Are you going to heaven or hell?

"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."

Feel free too. I am not necessarily disputing this particular claim, nor am I sure it's relevant, but it might be interesting. Go ahead.

Steve,

I think the next topic I will address will be Lucy, although that will have to wait a while.

You quoted Chick Publications as saying that Lucy was nothing more than a 3 foot chimp.

Looking into Chick Publications, I found a not-so-subtle bias. Jack Chick would appear to be a Protestant fundamentalist. Nor does he seem to have any scientific credentials.

Are you aware of any scientist who maintains that Lucy was a chimpanzee?

More on this topic later. Take care.

Steve Finley:People won't actually be punished for not believing as I do. They will be punished because they have transgressed the laws of God. But I, as an atheist, am not aware that the laws are in effect. All I'm aware of is that they happen to be written in the Bible. Well, if I'm going to follow every rule I read in a book, I'm going to have a pretty limited and probably very contradictory life. I don't think it's really justice for God to punish me for not being biased towards the Bible. Steve Finley:Changes within a species does happen, but not a change in kind. So you're saying natural selection works, but cannot create a new species. This implies some kind of limit on what natural selection can do. So presumably we should be able to watch a population of life forms evolve and evolve and evolve and then stop, suddenly, as if it has hit an invisible, biological wall. So far I have never heard of any such wall ever being encountered.

Besides, people have already observed very radical changes in digital life forms (I have even made a couple simple simulations myself). So if some kind of divine limit to natural selection exists, then apparently it only applies to organic life forms, not electronic ones. Considering God presumably wants us to believe in him, this seems to be a rather strange thing to do. Steve Finley:The only point I'm making here is that it's not science, it's faith based. Nice argument, which again I have seen from a number of people. However, it doesn't work.

Either evolution does in fact work, or life forms have reached their present status through some other process. And the only processes I can think of are intelligent design and spontaneous quantum appearance. The latter is extremely improbable (imagine winning the lottery once every second for the entire age of the Universe and you're on the right track). The former is therefore a better explanation- however, the amount of faith it requires is far lower than the amount of faith required to believe in evolution. So while evolution may not be proven, it is still the most probable of the available options and therefore, until more evidence comes along that changes things, it is the one that should be used as a model for how modern life forms came into existence. Steve Finley: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. Yes. And about 1000 years ago, creationists were the vast majority (about 99.999% of all humans, if not 100%). As you've just pointed out, that doesn't mean it has to be right.

"Kent Hovind offers $250,000 to anyone to can prove evolution with empirical evidence."

Hovind's challenge was actually to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that evolution is the ONLY explanation--not just for the origin of species, but the origin of life, the Earth, the Universe, basically everything. Ignoring for a monent the fact that evolution theory concerns itself only with the first of these (Hovind is basically challenging ALL of science, not "evolution" per se, which he is conflating with various cosmological and geological theories), a key part of Hovind's definition of evolution theory is that God does not exist. Which, as I am sure you know, has nothing to do with evolution theory. Nobody can prove that God does or does not exist, and science has no comment on the matter.

That evolution = atheism is one of the most persistent and wrong-headed creationist claims.

Furthermore, it would be impossible for any scientist to prove that evolution is the ONLY explanation for life being the way it is. To do this, they would have to disprove all possible alternative theories, however many there may be.

So, the Hovind challenge is rigged.

Needless to say, Hovind's challenge also begs the question: to whom must evolution be proven?

And, I'm sure you're aware of Hovind's phony doctorate and legal troubles due to tax evasion, which are only relevant insofar as they cast doubt on his honesty and integrity.

"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."

I'm not familiar with this story. If your source is Hovind himself, I'd be suspicious of its veracity. Can you provide me with a source?

By the way Steve, it seems that some Young Earth Creationsists actually want to distance themselves from Hovind. He's a bit of an embarassment to some of them.

"Science literally means knowledge."

That is its Greek etymology. That is not what science is, though. Science is not "knowledge." It is a way of acquiring knowledge. The "scientific method" = considering a question, forming a hyopthesis as to the answer of that question, running experiments and/or taking observations that test the hyopthesis, and, if the observations undermine the hyopthesis, the hyopthesis must be changed or abandoned. And if they strengthen the hyopthesis, you make MORE observations. If the observations repeatedly and consistently support the hyopthesis, then the hyopthesis gains strength and credibility. If the observations are inconsistent and unreliable, and can't be accurately predicted, then it's a weak hypothesis, and needs to be tweaked.

No matter how much evidence there is in support of a hypothesis, it is NEVER said to be "proven." It is simply "strongly supported" by evidence. This is another problem with Hovind's challenge. Evolutionists acknowledge that they could be wrong, although that chance grows more and more remote all the time. Evolution will never be unequivocally, 100% proven. It might be 99.999999% proven (whatever that means), but never 100%. There is no 100% proof of anything in the real world--even that we exist at all, or that we aren't just swans dreaming that we're humans debating on the internet. Proof only exists in mathematics.

"Since nobody has ever seen one kind change into another, it's not actual knowledge."

What do you mean by "kind?"

That aside...there is ample fossil evidence of one kind turning into another. Archaeopteryx is a perfect example of what you are referring to. Of course, Archaeopteryx is just one link in a sequence that clearly suggests a gradual change from reptile to bird. I gave other examples too: horses, whales, and people. In each case, we have a sequence of fossils that indicate change in certain characteristics over time. You're right that we didn't actually see these things happen. But the proof is in the pudding, so to speak.

"Changes within a species does happen"

It sounds like you acknowledge the existence of microevolution, as do most creationists. Good. Macroevolution is simply microevolution over an enormous period of time. All the tiny little changes build up until you have noticeable changes. Doesn't it make sense to you that if you can have tiny changes in a short span of time, you can have many tiny changes over a long span of time? And if you add up enough tiny changes, the sum total can be some rather large, radical changes. (Although evolution can be subtle, too).

I recall that you acknowledged that the horse did change over time from small to large, although you stated that this was a change within a species rather than a change in "kind." (By that, did you mean chnage into another species?) Is this not a tacit admission that macroevolution can and does occur?

"but not a change in kind. That's never been observed."

Again, the fossil record provides numerous examples that it has. It's true that this is circumstantial evidence, but circumstantial evidence is perfectly admissible in a court of law to determine a fact beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you think that people should only be convicted of crimes if there are eyewitnesses? Probably not. We do not need to see something to know that it happened. I can surmise from a muddy trial of dog footprints leading into my room and up onto my bed, where my dog is lying, that my dog tracked muddy footprints through the house, even if I did not personally see him do it.

And if our eyes are to be the sole proof of anything, I'd have to ask you if you were there when God created the Earth.

"The only point I'm making here is that it's not science, it's faith based."

It most certainly is science. Who knows, it might be wrong (unlikely), but even if it is wrong, you can't say the theory wasn't developed scientifically. And it's not faith-based. It is evidence-based.

"But with all seriousness, I do ask what evidence is there? Even one thing would be a start, just one."

I've mentioned the big parade of fossils that show change over time. You've got little ape-men getting bigger and smarter. You know the dumb little ape men didn't exist at the same time as the big smart ape men; the little ones came earlier. In between were medium ones. Same with the horses. In chornological order, you have: small, smallish-medium, medium, largish-medium, large (modern). Change over time. There are tons of examples of this happening. You asked for just one, I've given you four.

Besides the fossils, there's also DNA evidence. Animals that are structurally similar to each other have closer DNA profiles than animals that are morphologically different. For example, the DNA of humans and chimps is 95% identical. The DNA of the other apes is slightly less similar, but more so than other mammals, which in turn are closer to us genetically than reptiles, and so on. This applies to all life forms. This is compelling evidence of common descent.

That's just a start. A comprehensive list or explanation would be beyond the scope of this post, or frankly, my knowledge. But this is a start, no?

On the other hand, is there any evidence of the Biblical creation story?

"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."

The examples you gave are pre-scientific beliefs, not scientific theories. Galileo disproved two of those, and he was one of the very first scientists ever--before him, you had Copernicus and Kepler, and that was about it. Before them, no science. You mentioned that one of those beliefs was taught for over 2000 years. Science didn't exist until the 1500s.

My point is not that science is never wrong. It can be. But as for evolution, it is looking extremely unlikely that that theory is wrong. There is a ton of evidence, and the theory works and is useful. Compare this with the examples you gave, which were completely untested, and there's no comparison.

As for Lucy: the knees and hips are different form chimps, (indicating bipedalism), the skull is different...Lucy wasn't a chimp. And there's no way Donald Johannson could have shown the community of physical anthrolpologists a chimp skeleton and passed it off as anything other than a chimp. If you want to argue that Lucy was a hoax, well, I'm listening, but just a plain, unadulterated chimp? No way.

Green Meklar,

Thank you for responding to my comments. I will gladly discuss these things with you. First, please tell me how you make your text bold and italicized? I've been wanting to do that, but don't see any buttons to do it. Must be some kind of code. Can you tell me how?

[But I, as an atheist, am not aware that the laws are in effect. All I'm aware of is that they happen to be written in the Bible] You may be surprised to know you actually do know the laws apart from the Bible. All of us, even people in remote tribes, have the Law written on their hearts by God. This has been proven true by men like Don Richardson (book Eternity in Their Hearts) and Paris Reidhead (sermon 10 Shekels and a Shirt) who have seen that principle firsthand.

[So you're saying natural selection works, but cannot create a new species. This implies some kind of limit on what natural selection can do.] The first part isn't what I said, but the second is true. Natural selection is a quality control process that can modify animals into being classified as different species, but never new kinds. Species are variations within a kind, like wolves, Chihuahuas, and Great Danes. I agree they all had a common ancestor. A dog. If two animals can reproduce, they are a kind. Within a kind can be different species that change. But a dog will never change into an elephant. Genetically, there is a limit. In order for an animal to change from one kind to another, new genetic information would have to be added. Don't confuse the manipulation of existing genetic code into different shaped dogs or birds or anything with the addition of never before seen newly added code. An example is the breeding of Kentucky Derby horses. They've tried like crazy to breed faster horses. But a chart of run times shows they have most likely reached the limit. Same with pigs. They can try to breed bigger pigs, but they will never get a pig the size of Texas. There are built in limits from the One who designed them.

[So while evolution may not be proven, it is still the most probable of the available options] I want to make sure I understand this. It's more probable that matter came from nothing, and then came to life by itself, developed a conscious, rather than to say that matter and life came from a Maker? Isn't it easier to believe that the material of the earth and universe came from something, rather than from nowhere by itself? If I showed you a can Coke, and told you the syrup and can evolved over millions of years, I'd be seriously insulting your intelligence. It's no different when you look at your body, the earth, the animals, the sun, galaxies, and universe. Like a can of Coke, you can't seriously say they came into being all by themselves, that would be intellectual suicide.

[Yes. And about 1000 years ago, creationists were the vast majority (about 99.999% of all humans, if not 100%). As you've just pointed out, that doesn't mean it has to be right.] You are correct. I'm not saying creation is true due to a majority, I'm saying it's true because God says it is, and has backed it up with His word, Holy Spirit, prophecy, miracles, testimonies, geology, and archeology.

I'm glad you joined the discussion, and hope you return. The bottom lines comes down to the fact that you, like me, have likely lied, stolen, lusted, etc., and will be guilty before God on Judgment Day, even if you don't believe in Him. (Unbelief doesn't make Him disappear). Please do let me know what you think of my comments here. Take care.