Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire the "science" of evolution vs creation

Sorry about the late reply, didn't have any time last few days to respond.



I'll take you up on this. While I'll admit I haven't given the theory as good of a look from the evolutionary stance as I have a creationist stance, I do have a good understanding of the issues at hand, and I'm not so blinded by presuppositions that I won't look at the evidence. I have looked at the evidence, and I find the theory unsatisfactory.

Now about the fossil record. You claim that it provides good evidence for evolution, but I must disagree. Where are the transitional forms? Do you ever wonder why they are called "missing links", obviously because they are missing.



The number of fossils hailed as transitional forms are anything but common though, and the dozen or so that do exist have strong arguements against them. The fossil record doesn't show the alleged changes in animals and people, at least not the marco level which is the subject at hand. I fail to see how the fossil record could be claimed as strong evidence for evolution.




During Darwin's time the fossil record was far from complete, so he was expecting future discoveries to back up his theory. Today the fossil record is very nearly complete, most certainly complete enough to show that there aren't inconceiveable number of transitional forms. Out of 329 families of terrestrial vertabrates 79.1% have been recovered as fossils. When we don't include birds, which fossilize poorly, the number jumps to 87.9%. So it is clear we won't be finding the fossils Darwin was looking for.



I won't disagree with you that natural selection takes place and that a species adapts to it's environment. But I don't think these are the facts evolution depends upon. Evolution depends upon whether or not natural selection can cross the gaps between kinds which is far from an established fact. The more you look into the evidence you will see that nature is profoundly discontinuous. Kinds remain within their own kinds. Evolutionists can't even come up with functional, hypothetical intermediates between the kinds.



If I'm to accept Evolution it must be demonstrated to me that it is possible and likely that macroevolution can take place, but the evidence continues to show it isn't either possible or likely.



I challenge that statement. Christians are not the only ones who challenge evolution, and those who are Christians don't "make up false arguments." Some of History's greatest scientists rejected evolution. To name a some: Louis Pasteur, Georges Cuvier, Lord Kelvin, James C. Maxwell, Louis Agassiz, Rudolph Virchow, Henri Fabre, John A. Fleming, and Wernher von Braun.



The problem is that though you are right in saying that it was written and read by men who couldn't understand evolution, The way creation is explained in the Bible doesn't allow for evolution. See my previous post for why.



For the most part I can agree with you here. The Bible speaks of creation in a way that allows for the Big Bang, and God likely didn't explain the cosmological priciples behind it simply because they couldn't understand it.

You may be suprised to hear that the Big Bang actually provides a good argument for a Creator. I'm currently reading a book by Lee Stobel (author The Case for Christ and The Case for Faith) titled The Case for A Creator, and in this book Lee interviews many of the leaders of the Intelligent Design Movement. One interview is with William Lane Craig who developed the Kalam Cosmological Argument. This argument based on three premised. (1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause. (2) The universe had a beginning. (3) Therefore, the universe has a cause. That is just the basics of it. If this intrigues you let me know and i'll provide more info.

I expect that the problem is that we do not have a large enough sample of fossils to allow us to see the "transitional forms".

Further more, how do you explain that the fact that fossils of a new type of animal shows up at a certain time ? How did this new type of animal develop if evolution was not responsible ?

Also, according to the bible man should have been present from the beginning of time. However fossils of man are not found until way after the dinosaurs have disappeared ? Where were the men while dinosaurs were in existance ?

What we really need is to understand how DNA works and how it can be modified to produce changes in the species.

If transitional fossils actually existed there'd be far more of them than non-transitional fossils. We should be able to walk out the door and quite literally trip over them. We can't. That's because they don't exist. Evolution is a faith based on no evidence other than theory and a rejection of the existence of God.

ConradCA, Darwin used to say the same thing. Now, 150 years later, there are litterally billions available for investigation. The most recent discoveries show man or his artifacts in almost every layer. Also more than 90% of the fossils are out of the correct order to support evolution. I saw a photo of a fossil burial ground recently. Mixed in with the dinosaur bones were mammal and bird bones. They all lived together and were killed and burried together in Noah's Flood.

If evolution was so obvious theories like the "hopefull monster" theory would never be brought up. Hopefull monster is the idea a reptile laid an egg and a fully feathered bird hatch out. The same concept is being presented for irreducible complexity in cells and even down to the gene level. Evolutionists are desperate. They have a fantastic blind faith in their religion.

Ringman, you're on the bottom here so I attached to your post for no reason other than convenience.

As to evolution vs creation.

The day I can hold in my hand a genuine artifact/fossil that says "God's flashlight, return to God if found." or something else that shouts actual genuine Jesus/God fossil/artifact I'll stick with evolution. There are plenty of fossils around that get some of the less understanding creationist in a snit but I have yet to see anything tangible that suggests there ever was a Noah's Ark, baby Jesus or whatever.

There are plenty of fairey tales published and printed by the thousands and yet very few adults believe in the Easter Bunny, Tokoloshi, Babe the Blue Ox etc. What make the bible any different than any of the other books of yarns other than some adults happening to believe it true???

Anyone seen a Yeti recently, I heard one is living in the Ark!

I think DaveKing has produced a valid point. What makes the Christian creation myth correct and all other creation myths simply incorrect/misguided? Christians aren't the only group of people to explain the beginning of time through the use of elaborate myths/stories so why is it assumed that it is either the Chistian myth or evolution? Maybe Christians and evolutionists are wrong and the Souix creation myth is the true explanation. Sound ludicrous? I believe in God and am a church-going Lutheran, however I really don't think one can deny that evolution occurs now and has always been occurring. I look at the whole issue from a pragmatic viewpoint, there is no way to decisively conclude just exactly what is true in this discussion without joining the ranks of the departed. I can wait.

You are searching for scientific knowledge in a document written by people who were ignorant of science. In your desperation to prove the correctness of everything written in the bible you (or others) are making up facts so you can argue about this issue.







After excluding the many fossilized primitive crustations, worms and maybe fish that are very common there are not billions of fossils available. It is more on the order of 1,000s.







The oldest dinosaurs are about 150 billion years while the olds fossilized man is 6-7 billion years. What explanation do you have for this fact ? You may have seen a photo showing both dinosaurs, mammal and bird bones, but it is pretty easy to fake something like that up. Who found these bones and how old were they ? I expect it was created by someone who was desperate to have evidence to support what the bible says.



As a matter of fact, they have found a fossil or two that show feathered reptiles! The idea is not that the reptiles changed into feathered birds over night. It is that there was a reptile that jumped from tree to tree to avoid predators. A slight genetic variation caused feather like things to appear on the wings and this allowed it to jump farther. This variation quickly became the present in this type of reptile. As time past the feather like things became more like feathers and each time this happened this feature quickly spread through out the species because it allowed the species to jump or glide further.



Didn't Jesus say "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and give unto God what is God's". A further corollary should be added " Give unto science what is science and give unto God what is God's".



Conrad

� The Judeo-Christian account of creation was given to men by the Holy Spirit of God Himself -- "not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit," Peter wrote. Other ancient accounts from other cultures are men's fanciful conjectures and surmises -- man's creations, "by the will of man."

� Evolution as a broad general process of gradual change is observable fact. No evidence exists that evolution spontaneously began the existence of anything from scratch or developed lower orders of created beings into higher orders of evolved beings. (Do you think that apes and monkeys would consider evolution into humans "progress?" <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> )

(I'm not posting this of my own accord or with any intention to engage in any continuing debate on the subject. A Campfire regular asked me, by PM, to post this comment in lieu of his own attempts to present the above facts. Take it or leave it.)

Conrad,



Like I posted earlier on this thread--and in all humility you need to read it if you haven't yet--a Biblical Christian can be true to his/her faith whether they believe in Theistic Evolution, Young Earth Creationism, or Intelligent Design. As such, I am very happy--in fact I insist--on leaving the Bible and faith out of this discussion.



Darwin proposed two theories. His "specific theory" is that of natural selection, adaptation, survival of the fittest, etc. The specific theory is not in dispute, and is his brilliant contribution to science. His "general theory" concerns the continual development of life across species lines. There is extremely little evidence for his general theory, and it takes a lot of faith the believe it.



I accept the earth is billions of years old. Nominally, the earth could have supported organic life as we know it 4.5ish billion years ago. About 3.7ish billion years ago we had the pre-Cambrian explosion. We have fossil evidence of this. 800 million years is not enough time for life to have developed by chance form non-organic compounds. It is not remotely feasible. The only way some convince themselves that life could have evolved in such a short period of time is via reasoning such as: "Well, we know life started 3.7 billion years ago, so it must have developed in 800 years via chance." This is a classic logical fallacy, where the effect does not necessarily follow from the cause.



Now most evolutionists are aware of the problem of origin's, so they just ignore it. For good reason. You do not advance academically unless you can make major contributions to the theory. There is so little evidence available concerning origins that very few have even tried to address it from a scholarly, scientific approach. How could they write a scientific doctoral dissertation unless they have a reasonable amount of solid evidence? In the late 50s early 60s they thought they had an answer, with the pre-biotic soup and lightening, but since then most have left that hypothesis because there is no fossil evidence of any pre-biotic soup.



Another problem with evolution is the extreme complexity of organic life. In Darwin's time, they thought the cell was a simple blob of stuff. When I went to grade school in the 60s, they taught me there are three parts to a cell: the membrane, the nucleus, and the goop in between. Today, we know the cell is extremely complex.



So let's take just a small part of some cells, like bacterial flagellum. It is a rotating "tail" that is spun electrically. It is a miniature electric motor. All it's component parts have to be in place for it to work. To date, no one has been able to explain how a working bacterial flagellum evolved in a step-by-step process. Very few have even tried. The same is true for cellular cilia.



Evidence of transitional species is another problem for Darwin's general theory. No we all know how in Darwin's day paleontology was brand new, and how he explained away the lack of transitional fossils as just a lack of looking. However, today we are in the same boat. There have been a couple of fossil series that at first glance appear they might be in a series, but the vast majority are not. They are clearly delineated species that appear all at once in the fossil record, stay relatively unchanged, then disappear all at once.



An excellent example is the coelacanth. It was a fish thought to be extinct for millions of years, when one was caught by fisherman off the coat of Madagascar in the late 30s. Now I'm sure you have heard about the coelacanth. It was supposedly proof of evolution. However, they didn't tell the whole story.



The coelacanth was part of an order of fish-like animals thought be transitional between fish and amphibians. They were called "rhipsidians" (sp?). They do kind of look like a fish in the process of growing legs. It was with great excitement that the scientists got a hold of the coelacanth and autopsied it. Here, at last, they had a genuine example of a transitional species.



Well, they found the coelacanth was 100% fish. Nothing transitional about it at all. Of course, they didn't exactly advertise that.



There are other examples. The series of horses form eohippus to the modern horse isn't really as clean of a progression as they want to admit. The archaeopteryx is now though to be all bird, and they have proposed another creature "pro-avis" which they think would have been transitional. Of course, pro-avis is just an imagined creature.



Two commonly cited examples as proof of evolution are Galapagos finches and the peppered moths. On one particular island in the chain, Darwin found two types of finches. One had large beaks, the other had small beaks. During times of drought, he noticed more large beaked finches. The large beaked birds were better able to crack open the tough, dry seed casings found during dry spells. During wetter periods he found more small beaked finches.



This is an excellent example of adaptation to the environment, but it has nothing to do with animals evolving from one type into another. There were both large and small beaked finches in existence before and after the drought. The small beaked finches did not evolve into large beaked finches, they were just temporarily reduced in numbers during droughts.



The peppered moths are another example. During the industrial age in England, the tree's bark in one particular forest became darkened with soot. There were two types of peppered moths, light colored ones and darker ones. The speculation was the darker moths would survive better during this time because they would be harder to see against the dark bark of the trees than the light colored moths. This all makes sense, but they found the moth's don't hang out on the bark, the hang out amongst the leaves.



Even if they did rest on the bark, again we still have both dark and light colored moths before and after. We do not have one type of moth evolving into another. Again, and excellent example of adaptation, but it has nothing to do with amoebas turning into fish, then info frogs, lizards, gorilla's, and truck drivers.



Form a microbiological perspective we find more problems for Darwin's general theory. It was originally thought that by examining stuff like hemoglobin, we would find a progression among animals. For example, it was thought a human's hemoglobin would be more similar to a horse's than it would a silk worm's. Well, there is no such correlation. In general, animals are equally distant from each other in terms of hemoglobin types. Horse hemoglobin is no closer or further away from human hemoglobin than silk worm hemoglobin.



That is all I have time for tonight, and I have only scratched the surface and been very general. When you do the research--like I am doing--you find that there have always been a significant number of evolutionists that have not had faith in Darwin's general theory. However, when they are forced to pick sides between Darwinian gradualists and Young Earth Creationists, they close ranks with the Darwinians.



Blaine

Aye.

Blaine... no you haven't scratched the surface at all, of science at least...

I ain't no expert, just reasonably scientifically literate, and see half-truths and things stated out of context here.

Cringing at the thought of hours spent researching minutae in another one of these threads... OK, here I go...



Agreed, science merely examines evidence and draws conclusions, certainly there is abundant scientific evidence contradicting the Bible as LITERALLY true as presented in our current English translations. On the other hand, those the seek to use the theory of evolution to DISPROVE God, like those execrable Darwin Fish folk, are the worse kind of morons; EDUCATED morons.



I'm a tad puzzled here, how could one have a "scholarly, scientific approach" in the absence of evidence? Your implied position seems to be "well then God must have done it", an untestable theory. About as untestable as the ol' "Alien Science Experiment" saw.



"Extremely little evidence?? Well I suppose there's the general order of appearance of different Phyla and Classes in the fossil record, then again one can compare embryological developement in different Classes of Vertebrates, or even human embryological development.



Expound upon this please, 800 million years sure SOUNDS like a long time.



I would have thought in general terms they DO appear in a series, going all the way back to appearance of animal and plant Phyla and such. You yourself in this statement allow that there may be least a few good candidiates. Of course specific examples would be a bit much to hope for given that the fossil record is a series of random snapshots over a very long period of time rather than a movie. Likely some of the better examples will be disproven too, which brings us to...



Who on earth are "THEY"?

The true nature of the coelocanth was discovered decades ago, and any evidence associated with it was similarly disproven. I knew this, anyone who bothered to walk into a library and looked knew this. Why would "THEY" continue to advance such easily disproven evidence as you suggest "THEY" (whoever that is) have done?



Ahh "THEY" again... Umm, I believe it was Paleontologists themselves who immediately noted discrepancies (especially concerning teeth). I knew this, anyone who picked up a book and read it knew this. In fact what the equine fossil series mostly presents is a reduction in digits and and increase in size. Almost certainly the genes FOR full digit developement are present in Horse DNA, now I'm wondering if these are present in the embyo and resorbed, or whether these gene sequences are masked from developing at all.



Umm... a bird with reptilian teeth and a long tail with dinosaur vertebrae, having flight feathers but not having a keeled breastbone associated with modern birds is NOT a transitional species?

Naaah, what you are slanting and spinning is the fact that it belongs to that group of bird-like dinosaurs to which MOST of the familiar forms (including most all the ones in "Jurassic Park") belong.

A point of trivia; other small feathered dinosaurs have since been discovered, not PROOF, but interesting evidence.

A point of semantics; pro avis might more properly be termed "hypothetical", your use of the term "imaginary" being part of your biased spin (sorta Liberalesque if ya ask me).



Proof of evolution? I had thought that these examples were and are regarded as provable example of observable genetic drift (must be that nefarious "THEY" again). Genetic drift being one of the easily observable principles upon which the theory of evolution is founded.

The other principle is reproductive isolation, the most severe of which being genetic incompatibilily (a zygote cannot form). Another being reproductive isolation based upon simple mate preference (why most of us don't find [bleep] attractive) or else reduced ability to procreate in the hybrids either through sterility (like in mules) or reduced fitness (like lion/tiger hybrids, easy to produce in captivity, but without a prayer of survival in the wild, being neither good tigers nor good lions when competing with their parent species) .

All these levels of reproductive isolation are easily observable in birds. The familiar Baltimore Oriole of the east now interbreeds freely with the western Bullock's Oriole in recent areas of range overlap such that they were reclassified into a single species, the Northern Oriole. This range overlap following the destruction of the prairies, both these closely related species being forest birds.

Lately they have been split into separate species again with the discovery that the hybrid offspring, though fertile, have no genetic future in as much as they and their offspring usually lose out in competition with their parent species. The THEORY being that these two obviously similar species have drited genetically apart in isolation.

Another interesting example is that of the familiar Herring Gull, circumpolar in distribution. North American Herring Gulls can breed freely with the slightly different Western European forms, which in turn can interbreed freely with Siberian Herring Gulls. However, North American and Siberian Herring Gulls are different enough that they do not interbreed.

All of which doesn't PROVE evolution, that would require an eon of continuous observation, but genetic drift and reproductive isolation are both easily observable. Combined, the two do strongly suggest evolution as a logical outcome. (far from the pipe dreams of your own entirely imaginary "THEY").



Dammit AFP! (genuine irritation here)... this is a typical example of dissembling by the anti-evolution folks.....

(like the coelocanth... like the Eohippus... like repeated references to the sinister straw man "THEY".....).

...in this case triumphantly jumping on the example of hemoglobin while completely failing to mention abundant supporting evidence presented by DNA and numerous protein sequences. Have you looked in a bird book lately, the taxonomic groupings of passerines have been almost completely rearranged by such biochemical eletrophoreses. Yet ANOTHER example of ACTUAL science in action.



Another half-truth. No one is forced to "pick sides". Young Earth Creationism is uniformly rejected because of contrary physical evidence.

Much scientific debate has accrued around the exact nature of evolution. To allude to your earlier reference, while their is little evidence shedding light on the origin of life, there is much suggesting the evolution of life. Hence while the former has received little attention, the latter has receive abundant attention.

As you previously pointed out, academic careers are made upon exciting new discoveries. Find as much credible evidence against evolution as there is suggesting it occurs and such would be TRUMPETED from the rooftops of academia (the nefarious "THEY" notwithstanding).

To suggest anything else would imply that all these many scientists are dishonest half-wits incapable of independent thought. At least you have graciously allowed that many of them might be believing Christians.

Birdwatcher

Birdwatcher,







Give some examples.







It is illogical to assume that just because I am critiquing macroevolution that I am proposing God or aliens. In this discussion, I am only interested in critiquing macroevolution, not proposing any alternative. I am only interested observable science here--not speculation about God or aliens.







The fact that there are separate, distinct Phyla and Classes is not what we expect to find if macroevolution were true. We would expect to find a continuous progression of creatures as they evolved form one type into another. Instead, all we have is very distinct species appearing all at once, remaining fairly unchanged throughout their existence, then disappearing all at once.



Embryological development is merely convergence.







Folks (evolutionary biologists and mathematicians) have sat down and calculated the rate at which events occur. They have have then determined how many events are needed for life to have formed. Then they calculate the probability of that happening. In short--the books are all in the other room and it is way too late for me to be up--the odds of life appearing via random processes in 800 million years are so astronomically small the mathematicians consider it impossible.







No, they appear as distinct and separate species. That is why Gould and Eldredge proposed punctuated equilibrium.







"They" as you must know, are the main movers and shakers in the realm of evolutionary thought. Yes, the true nature of the ceolocanth was discovered years ago, but "they" didn't bother to tell anyone their idea of rhipsidians being transitional was wrong, and another nail in the coffin of macroevolution.







Then why do many school textbooks still present the progression of horses as proof of macroevolution?







I am not the one who pronounced Archaeopteryx a bird and not transitional. It was evolutionists. No, using the word "hypothetical" is spin because it implies a legitimacy that does not exist. "They" imagined such a creature, which is very consistent for what it takes to put your faith in macroevolution. Lest you think that is a slam, it is what Dawkins tells us to do every time we come to a hard part in macroevolution. He says just to step back and imagine..........







We are in agreement, evidences of Darwin's specific theory is not proof of his general. Evolution is only suggested if you use your imagination.







When Gould debated Johnson for the first time, he told Johnson "You are a creationist and I have to stop you." So much for scientific objectivity.



BTW, let's stick to debating the merits of the idea sans the emotion.

Birdwatcher, This very moring I listened to two fellows wth doctorate degrees. One in literature and the other in physical chemistry. Both are young earth creationist. They were being interviewed on a radio program which I never heard of before and didn't pay any atention to the station. At any rate they both told of similar experiences.

They have been invited to Christian colleges to speak. Both said in the science department the educated scientists have no problem accepting the Bible as scientically accurate world history; including Devine creation, the curse and the Flood. It is the theoloical departments where the doubts arrise.

There are litterally hundred of scientists with advanded degrees who accept the Bible as litteral accurate world history.

Geeze AFP, I lost a 2hr post through a computer glitch (prob'ly way too long anyway) OK, here's the gist.



1) First off you ask me for some examples of the possible inadequacies of the English translation of the Bible. This I find odd as you yourself, taking into account evidence that the earth is indeed old, expound at length in this very thread how the word "day" in Genesis doesn't necessarily mean "day".



2) In a previous post you included the cheap shot of saying that evolutionists "ignore" the question of the very earliest origins of life. I called you on this, stating correctly that there was no other option, given a lack of evidence. You responded by saying that was what you had said. Nope, you stated that they "ignored" it.



3) The issue of transitional forms; Evolution does not require or predict that all members of a lineage be represented in the fossil record. Indeed, some of the most obscure and odd life forms extant today are exceedingly limited in distribution, doesn't mean they dont exist.



Punctuated equilibrium as proposed by Gould et al. has a resolution of a geologic time scale, these "intantaneous appearances" of new forms are separated by up to millions of years.



Also, you ignore the fact that increasingly complex forms within many Phyla do occur sequentially in the fossil record, exactly as evolution predicts. Also, the fossil record becomes increasingly comprehensive with decreasing age, it ain't just horses where there are observable trends.



One doesn't need to look at fossils either, observable stepwise increases in complexity are especially apparent among living forms of the Annelida, Arthropoda and Chordata.



4) Speaking of transitional forms, please provide me the title of a current textbook where fossil equines are presented as PROOF of evolution, as you have stated. Clearly you are not familiar with the tortuous rigors of Biology textbook selection at the State level.



5) You state that Archeopteryx (a dinosaur-looking creature with feathers) is clearly not transitional because "evolutionists" said it wasn't. Yet at the same time continue to accuse other prominent evolutionists of promoting their agenda by not mentioning the coelocanth.



Explain please why Gould, Eldridge and that other guy you mentioned would have occasion to mention the coelocanth at all. Also, in the midst of your continuing allegations you leave entirely unadressed the issue of why those nefarious evolutionists (the notorious "THEY") would promote such a patently disprovable example like the coelocanth.



6) When I pointed out that, unlike hemoglobin, DNA certainly DOES imply different degrees of relatedness between life forms as predicted by evolution you sidestep the issue, asking me to describe exactly how DNA might have evolved.



To which I would reply that one can certainly observe DNA presently evolving. Through ongoing processes of genetic drift and reproductive isolation. I did correctly observe that while speciation was a logical outcome of such processes, observing that would take a very long time, hence genetic drift and reproductive isolation were at best merely evidence.



To whiich you diismissively replied that predicting evolution as an outcome required "imagination", implying a lack of logic.



Odd, you yourself subscribe to the similarly unprovable theory regarding the probable age of the earth. Does such require "imagination" too?



While I'm asking, please explain how similar embryological development among different life forms is a result of "convergence", convergence from what?



7) Despite stating that little is known about the very earliest years of life on earth, you state with certainty more than once on this thread that it is impossible for life to have spontaneously appeared over the better part a billion years. Thus precluding evolution and supporting intelligent design.



Seems an apparent contradiction here; unknowable conditions on the one hand along with absolute certainties on the the other. Unfortunately to rectify this contradiction you're gonna have to expound at length on the theories of those other folks in that book in the other room (maybe its that Johnson feller).



8) Finally, after freely and incorrectly castigating the motives and intelligence of a whole slew of the "evolutionists" (more than once I might add) who make up the majority of the scientific community, and after selectively picking and choosing evidence to support your position, you request that "we keep our emotions out of this".



Tell ya what, I'll not get irritated if you'll stick to the facts.



Birdwatcher

ohh nooo... still one more thing.

With regards to Mr Gould's statement to Mr Johnson to the effect that "You're a creationist and must be stopped".. please provide context.

I'm certain that what Mr Gould was referring to was not a competing theory (which after all could be published for peer review just like any other) but rather the rabid attacks of Johson et al. and on the scientific process in genral and Mr Gould in particular, in tone exactly similar to Michael Moore's recent attacks on the Right Wing in general and President Bush in particular.

Hmm... you yourself have irepeatedly implied the existence of "a vast evolutionist conspiracy"....

I dunno, maybe its convergence <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Birdwatcher

Birdwatcher, Absolutely. Why did the Superentendant of Schools in California try to shut down Christian Heritage College? Because they included creation in their teaching. Tell us what would happen if a school teacher started teaching creation in a government school.

Amazing how otherwise cynical, technology and science driven people can hold so fast to a faith-driven superstition. No there ain't been any fossils found of a missing link, but man's been around so little time, that ain't surprising. I don't know about you, but even if evolution ain't exactly right, its a hell of a lot more plausible than a feller pullin' a rib outta his chest, makin' a woman outta it, an' fornicatin' till there's a viable population to beget 6 billion people, who don't even share all the same genes! Seems to me God could have created the earth, then let her go to do what comes natural. Same can be said of the universe, in which case life on earth is a pure accident. That's a hell of a easier pill to swallow than the Genesis story, specially in light of what we now know. I got some acquaintances that swear all the dinosaur bones found everywhere were put there by satin. Talk about denial. Seems to me, the more people try to figure out exactly what God's all about, the more they end up revising their philosophy as soon as some new piece of science or natural history disproves their idears. Best to go with the flow and admit we ain't got it all figured out yet, and its entirely possible that, like all creatures under the sun, for us, death is the end. I know that's an uncomfortable thought to most, because we are an arrogant species. But try not to think of death as the end; just think of it as a really good way to cut down on expenses.

do the math, 'skinner, on two people startin' the earth's population. not a stretch at all, from what i see. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Muleskinner , You need to read your bible again . A feller did not pull a rib out of his chest and made a woman out of it .

I do know that man is fallible . His science fallible and so is his self righteous morals . We will never find the answer of how life begain from the science of man .

Fish, I dunno if you're comment was made half in jest, but of course to build a population from a single family (did Adam and Eve have daughters too?) is genetically impossible, the deleterious effects of inbreeding being what they are. These effects of inbreeding probably being why a great many forms of life, including ourselves, have innate mechanisms in place to prevent it.

On the other hand I expect God can do whatever the heck He wants and tweak DNA as needed. Saying so of course ain't science, but rather faith.

Isn't the question "whom did Adam and Eve's kids marry?" an old and knotty problem for Bible scholars?

Birdwatcher