Are you going to heaven or hell?

Evolution, etc.

Colin,

Good to know your name. I've always wondered what Cragslad meant, but now I know what your real name is. Yikes! You've given me a lot to respond to! I will respond to all of your posts in one here, with another post added. Yes, things will get a bit more technical now, which may be a bit difficult for me, but I'm up for it. Of course, the theology will still be mixed in with it.

As for archaeopteryx, my understanding is that it's pure bird. You mentioned it has dino-like features. If you are referring to the teeth in the beak and the claws on the wings, modern birds do have those. It's not a transition, it's just a bird.

["Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism." Your thoughts on that?] Great quote!

[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?] A fundamentalist? Run! I personally am a fundamentalist, literalist, right wing bible thumping, God fearing young earth creationist. As for the science credentials, none of the founders/supporters of evolution had science training either. As for Lucy, it will take me time also to get info for that.

[That evolution = atheism is one of the most persistent and wrong-headed creationist claims.] Thank you for clarifying this point. An evolutionist may believe in a god, I will admit that. However, they do not believe in the God of the bible, the Creator of all things. That said, evolution and God are indeed polar opposites. To create a god that made matter, but let life evolve by itself (or one that "guided" the process) is called idolatry, creating a god in one's mind that doesn't exist. According to His word, He made life in maturity fully grown, and that each kind reproduces after it's own kind only, not changing into different kinds of animals. Also, by evolution/natural selection, death is a good thing that brings better life into the world, resulting in man, but with belief in God, man brought death into the world by sinning. These two beliefs couldn't be more opposite.

[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.]

Yes, I've heard this argument. Dr. Hovind's doctorate is real. It does come from a small, unaccredited Christian university called Patriot University, but he did work hard for it just the same. The degree issue is what's called an ad hominem attack (adj., Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason.) The real issue is whether the objects discussed are true or not. Kent will tell you if you don't like where he got his doctorate, then you don't have to call him Doctor, and to just call him Kent, Bubba or Hey You!, but get back to the real issues. He won't say it, but I will: For all those who say his degree if fake is quite an insult for something he has worked years for. If you've seen the supposed picture of the tiny place claimed to be the University, that is actually the church parsonage next to the church, with the same address. A low blow to say the least. As for the tax evasion, I'd have to check into that. I know he runs a non profit organization and has been illegally hounded by city officials who want to shut his park down without due process of law.

As for the source of the Professor who asked Hovind what he would replace the lies in the textbooks with, all I can tell you is I think it was a professor from Berkley. Sorry to not have a better answer.

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary has stated that science is "the state of knowing". Since no observation of evolution has ever strengthened the hypothesis, it is a far cry to call it science. How did the frog to prince fairy tale ever get to be called science anyway??

[What do you mean by "kind?"] A kind is when an animal can reproduce with another, both are a kind. (See my post to Green Mecklar above for more details.)

[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?] Not in kinds, because there are limits, which I also discussed in the above mentioned post. For micro evolution to change one kind into another would mean that there would have to be added genetic code. The existing code can be altered to create micro evolutionary changes, but never a different kind of animal. An animal's code can create extra parts, less parts, mutated parts, different shaped parts, but not a new kind of animal. Even time cannot give an animal brand new genetics. And back to our defining science, added code has never been observed or demonstrated to my knowledge.

[I've mentioned the big parade of fossils that show change over time. You've got little ape-men getting bigger and smarter] Are you referring to that drawing of ape to man? Now even you couldn't seriously tell me a pencil sketch is proof of evolution. There have been different sizes of apes, and different sizes of man. Two (very much) different kinds of creatures. One is an animal, the other is created in the image of God. As for apes to man becoming smarter, that is a subject of debate in itself. :)

[For example, the DNA of humans and chimps is 95% identical.] I love this argument. I'd have to get the exact numbers, but I believe that watermelons and jellyfish are 99% similar. And both of those are about 98% similar to the clouds in the sky. Even a 1% difference will completely and totally change what is made. The similarity argument doesn't hold up.

[On the other hand, is there any evidence of the Biblical creation story?] Yes. Too much to send here, I'd have to send you some in the mail. What I've compiled is embarrassingly only a fraction of a micron of the tip of the tip of the iceberg of evidence for the biblical account of creation. But in an attempt to give you some kind of answer, I've posted a response in a different post below.

[The examples you gave are pre-scientific beliefs ... Science didn't exist until the 1500s.] This is a classic mistake. People assume today that ancient man didn't have science because we are just so darn smart with our advanced state of evolution. Wrong. There is a book I'm dying to get, called "The Puzzle of Ancient Man" that shows the incredible intelligence of ancient man that is just mind-blowing. They were perfectly capable of forming hypothesis and testing them long before Galileo. Just a couple of quick examples are Inca Stones that show heart surgery, and human skulls that show evidence of brain surgery - that healed! There is an ancient relic of an airplane, and also evidence of microscopic sight. Have you ever seen that giant spider made by ancient man that was laid out with stones, only visible from the air? Turns out that giant spider is a replica of a real spider that bears a feature both in the giant replica and the real thing that can only been seen with high magnification, and only for a few seconds. (An extension of the leg used in reproduction). There's more, but rest assured, ancient man was very smart and had plenty of science. This makes sense, as Adam and Eve came programmed straight from God as fully grown humans. And they lived 900 years in that time, allowing them to continue to learn and pass on knowledge to many generations.

I'm glad you're sticking around. Take care.

Creation evidence

Oh boy. Evidence for the biblical creation story. Where to start? I'm in over my head here because there is so much, so bear with me and I'll purposefully keep this short by hitting a bunch of points. I'm going to focus on the young earth argument, as I feel it best backs up the creation account. In the creation account of the Bible, man didn't need time to evolve, so the case for the young earth is critical here.

1. The bible says God created all things in six days. That would include dinosaurs and man together. Dino footprints and man foot prints have been found together, and even inside each other, where man has walked inside dino prints! (The Bible says all creatures in the beginning were vegetarian and thus not a threat to man)
2. Unfossilized dinosaur bones have been found, to include bones that when cut, have that fresh cut bone smell, again backing up the creation account.

The creation account is heavily backed up by the dating given in the bible of a young universe and young earth, such as in the many following points (If you want sources for any given point, please ask): The shriking sun, the limited amount of dust accumulated on the moon, the moon is receding from the earth and would have been too close long ago, the moon contains short lived isotopes that would have been gone by now (U-236 and Th-230), Jupiter and Saturn are losing heat twice as fast as they are gaining it from the sun - showing they are not very old, Jupiter's moon is losing mass to Jupiter, the earth's magnetic field is decaying, the influx rate of minerals into the ocean divided by the amount we now have shows a young age, the amount of Helium 4 in the atmosphere divided by the formation rate gives a young age, Niagra Fall's erosion rate of 4-7 feet per year shows a young age, the rock around oil deposits could not withstand the pressure for more than a few thousand years, the size of the Mississippi River Delta divided by the rate of mud deposited gives a young age, the earth's rate of spin is slowing down, and would thus be much slower by now according to billions or millions of years, there is a small amount of sediment at the bottom of the ocean showing only a few thousand years of accumulation, the largest stalactites and flowstones could have easily formed in the 4400 years since the flood, the expansion rate of the Sahara Desert proves it is only about 4000 years old - which even earth science books have to admit, the oceans are getting saltier - and would be much saltier with an old earth, ice accumulation at the poles shows a very young age, the human population could easily have been accomplished starting with eight people (Noah and his family) 4400 years ago like the bible says, and the oldest tree and reef in the world are 4200 and 4300 years old, respectively, the genetic load of man is increasing (meaning we are getting worse, not evolving) to the point of about 1300 genetic disorders now and climbing - would be worse with the evolutionary time line, the oldest known history records are less than 6,000 years old, ancient cultures have stories of the creation and there are about 300 flood legends to back up the biblical account of the flood.

Here's the kicker: each piece of evidence is independent, so any one itself proves a young earth creation account. You would have to disprove every thing on that list, (and it is a partial list at that!) to say the earth is old enough to have had time for evolution.

I could cite more proofs such as archeology, but I wanted to stick to the young earth category, because that is how the word of God says it happened, and which destroys evolution with any given point on that list, not to mention all of them together and the ones not mentioned.

Be sure of this, you are held accountable to the God of the Bible, and that is why I'm fighting for you. It is appropriate to cite scripture here, "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." (Hebrews 10:31)

Interesting stuff! I'm going to Australia on the 16th, and I'll be gone 3 weeks. So, check back in about a month, maybe a bit longer.

I'll get a small start on my reply.

On Jonathan Wells:

"["Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism." Your thoughts on that?] Great quote!"

Well, do you see what I'm getting at? The guy decided before he even started his PhD, that evolution was false. His whole purpose in getting the PhD was to help him destroy Darwinism. He kept his conclusion (Creationism) in mind throughout the entire course of his study--the antithesis of science. He went into the PhD program pretty much a layman, but with his conclusion fixed in his mind. He wasn't convinced as a result of his studies, he's been convinced since day one.

Altho I do not challenge the authenticity of his doctorate degree as I do Kent Hovind's (as far as I know), that quote suggests someone whose career has not been made in the true spirit of science.

About Jack Chick:

Yes, I know you are a fundamentalist, literalist, right wing bible thumping, God fearing young earth creationist. I kinda figured that out a while ago. I'm just saying that by quoting Jack Chick, you might as well be quoting yourself, or one of your a fundamentalist, literalist, right wing bible thumping, God fearing young earth creationist buddies.

"As for the science credentials, none of the founders/supporters of evolution had science training either."

Fair enough. Nor do I, nor do you, as far as I know. That's OK, it doesn't mean we can't discuss this. So, what is Chick's statement based on?

"Dr. Hovind's doctorate is real. It does come from a small, unaccredited Christian university called Patriot University, but he did work hard for it just the same."

The key word here is "unaccredited." It doesn't matter how hard he worked for his degree; if the school is unaccredited, he shouldn't call himself doctor. I am sure Hovind knows full well that the use of that term carries certain expectations with it--namely, that the holder of that title has completed a PhD and written a doctorate thesis at a university that's been accredited, i.e. has had its academic rigor certified and proven.

If his use of the title "doctor" is just some folksy thing that his friends and congregation call him, that's one thing, but Hovind identifies himself by this title. I feel safe assuming that the "doctor" puts this title before his name to give him an added weight of authority that he has not earned. It's dishonest. And it's fair game to him on it.

And as far for the issues, I did also address the impossibility of his challenge, which was essentially to disprove God.

"even you couldn't seriously tell me a pencil sketch is proof of evolution."

Even me? What's that supposed to mean?

Anyway...I made no mention of any drawing. Surely even you can see that. ;)

"The creation account is heavily backed up by the dating given in the bible of a young universe and young earth, such as in the many following points..."

That's a big list. I hope I am able to do this behemoth of a list the response it deserves.

"Here's the kicker: each piece of evidence is independent, so any one itself proves a young earth creation account. You would have to disprove every thing on that list, (and it is a partial list at that!) to say the earth is old enough to have had time for evolution."

Not true. I haven't read and analyzed the entire list, but not everything on your list, if it is indeed true, disproves the old Earth theory. (I already responded to the shrinking sun issue, as you'll recall).

For example, you mention the young age of the Sahara. The Sahara is indeed a young desert, I knew that. That does not mean the Earth is as young as the Sahara.

You mention the oldest living things on Earth. This does not prove how old the Earth is.

You say the population of the world could have been started with 8 people. Even if this is true (and I'm not saying it is), this does not prove that the Earth is young.

The oldest known history records do not prove the Earth is young.

Even you can see that, right?

But, I look forward to getting into the nitty-gritty of your list later on.