two important questions for Servant

Here are the two questions I have asked you but have not has a response to them yet...I think that they are rather overarching and will save a lot of time, as you tend to wiggle around a lot in your responses. You also pick and choose bits of messages to respond to, but ignore other, more important points raised.1) Based upon morphology (physical appearence) alone, long before anybody knew anything at all about DNA, Evolutionary Biologists constructed a huge, multi-branched "tree of life" showing the ways they thought life had evolved since the first life emerged.Lo and behold, DNA and genetics was discovered and then the amazing similarity of the morphological tree of life with the genetic tree of life was revealed.The point is, you can say that a common creator created life on this planet to have evolved exactly as if there was no common creator, but what is the point of that?The simplest explanation that accounts for all the evidence is the ToE. Adding a "creator" into the mix only creates more questions and doesn't explain anything at all.2) Can you please provide a scientific theory of Creation that accounts for all of the evidence just as well as or better than the ToE. It also must be falsifiable and have positive evidence to support it.

Well, I neither DID nor WOULD say that, though. Theistic evolution should even be in the mix, at least not main-stream. The two predominant ideas, based upon full-acceptance of one over the other, are Darwinian evolution and young-earth creationism.The thing is, a clear and straight reading of the Bible does in fact disallow the possibility of there being millions of years of evolution to fit in (thus, the argument posed is not whether there is or isn't a God/Creator, but whether Scripture is correct or Charles Darwin and his predecessors). Not exactly true. Study the creation model from several different viewpoints--in conjunction with the standard: Scripture, of course--and you may find that adding a Creator disconfuses most puzzles. The problem is, the majority of people who accept evolution as a non-questionable fact are ignorant of the explanations about nature and science offered by Scripture and the creation model.Give me an example of a puzzle that creation fails to address. I would be glad to--using the Bible as my standard of argument and as much evidence as I can find to back it up--display any possible alternatives to the ToE ("possible" = legible, not just a random what-if). First of all, your question here suggests an underlying bias ("better than the theory of evolution" implies an answer that is already suggested within the question... whereas the question's answer should be determined on a case-by-case basis based upon each person's beliefs). Now that answer does not sound scientific enough, I imagine; nevertheless, Scripture serves as the hypothesis--from a scientific perspective--for the creation model while all other arguments posed serve as observations/explanations/evidence in support of the hypothesis.The problem is, evolution is not a final conclusion of science.
"No conclusions in science are final." --Craven, M.S. Computer ScienceFurthermore, evolution as described by Darwin and his predecessors is in the past--that is, all mutations/adaptations/variations seen today does not necessarily add up to anything other than that which has been going on since the creation of the earth only 7000 y.a. In other words, evolution is a past phenomena and all evidence to support it are based upon not current observations but rather a gathering of data that has been interpreted to fit with Darwin's ideology. Show me an example and I'll show you what I mean.Thus, since evolution is a past-phenomena (as is creation) all evidence to support both sides is based upon an illogical trail of "well, we don't know of any better explanation, therefore OURS must be true..." Can't you see the flaw in this logic. That is why I accept my beliefs not based on logic necessarily but based on faith, reason, and prior knowledge of the fact that neither side can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by our current understanding of scientific processes.Thanks,
Servant

A well-sorted record of non-motile fossils (i.e. plants).

I ASSUME you meant non-mobile? Anyway, not that important, so moving on...The problem with the fossil record is that it had been taken from the geologic column of strata--a still-shaky argument *speculatively* in support of evolution. The record of fossils bears a collection of many fossilized plants, lichens, fungi, etc. Nevertheless it has been interpreted to mean evolution has occurred.Using the fact that we have a "well-sorted" record of plant fossils proves nothing. Truly how difficult can it be to point out the flaws in that logic? First off, "well-sorted" suggests what, exactly? That the evolutionary biologists sorted them in accordance with evolution theory? Or perhaps the geologic strata is a phenomenon that seems to preserve and all the "well-sorted" plant and animal fossils so perfectly within each age, giving such an irrefutably, perfectly-secure record of every age.If you found fossils of moss and lichens in a "400-myo precambrian" layer and the log of an extinct species of flower preserved in a "60 myo devonian" layer and then a tree of similar design preserved in a "2-myo" layer, what conclusion would you draw from that in regards to alleged evidence in support of a particular theory of origins? Nothing, unless of course you start interpreting your alleged evidence with evolution in mind.Yes, I believe yet another falty argument comes up:Interpret the fossil-record evidence in accordance with your previously-held belief in evolution, examine and analyze your interpretation, and note how it seems to confirm your theory! Well, it would, wouldn't it?Now, if this seems as though I am not addressing exactly what you had in mind, forgive me... you gave me only a 9-word answer to work with and I am going off of what I suspect you were trying to say...As far as a creationist's answer to your alleged problem goes as follows:Biblical creationists regard the history of life on earth as following the same exact order given in sequence with Genesis chapter 1. Thus, we look upon the orders given.Here's what one would find in a straight-forward reading of Genesis 1:day three God creates grass, plants, trees, seeds, fruit, etc. (plants and herbs yielding seed)...day four God creates the stars in the firmament...day five God creates fish, whales, birds, etc. (everything that flies or swims)...day six God creates all the rest of the animals and finally humans...Thus, a Flood in Noah's lifetime would have had catastrophic significance in determining how and where certain organisms would be burried and petrified. Thus, we would not conclusively expect to find all the fossils in THAT order in the geologic column (and we don't). Likewise, we do not find in the geologic strata any evidence of gradual accumulation (no evidence that the layers really DO mean different ages).The problem with evolutionism is greatly due to the fact that rebuttals offered against creationist observations and arguments are not based in evidence but merely in speculation (ie saying "we don't have evidence to support our rebuttal, but because evolution is true your argument doesn't work"). That same faulty logic is used in "refutting" most creationist arguments that would otherwise still hold water in mainstream science.I am NOT suggesting that the creation model is provable to the point of becoming a theory or law--at least not in the eyes of western science--but what I am saying is that there exists neither enough evidence to prove evolution nor creation. Science is, again, knowledge gained--and applied for that matter--based on what we can observe, test, and demonstrate. The observations and tests done in the sceintific method in terms of evolution have proven only one thing: that it has NOT proven evolution. That is, a scientist will read a book, gather a hypothesis, find evidence, test it, research, interpret the observations and data, and form a conclusion that either confirms the hypothesis or require the hypothesis to be revised.All in all, the idea that evolution is the best argument because its the best explanation of observations gathered in nature suggests only: "we can't think of any other way to explain it, therefore WE MUST be right!"Sincerely,
Servant

I kind of agree. Even if creationism is wrong it doesn't make evolution an absolute certainty. The number of evolutionists and their determination to be correct about this almost completely closes their minds. This forum is a great example. No offense evo's but you very rarely come close to getting out of the box. It's almost like a crowd of atheists who take any suggestion apart from God.They are now even saying that Methodological Naturalism concludes that there is no God. Sadly this must also mean that evos are against God. I only say this because the same evolutionists who argue with me over creation also argue against my faith. I am suspicious now......

Mike darlin',You are taking what a few ppl might think, and extrapolating it to mean "they are now even saying". Who is "they"?Servant's statement It more a matter of, "we haven't yet found a better explanation of ALL the evidence, therefore this is the theory we currently use"If you or Servant want to propose a new theory that fits ALL the evidence, please do.

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"

Mike, I'm reminded of a book I once read about insane people's mental perception of the sane. I can't remember what the book is called for the life of me, but basically it says that some insane people think sane people are actually the ones that are out of their mind, because sane people can't see what insane people see even though, to insane people, these things are obviously there.Isn't it possible that you are the one that never got out of your box and you think that the rest of us are trapped inside a box even though we are the ones that are outside the box?

I have to say that Mike said something that made me look at this issue in another light...Looking at things outside of the box is a simple matter of trying to see other people's point of view.I have always been amazed how two people can look at the same thing and arrive at opposite conclusions.A humanist will look at the earth and say "due to all natural processes observed currently, it it most logical to speculate that the Big Bang has created all that which we see today."A Christian will look at the world and say "just open your eyes... the obvious evidence is that there must have a designer!"Now it may seem as thought the Christian has a flaw in his logic at this point. However, looking at why a tree grows, produces beautiful arrays of millions of tiny pink flowers in the springtime, hundreds of thousands of seedlings soon following, then a dazzling spectacle of lush green canopy encompassing every branch, followed by gradual changes from green to yellow to red, and eventually the leaves fall and white covers the branches. Two months later the entire cycle is repeated exactly the same with the exception that the tree is slightly larger. Look up and you'll note that the sky is blue, clouds appear white until their thickness has blocked out enough of the sun that they turn light shades of gray, a human being will fight off disease because of an immune system that is not strengthen by anything MAN has created but rather with vitamins, minerals, and certain responses to stimuli such as muscic and laughter.All evolution aside for the moment, that alone is enough to convince me of the existence of God. Now, going to prove that that same God is the Creator of EVERYTHING else I see and is the same God who loves me and sent his Son to die for me is a longer process that requires a perfect balance of logic, faith, reasoning, and growing wisdom which comes from keeping an open mind.I use the term "open mind" broadly... not meaning necessarily that you are accepting or tolerant of everybody else's view, but rather that you see the entire earth as how it truly functions and can provide a logical, reasonable, understandable account for everything that we observe and see.I was asked to offer a theory that can explain ALL the evidence. Well I come forward with not a theory but a belief system--a "what if" if you will--based on a balance of faith, logic, and reasoning and can offer an explanation to everything we see in nature if we only keep an open mind and "see what everyone else chooses not to see..."I call it Biblical Christianity. Come forward with a puzzling question either fails OR succeeds at offering an explanation and I'll discuss it with the views of a Bible-believer and not necessarily with just science. Mind you, though, creationism is only a small piece of this Scriptural ideology.Refer to my signature below also... in regards to what constitutes an open mind...Sincerely,
Servant

---

Open minds and open hearts... seeing what the world chooses not to see... seeing what no one else sees...

Well we know that you HAVEN'T got an open mind.If you had an open mind you would look at the evidence before rejecting it as "speculation". But that isn't what you've done is it ?The creationist mindset is fundementally one of a closed mind. Arguments with creationists often come down to the creationist inventing lame excuses - which may not even make sense - rather than admit that he could be wrong. We've seen some extreme examples here.Now then how about answering Schraf's question properly ? You still haven't offered a real explanation of the evidence.

So apparently, because adding God into the picture confuses you, evolution is true? I am less confused now than I EVER was back when I believed in evolution. Simple fact is, believe in God and you don't NEED an answer to what gravity is made of, what CAUSES magnetic polarity, why energy decreases in intensity in a closed system, etc. As far as evolution goes, adding a Creator WOULD INDEED confuse things... however, taking evolution out of the picture and replacing it with God and a 7000-year-old universe would take away any confusion whatsoever if you're looking deep enough into it... a perfect balance of faith, reasoning, and logic thus excludes the NEED for explaining things that are not important in the grand picture--namely WHY certain mysteries are unexplained.Likewise, adding a Creator to a world that is indeed evolving would cause confusion, yes, but that is not what I was contending in the first place. So are you denying that what Mike said about mainstream evolutionists is true? Even "they" would not contend against the idea that "they" are not open-minded to non-scientific manners of discussing the origins of the universe. And if they respond to my last sentence, it only goes to show that "they" care more about attacking the things that I say than doing what really counts--defending their theory from the core. Or perhaps they don't WANT to find a better explanation of ALL the evidence because the current one is doing just fine with dethroning God.Yes, evolutionists will suppress any alleged arguments and evidence that questions their theory without showing it to the public, if it is a valid argument.Likewise, evolutionists will be quick to pounce on the flawed logic of some of the arguments creationists have used and use THAT modem as incentive to denounce creationism altogether. If anybody disagrees, perhaps you could offer me an example of when an evolutionist took a seemingly-sound argument offered by a creationist and used it to analyze THIER own theory before throwing it ontop of the mountain of "false evidence."All in all, scientists cannot think of a better way to describe what they see in nature, so they ASSUME their theory is correct. Most of them are not looking for evidence against it and therefore do not question their theory to the point of looking deep enough to see if it's wrong. Part of the reason why is the bias against creation is seats of power that will withdraw the grant money of any researcher who is set out to find flaws in evolution theory. It has indeed happened.Sincerely,
Servant

Please...Honestly, is that what you have been led to believe? It was keeping an open mind that led me to stop believing in evolution.Now I KNOW ahead of time that somebody will probably say that's not true--that it was CLOSING MY MIND that led me to believing in creation. But again we're not only getting off subject but also ignoring the real question. I have looked at the evidence. The sad fact is there EXISTS no evidence that can stand on its own without endless interpretation to FIT a particular theory. Again, the alleged evidence offered is posed by a one-sided party. There have been examples of where that has been known to be true, yes. And it upsets me. Nevertheless, I have seen quite my share of evolutionists with an equally closed mind and thus you cannot be meaning to offer that statement as a reason to denounce creationism, could you? If a Bible-believing Christian studies science enough to gain a firm grasp on both sides, lame excuses would not be necessary in pointing out the flawed logic of evolutionary arguments. Perhaps you need to understand how a debate works:
The side who WANTS an explanation of their theory is the side who will provide the arguments and the evidence. It is not my job to show YOU what YOU believe and THEN explain why it is wrong, if this is a true debate. It is my job to point out the flaws in your arguments AFTER you have given me an argument.I don't mean that in a hostile way...
My offer is still on the table (read my last response above this one)...Sincerely,
Servant

Asgara - always when I say something bad about evos you turn up - you are the antithesis of bad evo.Lam - you think I am insane right? I once accepted evolution for many years. If I am so closed minded why did I change? Like Servant2thecause also changed. And recently I have came closer to accepting evolution again. I would be insane to listen to anyone who says I am closed minded, that's for sure.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-17-2004]

Your "offer' doesn't make sense. Why should anyone uncritically accept any argument just because it seems sound ? Never mind if it came from the "opposition - arguments from both sides need to be critically evaluated.But I think I can offer an example that SHOULD count - Thornhill and Usser responded to Michael Behe's "Irreducible Complexity" by catalogueing the basic pathways open to Darwinian evolution, and statign which could produce Irreducible Complex structures. They took Behe's idea and extended his analysis. Asking for anything more than that is foolish.Oh and I do understand how a debate works - not that this is a formal debate. I can also recognise evasion when I see it.

quote:

---

Well, I neither DID nor WOULD say that, though.

---

OK, so how do you explain the remarkable similarity of morphological trees of life and genetic trees of life?You rather obviously avoided that direct question.How is it that the branching trees showing how more or less related species are based upon physical similarity (which were developed pre-genetics) match remarkably the trees of life showing how species are related based upon genetic similarity?Common descent predicted this similarity, and it was correct.

quote:

---

Theistic evolution should even be in the mix, at least not main-stream. The two predominant ideas, based upon full-acceptance of one over the other, are Darwinian evolution and young-earth creationism.

---

I disagree.Young earth Creationism is a very, very small (but vocal) minority religious view, confined mainly to conservative Protestant sects within the US.The large majority of Christian denominations worldwide believe in an old Earth.The largest Christian group in the world, Catholics, are Theistic Evolutionists. and fully accept all science.Also, you you mistate the scientific position by calling it "Darwinian Evolution". The correct reference would be to The Modern Synthesis, which includes genetics.

quote:

---

The thing is, a clear and straight reading of the Bible does in fact disallow the possibility of there being millions of years of evolution to fit in (thus, the argument posed is not whether there is or isn't a God/Creator, but whether Scripture is correct or Charles Darwin and his predecessors).

---

Well, that's why religious books, and the interpretation of those religious books, are not scientific in any way.Oh, and I think we should be talking about Darwin and the scientists who followed him, building upon his work for 150 years, until the present day.

quote:

---

Not exactly true. Study the creation model from several different viewpoints--in conjunction with the standard: Scripture, of course--and you may find that adding a Creator disconfuses most puzzles.

---

The problem with this is that the answer creationists give is, "Godidit"....which is what I meant about not explaining anything at all.HOW does something in nature appear as it does?"God made it that way" is not an explanation.Science, by contrast, demonstrates, how something in nature appears as it does, by observation, experimentation, and the repeated testing of hypotheses and theories.

quote:

---

The problem is, the majority of people who accept evolution as a non-questionable fact are ignorant of the explanations about nature and science offered by Scripture and the creation model.

---

Why should people interested in scientific (demonstrable) explanations for natural phenomena pay attention to a religious explanation that doesn't provide any testable (falsafiable) hypothese, nor any actual positive evidence?

quote:

---

Give me an example of a puzzle that creation fails to address. I would be glad to--using the Bible as my standard of argument and as much evidence as I can find to back it up--display any possible alternatives to the ToE ("possible" = legible, not just a random what-if).

---

Well, you just said this:"Study the creation model from several different viewpoints--in conjunction with the standard: Scripture, of course--and you may find that adding a Creator disconfuses most puzzles."You did not, however, include any examples.Why don't you pick an example of a confusing puzzle of natural phenomena that is elucidated by adding a Creator?

quote:

---

First of all, your question here suggests an underlying bias ("better than the theory of evolution" implies an answer that is already suggested within the question... whereas the question's answer should be determined on a case-by-case basis based upon each person's beliefs).

---

I don't understand this sentence at all.My "bias" is for a scientific Theory of Creation to actually meet the criterion for a scientific theory.Since you seem to insist that Creationism is just as valid a scientific endeavor as Evolutionary Biology, it must explain all of the evidence just as well as or better than the current best explanation for the evidence that we have, which is the Modern Synthesis of the ToE.If you cannot, then why should anyone treat Creationism as valid science?

quote:

---

Now that answer does not sound scientific enough, I imagine;

---

Your answer is an attempt to avoid Creationism following the stringent rules of scientific inquiry.

quote:

---

nevertheless, Scripture serves as the hypothesis--from a scientific perspective--for the creation model while all other arguments posed serve as observations/explanations/evidence in support of the hypothesis.

---

Sorry, Scripture can't be where scientific investigation begins.The evidence is ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS where scientific investigation begins.You can't have in mind some religious idea of what nature is "supposed" to be like if the Scriptures are correct, and then pick and choose what evidence you find in order to satisfy your a priori assumption.

quote:

---

The problem is, evolution is not a final conclusion of science.
"No conclusions in science are final." --Craven, M.S. Computer Science

---

That's not a problem.The idea that germs cause disease and that the Sun is the center of the Solar System and that matter is made up of atoms are also scientific theories, just like the Theory of Evolution.All are open to being revisited if some new evidence comes to light, but in the mean time, they all seem pretty damn accurate and correct because all the evidence points to them being correct; they haven't been falsified.The problem actually is that Creationism isn't science.

quote:

---

Furthermore, evolution as described by Darwin and his predecessors is in the past--that is, all mutations/adaptations/variations seen today does not necessarily add up to anything other than that which has been going on since the creation of the earth only 7000 y.a.

---

First of all, we have tree ring and ice core data going back tens of thousands of years, so you are just plain wrong about the Earth being 7,000 years old.Second, though Darwin was a great scientist, it's the hundreds of thousands of scientists who have come after him, rather than his predicessors, that have done the most testing of his theory, particularly the Molecular Geneticists of the last 50 years who have been mapping the genomes of species.

quote:

---

In other words, evolution is a past phenomena and all evidence to support it are based upon not current observations but rather a gathering of data that has been interpreted to fit with Darwin's ideology.

---

Darwin didn't have an "ideology".Darwin proposed a testable, falsafiable, scientific theory that had a great deal of positive evidence to support it, to explain the origin of species.If you don't think that the Modern Synthesis of the ToE (which includes Molecular Genetics) explains all of the evidence in nature adequately, then propose your own scientific theory that is also, falsafiable, testable, and has a great deal of positive evidence to support it.The reason we currently use the ToE is the same reason we currently use the theory of a Heliocentric Solar System and the Germ Theory of Disease to explain natural phenomena.

quote:

---

Thus, since evolution is a past-phenomena (as is creation) all evidence to support both sides is based upon an illogical trail of "well, we don't know of any better explanation, therefore OURS must be true..."

---

Well, provide a better scientific example, which meets the criterion I listed above.

quote:

---

Can't you see the flaw in this logic.

---

There is no flaw in this reasoniong, you just don't yet understand how science works.Science works by using the current best explanations, period. The way science moves forward is when new information comes to light that either confirms existing theories or leads us to modify existing theories or possibly discard them.Just in case I haven't said this enough times, science is ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS evidence-driven.Your repeated assertion that Evolution somehow is something from the "past" is strange. Can you explain what you mean by this? Do you think that Evolutionary Biologists don't continue to observe evidence for evolution?You do realize that the scientist who presesnts real scientific evidence to overturn the ToE would win a Nobel Prize, don't you?

quote:

---

That is why I accept my beliefs not based on logic necessarily but based on faith, reason, and prior knowledge of the fact that neither side can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by our current understanding of scientific processes.

---

Faith based belief is fine.The problem is, you want to think it is somehow scientific as well, and it is no such thing.Evolution is as well-supported a scientific theory as we have. The fact that your religion doesn't allow you to accept this particular part of science doesn't chance this.

quote:

---

So apparently, because adding God into the picture confuses you, evolution is true?

---

No.Adding "Godidit" doesn't explain anything about any natural phenomena.It's exactly the same as saying "Magicdidit", or "Fairiesdidit".It doesn't explain HOW anything happens.

quote:

---

I am less confused now than I EVER was back when I believed in evolution.

---

That's because you didn't accept evolution for the right reasons.You have just swapped faiths.

quote:

---

Simple fact is, believe in God and you don't NEED an answer to what gravity is made of,

---

You do if you want to understand how Gravity works, and thus understand a fundamental force of nature.

quote:

---

what CAUSES magnetic polarity,

---

You do if you want to understand magnetic polarity, and thus understand fundamental physical forces.

quote:

---

why energy decreases in intensity in a closed system, etc.

---

You do if you want to understand entropy, and thus understand the physical forces of our universe.See, understanding of the nature of, well, nature, is what scientists do, and is the reason we have TV, computers, vaccines, the internal combustion engine, spacecraft, telephones, etc. etc.Kowledge is power.Floating around in ignorance might seem fun to you, but not me, and not most scientists, thankfully. I'm surprisesd your God wants you to do this.

quote:

---

As far as evolution goes, adding a Creator WOULD INDEED confuse things... however, taking evolution out of the picture and replacing it with God and a 7000-year-old universe would take away any confusion whatsoever if you're looking deep enough into it...

---

How do tree rings and ice cores that go back for tens of thousands of years fit into a 7,000 year old Earth?

quote:

---

a perfect balance of faith, reasoning, and logic thus excludes the NEED for explaining things that are not important in the grand picture--namely WHY certain mysteries are unexplained.

---

Sorry, buddy, I'm not interested in willful ignorance, although help yourself.