"I can give you a long list of archaelogical evidence over the years in support of the scriptures."

Not really, not in terms of refuting evolution. You really can't present archeological evidence as to what God did, and there's ample archeological evidence that the world is a lot older than the Bible claims it is when it is taken literally.

"I'm still waiting for my tomatoes to turn into watermelons."

Why not address the truth of evolutionary theory instead of making a flawed representation of it to deride? You do yourself a disservice when you sink to that.

You know the process of natural selection enough to know that a tomato can't be bred to be a watermelon. Any small genetic change in a tomato now isn't going to turn it into a watermelon. Whatever small genetic change that began the process of natural selection that led to a tomato being what it is didn't instantly make it a tomato, either.

It's hard to respect such a facetious perspective. It's like saying when in doubt, say "My daddy ain't no dern munky". You can't have a decent discussion of it when people are willing to do that.

it's a joke Baker.....pleeese. Where's your sense of humor?

If the evolutionists are going to insist on macro evolution and continue to tell our kids that theory is the same as truth then let them answer my comment.

Why not address the truth of evolutionary theory instead of making a flawed representation of it to deride?

geeeze I thought I had been doing that. I was just taking a break.

Not really, not in terms of refuting evolution.

Actually that's not what I was getting at when I asked for specifics. What was said by Cactoblasta was that the most reliable and persusive argument using archeology was evolution. I am saying there is tons of archeology uncovered in regards to what we read in scripture. So if the archeology as been very successful proving the scriptures are authentic, I have no reason to not believe what it says in regards to the creation account thus far. The scriptures don't change but the theory of evolution is ever changing.

So just show me where archeology has refuted what the scriptures have written and I'll recant. In fact the more we dig up the more the scriptures look like what they are claiming to be. From what I've read over the years, archelogy, science, and history have yet to disprove scripture. And what I'm seeing now (regarding prophecy) only makes me more confident.

another thought but only good if you believe in the words of Christ. He said this:

"For had you believed Moses you would have believed me, for he wrote of Me. But if you believe not his writings, how shall you believe my words?" John 5:46-47

"If they hear not Moses and the prophets neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead." Luke 16:31

I believe when Christ quoted from those books he was given his consent to them and is one of the reasons they are included in the cannon in the first place.

Both references show the importance placed on the writings of Moses beginning with Genesis. In Acts 28 we read Paul in Rome preached to them Jesus from Moses and the prophets. Out of Moses' five books of the bible Genesis is the most noticed and referred to more often than any other book in the bible even. But in theological and Bible colleges in Christian and non Christian circles, which book of the Bible is the most attacked? Yes, Genesis. The very writings that are quoted from more than any other are the ones most attacked disbelieved or ignored.

Why? Too long for me to go into here, but it involves foundations. If you destroy the foundations of anything the structure will collapse. This foundation I believe is sure but it doesn't mean that it's not being hacked at.

Every single biblical doctrine of theology directly or indirectly ultimately has its basis in the book of Genesis. Everything about mankind and the world we find in the first 11 chapters and from there on it is all just repeated. In the first 11 chapters we have creation,God,the trinity, angels, satan, man, woman, marriage, family, sin, death, redemption, etc.

"So if the archeology as been very successful proving the scriptures are authentic, I have no reason to not believe what it says in regards to the creation account thus far. The scriptures don't change but the theory of evolution is ever changing. "

I don't really have to. Does the fact that Tokya is represented accurately in Godzilla movies prove that Godzilla is real? In order to follow your statement you have to believe that the bible is inerrant. That isn't really even claimed by the bible itself.

If you look through the library you'll find tons of books that are based around historical occurances, filled with historically correct facts, but that doesn't mean they are inerrant. I'm no atheist and am a big fan of the bible, don't get me wrong. I'm not iconoclast or anything, but I kind of need a reason to think something was intended to be inerrant before I believe it.

http://xx.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=100480

Some people got this wrong, so I'm posting a link to my article about usage of word "Theory."

I see many arguments about macro-evolution being not wintessed... so here's my argument.

Suppose you're part of a species that live only one hour. Somehow your species spawn new generation per 30 minutes. Now, you're 24th generation that has been watching this thing that's being built by humans. Would you see much change within a single hour in your life? Not a lot. Maybe you will be witness to a single new side panel being installed, but that's just micro change. You could easily determine that there's only micro changes done to world, and no macro-changes ever. After all, you lived your entire life and barely nothing changes.

Well, micro-evolution can be as quick as a single season, up to few hundred years.

Macro-evolution, however, takes thousands of years. That's MANY human generations! No wonder we never saw any major changes. It's simply too slow for us to see it!

Other example, it's reality this time. Did you know that earth is changing it's land masses constantly? I mean that. It never stopped at all! Yet it looks same to us century after century. It's simply too slow for us to even see it! It's same for evolution. It's like landmasses, only moving about inch per year. Some places is even slower.

[

In order to follow your statement you have to believe that the bible is inerrant.

of course and you know that I do. I feel I have no choice but to after studying this for many years.

That isn't really even claimed by the bible itself.

How sure are you? Who told you this? How familiar are you with the bible? Keep in mind the bible (a collection of books) is really 66 books, not one.

but I kind of need a reason to think something was intended to be inerrant before I believe it.

well do you believe in Jesus? Would he be reason enough? He was constantly giving credence to the OT writers and scriptures by quoting from them. Read Luke 4:17-21 for instance. Notice what he quoted, notice he stopped mid sentence and sat down. Why? Go back and compare to the OT book of Isa 61:1-2a. He left out 2b on purpose. Notice the wording "He shut the book and sat down." A statemement was being made here. One had to do with his first coming the other his second coming. He knew but the hearers had no idea.

Even when in the wilderness being tempted by Satan, what did he use in his defense as well as offensive weapon? Scriptures. And every single scripture he used against the devil came from the book of Deuteronomy written by Moses. Hebrews 4:12 says the word of God is quick and powerful sharper than a two edged sword. Christ used the sword of God, like I'm doing now. This is where I'd use it to divide truth from error like in your Toyoko/Gozilla illustration.

Jesus also said in John 17:17.."Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth."

Peter said: "Knowing this first that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." 2 Peter 1:20-21. Well is the HS fallible or infallible?

Either you accept it as the infallible word of God or you don't. But to stand on the fence with one leg on either side is considered lukewarm, and I don't think that's a safe place to be.

There's a ton of stuff here on this Baker but I'd be up all night. This is just a sampling, but I'm sure you've heard much of this before. Only the HS can convict you of this but I do believe the word of God as read has that power.

"How sure are you? Who told you this? How familiar are you with the bible? Keep in mind the bible (a collection of books) is really 66 books, not one. "

Ten years of regular service, 4 years as a sunday school teacher. 2 years (6 class hours per year) of religion courses at a private Methodist school, read it cover to cover twice, and bits and peices God knows how many times, and I have two copies (along with a koran) on my desk.

I appreciate the quotes you cite, I really do. What you and others refuse to accept is that when the people speaking in the book were speaking, the book hadn't been written yet. You can't attest to the perfection of a book that hasn't been written yet.

Granted, I'm not the venerable bede, but no one has convinced me of anywhere in the bible that plainly states that it is inerrant. And if it did, you'd have to establish that the people who wrote the individual scritpure was referring to our old workhorse KJV.

I'm not trying to dissuade you from your belief, but you are referring to a book translated into a language that didn't exist when those words you cite were spoken. Your faith is not in those words, but all the small steps in between that converted them from the actual event that you hold in your hands. You rely upon the fact that everyone in between the spoken word and your copy got it right.

Again, I'm not trying to dissuade you, but I believe none are perfect, save God. I understand that "The Word" is now considered to be the fourth part of the trinity by literalists, but that is just a bandaid on the problem. It is a book, and if it is perfect, then it is God. I don't worship books, or anything of the kind.

I'm not trying to dissuade you from your belief, but you are referring to a book translated into a language that didn't exist when those words you cite were spoken. Your faith is not in those words, but all the small steps in between that converted them from the actual event that you hold in your hands. You rely upon the fact that everyone in between the spoken word and your copy got it right. Again, I'm not trying to dissuade you, but I believe none are perfect, save God. I understand that "The Word" is now considered to be the fourth part of the trinity by literalists, but that is just a bandaid on the problem. It is a book, and if it is perfect, then it is God. I don't worship books, or anything of the kind.

I'm going to have to go with Baker on this one. The books of the Bible are copies of copies of copies of oral traditions. We don't have anything we can even pretend is the original. That doesn't mean I don't believe in the stories that the bible provides us, but I don't take it as the inerrant truth. Of course there are mistakes - man was involved in the process, there's always going to be mistakes. And (returning to the original topic) that's why I'm comfortable in my belief that the Lord may have used evolution to create us.

Like I said, until a prophet of God tells me different, I'm going to believe it.

Either you accept it as the infallible word of God or you don't. But to stand on the fence with one leg on either side is considered lukewarm, and I don't think that's a safe place to be.

I really don't think Baker's sitting on the fence in this one, either. He seems to believe in the Bible rather heartily. He just might see that it can't be infallible. Nothing touched by man can be, because we are fallible, and consequently, everything we do is imperfect, too. Of course God wanted us to have these teachings, but I still don't think that it's fence sitting to not believe it an infallible book. (And remember, I was a missionary )

What you and others refuse to accept is that when the people speaking in the book were speaking, the book hadn't been written yet

you mean compiled? The book is a collection from the authors. It wasn't heresay. Paul's letters for instance were directly sent to the churches. Copies were made meticulously and spread around and perserved just like the OT was preserved beautifully by the Jews. God was truly watching this process and protecting it. Greek was the main language of the day. The Greek Septuagint was around in Jesus' day. That's what they were reading.

This was never an issue in the early church. God's word was never questioned as being infallible or not. I read recently that Isaac Newton referring to a verse in Daniel Chap 9 said that

"this verse alone was enough to stake the truth of scriptures on this prophetic scripture alone."

I just can't remember what verse he was referring to, but I think it must have been 9:26 because that's remarkable being written 500 years before Christ which would point to the infalliblity of it. Also every single OT promise concerning Christ came true. That's 100% accuracy and the test of a true prophet according to Deut 18. The ones concerning his second coming are just as reliable I believe. Why not? The first time came around as predicted so why not think the next will. Sort of like opening up that second can of corn.

Like I said, until a prophet of God tells me different, I'm going to believe it.

he did, you're just not buying it.....Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, etc. If you're going to err why stand on that side? Doesn't the saying go......if you're going to err.....err on the side of caution?

The Word" is now considered to be the fourth part of the trinity by literalists,

no, I just don't separate the two because Jesus even said in John 14 that the comfortor (HS) would bring all things to their minds and they would be able to remember and write it down just like Peter said above. It all meshes together and fits like a glove so it does make sense. There's not one contradiction in it.

And if it did, you'd have to establish that the people who wrote the individual scritpure was referring to our old workhorse KJV.

no, I'm not a KJV only type of person (even tho I do use it). I go back to the orignial Hebrew and Greek. I think actually the NASB is the purest, nearest to these original languages but I don't regularly use it only because I use my rag tag KJV for so long I'm comfy with it. I actually use the NIV, ESV, NASB and the KJV and compare sometimes for word usuage. If I was going to reccommend a bible I'd tell someone to get the NASB translation. New American Standard Bible.

Hey you two.......check out this link as far as other works of antiquity are concerned and tell me what other works mentioned are so questioned.

Link

But people can't attest to the perfection of something they have never read, KFC. Paul couldn't deem a work perfect before it was written, nor can he say that the copies of his letters are perfect after he is dead. He most certainly wasn't able to read and approve a translation that came over 1000 years later.

As for the link, Dan Brown is chocked full of historically accurate details. Do you consider his work to be accurate? A fact that proves to be true on one page does not prove the validity of other pages, only that fact. Like I say, just because Tokyo is accurate in Godzilla movies doesn't mean Godzilla is real.

You state the differences in translations yourself. Are they all inerrant? Do you consider the line "Thou Shalt Do No Murder" and the line "Thou Shalt Not Kill" to be equally perfect? That relies a LOT on the frame of mind and the background of the reader, wouldn't you say?

What you seem to me to be saying is that it really isn't the book, it is the holy spirit that teaches you the truth when you read it, therefore even if the words are slightly different, the message is still perfect. That, though, isn't the Bible that is perfect then, it is the spirit that gives you the message.

That, believe it or not, makes more sense to me than stating the perfection of a work like the Bible.

But people can't attest to the perfection of something they have never read, KFC.

I understand what you're saying. Yes when the NT writers were pointing to the authenticy of the scriptures they were talking of the OT scriptures. When Paul wrote to Timothy he said...."From a child you have known the holy scriptures which are able to make you wise unto slvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus". 2 Tim 3:15. H was talking OT scriptures only.

The bible makes it plain that is is not merely inspirig literature or a fallible record of God speaking but that is in the infallible Word of God. Two verses speak to the heart of the matter, 2 Tim 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:21. The former reads:

All scripture is inspired by God nd profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness. The word "inspired" is a translation of the Greek word theopneustos, meaning God breathed. The origin of scripture is God, not man, it is God breathed. Notice "all" scripture.

The second verse in Peter says: For no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. This also confirms that the writers were moved by God to record that which God desired. God used each individual writer and his personality to accomplish a divinely inspired work.

Since God is behind the writings and since He is perfect the result must be infallible. If it were not infallible we could be left with God inspired error. That's not good.

The human authors of scripture wrote spontaneously using their own minds and experiences yet their words were not merely the words of men but actually the words of God. God's control was always with them in their writings with the result being the bible....the Word of God in the words of men.

Now having said that look what Peter says of Paul in 2 Peter 3:16: As also in all his (Paul) epistles speaking in them of these things in which are some things hard to be understood which they that are unlearned and unstable wrestle as they do also the other scriptures unto their own destructions."

Did you catch what Peter was saying? He was saying the Pauls writings were to be put on par with the other writings of scripture.

You state the differences in translations yourself. Are they all inerrant?

No one manuscript or translation is inspired, only the original. But for all intents and purposes they are virtually inspired since with today's great number of manuscripts available for scrutiny we can be assured that what we hold in our hands today is quite reliable and the inspired Word of God translated in our own language..

2 years (6 class hours per year) of religion courses at a private Methodist school,

Ok are you familair with Charles Wesley who was one of the founders of Methodism? He said this:

The Bible must be the invention either of good men or angels bad men or devils or of God. Therefore:

1. It could not be the invention of good men or angels for they neither would nor could make a book and tell lies all the time they were writing it saying, "Thus saith the Lord," when it was their own invention,

2. It could not be the invention of bad men or devils for they would not make a book which commands all duty forbids all sin and condemns their souls to hell to all eternity.

3. Therefore I draw this conclusion that the Bible must be given by divine inspiration.

(Robert W. Burtner and Robert E. Chiles, A Compendium of Wesley's Theology p. 20.)

Were you aware that Wesley also liked to dress up topless native americans and teach them to dance around the maypole for him? LOL. I'm not Methodist, not by a long shot. Dealing with the Methodist 'authority' and eventually being asked to leave (read: ejected from) school took care of that. YOu'll note that Wesley states the Bible is "inspired" not inerrant.

Re: Inspiration, how can you tell which is inspired? You have to remember that it wasn't Paul, Peter or anyone who wrote the Bible who decided that those particular books got into the Christian canon. Not only did people read our books, but they read a LOT of apocraphal stuff, too.

So you rely upon their inspiration as well. Didn't Paul say "I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets"? Who decides for you which folks were a prophet? Can you name those people that did? I can't.

There's a really good article on the development of the Christian Bible on wikipedia. I think if you read it you'll find that you aren't putting your faith in the people who spoke and wrote the words originally, rather a LOT of very political people who were constantly fighting each other about what should be considered inspired.

I can't find anything that says Wesley considered the Bible inerrant. Here's a Methodist Theological Society paper in inerrancy. If I recall correctly, Methodists either take no official stand at all, or discard inerrancy outright. You'll find that Methodists are a pretty diverse bunch. I went to a Methodist church or two that featured speaking in tongues, believe it or not.

P.S. There's a good article at wikipedia about biblical inerrancy, too.

Were you aware that Wesley also liked to dress up topless native americans and teach them to dance around the maypole for him?

No, but sounds kinda interesting. Why would he do this? I read alot about Wesley especially the story of Suzannah years ago....what a woman!!

I'm not Methodist, not by a long shot

that's good, keep it that way. They used to be very good but have lost their way. I heard there's an on fire Methodist church in Bulgaria that is nothing like here in the states. So I would have no problem with checking that one out.

Dealing with the Methodist 'authority' and eventually being asked to leave (read: ejected from) school took care of that.

hmmmm sounds like you've got some rebel in you. Welcome to the club. I have a definite Barean Spirit (Acts 17).

wikipedia.

I skimmed it but have been told not to go too deeply into this source. Notice that you can edit the page to anything you want and go back. it stays until the next person changes it. Seen this happen and wasn't too happy about that. I'm from the old school.....I like my old books. I have stuff going back to the first century for references.

I think if you read it you'll find that you aren't putting your faith in the people who spoke and wrote the words originally,

well I'm not exactly, my faith is in God and his ability to give us HIS revealed word.

can't find anything that says Wesley considered the Bible inerrant.

me either except what I wrote above and again I'm thinking if God inspired it and was behind it then it would be infallible in it's original language remember.

You'll find that Methodists are a pretty diverse bunch. I went to a Methodist church or two that featured speaking in tongues, believe it or not.

Yes, I'm sure and the speaking of tongues is spreading like wildfire. I don't believe it's of God and I do believe is all about Charismatic Chaos. But that's another blog.

P.S. There's a good article at wikipedia about biblical inerrancy, too.

Thanks I'll check it out.

Enjoying our chat Baker, but I think we scared off everyone else.

check out this link.....it goes back to the 1500's but also has my favorite guy of today...John MacArthur.

Link

Well, micro-evolution can be as quick as a single season, up to few hundred years. Macro-evolution, however, takes thousands of years. That's MANY human generations! No wonder we never saw any major changes. It's simply too slow for us to see it! Other example, it's reality this time. Did you know that earth is changing it's land masses constantly? I mean that. It never stopped at all! Yet it looks same to us century after century. It's simply too slow for us to even see it! It's same for evolution. It's like landmasses, only moving about inch per year. Some places is even slower.

Yeah, I have seen this rational before, but it still doesn't answer the question of what mechanism is being used to go from one speicies to another. If I have two dogs and they mate, and make new dogs, and then those dogs mate, at what point do I stop getting dogs? No matter how long it takes, somehow the dogs with X number of chromosomes have to start mating and getting some other creature with a different number. There is no magical fraction in between that you can use to explain away the transition.

The mechanism by which this occurs has never been explained. Until it is, I'm not buying it.

It's a nice idea, but science requires proof.

By your argument I could simply say this: "Don't believe in god? Well, you just haven't waited long enough for the proof that he exists!"

Your statement is no more scientifically worthwhile than anything any religion has ever said.

It has been explained, and it's call 'speciation'. Feel free to read up on it. There is genetic drift over time, and when a species in different ecosystems are separated and their genetic makeup drifts independantly, eventually the differences will be so great that they won't even be able to mate any more.

You're making the same silly demand that others make. You want to see a process that takes hundreds of thousands or millions of years right now, or you won't believe it.


Why don't you people doubt geology, then? When someone tells you that rain can wash away a mountain given enough time, do you doubt it? Do you demand to see it happen right now? Of course not, you see short term effects of erosion, and you put two and two together.

Well, you see the short term effects of natural selection, but you refuse to put two and two together because you believe it makes some sort of statement about God. It really doesn't, though. God can make things however God wants to, and for a human, who is to god as a pissant is to us, to tell God how he can and can't create species is a tad arrogant.

P.S. Taking my time with that link, KFC. Lots to look into there. Thanks.

Why don't you people doubt geology, then? When someone tells you that rain can wash away a mountain given enough time, do you doubt it? Do you demand to see it happen right now? Of course not, you see short term effects of erosion, and you put two and two together. Well, you see the short term effects of natural selection, but you refuse to put two and two together because you believe it makes some sort of statement about God. It really doesn't, though. God can make things however God wants to, and for a human, who is to god as a pissant is to us, to tell God how he can and can't create species is a tad arrogant.

That's what eventually convinced me that evolution is very easily the way the Lord may (or may not) have created the world. You can't see the long-term effects yet.

And KFC - none of those prophets told me evolution wasn't true. Once God tells me it through his current prophet, then I'll believe.

Oh come on. Erosion is very simple to explain at the lowest (chemcial) level. Hell, you can even see it in statues and structures over short periods of time. The underlying process scales very easily over large timescales.

The same cannot neccesarily be said for speciation or the other tenants of evolution. If you like wikipedia -check out the article on macroevolution.

The argument is still there - the debate exists as to whether macro and micro work on the same principles or different ones. If its different, then they don't know the mechanism by which it happens. If its the same, then they simply trot out the old line "millions of years! why ANYTHING could happen over that kinda time!" and wave their hands. Just like that and we proved it!

Neither one is in a firm enough place scientificially to be treated as seriously as it is by you and many others.

Of course you quickly switched over to that nice ad hominem. Good job there. Who told you I even believe in god? I never said anything about that. If you look at my posts, you'll see none have any sort of pro-religion sentiment - in fact in that last one I was pretty much deriding both equally. The truth is, you don't need to go anywhere near religion to cast doubt on macro evolution, but that is how people like you always have to frame the debate in order to make the outcome obvious. After all, "us sensible people don't want to have anything to do with those religious freaks, right? So our only choice is evolution!" What a huge cop out. Those aren't the only two choices, sports fans; and modern science is truly in a sad state of affairs if it is. With a view that narrow, who needs religion to kill science!

I don't think religion or creation has any place in schools, but neither does half-explanation of very speculative science. If they presented the material in fair and complete terms, and admitted that the evidence is very weak (if existant) for the macro side of things, then I wouldn't have a problem. Even better, don't bother teaching it until a higher level - when the full thrust of a very complicated subject can be examined in detail. You aren't teaching highly theoretical and cutting-edge astro-physics to high schoolers, are you?

As it is, this article (whatever its motivations) seems to me very accurate. People believe and defend the "millions of years" hand-waving as blindly as anyone follows religious dogma; and they do it without a full understanding of what they are saying - just like people who don't know the actual tenants of their own religion. What makes it worse, is that it is in a field of study that isn't supposed to have that kind of thing going on. Religion is supposed to be based on blind faith, science is supposed to be about challenging and asking for further proof and study before any conclusions are made. Yet anyone that questions the sacred cow of macro evolution is jumped upon as a heretic. Same with the issue of global climate change.

For all the calls of "rational science to the rescue!", I see just as many people getting caught up in blind zealotism on the evolution side, and it appears just as irrational. I would expect that from some religious fanatics, but in a culture that is supposed to be about searching for proof, answers, and overwhelming evidence? Come on. The theory should always be suspect until it is proven - but you people are so eager to get rid of that "pesky religion stuff" that you trot it out as the grand undisputed explaination. "It's peerless! Only fools would disagree."

Yup, that is what they said about the sun revolving around the earth, and the world being flat. Good thing we've broadened our horizons since then . . . right?
*smirk*

Did someone here say the theory wasn't suspect? I don't recall preaching about the inerrancy of the theory of evolution. There are about as many camps on that side as there are denominations on the other. Looks like you have a bone to pick with someone, but sorry, it isn't me. Tell me a little bit about your mother... lol.

If you look back at science you'll find that we rooted out the effects of many things before we pinned down the processes. We were moving a hell of a lot of electrons around before we knew what electrons even were. We have been studying gravity for several hundred years now, and we have gotten quite good at predicting its effects and how to use it to our advantage. Surprise!! We still don't really know what it is technically.

So, frankly, I don't buy your argument. You are posing a straw man when you pretend that people aren't keeping an open mind. I just wrote an article on intelligent design the other day that was pretty darn critical of both sides of the evolution/creation issue.

Now, granted, if you have a theory that has been poo-pooed by the scientific elite, pipe up, I'd love to hear it. Until you come up with something better, I don't see any reason not to work with the theories we have.

I'm not coming out of left field - my points (and bones to pick) were taken directly from your post:

1. The comparison between geology and evolution is specious, at best, since one is vastly more simple and better undersood than the other. This comparison is in your post - I didn't get it from nowhere.

Did someone here say the theory wasn't suspect?

2. You claim in your previous post:

It has been explained,

- so I think it was you saying it wasn't suspect. I was simply saying it was. If you do think it is suspect, you shouldn't go around saying things like "it has been explained" and talking down to people as if they are insane for thinking otherwise. That is how your post comes across.

3. Your post included:

but you refuse to put two and two together because you believe it makes some sort of statement about God.

Thereby insinuated that my argument and motivations had something to do with god, which was a total assumption - that as it turns out was totally false.

So the bone to pick was indeed with you and your post - for those three reasons.

As for my argument, I am definetly not pretending people aren't keeping an open mind. I KNOW they aren't. I just went and read your intellegent design post, and I think you said it best:

Many conflicts over evolution, creationism, and intelligent design are due to ignorance, arrogance, and dishonesty on both sides.

It would be a shame to allow an objective, creative topic of evolutionary discussion to be hijacked and undermined by dishonest people on both sides of the evolutionary debate.

If these actions on both sides can't be defined as "not keeping an open mind" then I don't know what could be. Both sides are treating the issue with very closed thought processes, often without really understanding it well. Isn't this a true statement?

Anyway, I agree with what you are saying in the post you mentioned on ID. Apparently you are a regular, or admin or something? Maybe you are used to people here knowing what your position is on things? I am sorry that I do not (as a newcomer). Can you see how, from your post above, I would think you were blindly swallowing evolution hook line and sinker? (and therefore not "keeping an open mind"?)

No, no. You were saying that there was no explaination for speciation within evolutionary theory, and there is. That doesn't mean that it is the final "law". You proposed that they just skipped over that part, and in reality there is a lot of study involved.

In terms of the "open mind", what I said on my blog wasn't intended to describe the entire body of research on evolution. The most vocal people out there slugging it out with creationists, sure. There are no doubt the same tenured "believe me or perish" ivory tower folks out there too.

That doesn't mean that they will in the end accomplish anything. They never really do. All they do is stall discovery. All the while that they are making ape faces across the fence at creationists, there are reliable scientists doing real work.

I'm not an admin, no, but yes, I'm a regular. I made the wrong assumption about your perspective and I apologize for that. You have to understand that your statement "Have they observed one creature turning into another one?" isn't really promoting you as being that deep into the argument.

Granted, you didn't come off as religious as I thought, but you were making the same tired argument that I hear over and over, and that KFC made as a joke with her tomatos to watermelons thing, so I just assumed you were part of the camp. I've been really hard on Atheists, too, and I've been hard on religious people, and I've been hard on about everyone for the reasons that you are stating about scepticism.

What I was addressing was your assertion that the theory of evolution didn't have an explaination for speciation. Obviously they do. Is it proven beyond the shadow of a doubt? Nope, but does it have to be?

My point was simply that it doesn't scale into something that undeniably and automatically causes drastic changes in species (of the lizards to birds variety). Erosion does scale like this into "mountain destroying". Speciation doesn't.

Speciation, genetic drift, natural selection - all tenants of microevolution and observable on that level.

So you get some birds - throw in some speciation. Genetic drift is one way the speciation occurs. Now you have two sets of birds that can't mate, but are otherwise mostly the same. Different species, but still basically the same bird. Now throw in some natural selection. Then you have these birds, and they maybe have some different beaks. But they are still birds.

What have we got after all that? Lots of birds that are mostly the same. They are still birds. Anything more than that requires some serious imagination.

Then there is macro evolution - with perhaps 2 "camps"

One is that we can imagine the mechanisms of micro evolution already discussed, over a few million years, will magically produce these drastic changes. I can imagine lots of things that sound very plausible, but that doesn't make them true.

The other is that micro evolution can only take you so far, and that macro evolution has a different set of mechanisms that allow the drastic changes. Oh, but we don't have the faintest idea what they are - we haven't found those.

So thats all you get - the "million year imagining" or the "different but who the hell knows" theories. Excuse me if I'm not impressed by the air-tight nature of this science.

There has to be some mechanism in there for macro to work - until that is found its all idle speculation. AND idle speculation does not good science make. We certainly shouldn't be buying that one so easily. This is why I'm not buying it and am very skeptical.

So go ahead and BELEIVE whatever you want. But until some better-supported theories or proof is developed - its still just your belief.

I think saying "Have they observed one creature turning into another one?" is a perfectly valid question (whether you think it "promotes me to being deep in the argument" or not) - since that is the ONE part of the whole thing they don't have evidence on. In fact, if you do get deep in the argument, that is the one question you have left unanswered by the theories - they haven't found the one or many mechanisms that would neccesarily cause that.

I don't feel a compulsion to accept the current thinking until something better pops up. Its perfectly valid to not buy it without proof - even with the lack of a better explaination. Much better to just accept "we don't know" than to believe something very flawed.

think saying "Have they observed one creature turning into another one?" is a perfectly valid question (whether you think it "promotes me to being deep in the argument" or not) - since that is the ONE part of the whole thing they don't have evidence on. In fact, if you do get deep in the argument, that is the one question you have left unanswered by the theories - they haven't found the one or many mechanisms that would neccesarily cause that.I don't feel a compulsion to accept the current thinking until something better pops up. Its perfectly valid to not buy it without proof - even with the lack of a better explaination. Much better to just accept "we don't know" than to believe something very flawed.

Exactly. I couldn't have said it better. I think...N.B.I. you should really stop being an anon and join us here as a regular. I actually thought you were my son because he shows up from time to time as an anonymous and he has alot to say regarding this issue. He's working on his Ph.D in Neruro Science and is really into the world of Molecular Biology living as a lab rat mostly. But he said it wasn't him, and one comment you made in the beginning he would have never made as a Scientist.

I say this not only because I agree with what you're saying but also that you've put much thought into it and present an intelligent argument. Having said that, I also enjoy reading and dishing it out with Baker for the same reasons as well even tho we are not in total agreement most of the time.

I still go back to what Darwin said, about transitional fossils. He said that unless these fossils are found, his theory cannot be proven and it will remain just that.....a theory. I do believe it's a way to get God out of the picture and I believe that Darwin was in pursuit of that. His own wife Emma accused him of this. To date, none have been found. But also wouldn't we see creatures walking around half in and half out as well? We don't see that either. And the zeal seen in the defense of such a theory I believe is akin to what we see in the world of religion.

And KFC - none of those prophets told me evolution wasn't true. Once God tells me it through his current prophet, then I'll believe.

this is a classic tenant of unbelief. Unbelief is never satisfied. Unbelief always wants more evidence. Always searching but never coming to the knowledge of the truth. Have you ever read "these prophets?" These prophets will tell you that evolution is not true by backing up what they did know about God and his creative abilities. Keep in mind micro vs macro when you think on these things.

The bible is not a textbook of science. It does not purport to instruct us in matters of calculus, physics or chemistry. There are times tho when serious conflicts do emerge between theories inferred from science and biblical teching. If, for example, a scientist concludes that the origin of man is a comic accident then the scientist holds a position that is antithetical to the teching of Scripture. But the qauestion of man's origin can never be determined by the study of biology. The question of origin is a question of history. The biologist can describe how things could have happened but can never tell us how they happened. BTW......what current prophet? Are you Mormon?