You declare that you are "researching" various subjects on which there is a theistic explanation, but you absolutely refuse to allow any data that calls into question your world view to carry any weight.
I have studied evolution 20 times more than I have studied creationism, mostly in college while earning a professional biology degree. [I read a ton of stuff from talk.origin -- also I am a recent [last 2-3 years] believer in creation] My study in evolution and the incrediblly improbable idea that non-living molecules arranged themselves into living, replicating cells on their own was too much to take (still is an incredible problem for evolutionists to solve). The more we learn about living things and the complexity of the molecular level and in coded information, the more improbable microbe-to-man evolution becomes. I just couldn't force myself to believe it. Really. Then there's the "fossil record" (or lack thereof ...
"Two outstanding facts of the fossil record -- [1] geologically sudden origin of new species and [2] failure to change thereafter." That is written by one of the most prominent evolutionists in modern science today , stephen J. Gould. I do not use creationists' quotes to refute evolution b/c it carries no weight with non-creationists. Evolutionists themselves do more harm to Darwinism than any creationists could ever do. Gould has studied the evidence of the fossil record and noticed that species suddenly appear (no transitional fossils) and then don't change for a long time. He calls his idea Punctuated Equilibrium, which is built on Goldschmidt's "hopeful monster theory" (1940s), which is built on Schindewolf's idea (1930s). An greatly incomplete fossil record is nothing new.
Darwinists oppose this view because it is "perfectly consistent with what special creationists have been syaing", insinuating that Gould is trying to support special creation (We know form Gould's writings that he definately is not doing that). At least both sides can agree about what is or isn't there in the fossil record. They still disagree on origins, but not if it is there or not. (Age is another big deal)
I'm coming at this from the perspective of a science teacher. We are teaching Darwinism as "fact", when it's so far from "fact" that other evolutionists come up with the most damaging evidence against Darwinism. Gould and Eldredge (the most prominent punctuated equilibriumists) have issued the same challenge as creationists have ... "they could disprove punctuated equilibrium theory if they could find so much as a single series of intermediate forms in the fossil record". No one has. Punctuated equilibrium is rapidlly replacing Darwinsim in the scientific community and also is moving in rapidly in textbooks. While I don't believe in evolution, PE much more fits the data we have.
Gould has done more damage to Darwinism in 30 years then creationists have done in 200. Even Gould acknowledges the incredible task of finding an Observed instance of the mechanism required to produce such "genetic freaks".
I guess my delima comes from looking at this stuff and seeing "Science Fiction" (made-up stories that involve some science), rather than science. I thikn origin "science" should be its own theological class. I don't think it should be taught side by side with physiology, ecology, etc. That's my issue.
---------------------------------------------------
FWIW, AiG is a website for Christians to get their answers from the book of Genesis. I have repeatedly said that I read the more technical articles from both sides (as well as general articles). trueorigin vs. talkorigin is always interesting. I view that site (AiG) as a general information site for non-scientifically trained Christians that want simple answers to questions. Their technical articles are everything a science geek could ask for.
------------------------------------------------------
Eventually, the research leads one to the point where they need to be a actively researching doctorate professional in their field in order to handle the technical papers (the astronomy ones for me especially). I am far from that. So, you're back to square one. You get to the point to where you sit down and say "Did I come from God or non-living particles?"
------------------------------------------------------
=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --
I have studied evolution 20 times more than I have studied creationism, mostly in college while earning a professional biology degree. [I read a ton of stuff from talk.origin -- also I am a recent [last 2-3 years] believer in creation] My study in evolution and the incrediblly improbable idea that non-living molecules arranged themselves into living, replicating cells on their own was too much to take (still is an incredible problem for evolutionists to solve). The more we learn about living things and the complexity of the molecular level and in coded information, the more improbable microbe-to-man evolution becomes. I just couldn't force myself to believe it. Really. Then there's the "fossil record" (or lack thereof ...
"Two outstanding facts of the fossil record -- [1] geologically sudden origin of new species and [2] failure to change thereafter." That is written by one of the most prominent evolutionists in modern science today , stephen J. Gould. I do not use creationists' quotes to refute evolution b/c it carries no weight with non-creationists. Evolutionists themselves do more harm to Darwinism than any creationists could ever do. Gould has studied the evidence of the fossil record and noticed that species suddenly appear (no transitional fossils) and then don't change for a long time. He calls his idea Punctuated Equilibrium, which is built on Goldschmidt's "hopeful monster theory" (1940s), which is built on Schindewolf's idea (1930s). An greatly incomplete fossil record is nothing new.
Darwinists oppose this view because it is "perfectly consistent with what special creationists have been syaing", insinuating that Gould is trying to support special creation (We know form Gould's writings that he definately is not doing that). At least both sides can agree about what is or isn't there in the fossil record. They still disagree on origins, but not if it is there or not. (Age is another big deal)
I'm coming at this from the perspective of a science teacher. We are teaching Darwinism as "fact", when it's so far from "fact" that other evolutionists come up with the most damaging evidence against Darwinism. Gould and Eldredge (the most prominent punctuated equilibriumists) have issued the same challenge as creationists have ... "they could disprove punctuated equilibrium theory if they could find so much as a single series of intermediate forms in the fossil record". No one has. Punctuated equilibrium is rapidlly replacing Darwinsim in the scientific community and also is moving in rapidly in textbooks. While I don't believe in evolution, PE much more fits the data we have.
Gould has done more damage to Darwinism in 30 years then creationists have done in 200. Even Gould acknowledges the incredible task of finding an Observed instance of the mechanism required to produce such "genetic freaks".
I guess my delima comes from looking at this stuff and seeing "Science Fiction" (made-up stories that involve some science), rather than science. I thikn origin "science" should be its own theological class. I don't think it should be taught side by side with physiology, ecology, etc. That's my issue.
---------------------------------------------------
FWIW, AiG is a website for Christians to get their answers from the book of Genesis. I have repeatedly said that I read the more technical articles from both sides (as well as general articles). trueorigin vs. talkorigin is always interesting. I view that site (AiG) as a general information site for non-scientifically trained Christians that want simple answers to questions. Their technical articles are everything a science geek could ask for.
------------------------------------------------------
Eventually, the research leads one to the point where they need to be a actively researching doctorate professional in their field in order to handle the technical papers (the astronomy ones for me especially). I am far from that. So, you're back to square one. You get to the point to where you sit down and say "Did I come from God or non-living particles?"
------------------------------------------------------
=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --
Last edited by:
TripleThreat: May 3, 04 16:20