Why I am not a creationist

Dear Karl,

I have one comment to make about your lines of evidence, and that has to do with the nonfunctional genes you talk about. Incredibly, modern genetics is discovering that many of the genes that are common across many species are in fact active, and do in fact have a purpose, a very similar purpose in many different species. This has allowed the building of large sequence databases to compare genome sequences, and assign tentative functions to genes based on sequence similarity alone. Frequently, human genes are assigned function based on a similar gene observed in yeast or fruit fly. In fact, this has led the way in Bioinformatics research for the past 10 years.

Cheers,

-Robert

"I'm glad you've agreed to this exchange."

I'm sorry by the time I got to the end of your letter, I'd forgotten about that first line. I'm curious what the reply you received was.

As a veteran of many years of these sorts of battles with creationists, I can already see where this is heading.

The primary problem that makes progress in these debates almost impossible, is that the two sides approach the subject completely differently. The creationist side is based on belief, tradition, scripture, and faith; whereas the science side is based on data, analysis, and objective review. Those are completely opposite ways of answering the question, "How did we get here?"

Mr. Giberson reflects this right away in his first post by focusing on the data that points to an ancient earth and common ancestry. The problem is, because that's not where creationists come from, appeals to data and analysis don't resonate with them. Faith in scripture is their overwhelming priority; the data will always be a distant second (at best). Ken Ham's "AnswersinGenesis" openly declares this in their Statement of Faith...

"No apparent, perceived, or claimed interpretation of evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."

To be blunt, you cannot have a rational discussion of the scientific data with anyone who holds this view. They've already made it clear that whenever the data contradicts scripture, they will always, always, always take the side of scripture.

The best one can hope for is to delve into specific data points and ask the creationist to directly address them and clearly explain (in his own words) how he meshes them with young-earth creationism. In my experience, the creationist will either ignore the questions, leave the discussion, or put out what frankly are some of the most bizarre answers you'll ever see.

That won't serve to convince the creationist of anything, but it will demonstrate to any onlookers the sort of mental contortions one must go through in order to be a young-earth creationist.

I think this is going to be interesting, and I don't think what Mr. McGrew said is entirely accurate. I do find it surprising that Mr. Giberson has clung to so many things that creationists have already written about and refuted, one scientist in particular who has written on every topic brought up in this article is Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, PhD in Chemical Physics and Spectroscopy. I certainly hope the posts to come are far more well researched as to avoid creationist repetition.

Mr. McGrew,

It is true that Biblical creationist believe that no interpretation of evidence in any field can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. It is also understandable that a creationist's explanation would seem strange and is very possible that creationists explanation of data is false. However, we must make a distinction between what is observed science and what is an interpretation of observed science. For example, radioactive decay tells us how much of a particular isotope remains in an item compared to another isotope, however it does not tell us how old the item is. The current speed of light can be calculated, and the distance of a planet from ours can be calculated those things also can't tell us how old the planet is.

A Biblical creationist should believe in observed science because scripture tells us that God created organization in the world (cosmos). Without scripture (or a source of truth from an all knowing being) there is not definitive reason for us to believe observed science, because nothing tells us that there is always uniformity. Just because we have always observed something to be true does not mean it has always or will always be true, we only assume that.

KJH,

I'm sorry, but radiometric dating does indeed "tell us how old an item is". Unsubstantiated assertions on the internet do not overturn decades of established science. The same holds true for cosmology.

Can you answer a question thats kind of bugging me. Is the bible true or not. Do we believe only part of it or all of it. The bible says god created every thing that was created in six days and rested on the seventh.
The bible says that there was no sin or death untill adam sinned while in the garden. How do you reconcil the death for millions of years it would take to evolve to that time. I'm not a real smart person but there are lots and lots of things like these that make me believe in creation. I believe all of the Bible is the written word of God and not just the parts you like to make evolution look good.

mike

And again Mr. McGrew, the statement does not in any way call the evidence and data into question, but as KJH said, it merely calls into question fallible man's interpretation of that evidence ad pits it against God's infallible Word. It seems as though you do not regard my final statement that both Mr. Giberson and Mr. Ham would agree that the Bible is the source of ultimate Truth, which makes me wonder if you are here for actual enlightenment by either Mr. Giberson or Mr. Ham, or simply here to play devil's advocate.

KJH and Ryan,

You both make references to "fallible humans" and their "interpretations".

One has to wonder though, how exactly are YOU coming to conclusions if not via your own "fallible interpretations"? Are your interpretations infallible? Are Ken Ham's?

Mr. McGrew and ZeroBomb,

In regards to fallible human explanations/interpretation:

I'm not sure that we really need to argue this point. It is very clear that human reasoning can be wrong (otherwise we wouldn't have opposing views on this issue - by logic we know that at least one of us has to be wrong). So if we agree about that then the argument becomes: can we know something is absolutely true, even though we (humans) are known to be fallible. I think that it is possible to know absolute truth, but only because we have a logical all-knowing creator. If we do not have a logical and all-knowing creator then we would have no basis for truth. We could say that if something is repeated in a lab one-hundred times that must be true, but how do we know that every possible control has been accounted for and that every assumption we made is correct. You may say there is no reason to doubt that there are two balls in a bowl if 100 out of 100 people tell you that there are two balls in the bowl. But maybe a third ball that is so small that no one could see it was in the bowl. An all-knowing God could tell you that, but "fallible humans" could not with 100% certainty tell you that.

KJH,

You're missing the point. The underlying premise of your argument is that human interpretations are fallible, thus we cannot trust the findings of historical science.

But you and Ryan both conveniently ignore the fact that you're using your own fallible reasoning to reach this conclusion.

Further, as Ryan observed, Mr. Ham and Mr. Giberson have different interpretations of scripture. And we certainly don't have to look very hard to find additional interpretations of the Bible. How do we tell which one is the correct interpretation without relying on what you refer to as fallible human reasoning?

IOW, you're both guilty of the logical fallacy of special pleading. The very thing argument you attempt to use against science applies equally to your own conclusions (if not moreso).

Talk about distorting Bible texts.The Bible says oceans before land, first life on land, Earth before stars, birds before reptiles, plants before sun. Evolution distorts all these 180 degrees. The bible says man's sin caused death. Evolution says death causes progression. The Bible says fixed and distinct kinds, evolution says everything is in flux.
And what about the 2nd Adam of 1Cor:15. Please reread Romans 5 and 1Corinthians 15. The Bible is not a science text book per se but it is the authoritative Word of God.

Gary,

First, you need to realize that it was European Christian naturalists from the late 18th and early 19th centuries who laid out the chronological order of geologic strata and the fossils they contained. They were some of the first to realize that the data they were uncovering didn't support a literal reading of scripture. If you read some of their accounts, the realization was quite painful for them.

Second, if you're going to trot out old re-hashed YEC arguments that have been refuted countless times, I'll suggest you check here first:

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/

If it's on that list, you're wasting your time.

Finally, no you don't have science on your side. You have the dishonest misrepresentation of science on your side. And quite frankly, I have little to no interest in arguing over whether the earth is 6,000 years old, people and dinosaurs co-existed, the entire earth was flooded a mere 4,000 years ago, and all extant life descended from what rode aboard a wooden boat. These things are barely....and I mean JUST BARELY above flat-earth geocentrism on the absurdity scale.

So just as I don't waste time arguing whether the earth is flat, I don't waste time arguing YEC.

Mr. McGrew
Your intolerance is stunning.
You won't argue on the basis of scripture and faith, and "I don't waste time arguing whether the earth is flat, I don't waste time arguing YEC" if you disagree with their scientific theories.
How about spontaneous life generation. There are questions about the Miller-Urey experiment. When you look at the math...when you apply the mathematical probability on spontaneous life generation to anything else we say its impossible. How about the complex machines that make up the "simple" cell. I want some to use the scientific method to show me how an explosion can produce order. Every explosion I've seen results in chaos and destruction not creation.

Mr. McGrew,

The fallibility of human interpretation does not mean that we cannot believe science. I believe it does mean that when our explanations don't match up with the explanation written out by an infallible God, then our explanation must be wrong. But just because we are fallible does not mean we are always fallible. I believe that God gave us the ability to reason and use logic and therefore come to absolute truth concerning some things, however there are some things that we cannot know for sure (such as every detail concerning a fossil that has been buried for thousands of years).

You are correct in stating that there are many different interpretation of the Bible, however one can infer the right way to interpret scripture using our reasoning abilities. Just as you can tell that a science textbook should be read as non-fiction and a novel should be read as fiction you can tell that the first chapter of genesis should be taken as historical. I understand that it is possible that my interpretation is wrong, but if my interpretation is wrong then other parts of scripture start falling apart that are essential to the faith, and other principles concerning the way the universe works come into question (such as the order of the universe).

MC,

As I said, anonymous unsubstantiated assertions over the internet are insufficient to overturn established science. To put it another way, the utility of radiometric dating is not negated by your say-so.

Regardless of what you or I say in this tiny corner of cyberspace, the scientific community will continue to successfully use radiometric dating, and young-earth creationists will continue to sit on the sidelines and wish it weren't so.

>

KJH,

You're not making a consistent argument. Whenever the results of science conflict with your religious beliefs, you dismiss it as "the results of fallible human interpretation". But then you turn right around and say, "The fallibility of human interpretation does not mean that we cannot believe science".

Your statement:

"when our explanations don't match up with the explanation written out by an infallible God, then our explanation must be wrong"

...reflects exactly what I stated in my first post here, i.e. that the root issue here is theological and not at all scientific. Thus, attempting to debate the data and analyses misses the point entirely and will most likely be a fruitless endeavor.

You and Ken Ham have both made it abundantly clear that the reason you disagree with an ancient earth and common descent isn't because you've independently and objectively studied the subjects, poured over the data and analyses, and discovered fatal empirical flaws. Rather, you disagree with those things for no other reason than that they conflict with your religious beliefs.

So my question is: Why then bother pretending that your position has anything to do with science? Isn't that a little deceptive?

Finally, what you believe to be the "infallible word of God" didn't come directly from God to you, did it? It came from God, to a fallible human, who then passed it on to other fallible humans, who passed it on to other fallible humans. And many times between there and now it has been translated into different languages by fallible humans.

So again, the exact same argument you attempt to invoke against science applies just as much (and likely moreso) to your own position.

Mr. McGrew, I a earlier comment you stated;

"These things are barely....and I mean JUST BARELY above flat-earth geocentrism on the absurdity scale.

So just as I don't waste time arguing whether the earth is flat, I don't waste time arguing YEC."

Seriously, you hold to the theory of evolution despite all the evidence against it and you call YEC absurd? And please don't try to make this a science vs. religion issue. There are very intelligent scientific minds on both sides of the issue. What determines the outcome is the starting point and also the desired outcome.
Throwing out insulting condecending statements as you did serves no purpose and certainly does not bolster your credibility.

Arnold,

Of course this is a religion vs. science issue. You don't think it's a coincidence that all the evolution denialists just happen to be religious fundamentalists, do you?

And saying "there are scientists on both sides" misrepresents reality. The number of bone fide, practicing scientists who support young-earth creationism is infinitesimally small when compared to genunine scientists who endorse, support, and utilize evolutionary theory. You may as well assert, "There are scientists on both sides of the flat earth-round earth debate".

If merely pointing out the reality that young-earth creationism has absolutely no standing in the scientific community (and hasn't for over 100 years) is "condescending", then your problem is with reality, not with the person bringing it to your attention.

I am not a scientist but I have ample experience in dealing with the biblical texts. I have no way of knowing whether evolution is good science or not but I know one thing, the Genesis texts are not and never were meant to be ready literally or historically. The contradictions (a word I don't think applies here because contradictions only take place where there is meant to be unanimity, but I will use it nonetheless) between Genesis 1 and 2 are impossible to logically remove. The two stories have differing, yet complimentary, theologies, anthropologies, and cosmologies. We should praise the original biblical canonists who were willing to include books and teachings that did not always harmonize for it is because of this the work of biblical theology is never a finished task. So, I don't have a stake in evolution being good or bad science, but I do have a stake in whether the Bible is treated carefully and critically and the YEC rarely do either.

Dear Gerald McGrew,

I would be more than glad to deal with specific data. You didn't answer my first question regarding numerous living fossils (of which, I assume, you are well aware). Please answer how you deal with them?

As for unchanged during allaged 500 mln years jellyfish please see http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/10/071031-jellyfish.html

Regarding stunning find of 115 mln years old platypus please see
Erik Stokstad, “Jaw Shows Platypus Goes Way Back,” Science, 23 November 2007: Vol. 318. no. 5854, p. 1237, DOI: 10.1126/science.318.5854.1237a.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/318/5854/1237a

Regarding ancient 100 mln years old gecko (already with existing marvelous foot design) see please http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080902163920.htm

Concerning unchanged during allaged 370 mln years lamprey please see http://www.livescience.com/animals/061025_fish_mouth.html

As for oldest bee, which is predominantly bee and still remain bee after one billion generations (!) please see http://www.livescience.com/animals/061025_oldest_honeybee.html.

Should we believe that while coelacanth, jellyfish and lamprey ramained unchanged till today, at the very same time fish evolved into birds, dinos and all mammals?

Do you really suppose, sir, that it's rational to believe that while bee, gecko and platypus remained bee, gecko and platypus till today, after millions of generations, all mammals (including whales) managed to evolve into what we observe today?

I can give you literally thousands of examples, including numerous plants, of living fossils and I invite you to honestly deal with it.

Before I send specific rebbutal to your first post, for starters please openly admit pressupositional nature of creation/evolution debate, that is you and other evolutionists in issue of origins begin with starting assumptions, main one being naturalism - that only natural causes are allowed for explanation of origins of everything. Thus you exclud Lord and His supernatural power a priori (God becomes unscientific by definition) And then, preceeding from these assumptions evolutionists interpret historic and present data. And then these interpretations are presented as real history.

One of the reasons I respect creationists is that they are open and clear about their pressupositions (starting faith, Biblical assumptions), while most evolutionists are not, and try to present all issue as sceince vs religion, while in reality it's religion vs another religion. Materialistic starting assumptions are no less religious than Biblical ones.

Regards,
Dima

McGrew writes: 'Unsubstantiated assertions on the internet do not overturn decades of established science.'

Decades of established science cannot tell us anything about age in terms of billions of years. A teaspoon is a tool with which to measure volume. An ocean may be considered as a volume of water. The first person on earth who is able to use only a teaspoon to accurately measure the volume of water in the Pacific Ocean is the only person on earth who has achieved the credibility to measure the age of a star in terms of the years that we humans measure time with.

Scientists want to make us believe that science can explain data without needing philosophy to help scientists understand the concept of time. Thus, scientists to this day do not understand that duration can only be measured in terms of 'time passed' between a witnessed or referenced moment (a recorded start time) and another witnessed or referenced moment (end time). To illustrate: for the past century or so the world has witnessed the strange phenomenon that the age of the universe has proven to be dependent not on observed natural laws but on technological ingenuity, in case the diameter of telescopes. To further illustrate, a scientist driving 20 miles to work cannot accurately inform his or her colleague how many minutes it took for the journey this morning when setting out from home without noting the exact start time of the journey. So why would people believe these same scientists when they make claims about the age of the universe when no one has recorded the starting moment?

McGrew: 'the scientific community will continue to successfully use radiometric dating...'

Yes, of course they will. But the point is, radiometric dating is not a tool to measure time with. It is a tool with which scientists successfully obtain the data they require. As I indicated, scientists need philosophers to help them understand the difference between 'obtaining required data' and 'measuring actual duration.'

Mr. McGrew:

Could you please respond to Mr. Dimitri? He is a clever creationist, don't you think so? I'm waiting for your response.

Dear Gerald McGrew,

You wrote in your posts that evolution is science and is derived from objective data, being the result of truth seeking (as opposed to bias of creationists).

Could you tell me which data exactly make you believe that following detailed “portrayals” on wings of butterfly came about as result of mutations and natural selection?

Mammal face - http://www.naturephoto-cz.com/eyes-of-the-sphinx-moth:sphingidae-photo-2299.html

Two parallel cobras – http://creationontheweb.com/images/feedback/2008/5992atlas_moth_lge.jpg

Owl – http://www.livewild.org/CostaRica/Pics/a6024.jpg

Eyes - http://farm1.static.flickr.com/55/147993453_a1c46878aa.jpg?v=0

Leaf - http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2179/2092798784_f26db83eed_o.jpg

Eyes - http://neatorama.cachefly.net/images/2007-10/io-moth.jpg

+ many more

Note please symmetry, precision of pictures, parallelism of colours etc.

Did anybody ever observe mutations/selection creating such pictures?

Do we have any basis to believe that mindless process is in principal able to create such pictures, encoding them in DNA of butterflies? Moreover, they had to evolve not one picture but numerous ones in different moths. Any basis for such belief?

Do incidental mutations in DNA know how owl, mammal, cobras etc (totally unrelated to moth) look like? Are mutations aware of their anatomy, including blister in the eyes?

Please provide honest and straight answer to above examples.

Do you infer evolution from data or interpret data according to a priori (beforehand) commitment to naturalism/evolution?

Regards,
Dima

Dear Gerald, Unless overlooked you didn't answer to my second post with required by you specific examples of living fossils. Please address the fact of existence of tens of thousands of living fossils? Regards, Dima

Dear Gerald,

Thank you for response. I would like to answers as follows.

1. Gerald, we are talking here of (supposed) 500 Mln years ! Just think about it: it’s a time during which had to evolve all amphibians, all reptiles including all dinosaurs, all land tees and plants, flowers, all birds, elephants, giraffes, whales, penguins, dogs and all other mammals, almost all insects etc – in short all all post-Cambrian nature, including you and me.

And all this time these jellyfish remained essentially the same till today. After 2 BILLIONS generations! Is that all evolution can do? And with all of that all you can do is to try to find some differences to counter powerful message of living fossils, including these jellyfish. And yet you got it wrong about differences as my below explanation will show.

2. You wrote:
=== As one can see from reading the article, while the specimens appear to display some morphological similarities with extant jellies …=

Some? I beg a pardon. Fossil specimens, attributed by authors to 3 classes already had following features as modern jellyfish of these classes have:

- distinct bell shape
- subumbrellar and exumbrellar surfaces
- tentacles
- radially arranged muscles sense organs
- presence of pedalia, tentacles, and nematocyst batteries
- and possibly even the gonads
- + others

3. You wrote: ===, there are also differences. The fossilized specimens that appear to be representatives of the class Cubozoa do not show the complex eyes nor the complex nervous system of extant specimens. The authors speculate that these traits may have evolved during the mid-Cambrian ===.
I understand that in hurry to find at least some differences (after all, 500 mln years passed ) and create impression that some evolution took place (and created eyes and nervous system), you misread the text of the article. Authors say:
“Extant medusozoans possess several complex characters. For example, the living cubozoan Tripedalia cystophora has sophisticated reproductive behavior that includes mate recognition and courtship, involving the indirect transfer of sperm through spermatophores. Cubozoans also have complex eyes and nervous systems. The existence of our newly described fossil material may suggest that these complex traits could have evolved within the Cnidaria BY the Middle Cambrian”.
Gerald, not DURING mid-cambrian but BY mid-cambrian – which means and it’s clear from article that authors recognized the fossil specimens already had these complex features like modern classes do and speculated that they “could have evolved” by the time of these fossils.
Authors wrote: phylum Cnidaria is one of the earliest branching animal groups to display organized tissues and a nervous system
And how could they exist with essentially same morphology without nervous system?
Thus, my initial assertion that these specimens show "no to little change” stands true (I always try to stress as I did in my first post “unchanged or LITTLE changed” because we accept variation within created kind + downhill accumulations of mutations) .

4. Please have again close look at photos:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/10/071031-jellyfish.html

Is it not obvious that these jellyfish by and large didn’t change?

5. Note please there are no any intermediate forms leading up to jellyfish – they appear in Cambrian suddenly and fully formed, demonstrating mind boggling complexity right there in the bottom of column:

Jellyfish Have Human-Like Eyes
http://www.livescience.com/animals/070330_jellyfish_eyes.html

Advanced optics in a jellyfish eye
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7039/full/nature03484.html#a1

You didn’t address the fact of existence of tens of thousands of living fossils, including provided by me several specific examples.

My main question for you: is evolution derived from data or data is interpreted according to a priori assumption of naturalism/evolution?

My concern that you refuse to admit true nature of debate on origins issue – PRESSUPOSITIONAL nature – you start with religious materialistic assumptions and fully committed to them, and then proceed to interpret data.

Using your words:

“No apparent, perceived, or claimed interpretation of evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the NATURALISM and NATURALISTIC RECORD (EVOLUTION)."

“The problem with EVOLUTION is that it is founded on the position that all interpretations of data must adhere to these religious materialistic beliefs. That's not only not science, it's the exact opposite of truth seeking”.

"EVOLUTION always, always, always trumps data" is not only non-science, it is the exact opposite of science”

Regards,
Dima

Dimitri,

Can you show where in the Cartwright et al. paper they state that the specimens in question have eyes? They state:

"Extant medusozoans possess several complex characters. For example, the living cubozoan Tripedalia cystophora has sophisticated reproductive behavior that includes mate recognition and courtship, involving the indirect transfer of sperm through spermatophores. Cubozoans also have complex eyes and nervous systems. The existence of our newly described fossil material may suggest that these complex traits could have evolved within the Cnidaria by the Middle Cambrian"

But nowhere in the Results section do they bother to mention that these specimens show the existence of eyes, "complex" or otherwise. They go into great detail about muscular traits, tentacle arrangements, umbrella shape, and all manner of morphological traits, yet there isn't any mention of the presence of eyes in any of these specimens.

So unless you think going from "no eyes" to "complex eyes" is "not changing much at all", your original assertion about these specimens remains false.

Note please there are no any intermediate forms leading up to jellyfish

What exactly would you expect a precursor to jellyfish to look like?

You assert:

“No apparent, perceived, or claimed interpretation of evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the NATURALISM and NATURALISTIC RECORD (EVOLUTION)."

“The problem with EVOLUTION is that it is founded on the position that all interpretations of data must adhere to these religious materialistic beliefs. That's not only not science, it's the exact opposite of truth seeking”.

"EVOLUTION always, always, always trumps data" is not only non-science, it is the exact opposite of science”

Can you show where I've said anything of the sort? The difference here is that I've shown repeatedly where AIG makes it clear that they take that sort of approach. You on the other hand, must resort to attributing things to me that I've never said. That by itself speaks volumes.

"Please note that there are a good number of Ph D scientists supporting AiG with very credible degrees. So while it is possible that somehow all of them are wrong and evolution is an accurate means to explain life's origins, it is also possible that scientists who don't accept that explanation of life's origins have good reason."

even very intelligent educated people can be blinded by their prejudices

there is actually no evidence for a young earth creation nor is there ANY doubt about common descent in the international life science community

the PhDs at the ICR and at AiG are considered to be crackpots if they accept separate creation or a young earth BECAUSE there is NO evidence for a young earth and separate creation is a meaningless concept(like phlogiston, 19th century racial 'theories' or luminiferous aether) to biologists BECAUSE even eucaryotic cells arent single organisms from a single lineage (mitochondria are purple bacteria-alpha proteobacteria)

McGrew's blind fundamentalist antitheist bigotry is of course without historic or verifiable foundation since true versus revisionist history irrefutably (at least for those who are honest, unlike evolutionists, as Richard Sternberg found out in his Smithsonian persecution) shows that modern science was founded by Christian creationists like Newton and Galileo, totally refuting his bogus antitheist fundamentalist babbling about creationist's religious fundamentalism since evolutionists have proven themselves far more narrow-minded and lock-stepped in their utterly deranged fascist persecution of any who disagree with them (even other evolutionists, e.g. Richard Sternberg's Smithsonian persecution by liars among those who are supposedly the nation's leading "scientists," very like what happened in the Soviet academy that was the Free world's laughingstock we have now become by embracing evolution as they did unlike the creationism we previously embraced then now discarded to pursue immorality since the '60s as did Darwin's Huxley. There is of course nothing wrong with such "immoral" behavior for an evolutionist who to be consistent must demand total randomness for everything, but this of course is exactly what ironically puts the evolutionist in the unenviable and indeed impossible predicament of having to pursue his antitheist religion of evolutionism solely on the basis of a Christian worldview without which he cannot do his own science since if everyone was free to lie there could be no research and if every day everything was truly random as they demand then today's 3.14… pi might be 52 or anything else tomorrow. As Huxley was bold enough to say, evolutionism has always only been merely about shaking off the Christian God of Darwin's age in order to engage the immorality desired supposedly without having to face the Christian God and give an account, an essentially infantile system as seen in today's delusional fascist employment of the judiciary like the Soviets did since evolution lost in the debate arena decades ago and its adherents are too vain and proud to admit so they call in the judges, sadly blind to the fact that the truth will eventually out as it did in the USSR and their walls will soon crumble as it did there. I was once an evolutionist until I got an education and, only by the grace of God, grew up. As you will see from Gilberson (and other evolutionists), whose alleged "conversion" from so-called "creationism" to "evolutionism" was likewise not based on evidence or science or truth, it is rather the usual emotional crisis that as with Darwin comes to the fore and so has to be justified for one to look "respectable" to the world (of course caring nothing for God or His Word ultimately or even primarily, despite contrary spin) by the smoke and mirrors vainly trying to make it look legitimate for those easily fooled by such trickery). I have yet to meet an evolutionist that wasn't a self-deceived liar, as I myself was before God condescended to open my eyes as I pray He will in this debate that the truth may out, chips fall where they may.

Gerald,

Evolutionists themselves admit that ancient jellyfish (if assuming evolution timeline, of course) had eyes:

In Cartwright et al paper:
"Extant medusozoans possess several complex characters… Cubozoans also have COMPLEX EYES and nervous systems. The existence of our newly described fossil material may suggest that THESE complex traits could have evolved within the Cnidaria BY the Middle Cambrian"

In article “Jellyfish Have Human-Like Eyes” I gave you refernce to (http://www.livescience.com/animals/070330_jellyfish_eyes.html) :
“Because jellyfish belong to one of the first groups of animals to evolve eyes (the phylum Cnidaria), Garm said, understanding how their eyes operate will show scientists what eyes WERE LIKE EARLY in evolutionary time”.

In news release (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/10/071031-jellyfish.html)
“The researchers liken the two fossils pictured here to living species from the genus Cunina (top) and Periphylla (bottom). If verified, these connections would suggest that jellies either evolved into their CURRENT COMPLEX form very quickly around 500 million years ago, or they evolved slowly and have existed much longer than has been estimated”.

So authors-evolutionists admit that jellyfish of this class (and of the phylum Cnidaria) had already eyes in Cambrian. So your attempts to have these eyes evolving somewhere between found fossils and modern living jellyfish fail.

Cartwright et al didn’t describe eyes due to their small size and inssuficient for it preservation, but they admit along with other evolutionists that Cambrian Cnidaria had eyes.

You continuous attempts to “evolve” in these 500 mln years in jellyfish nervous system and eyes at first, and then eyes alone failed.

And note please that for a jellyfish – one of the most primitive animals in evolutionary thinking – to have “human-like eyes” is an astonishing upset. It’s almost like God threw in surprises here and there to falsify evolutionary notions.

You didn’t answer anything to my first two posts regarding existence of tens of thousands of living fossils. Why?

Again, my only question to you is this: do you have a priori starting assumptions in origins issue or not? Is evolution derived from data or data is interpreted according to a priori assumption of naturalism?

The way you dealt with specific example clearly, very clearly demonstrated to me that you do have a priori presuppositions in origins issue.

And there is nothing wrong with having the ones (after we all have, and biblical creationists are open about theirs). But it’s wrong not to admit the obvious fact that you and other evolutionists do have a priori commitment to naturalism.

Why is it so difficult for you to admit it?

Regarding quotation you didn’t get my point. I didn’t intend to attribute to you what you never said. I paraphrased your own words/ quotations about AIG and YEC’s a priori commitment to Genesis, by inserting NATURALISM/EVOLUTION instead of CREATION/BIBLE to convey my point – that you do have starting presuppositions:

“No apparent, perceived, or claimed interpretation of evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the NATURALISM and NATURALISTIC RECORD (EVOLUTION)."
“The problem with EVOLUTION is that it is founded on the position that all interpretations of data must adhere to these religious materialistic beliefs. That's not only not science, it's the exact opposite of truth seeking”.
"EVOLUTION always, always, always trumps data" is not only non-science, it is the exact opposite of science”

Starting assumption person holds clearly means:
1) It's person's ultimate authority, he is biased by it.
2) All data/facts are interpreted and reinterpreted accordingly (until starting assumption is substituted by another one)
3) It in some sense constitutes conslusion (person who starts with naturalism in issue of origins, exluding GOD a priori, will never never arrive at creation as conclusion)
4) Starting with assumption person starts with history (at least in general sense). When evolutionist begins with pressuposition of naturalism in origins (that nature did it all) he already starts with history - how everything came from one another, how living forms came one from another, how life originated from dead chemicals (because he already excluded supernatural creation) - the rest are details of this story. The idea that evolutionists objectively restore true history of origins is false. They start with naturalistic history, the rest are details compared to magnitude of this starting assumption.

So the question then is which set of starting assumptions - evolutionary or biblical ones - better explain origin and history of our universe.

Bible when given fair chance clearly wins.

Regards,
Dima

Both sides seem to take solace in the number of accredited scientists that their own brand is supported by. However, truth can (must?) never be decided according to the number of subscribers. After all, any revolution in science had only one supporter in its initial stage.
Evolution/creation is no exception. Truth can only rationally be decided by the data and what theory can best explain them. If numbers were a reasonable tool to impress, then McDonalds is a three star Michelin restaurant.

Your lack of understanding of the Bible's use of "figures" and its difference between the various uses of poetry and narrative reflects your lack of knowledge of systematic interpretation of Scripture. The first eleven chapters of Genesis are prose and are meant to be.

You fall right into the category of those who, through peer pressure, accept the notion that all things observed today follow the same processes and patterns they always have; that "all things continue as they were from the start." That truth of unbelievers is clear in the Bible. You have followed an "unbeliever's" path, quite inconsistently.

The Bible never teaches that those with epilepsy were demon possessed. You have mixed faulty interpretation from biblically illiterate teachings.

In addition to radio metric dating, the transit time of starlight is not beyond reasonable doubt. That is false. You have caved into peer pressure. You have not read all the facts, even from inconsistent evolutionists. You have not found the truth here. The fusion process by which atoms are forged in stars? Please! Let's strive to understand our own sun, first. And all the other forces within and about our earth not understood, not to mention the varying beliefs of "scientists" about the "missing energy or matter" that supposedly makes up most of the universe they cannot account for. Don't you think that "matter" or "energy"could have an affect on how we view stars? Don't you? Honesty is the best policy here.

And then speculation, assumption, and biased interpretation permeates your understanding of genes. You have never observed the processes you profess. That is not science. It is another false faith. And that's a fanciful story you created about dinosaur fossils and human fossils. It was your interpretation. And I am sure you have not seen enough fossils to verify your story beyond a reasonable doubt.

There is no mountain of data supporting evolution. That is a foolish and unscientific statement. If evolution were true, there would be unquestionable masses of fossils clearly showing each intricate step along the way. They would fill museums worldwide and volumes of books will photos that would require their own huge libraries. They do not exist. They have not been found. Only interpretations and stories to support an anti-supernatural Creator position.

Do you believe the water into wine? The multiplying of loaves and fish? Do you? Do you believe the resurrection? If not, why not? If so, why? How powerful is any God you profess to believe in? How "very good" did He create things before man's fall into sin?

The story of evolution is cosmologically boring. The vast majority of all foundational scientists were creationists. Accept it, and accept it in relation to all you have rejected in order to be accepted by evolutionists. You will be judged for this on that Day, not by your "peers" but by the Judge of all creation.

Actually, many Christians do support evolution. Here is the link to an article written by a Catholic scientist.

http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=11034

You can also read this article:

http://www.cuttingedge.org/n1034.html