To the creationists - the tough question

I can sorta see what Val is getting at. That is quite a vague question that is a hard question for creationists to answer without evolutionists saying what I know they will say. But simply what you do need is a without a doubt 'factual' scientific observation of something turning into something else. A new thing up even to the 'family' classification possibly.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 12-31-2001]

In both situations, your outside the realm of science. Conclusions on anything that we cannot observe, or test today always lean toward faith to some degree.(if your looking for post #14 I just deleted it because it was a 'double' of post #15 from a clicking submit button and then hitting back button and submitting again)-------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-03-2002]

I think I would disagree on to your saying therre are contredictions in the bible as to evolutionary concepts. Eve was created from Adams rib, while in a deep sleep, not while 'evolving'. And this concept did indeed require intelligence.-------------

I do believe that saying if there is a God that evolution is wrong, and if there isn't then evolution is right, wouldn't really be a valid assertion. Though I would have to say that if God used Evolution (with a capital 'E') to bring us about, I would have to conclude, that God isn't very smart, he didn't know what he wanted.-------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-03-2002]

I've know this argument, but I would have to wonder, how even is it possible to have it any other way. Change from least complex to most complex, is the simplest way to put the origin of life and Evolution. How else could anyone ever conceive of an idea to bring us about with no intelligence, being no God, and no designer, to have some support by scientific evidence. (keep in mind, if there is no God then todays scientific 'rules' or laws must be applied to any situation at any time, time has always existed, equalling up to 'eternity' and starting with nothing because there was no creation, having no creator)-------------

"He asked "What sort of evidence would you find convincing enough to sway you into believing that organic evolution was and is real?"
--Define evolution? Is this evolution as to micro-evolution? Macro-evolution? Speciation, simple change, evolution with a lowercase 'e'? Or is it Evolution with a capital 'E', as I see as a good analogy. Define this evolution you wan't us to prove anything of?"I therefore ask, without reference to God, prove evolution never happened"
--A definition is needed to conceive an answer.-------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-03-2002]

"To me, evolution is evolution. Micro-evolution is evolution over a short time period. Macro-evolution is evolution over a longer time period."
--I would have to say that here is your problem, Micro evolution isn't evolution over any period of time, neither is macro evolution, it is the amount of change, in which all we see today in our micro evolution is a devolving process, we are all slowely getting worse, loosing things, not gaining, to say that all of the dogs of the world have a common ancestor and it is a dog is revolving around ;micro evoution' or variation of kinds into species. The chuawa probley was not here 500 years ago, it is on the shallow end of the gene pool, any more change to that poor thing and it will mean bad news, and possibly extinction, as too is the cheetah. To say that the Dog and say iguana, or the horse are related, or as kent hovind puts it, related to the bananna, that is taking the leap of faith into macro-evolution."Elsewhere I have pointed out that the 1)Fact of evolution, and 2)Theory of evolution are two seperate things."
--I havent been able to locate this. "What I am trying to deal with here is the fact of evolution; that it happened whether by the mechanisms of the theory of evolution, or through devine creation and/or guidence."
--Then we have no argument, I would have to say that evolution happens, but not to the macro scale as you so believe."My defination of evolution is that the nature of the populations of the earth has changed down through time. As time passes, some species go extinct, while other new species appear."
--Then there is no argument, you are right, 'species' change, and variate, all throughout time....about 6000 years. And some species go extinct and other new 'species' are produced by variation of their kind.-----------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-07-2002]

"As I see it, the geologic record has clearly shown a progression of "kinds" as having appeared and gone extinct, as time has passed. This is the "fact" of evolution."
--You should stand to be corrected, this is not the fact of evolution, facts cannot be interperetted other than its 'factual' presentation. The geologic record doesn't clearly show a progression of kinds that have appeared and gone extinct as time has passed as fact, it is able to be vastly interpereted. The 'fact' of evolution is the change (evolution means change) of an organism in some way, which we see all the time."This, in itself, makes no comment on why and how the new appearances happened. The cause behind the fact of evolution could be God's creation process, the processes of the theory of evolution, or some combination of the two."
--There is always the possibility, but I could equally as you would beleive that the evidence points clearly to either a young earth, old earth, no flood, a flood, etc. And I see when I look at geology without a doubt that there was a massive flood and I think that the evidence is overwhelming of the age of the earth. Unfortunately, the Dating methods topic is not being continued by another evolutionist to continue discussion with me."I think it is possible for a creationist to accept this fact of evolution without accepting the theory of evolution."
--I already have accepted the 'fact' part of evolution. As I have shown throughout my debates and discussions.---------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-07-2002]

No one want's to play with me... -------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with....*ouch! I cut myself*

"Would then someone explain to me why Adam and Eve ate the fruit of Knowledge of Good and Evil,they suddently felt that being naked was evil and covered their private parts with Fig leaves if God had allready identified being naked (the state Adam was in at the end of the 6th day) as "very Good...i.e. perfection"? The fruit gave them God's knowledge of good and evil and since God did not consider nakedness evil,why would they?"
--Its not that being naked is 'evil' its that they 'realized' that they were naked, an 'embarassment', there is no need to be embarassed in perfection. After they ate the Fruit the became aware of that.-------------------

"I've got to say thats quite a good theory you have there. You've put me in a situation where I have to side with you on this one. I can't think of why they would be embaressed in 'perfection'. Its a very good point."
--I applaud your agreement on the subject, its hard to get agreement on these kinds of biblical implications in here, I mostly get a 'move to another listed subject' kind of response (notice LudvanB didn't reply ). Willingness to admit when their statements and comments were not quite right or incorrect is very much appreciated and well regarded as the height of intelligent debates and arguments in the discussion. ------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-02-2002]