Dr. Francis S. Collins, head of the human genome project, and one of the smartest men alive.\n\nYou wrote:\n”Your continual advocacy of this oxymoron makes me question your reasoning skills.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nI’m not saying I agree with them, just that there are Christians that don’t agree with you.\n\nYou wrote:\n”But then all logical sequences are immaterial to you guys!”\n\nGunnar replies:\nWhy these harsh words. If you really want a proper discussion, you should try a different approach.\n\nYou wrote:\n”In the case of ToE, it would be quashed for lack of direct evidence, nor circumstantial.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nWe do have direct evidence, which I have linked to. Do you read my links at all?\n\nYou wrote:\n”And AS A GENERAL RULE, “direct evidence” (or eye-witness) is weightier than hear says or circumstantial/indirect evidences.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nI am not comparing it to circumstancial evidence, DNA is direct evidence here. In science, how much do you think eye-witness accounts are worth? Then compare it too \n\nDNA-evidence, which anyone can test and see if is correct. DNA wins every time.\n\nYou wrote:\n”An old strata should only contain “old animals!”.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nOld animals and some that have survived. What we do not expect is modern animals with dinosaurs. Cows, dogs, cats, elephants, giraffes, you name it. Find ONE in strata \n\nwith dinosaurs, and you win. Wonder why it won’t ever happen, cause they lived a looong time apart.\n\nYou wrote:\n”That goes to show that the stratification columns are arbitrarily applied at a whim when it suits you guys.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nYou are free to prove 99% of geologists wrong. Go ahead, do the tests and publish your findings. Don’t you ever wonder why no Creationists does that? Why all they do \n\nis attack the ToE, instead of proving an alternative theory wrong? Cause there is no alternative theory.\n\nYou wrote:\n”How about calling Cyrus by name in Isaiah 45 as His instrument, about a hundred yrs before Cyrus was even conceived!”\n\nGunnar replies:\nThere are doubts as to wheter Isaish wrote those chapters, and when they were written. All we have is copies of copies of copies of the books of the Bible, and we know \n\nthat things have been added elsewhere. It could easily have been so here as well.\n\nYou wrote:\n”See, a large part of the Bible is prophecy and its fulfillment is impeccable!”\n\nGunnar replies:\nApply Occam’s razor, and see what’s more likely: Devine prophecy, or written after the fact? If you don’t have a desire to believe in either one, one stands out as the \n\nmost likely.\n\nYou wrote:\n”God mentioned the succeeding world kingdoms in a chronological order in the book of Daniel.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nYou mean where he leaves out several kings in that line?\nDaniel gives this list: Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, (whom he misidentifies as the son of Nebuchadnezzar), Darius the Mede, and Cyrus the Great.\nIn reality it was: Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-Merodach, Neriglassar, Nabonidus, Belshazzar, son of Nabonidus, and Cyrus the Great.\n\nDaniel is also thought to be written later, which does makes sense.\n\nYou wrote:\n”If you guys are so brilliant, as you would like people to think: PREDICT THE NEXT SPECIES THAT MAN WOULD EVOLVE INTO!”\n\nGunnar replies:\nAs I said, and as you would have known if you knew the ToE well, we can’t. We don’t know what environmental changes will occur in the future, and therefore what traits \n\nnatural selection will favor.\n\nYou wrote:\n”You were arguing about the rationality of Christians (believing in God) accepting ToE (an unprovable pseudo scientific theory that leaves God out the door) and now \n\nyou’re advocating the absurdity of Theistic/Evolutionary amalgamation!”\n\nGunnar replies:\nThe ToE says NOTHING regarding a deity, but it does oppose your interpretation of Genesis.\nAnd calling it pseudo science is only hurting you.\n\nYou wrote:\n”No one will ever take you seriously for having double standards so please make up your mind.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nThe many scientists who are Christians will. Not everyone thinks like you, you know.\n\nYou wrote:\n”An amazingly short memory…I gave you two postings (plus what the others wrote) and you still ask for an argument?”\n\nGunnar replies:\nClaims have been made, but I’m not talking about claims. I’m talking about evidence for Creationism. None has been presented, and you are still free to do so.\n\nYou wrote:\n”You’re starting to sound like a broken record!”\n\nGunnar replies:\nOnly because no one is given me any evidence for their side. They’d rather try to find a gap in todays science to insert their deity of choice into.\n\nYou wrote:\n”It is obvious that regurgitation and recklessness is your specialty.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nHow Christ like of you, sir.\n\nYou wrote:\n”We have “eye-witness accounts/direct evidence” where God SPOKE to the children of Israel directly as well as to the writers of the NT.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nSo, how do I go about testing this claim? How is it falsifiable? If it isn’t it, isn’t science.\nOther religions profess to have similar evidence, do you accept those claims? Think about why you dismiss their claims, and realize that I dismiss your for probably \n\nthe same reasons.\n\nYou wrote:\n”For instance: If someone is to ask me: How did you know Gunnar exists? I will tell them: “I had a “direct” debate with him over the internet pertaining to the issue \n\nof evolution…are you understanding?”\n\nGunnar replies:\nBut that claim can be tested. You could send me a message asking me to call these people…etc. It’s easily tested, there’s a major difference there.\n\nYou wrote:\n”Or you can totally disregard the history of an ethnic race, namely the Jews, which expressed the existence of God and their dealings with Him through history and \n\npropose that their historical existence is not scientific therefore not true!”\n\nGunnar replies:\nYou reject the Muslims, don’t you? I reject your god for the same reasons.\n\nYou wrote:\n”And your faith was probably theistic/evolutionary in nature which we’ve just firmly established to be nonsensical. \n\nGunnar replies:\nNo, I was a standard SDA, believing in a literal Genesis.\n\nYou wrote:\n”In other words, you never had a “faith” to begin with so stop kidding yourself.”"\n\nGunnar replies:\nI had, but I do understand that it makes some Christians uneasy to know that someone reasoned their way out of fait. No reason to make false claims about me.\n\nYou wrote:\n”Faith before reality? Sounded like ToE’s “theory before digging up supportive evidence” as you stated above!”\n\nGunnar replies:\nYou are relly not getting it, are you? In science we make hypothesis, and then test to see if reality fits that. That’s what was done before digging up Tiiktalik. A \n\nprediction was made on the basis of the ToE. In rocks of a certain age, IF the ToE is correct, it was expected to be found an intermediate carrying certain very \n\nspesific traits. It was found, proving the predictive powers of the ToE, and again science fits reality beautifully.\n\nRead more about that find here:\nhttp://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/ \n\nYou wrote:\n”Listen to what one of the most brilliant scientific minds in Albert Einstein says: “If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts”.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nWe don’t really know if he said that for sure, we have no source for it. But, it’s the opposite of science, hence not relevant to my side.\n\nYou wrote:\n”We have evidence, then faith…read Hebrews 11″\n\nGunnar replies:\nThen please present some testable evidence for me to take a look at.\n\nYou wrote:\n”How convicted are you about ToE?”\n\nGunnar replies:\nIt fits the evidence we have avaliable, so I see no reason to doubt it. BUT, I am more than willing to change my mind if evidence points the other way.\n\nYou wrote:\n”First of all, you are already wrong!”\n\nGunnar replies:\nMy statement was true. All relifions can’t be right, and the fact that people die for their faith proves nothing.\n\nYou wrote:\n”Apart from claiming to be prophets, has any claimed that he is God?”\n\nGunnar replies:\nLots! Emperors, Pharaoes…you name it. But claims are not necesarry true.\n\nYou wrote:\n”Because He went back to where He said He came from: Heaven. Affirmed by Biblical/historical accounts.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nWhat historical accounts say Jesus went to heaven?\n\nYou wrote:\n”Definitely!..which makes this my last posting!”\n\nGunnar replies:\nI’m sorry to hear it, but I have gotten used to it. Whenever I try to get a debate away from the “Gish gallopp”, and have Creationists present scientific evidence for \n\ntheir side, they usually disappear. I did the same when I was one, and it feels good to be on the side of evidence now.\n\nYou wrote:\n”You cannot put an issue of this magnitude in isolation!”\n\nGunnar replies:\nEvidences can be isolated, f.ex. the giraffes laryngeal nerve that I mentioned before. I just want to hear one piece of scientific evidence for Creation, which we then \n\nwill debate further.\n\nYou wrote:\n”But I suppose that’s what you guys do.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nWe sure do, and love getting to the bottom of things.\n\nYou wrote:\n”Isn’t that beautiful and logically plausible??”\n\nGunnar replies:\nIf it’s beautiful or not has nothing to do with it being correct or not. And plausible? That there are invisible beings around us? The invisible and the non-existent \n\nlooks very much the same to be.\n\nYou wrote:\n”Waiting to be evolved in death to a worm???”\n\nGunnar replies:\nIs this what you think happens according to the ToE? I hope it was meant as a joke.\n\nYou wrote:\n”Agree?? Are you kidding?? What could be a probable cause for that?”\n\nGunnar replies:\nIf all evidence is on the table, it should be possible to reach an agreement. I have stated that I’m willing to change my mind if evidence says otherwise, so does this \n\nmean that you aren’t? If you are willing, there is no reason we shouldn’t be able to agree.\n\nYou wrote:\n”And a waste of time really…time that you can use constructively to hone up your evolutionary argument, and time I can well spend drawing closer to my \n\nGod and Creator through the reading of His Word.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nDon’t say I didn’t ask.\n\nYou wrote:\n”Your submissions are probably the unstructured ones and lacking evidence because my ones do!”\n\nGunnar replies:\nThe Bible is not evidence here.\nI am trying to make this debate structured, but you don’t want to continue, so there isn’t much I can do then, is there?\n\nYou wrote:\n”How about history and the amazing scientific discoveries of unexplainable disposition that science keeps coming up with?”\n\nGunnar replies:\nLike what? What is unexplainable?\n\nYou wrote:\n”A thinking person would not even consider its illogical, unscientific paradigm as a basis for intelligent exchanges!”\n\nGunnar replies:\nI get it, you think that more than 99% of biologists and geologists, amongst them many Christians, are not thinking persons. It’s backed up by evidence, and can be tested, therefore it’s science.\n\nYou wrote:\n”How and where does the laryngeal nerve come from?”\n\nGunnar replies:\nWhat do you mean? The nerve has evolved and become longer and longer over time. In fish it takes the direct route, but with the evolution of the neck, the route is now a major detour. How do you explain that in light of a designer?\n\nYou wrote:\n”See, the nerve was placed in there by God for the sufficient function of His creatures!”\n\nGunnar replies:\nSo, tell me what the function is for it going 15 feet instead of 2 inches, EXACTLY what we would expect to find if the ToE is correct. Is your god trying to play games with us? Is he trying to deceive us into believing we are evolved???\n\n\nYou wrote:\n”Do you ever wonder how the human body has its own cleaning system and healing properties?”\n\nGunnar replies:\nOf course, I wonder about lots of stuff all the time. What I then do is try to understand how this came about instead of just saying Godditit and not investigate further.\n\nYou wrote:\n”Would that come about as an accidental fluke?”\n\nGunnar replies:\nNope, natural selection is no accident.\n\nYou wrote:\n”… something you guys espoused!”\n\nGunnar replies:\nNope, again you are showing that you don’t know enough about the ToE. If you are interested in learning more, I’ll be happy to present some good links to you.\n\nYou wrote:\n”Science is still trying to figure out the full capacity of the human brain, even with the available observance via fMRI.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nYes, and I look forward to what they will find out. That we don’t know it all means that we will continue to investigate. Learning is great!\n\nYou wrote:\n”Michael George Pitman, a professor of biology from University of Sydney has this to say: “Every organism is organic through and through in all its parts, and nowhere are these, not even in their smallest particles, mere aggregates/collection of inorganic matter”.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nDNA consists of Thymine, Adenine, Guanine, and Cytosine. It’s inorganic in it’s original form, but in us it makes for living organisms. How, I don’t fully understand. But that doesn’t mean I have to invent a supernatural explanation. It’s ok to say “I don’t know” until we learn more and come to a greater understanding.\n\nYou wrote:\n”AGAIN, read my (and other people’s) postings. But most of all, read the BIBLE.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nYou said nothing about why the laryngeal nerve is 15 feet in the giraffe. The ideal design would be 2 inches in the direct route. It fits the ToE, I can’t see it fitting the idea of an all-powerful designer. If you can, I would like to know.\n\n————————–\n\nAgain, to prevent these looooong exchanges, it would be better to stick to one topic at a time. I suggest that the next poster give his/her best scientific evidence for Creation, and we’ll take it from there.
Repost due to formatting issues:\n\nYou wrote:\n”Oh, so it’s not just what people’s opinions are that you think you have the rightful duty to curb but writing styles as well! How about double posting…is that ok?”\n\nGunnar replies:\nJust to make it easier to read. You really have a problem with that???\n\nMy double post was due to something happening with the formatting. Relax, man. You are getting worked up over nothing.\n\nYou wrote:\n”The only topic I covered was the incredulity of evolution!”\n\nGunnar replies:\nThe ToE us a huge field, you know perfectly well what I mean.\nAnd, incredulity??? Just because you don’t understand it doesn’t mean that others don’t.\n\nYou wrote:\n”Easier said than done in your case.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nThat’s funny coming from someone basing his worldview on faith.\n\nYou wrote:\n”Ever heard of the term “guilty by association”? You are what you believe/endorse/support/represent…and you somehow believe what Gould believes, namely evolution, so that makes you vicariously liable. Don’t be shy…answer for him! The same way I’m answering for my God!”\n\nGunnar replies:\nNo, it would be the same if you have to answer for the Catholic Church, since you both believe in the Bible.\n\nYou wrote:\n”We make that claim based on evidences of having DIRECT INTERACTION with God.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nYou site personal experience as evidence? It might be evidence for you, but your subjective experiences is not evidence for anyone else.\n\nYou wrote:\n”Our proof is historically substantiated and recorded in the eyewitness accounts of the Bible.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nSo how would you prove Creation? I have asked you for your #1 evidence. Present it.\n\nYou wrote:\n”That’s right. Why? Because of it’s ridiculously unobservable claims that are presented as factual”\n\nGunnar replies:\nNo, because people of faith has been attacking it out of fear. To this day not one valid counter-argument has been presented, and no alternative scientific theory have been put forward.\n\nYou wrote:\n”Are you saying the same about agnostic scientists as well???”\n\nGunnar replies:\nThey too go by the evidence. What is your point?\n\nYou wrote:\n”…get off your high horse and get real.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nYou got me all wrong. I’m on no high horse, and you better believe I’m real.\n\nYou wrote:\n”You’re the one claiming mythical ideologies as “evidence” and “seeing” things that aren’t there!”\n\nGunnar replies:\nWrong, my view is supported by millions of pieces of evidence, all pointing one way.\n\nYou wrote:\n”That probably explains why you’re not looking at all!”\n\nGunnar replies:\nI was a SDA for 16 years, I know that side very well.\n\nYou wrote:\n”What!!!?? Are you saying there’s no evolving (evolution) into something else? You contradict the underlying premise of evolution! Of course they change into something else! Crickey!”\n\nGunnar replies:\nNo, you are misunderstanding completely. If you knew evolutionary theory you would know what I meant. Creationists seem to think that the ToE says that f.ex. monkeys stay the same for a long time, then evolves into something else. This is not how it happens. It evolves continually, every generation is a little different than the one before, and will over time evolve into a new species. We have seen this happen in nature.\nhttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html \n\nYou wrote:\n”Change into what!?”\n\nGunnar replies:\nWe don’t know that ahead of time, but you are different than your parents. Now, that is a small change, but with each generation the change from your parents to those descendants 1000 generations from now will increase.\n\nYou wrote:\n”You mean the unobservable changes?”\n\nGunnar replies:\nNo, we see it in nature all the time.\n\nYou wrote:\n”Which lab do you guys observe these so called “small changes”?”\n\nGunnar replies:\nYou can get you and your parents DNA tested, if you don’t believe me. You are not an exact copy, you are different. That’s the small step.\n\nYou wrote:\n”Again, ridiculous speculations guised as science.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nNo, just an unwillingness form your part to understand.\n\nYou wrote:\n”That’s not what Darwin thought! He says they speak volumes “against my theory!””\n\nGunnar replies:\nWe know Darwin was wrong about some things, and he only said it would speak against his theory if there were none. Since his death, we have found LOTS, evetrything pointing to the ToE being the best explanation to life’s diversity.\n\nYou wrote:\n”And can you tell me the specific “certain circumstances” you’re relating to? What are they called?”\n\nGunnar replies:\nHere’s a good link on how fossilization works:\nhttp://www.paleontology.esmartstudent.com/fossilization.html\n\nYou wrote:\n”How about this: Michael Denton, in his book concludes: “Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great COSMOGENIC MYTH of the \\n\\ntwentieth century””\n\nGunnar replies:\nI’ve read some of his work, and I disgree with him. If you read up, you’ll see it too.\n\nYou wrote:\n”I find it hard to take your arguments seriously because of its parallel to “a princess kissed a frog and it turned into a prince”…illogical and nonsensical.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nIf you really think that’s representative for what the ToE says, you’re way off.\n\nThis is a typical straw man argument, where you misrepresent the opposition to more easily tear it down. \n\nIf your example happened, it would prove the ToE wrong.\n\nYou wrote:\n”In your case, it’s science fiction at its worst!”\n\nGunnar replies:\nNo, it’s supported by millions of pieces of evidence, and over 99% of biologists and geologists. Science fiction would be claiming that a donkey once talked.\n\nYou wrote:\n”My apologies…that was a lame joke on my part…will not happen again.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nApology accepted.\n\nYou wrote:\nAgnostics were breathing down their neck, that’s why they had to rectify it.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nNo, this is not correct. It was revealed to be a fraud by other evolutionary scientists, showing that no one is interested in having errors present. Some scientists spend their whole lives studying very spesific phenomena, and is NEVER interested in studying something that is based on false claims. What a waste that would be.\n\nYou wrote:\n”But I’m sure you’re familiar with “Peer Review?””\n\nGunnar replies:\nI am, and it’s a beautiful thing. This prevents bad science to get out.\n\nYou wrote:\n”The lack of cogency and inconsistency pertaining to the so called “substantiating evidences” of evolution denies it its probative value, therefore its credibility.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nEvolution is consistent, and this makes it possible to make spesific predictions. The laryngeal nerve being one example. The fish has it, and we have it. We are believed to be descendants from fish from way back, so are the other mammals. We can then predict that this nerve is present in the other mammals, which it is. In us it goes from the brain, down in the chest around an artery and back up to the voice box.\n\nIf the ToE is correct, we should see this in the other mammals as well, and we do. This is somewhat of a detour in humans, but in giraffes we would expect to see a ridiculous detour. Do we? YES! The voice box is 2 inches from where the nerve begins, but it runs 15 FEET!!!! down into the chest, around an artery, and back up again. Prediction made, prediction fulfilled.\n\nThis is not alone definite evidence for the ToE, but it shows that it fits what we find very nicely. That also explains WHY the nerve is so long in giraffes, so much \\n\\nlonger than it have had to be. This example is to show you that falsifying the ToE is rather simple, but it holds up to every test.\n\nYou wrote:\n”Were not Francis Crick and Gould’s theories blindly accepted by the ToE community?”\n\nGunnar replies:\nNo, and a thousand times no. No theory is blindly accepted. Everyting goes through rigurous testing and peer review, and is dissected before getting anywhere. It is checked out based on current understanding and present evidence, and will be reviewed if new evidence surfaces. No theory is sacred, and there are brilliant people looking into every field of science constantly, ready to change it if the evidence points another way.\n\nYou wrote:\n”Seeing that ToE does predictions based on science…what’s the next “species” that man will evolve into”\n\nGunnar replies:\nIt can’t predict the future, but it can make predictions of the past. I’ll illustrate it rather simply: The modern horse has 1 toe, and early ancestors of it has 5. If we find an intermediate, it would be expected to have to have 2,3, or 4 toes. If another trait has changed as well, let’s say the head has gotten smaller, we can predict that the head of these intermediates are a size in between.\n\nDo you see what I’m trying to get across? (not sure I explained it too well, but I hope you get it)\n\nYou wrote:\n”considering the micro changes are constant?”\n\nGunnar replies:\nThey most certainly are not constant. Where did you get that from?\n\nYou wrote:\n”Thanks for validating the reason why you took up evolution.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nMe not believing in a deity has nothing to do with me accepting valid science. The ToE is solid.\n\nYou wrote:\n”And you expect me to believe in fairytales????”\n\nGunnar replies:\nDo you believe a donkey once talked? That a man lived for 40 days and nights without drinking or eating? And that a man survived 3 days in the belly of a big fish? If so, yes.\n\nYou wrote:\n”You probably believe Rudolph can actually glide through the celestial sky carrying Santa …if the firmament is given the right temperature and age!”\n\nGunnar replies:\nNo, since there is no evidence for that.\n\nYou wrote:\n”I’d reconsider my position if I’m you. just a suggestion.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nI will, if you can give me evidence. I’m not afraid to go with it.\n\nYou wrote:\n”Can a ToE exponent believe in God?”\n\nGunnar replies:\nMany do, and I take their word for it.\n\nYou wrote:\n”The Hebrew word “Yom” used in Genesis means a literal 24 hr day…tell those “Christians” to show from THE BIBLE passages that suggests those eons and trillions of years.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nYou don’t take everything in the Bible literal, and neither do they. They see the story as not meant literally, which you do.\n\nYou wrote:\n”Which true Christian would read this and still believe in the eons and epochs of evolution?”\n\nGunnar replies:\nF.ex. Dr. Francis S. Collins, head of the human genome project, and one of the smartest men alive.\n\nYou wrote:\n”Your continual advocacy of this oxymoron makes me question your reasoning skills.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nI’m not saying I agree with them, just that there are Christians that don’t agree with you.\n\nYou wrote:\n”But then all logical sequences are immaterial to you guys!”\n\nGunnar replies:\nWhy these harsh words. If you really want a proper discussion, you should try a different approach.\n\nYou wrote:\n”In the case of ToE, it would be quashed for lack of direct evidence, nor circumstantial.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nWe do have direct evidence, which I have linked to. Do you read my links at all?\n\nYou wrote:\n”And AS A GENERAL RULE, “direct evidence” (or eye-witness) is weightier than hear says or circumstantial/indirect evidences.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nI am not comparing it to circumstancial evidence, DNA is direct evidence here. In science, how much do you think eye-witness accounts are worth? Then compare it too DNA-evidence, which anyone can test and see if is correct. DNA wins every time.\n\nYou wrote:\n”An old strata should only contain “old animals!”.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nOld animals and some that have survived. What we do not expect is modern animals with dinosaurs. Cows, dogs, cats, elephants, giraffes, you name it. Find ONE in strata with dinosaurs, and you win. Wonder why it won’t ever happen, cause they lived a looong time apart.\n\nYou wrote:\n”That goes to show that the stratification columns are arbitrarily applied at a whim when it suits you guys.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nYou are free to prove 99% of geologists wrong. Go ahead, do the tests and publish your findings. Don’t you ever wonder why no Creationists does that? Why all they do is attack the ToE, instead of proving an alternative theory wrong? Cause there is no alternative theory.\n\nYou wrote:\n”How about calling Cyrus by name in Isaiah 45 as His instrument, about a hundred yrs before Cyrus was even conceived!”\n\nGunnar replies:\nThere are doubts as to whether Isaiah wrote those chapters, and when they were written. All we have is copies of copies of copies of the books of the Bible, and we know that things have been added elsewhere. It could easily have been so here as well.\n\nYou wrote:\n”See, a large part of the Bible is prophecy and its fulfillment is impeccable!”\n\nGunnar replies:\nApply Occam’s razor, and see what’s more likely: Divine prophecy, or written after the fact? If you don’t have a desire to believe in either one, one stands out as the most likely.\n\nYou wrote:\n”God mentioned the succeeding world kingdoms in a chronological order in the book of Daniel.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nYou mean where he leaves out several kings in that line?\n\nDaniel gives this list: Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, (whom he misidentifies as the son of Nebuchadnezzar), Darius the Mede, and Cyrus the Great.\n\nIn reality it was: Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-Merodach, Neriglassar, Nabonidus, Belshazzar, son of Nabonidus, and Cyrus the Great.\n\nDaniel is also thought to be written later, which does makes sense.\n\nYou wrote:\n”If you guys are so brilliant, as you would like people to think: PREDICT THE NEXT SPECIES THAT MAN WOULD EVOLVE INTO!”\n\nGunnar replies:\nAs I said, and as you would have known if you knew the ToE well, we can’t. We don’t know what environmental changes will occur in the future, and therefore what traits natural selection will favor.\n\nYou wrote:\n”You were arguing about the rationality of Christians (believing in God) accepting ToE (an unprovable pseudo scientific theory that leaves God out the door) and now you’re advocating the absurdity of Theistic/Evolutionary amalgamation!”\n\nGunnar replies:\nThe ToE says NOTHING regarding a deity, but it does oppose your interpretation of Genesis.\nAnd calling it pseudo science is only hurting yourself.\n\nYou wrote:\n”No one will ever take you seriously for having double standards so please make up your mind.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nThe many scientists who are Christians will. Not everyone thinks like you, you know.\n\nYou wrote:\n”An amazingly short memory…I gave you two postings (plus what the others wrote) and you still ask for an argument?”\n\nGunnar replies:\nClaims have been made, but I’m not talking about claims. I’m talking about evidence for Creationism. None has been presented, and you are still free to do so.\n\nYou wrote:\n”You’re starting to sound like a broken record!”\n\nGunnar replies:\nOnly because no one is given me any evidence for their side. They’d rather try to find a gap in todays science to insert their deity of choice into.\n\nYou wrote:\n”It is obvious that regurgitation and recklessness is your specialty.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nHow Christ like of you, sir.\n\nYou wrote:\n”We have “eye-witness accounts/direct evidence” where God SPOKE to the children of Israel directly as well as to the writers of the NT.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nSo, how do I go about testing this claim? How is it falsifiable? If it isn’t it, isn’t science.\n\nOther religions profess to have similar evidence, do you accept those claims? Think about why you dismiss their claims, and realize that I dismiss your for probably \\n\\nthe same reasons.\n\nYou wrote:\n”For instance: If someone is to ask me: How did you know Gunnar exists? I will tell them: “I had a “direct” debate with him over the internet pertaining to the issue of evolution…are you understanding?”\n\nGunnar replies:\nBut that claim can be tested. You could send me a message asking me to call these people…etc. It’s easily tested, there’s a major difference there.\n\nYou wrote:\n”Or you can totally disregard the history of an ethnic race, namely the Jews, which expressed the existence of God and their dealings with Him through history and propose that their historical existence is not scientific therefore not true!”\n\nGunnar replies:\nYou reject the Muslims, don’t you? I reject your god for the same reasons.\n\nYou wrote:\n”And your faith was probably theistic/evolutionary in nature which we’ve just firmly established to be nonsensical.\n\nGunnar replies:\nNo, I was a standard SDA, believing in a literal Genesis.\n\nYou wrote:\n”In other words, you never had a “faith” to begin with so stop kidding yourself.””\n\nGunnar replies:\nI had, but I do understand that it makes some Christians uneasy to know that someone reasoned their way out of fait. No reason to make false claims about me.\n\nYou wrote:\n”Faith before reality? Sounded like ToE’s “theory before digging up supportive evidence” as you stated above!”\n\nGunnar replies:\nYou are relly not getting it, are you? In science we make hypothesis, and then test to see if reality fits that. That’s what was done before digging up Tiiktalik. A prediction was made on the basis of the ToE. In rocks of a certain age, IF the ToE is correct, it was expected to be found an intermediate carrying certain very spesific traits. It was found, proving the predictive powers of the ToE, and again science fits reality beautifully.\\n\\nRead more about that find here:\\nhttp://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/\n\nYou wrote:\n”Listen to what one of the most brilliant scientific minds in Albert Einstein says: “If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts”.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nWe don’t really know if he said that for sure, we have no source for it. But, it’s the opposite of science, hence not relevant to my side.\n\nYou wrote:\n”We have evidence, then faith…read Hebrews 11″\n\nGunnar replies:\nThen please present some testable evidence for me to take a look at.\n\nYou wrote:\n”How convicted are you about ToE?”\n\nGunnar replies:\nIt fits the evidence we have avaliable, so I see no reason to doubt it. BUT, I am more than willing to change my mind if evidence points the other way.\n\nYou wrote:\n”First of all, you are already wrong!”\n\nGunnar replies:\nMy statement was true. All relifions can’t be right, and the fact that people die for their faith proves nothing.\n\nYou wrote:\n”Apart from claiming to be prophets, has any claimed that he is God?”\n\nGunnar replies:\nLots! Emperors, Pharaoes…you name it. But claims are not necesarry true.\n\nYou wrote:\n”Because He went back to where He said He came from: Heaven. Affirmed by Biblical/historical accounts.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nWhat historical accounts say Jesus went to heaven?\n\nYou wrote:\n”Definitely!..which makes this my last posting!”\n\nGunnar replies:\nI’m sorry to hear it, but I have gotten used to it. Whenever I try to get a debate away from the “Gish gallopp”, and have Creationists present scientific evidence for their side, they usually disappear. I did the same when I was one, and it feels good to be on the side of evidence now.\n\nYou wrote:\n”You cannot put an issue of this magnitude in isolation!”\n\nGunnar replies:\nEvidences can be isolated, f.ex. the giraffes laryngeal nerve that I mentioned before. I just want to hear one piece of scientific evidence for Creation, which we then will debate further.\n\nYou wrote:\n”But I suppose that’s what you guys do.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nWe sure do, and love getting to the bottom of things.\n\nYou wrote:\n”Isn’t that beautiful and logically plausible??”\n\nGunnar replies:\nIf it’s beautiful or not has nothing to do with it being correct or not. And plausible? That there are invisible beings around us? The invisible and the non-existent \\n\\nlooks very much the same to be.\n\nYou wrote:\n”Waiting to be evolved in death to a worm???”\n\nGunnar replies:\nIs this what you think happens according to the ToE? I hope it was meant as a joke.\n\nYou wrote:\n”Agree?? Are you kidding?? What could be a probable cause for that?”\n\nGunnar replies:\nIf all evidence is on the table, it should be possible to reach an agreement. I have stated that I’m willing to change my mind if evidence says otherwise, so does this \\n\\nmean that you aren’t? If you are willing, there is no reason we shouldn’t be able to agree.\n\nYou wrote:\n”And a waste of time really…time that you can use constructively to hone up your evolutionary argument, and time I can well spend drawing closer to my God and Creator through the reading of His Word.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nDon’t say I didn’t ask.\n\nYou wrote:\n”Your submissions are probably the unstructured ones and lacking evidence because my ones do!”\n\nGunnar replies:\nThe Bible is not evidence here.\n\nI am trying to make this debate structured, but you don’t want to continue, so there isn’t much I can do then, is there?\n\nYou wrote:\n”How about history and the amazing scientific discoveries of unexplainable disposition that science keeps coming up with?”\n\nGunnar replies:\nLike what? What is unexplainable?\n\nYou wrote:\n”A thinking person would not even consider its illogical, unscientific paradigm as a basis for intelligent exchanges!”\n\nGunnar replies:\nI get it, you think that more than 99% of biologists and geologists, amongst them many Christians, are not thinking persons. It’s backed up by evidence, and can be tested, therefore it’s science.\n\nYou wrote:\n”How and where does the laryngeal nerve come from?”\n\nGunnar replies:\nWhat do you mean? The nerve has evolved and become longer and longer over time. In fish it takes the direct route, but with the evolution of the neck, the route is now a major detour. How do you explain that in light of a designer?\n\nYou wrote:\n”See, the nerve was placed in there by God for the sufficient function of His creatures!”\n\nGunnar replies:\nSo, tell me what the function is for it going 15 feet instead of 2 inches. It’s EXACTLY what we would expect to find if the ToE is correct. Is your god trying to play games with us? Is he trying to deceive us into believing we are evolved???\n\nYou wrote:\n”Do you ever wonder how the human body has its own cleaning system and healing properties?”\n\nGunnar replies:\nOf course, I wonder about lots of stuff all the time. What I then do is try to understand how this came about instead of just saying ‘Godditit’ and not investigate further.\n\nYou wrote:\n”Would that come about as an accidental fluke?”\n\nGunnar replies:\nNope, natural selection is no accident.\n\nYou wrote:\n”… something you guys espoused!”\n\nGunnar replies:\nNope, again you are showing that you don’t know enough about the ToE. If you are interested in learning more, I’ll be happy to present some good links to you.\n\nYou wrote:\n”Science is still trying to figure out the full capacity of the human brain, even with the available observance via fMRI.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nYes, and I look forward to what they will find out. That we don’t know it all means that we will continue to investigate. Learning is great!\n\nYou wrote:\n”Michael George Pitman, a professor of biology from University of Sydney has this to say: “Every organism is organic through and through in all its parts, and nowhere are these, not even in their smallest particles, mere aggregates/collection of inorganic matter”.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nDNA consists of Thymine, Adenine, Guanine, and Cytosine. It’s inorganic in it’s original form, but in us it makes for living organisms. How, I don’t fully understand, but that doesn’t mean I have to invent a supernatural explanation. It’s ok to say “I don’t know” until we learn more and come to a greater understanding.\n\nYou wrote:\n”AGAIN, read my (and other people’s) postings. But most of all, read the BIBLE.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nYou said nothing about why the laryngeal nerve is 15 feet in the giraffe. The ideal design would be 2 inches in the direct route. It fits the ToE, I can’t see it fitting the idea of an all-powerful designer. If you can, I would like to know.\n\n*************\n\nAgain, to prevent these looooong exchanges, it would be better to stick to one topic at a time. I suggest that the next poster give his/her best scientific evidence for Creation, and we’ll take it from there.
If I’m the judge, Christian win..!!\n\nPraise God!!I’ll pray that someday, you bro gunnar will see you sitting beside me inside the church. yehey…peace..!
Japhet, if I find evidence for your God, I sure will. If not, I won’t. It’s that simple.
And, I have no clue as to what happened to the formatting. I see Japhet had something happening there too.
Jared, can you take a look at it?
If anyone is interested in scientific truth, and wants me to send them my post by email, let me know. (the one messed up)
gunnar.bruun(at)gmail(dot)com
Evolution is not a proven fact but a hypothesis. There are three scientific laws which evolution breaks:
1) Science declares life begets life. Evolution states given enough time, under the right conditions, non-living things will produce living things.
2) Science declares like produces like. Evolution says there are links in the gaps between kinds and species of animals. There is no concrete scientific evidence for such an assertion.
3) Science declares things left alone tend to break down (the 2nd law of thermodynamics). Evolution state things left alone tend to build up.
If you are open to evidence for Creation, you will be able to find some on that side of things as well. Whether it is enough for you to make a choice, that is up to you. Not everyone is convinced based on the same evidence.
“The Genesis Conflict,” a book by Walter J. Veith contains evidence. Or, look for his video series of the same name on YouTube. If you like.
God (given He exists) will judge each person, but the people won’t be the judges of one another. Yes, that is a correct view of Christianity, Gunnar. Jesus takes all things into account.
We all have free choice to decide for ourselves using our minds.
Different minds are convinced by different evidence in different directions even but that does not mean that any of us are better than anyone else, or that God is not still working with us.
CG wrote:\n”Evolution is not a proven fact but a hypothesis.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nNo, you are confusing terms. Evolution is a fact, the Theory of Evolution (ToE) is a well supported scientific theory.\n\nCG wrote:\n”There are three scientific laws which evolution breaks:\n\n1) Science declares life begets life. Evolution states given enough time, under the right conditions, non-living things will produce living things.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nThis has nothing to do with Evolution, you are confusing it with Abiogenesis.\n\n\nCG wrote:\n”2) Science declares like produces like. Evolution says there are links in the gaps between kinds and species of animals. There is no concrete scientific evidence for such an assertion.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nSure there is. Just because you haven’t looked for it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.\nRead here:\nhttp://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01\nand here:\nhttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html\n\nCG wrote:\n”3) Science declares things left alone tend to break down (the 2nd law of thermodynamics). Evolution state things left alone tend to build up.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nWrong again.\nThe 2nd law of th.dyn. can’t be applied to earth, since it’s not a closed system. If you spent just 5 minutes checking up that claim, you would have found out that it was wrong.\n\nInstead, you seem to be doing what I did when I was a Creationist, automatically accept anything supporting my faith, and going by “never check a good story”.\n\nRead here:\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html\n\nCG wrote:\n”If you are open to evidence for Creation, you will be able to find some on that side of things as well.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nYou may want to believe that, but it isn’t so. This is why more than 99% of biologists and geologists, among them many religious people, accept the ToE.\n\nCG wrote:\n”“The Genesis Conflict,” a book by Walter J. Veith contains evidence. Or, look for his video series of the same name on YouTube. If you like.”\n\nGunnar replies:\nI watched all of them as a SDA, but back then never checked to see if they were true. Try it yourself and see how weak they are.