Are you going to heaven or hell?

Steve,

all's well, as I hope it is with you.

I think we've discussed Christian doctrine about as far as we can go. I understand what you're saying, you understand what I'm saying, I don't think either of us are convinced by the other. I think if I were to reply to what you wrote, we'd start going in circles, if we're not doing that already. Not that I was trying to convince you of my side. I knew that wouldn't happen. It was just a discussion. Discussions are good, discussions are fun.

I realize to you, this may have been more than "just" a discussion, this is your life's work after all. And I have found this interesting.

"Pascal's wager"

I don't think anybody turns to religion because they sit down and say to themselves, "hmm, yes, this is indeed the more rational choice. It is safer to be wrong about this, than about that. Very well then, it is decided: I shall become a Christian." Is that how you became a Christian? I doubt it.

Anyway, you create a false dichotomy. What if we're both wrong and Sikhism is the one, true path to God, the only way out of hell? There are infinite viewpoints to choose from besides mine and yours.

However: if I have to choose between my beliefs and yours, and the question is which set of beliefs is it safer to be wrong about? Yours, of course. I will grant you that. Why? Simply because you believe that people will be punished for not believing as you do, whereas I DON'T believe people are punished for not believing as I do. That is why it would be dangerous to disagree with Steve Finley about this, and be wrong.

"What evidence?"

That's funny.

"Dr. Colin Patterson"

I'd need to see Dr. Patterson's quote in full context before I thought anything about it.

"As for Lucy, did you know her kind is alive and well today, and is 100% ape?"

Are you saying Lucy was a chimpanzee?

Well...

Lucy was not a chimpanzee.

For one thing, Lucy was completely bipdeal, not a knuckle-walker. She did not have chimp-like proportions. But, I'll have a look at what you've got...

"Same with Archaeopteryx."

The first time you told me Archaeopteryx was a hoax, I had to wonder if you were right, so I looked it up. Turns out I was right. There've been six of them found.

"many, many scientists believe in creation."

I am aware that there are "creationist scientists" out there, yes. How many is "many, many?" Not very many at all. They are a teeny-tiny minority in the scientific community. And they aren't scientists. They start from their conclusion and work backward, trying to fit the facts to their theory, rather than the theory to the facts, which is the antithesis of science. And I am convinced that they know better. If not, then they truly have their blinders on.

"If evolution were true, your life has no meaning."

My life can have whatever meaning I want to give it. I can create a purpose for myself, there, done.

--

All that said: I've become aware that there are hundreds, possibly of thousands, of creationist claims against evolution, evolutionist counter-claims, and I'm sure the creationists have their counter-counter-claims...and I don't really want this discussion to go on into next year, interesting and educational as it has been. I'm pretty much prepared at this point to "agree to disagree." That's not to say this is the last post I'll make, but I thinkI'm going to start making a conscious effort to wind things down. Because you know it'll never be resolved.

So, until next time, take care Steve.

Well, I'll be sad to see you go if you want to wind things down. But I have to respect that. So if I don't hear from you, I'll know what happened.

[It is safer to be wrong about this, than about that. Very well then, it is decided: I shall become a Christian." Is that how you became a Christian? I doubt it.] True, I didn't become a Christian that way. But as far as the risk of eternal hell, it's worth looking into, reading the word, praying for truth to be revealed, etc. There's nothing wrong with seeking after God for truth when your initial motive is to avoid hell and thus take the lesser risk, because once you discover the truth and do something about it, you'll not only avoid hell, but be made eternally alive in Jesus Christ, living for His glory, grateful for His grace, set free from bondage, and so on.

[Simply because you believe that people will be punished for not believing as you do, whereas I DON'T believe people are punished for not believing as I do. That is why it would be dangerous to disagree with Steve Finley about this, and be wrong.] People won't actually be punished for not believing as I do. They will be punished because they have transgressed the laws of God. It's a matter of crime and punishment, or in Biblical terms, sin and punishment.

["What evidence?" That's funny.] Why? Kent Hovind offers $250,000 to anyone to can prove evolution with empirical evidence. When Kent debated a university professor one time, Kent exposed over 20 lies about evolution in the school books. The professor said that he was correct, but asked what he would replace the lies with! Now that's dumb. Science literally means knowledge. Since nobody has ever seen one kind change into another, it's not actual knowledge. You might say it takes time. So nobody has seen it, or tested it out fully and prove it where we can witness it. Changes within a species does happen, but not a change in kind. That's never been observed. The only point I'm making here is that it's not science, it's faith based. But with all seriousness, I do ask what evidence is there? Even one thing would be a start, just one.

[For one thing, Lucy was completely bipdeal, not a knuckle-walker. She did not have chimp-like proportions. But, I'll have a look at what you've got... ] I'm digging through my 17 hour video series bit by bit, when I hit the part on Lucy I'll post it. So far, the only thing I've found is this quote from Chick Publications, "Nearly all experts agree Lucy was just a 3 foot tall chimpanzee." The video I saw goes into greater detail.

[The first time you told me Archaeopteryx was a hoax, I had to wonder if you were right, so I looked it up. Turns out I was right. There've been six of them found.] My apologies on the hoax statement, I may have gotten my fossils mixed up. Here is what I probably had in mind. USA Today, 02/03/00 said in reference to a fossil called "archaeoraptor" that it is "Modern paleontology's greatest embarrassment", due to the fact it was found to be smuggled out of China. In another fossil, a tail was added to a flying Pterosaur by an entrepreneurial Chinese farmer that had scientists fooled. I had probably thought of those examples when stating Archaeopteryx as a hoax.

In fact, eight fossils of Archaeopteryx have been found, all in Germany. One is just a feather, the other is lost, leaving us with six good ones. Here is the consensus on Archaeopteryx: University of Kansas paleontologist Larry Martin wrote: Archaeopteryx is not ancestral of any group of modern birds." and paleontologist Mark Norell, of the American Museum of Natural History in New York, called Archaeopteryx "a very important fossil", but added that most paleontologists now believe it is not a direct ancestor of modern birds. Jonathan Wells, author of Icons of Evolution, stated that "Paleontologists now agree that Archaeopteryx is not the ancestor of modern birds" and that "The missing link, it seems, is still missing."

[I am aware that there are "creationist scientists" out there, yes. How many is "many, many?" Not very many at all. They are a teeny-tiny minority in the scientific community. And they aren't scientists.] There are more than you think. However, minority or not, a majority does not equal fact. Majorities have often been wrong, even in science. For example, scientists used to believe that heavier objects fell faster than lighter ones (taught for 2000 years), such as a bowling ball and marble. They were wrong. It was also believed that bleeding "bad blood" out of people would heal them, called bloodletting. This is how George Washington died. They were wrong. A majority used to believe the sun rotated around the earth. There were wrong.

Furthermore, nearly all branches of science were started by creationists. I can type up a good list of names, dates, and such of creation scientists to back up my claim if you like and send it as a separate message. Just let me know. Just to give you one to start, (this one is modern - but a good one) Robert Gentry studied something called radio polonium halos. When it was discovered that these halos proved the big bang didn't happen, his funding was cut. I wonder why? (See www. halos.com).

Not only were many branches of science started by creationists, but the founders of evolution were not scientists themselves! The best example is that Charles Darwin's only degree was in theology.

I'd hate to lose ya in this discussion. I know you feel things will be unresolved, but I think there is more to be discussed. Besides, with evolution, it doesn't have to go in circles, I can provide evidence as I dig into my materials more. In any case, I respect your decision and will see if you return or not. Take care.

I'll stay in the discussion. But with the understanding that it will be slow on my side. Which is probably fine with you.

I do feel like we've hit a wall with the theological side but I'll try a bit more.

As for the evolution part, you're probably going to be showing me stuff I can't answer off the top of my head, which means I'll have to look into it and maybe do some research. This means I have to keep an open mind and not worry about beating you in an argument. I will look into both sides. If I think you have a compelling point, I'll admit it.

I've only skimmed through your post. I'll get a response together eventually, but like you I'm a bit busy.

Good to hear back from you.

Archaeopteryx

Hi Steve. I decided to start a new account and go by my real name, as I've had quite a few serious discussions here and no longer wish to use a pseudonym. Unfortunately, as I was creating the account, my son hit "enter" before I'd finished typing my name in. Hence the truncated version.

I'd like to reiterate my commitment to the discussion we've been having, but again, it will be slow. Gone are the days of the huge posts where I reply to all or most of the points you make. Plus, I have the feeling the discussion will be getting technical soon. As I'm not a scientist, I have to read up on things I have only a laymen's knowledge of.

I have started to do a bit of research into Archaeopteryx, and will continue to do so. Here's what I've found so far.

Archaeopteryx, which lived 150 million years ago, may or may not be a direct ancestor of modern birds. The general consensus seems to be that it is not (although the discussion is still going on.) I'd like to thank you for forcing me to correct my misconception that Archaeopteryx was an ancestor of the birds we see today.

However: Archaeopteryx IS a transitional fossil, intermediate between dinosaurs and birds. (A transitional fossil need not have living ancestors). Archaeopteryx has features of birds, and features of dinosaurs. It has feathers, and so it is classified as a bird. But, it has certain dinosaur features that modern birds lack, and it lacks certain features that dinosaurs have. Nor is it simply a dinosaur with feathers.

My understanding of the general consensus is that Archaeopteryx is an evolutionary dead end, and as far as its relationship to modern birds goes, it is more like a grand-uncle than a grandfather. Regardless of whether or not Aracheopteryx is a direct ancestor of modren birds, it is considered to be a transitional fossil, and a remarkably dramatic one, at that. It has not been shelved; it is still a creature of great fascination to paleontologists, it has much to teach us about the evolution from dinosaur to bird. That is probably why Mark Norell describes it as "an important fossil."

To summarize: Archaeopteryx is considered by scientists to be an unusually dramatic and illustrative snapshot of evolution in process--even if its line didn't go anywhere.

And the fossil was first discovered two years after Darwin published his book. Some have taken this to be a ringing endorsement of Darwin from the man upstairs!

You cited a Jonathan Wells. I found this quote, apparently from him:

"Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle."

http://www.tparents.org/library/unification/talks/wells/DARWIN.htm

Your thoughts on that?

Feel free to bring up anything else, whether or not it's related to Archaeopteryx or even evolution.

http://www.natcenscied.org/icons/icon5archy.html

ICONS OF EVOLUTION? Why much of what Jonathan Wells writes about evolution is wrong. ARCHAEOPTERYX

by Alan D. Gishlick

Selected quotes:

"Archaeopteryx has features intermediate between those of living birds and ancient reptiles; along with many other fossils, it preserves ancestral features while it shows descendant novelties."

"Despite Wells's claims to the contrary, Archaeopteryx is still an important contributor to our knowledge of transitional features, and it clearly shows the dinosaurian ancestry of birds "

(Relating to Wells' "grading" of certain textbooks dealing with Archaeopteryx):

"Wells gives Campbell, Reese, and Mitchell a B, yet they clearly state that Archaeopteryx is a transitional form between dinosaurs and birds, for which a C or D would have been a more accurate grade given Wells's criteria."

"Archaeopteryx is still one of our best examples of a fossil that preserves ancestral features while showing descendant novelties. Archaeopteryx is but one of many fossils showing a clear genealogical connection between dinosaurs and birds (Figure 12). Much like Mark Twain, the reports of its death are greatly exaggerated."

"Wells's claims about Archaeopteryx are simply inaccurate. To follow his lead would mislead students into thinking that fossils tell us nothing about evolutionary relationships."