Dave LP

Great post. I especially like the significance of the original verbs. I've read origin stories from other beliefs and what a stark contrast they are to the pragmatic account given in Genesis. Other origin stories are obvious manmade stories or just weird. There's so much theology within the Genesis account. How true so much of our theology depends on a literal Adam and our fallen nature. How Jesus work on the cross depends on the events in the garden. Surely Jesus would have corrected any misconceptions during his ministry. For thousands of years Jews and Christians didn't see Genesis as allegory. Only until Lydell and Darwin proposed a slow gradual process taking millions of years was there any conflict in Genesis. I see no reason for their assumptions to dictate other beliefs. I wonder if the doubters of their day got hung up on Job 38:16 which mentions the springs of the sea. If people thought the oceans were flat sandy deserts Job 38:16 would seem hard to believe. Of course, these were discovered recently so there never was any conflict. Recent discoveries from the Mt St Helen eruption support a quick catastrophic process of creation. As you've said before there's nothing in Genesis at odds with science. Blessings! -Dave

Greeting! I'm just a layman myself but I'd like to share a recent poll: "just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power" http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/ I'm not saying 51% are Christian, the study didn't get that specific but it does seem to confirm your suspicions many scientists are Christians. What is interesting is the study found only 41% of scientists don't believe, a minority. I think most of what scientists do doesn't depend on what they believe. It's the rare controversial stuff that bears on their worldview that gets all the attention. Just throwing this out there, the guy who invented the MRI, Raymond Vahan Damadian is a creationist. Blessings! -Dave

It's been an enlightening discussion. One turning point for me was years ago when I was listening to Dave Moore on the radio. He mentioned Lucy and some of the facts surrounding the discovery. I'd been lead to believe Darwinism was only rejected religious grounds. Realizing that there were indeed good reasons to at least doubt it as a missing link was a big turning point. It lead me to examine what I believed and I read books like Darwin's Black Box, Buried Alive, etc. And as you've shown here, the facts surrounding the origin of 60+ de novo genes, SRGAP2B/C/D and HAR1f genes puts a substantial burden of proof on the neo-darwinists. I've noticed there are a few recent peer reviewed articles challenging the Neo-Darwinism view. To appear there would have been unthinkable a few decades ago. Like you said it's a worldview, which is fine if people buy into it, I have no problem with them. Thanks for your words of encouragement! From what I've seen here (and on the other forum) you're a very skilled debater! Blessings! -Dave

Fair enough. Darwinism isn't my horse in the race so you'll get no arguments from me. Blessings! -Dave

As always thanks for your insight. It took me a while to catch on that these are just two different worldviews. The Darwinists were very good at injecting their worldview into the empirical science. Good point that the facts don't change, just the interpretation. That's interesting about the lack of Chimp fossils. If I understand correctly, it's not because there aren't any chimp fossils, it's because a Darwinian worldview demands transitional forms and so the chimps are used. So Lucy is just another chimp? Blessings! -Dave

Simply defined evolution is change over time. I have no issues with that. Simply stated Darwin's theory is descent with modification. Which does have issues. I accept the 'scientific theory' of evolution that species change and adapt to their environment. It's when people use the small observable changes we see within a species as evidence of their Darwinistic philosophy that it becomes a problem. What is your definition of evolution and a scientific theory?

I think I see what you mean. The real world examples of adaptive evolution always seem to be built in from the beginning. The potential to adapt was put in by our Creator, not the unguided forces of nature as Darwin suggested. I also remember the Darwinists talking about the nylon eating bacteria not realizing it was actually evidence against 'random' mutations. It makes me wonder about the 60+ de novo genes. From someone assuming universal common ancestry they would appear to be de novo, but from someone assuming our Creator made us those genes were there from the beginning. When you mention the coevolution of the antifreeze gene happening 4 times, I've always wondered how that squares within a Darwinian view. Their assumption is common ancestry, but when that doesn't fit convergent evolution is the explanation. Why isn't convergent evolution the default assumption? Excellent point here: "It's not that this is so complicated that keeps my interest, it's the fact that at the end of the day it so very simple. They are simply assuming viruses and mutations with nothing directly observed or demonstrated to support their...guess we could call it...theory." Blessings! -Dave

Greetings Mark! I am a creationist as well and don't have any issues with such a well laid out argument. Just wanted to say thanks for pointing out what a tremendous leap of faith Darwinists take to believe in common ancestry. I once rejected Christianity because of things like the virgin birth, Noah's ark, or Jonah and the whale. Big bang cosmology and Darwinism appealed to me because (at the time) they didn't seem to require any leaps of faith, or any God for that matter. I know better now. Getting back to the topic at hand, since this is such a great example of the shortcoming of Darwinism I hate to see this thread wane. I thought I might ask some questions on behalf of Darwinists. A recent article would suggest viruses are a vehicle to drive human evolution. I personally think it still requires the giant leap of faith random mutations do because of 60+ de novo genes as well as finding a needle in a haystack with regard to functioning SRGAP2b/c/d genes. But I like to hear from someone more knowledgeable. Blessings! -Dave