This is false logic. Just because organisms have similar designs does not mean that one organism or mechanism "evolved" into another. It just demonstrates a very good Designer.

The Volkwagen and the Volvo also have many similarities of design -- and, would you believe it, similar beginning letters to their names! Does that mean that one "evolved" into the other? Maybe the shorter form evolved into the longer form? Or did the smaller form evolve into the bigger form?

When Darwin popularized the theory of gradual evolution, he could be excused because he sincerely believed there was such a thing as a "simple cell," along with believing that life was much simpler than we now know from the study of biochemistry and molecular biology.

According to the calculations of the probability of the evolution of even one of the biological machines in the "simplest" cell, it would take much longer than the billions of years this universe is supposed to have existed according to the big bang scenario. And that's just oneof the molecular machines in the simplest cell. (That's after assuming that the living building blocks for the machine were already in existence.)

I recommend a complete read of Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box, rather than the simplistic summaries often encountered. The complexity of biological systems is mind-boggling.

Maybe that's why Anthony Flew, the famous British atheiust, acknowledged there must be some kind of God -- even though he was unwilling to believe in a God who was actually interested in human affairs.

There is simply no known mechanism for evolution. We now know that mutations allow for a fairly narrow range of adaptive change, even in bacteria. Creationists understand that that genetic variability was built into the original "kinds" of organisms by the Creator Himself. Yes, there's such a thing as "survival of the fittest," but the effect is to narrow the gene pool, not to enlarge it. There is a loss of information, not an addition. (Duplication of genetic material does not provide more "information" any more than an extra spare tire is an innovation on a car.)

<chuckle> But then there are no properly documented cases of a simple organism evolving into a more complex one.

It's hardly surprising that the fossil record, as interpreted through evolutionary glasses, should be compatible with evolution.


Interesting assertions.

For starters, Bevin, perhaps you would be so kind as to explain to us how all those fossils formed without catastrophic flooding? (Surely you know that fossils do not form from animals and or plants being gradually buried under water? Believe me, it has been tested.)

If there was no universal flood, we would have to postulate thousands, of local floods happening at more or less the same time around the world to explain the similar fossil-bearing strata (of the same age) of the "geologic column" all over the world.

So glad to see you back, Inga, and with so capable a response. However I've found it to take more than good logic to convince a person who ignores Scripture evidence of the Holy Word. That is, of course, unless they might be an earnest learner at the feet of Jesus, which is really concluding a contradiction in terms.

" You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me..." John 5:39 NASB
God Bless!!

Lots of assertions there, Inga, but many of them are scientific assertions without either scientific or biblical evidence. There is, for example, a very clear, well explained and coherent mechanism for evolution, and there are real, specific and recent examples of evolution in action. Similarly, there are good, well explained examples of fossil formation in circumstances other than floods.

The example at the top of the page is instructive: Bevin brought the design similarities as evidence of evolution, you reinterpreted it as evidence of creation. I'm coming more and more to believe, with Shane, that that's all we have - perspectives and sets of 'lenses' through which we interpret the evidence. Under those conditions no evidence can be definitive. There is no evidence which will convince anyone, since it's all a matter of perspective. In that case, why bother continuing to bring evidence?

I'm not arguing about evolution/creation any more: no point. But I will not ever allow this to pass without comment. This casual slander of others' faith is unbecoming to believers, and something everyone on this site is working hard to stop doing to each other. I hope you'll be willing to stop attacking the faith of those who disagree with you.

Lots of assertions on your part too, Bravus.

1) Could you point me to this "clear, well explained and coherent mechanism for evolution" that does not use equivocation [i.e. using the evidence of adaptive change as proof that "simple" life evolved to more complex life] or defies the law of probability? I'm asking seriously because I don't want to make unfounded claims, and I'm aware of explanations that don't cut it. (That's why the Design argument is gaining more and more adherents in scientific circles.)

2) Yes, there are isolated examples of fossilization since the global flood (among other things, a hat). But can you point me to scientific evidence that this accounts for the massive fossil beds around the world?

3) All the "specific examples of evolution in action" are examples of equivocation [see above] as far as I'm aware. They are examples like Darwin's finches. Darwin may be excused because he didn't know better. But molecular biologists know that there's a huge gap between the kind of "evolution" [which used to be called micro-evolution] we see in action and the kind of "evolution" which is accounts for the evolution of simple organisms to more complex ones.


I pointed out a flaw in logic, which you ignored.

It is true that secular scientists and creation scientists use precisely the same data/evidence. They merely interpret the evidence from a different world view. Much of the data can be made to fit in either frame of reference. Some cannot. Some data cannot be made to fit into the evolutionary framework. Some data does not [as yet] fit easily into the young earth creation framework. The difference is made up by faith -- faith in the interpretations of secular science or faith in the most obvious reading of Scripture. We choose our authorities.


I'm glad that you are beginning to see that. It demonstrates that these discussions do some good.

Science does not deal with absolutes. (This is standard science, not any particular brand of science.) We have come a long ways when we learn to recognize that as well as recognizing that there's a difference between data and its interpretation.Data is fact. Interpretation is variable. When that light bulb went on for Elaine Kennedy [a well-trained geologist], she was enabled to believe that the Sabbath, based on Genesis 1, has significance for us today and that the Adventist faith is worth having. And that's how she was able to become a Seventh-day Adventist. I can't answer for you, but I know why I continue to bring evidence (and I usually document it, which I didn't do here). It's because arguments in favor of a long chronology have a tendency to confuse those with little scientific background. The arguments sound logical unless they are challenged -- which I tend to do. It appears that "evolution is a fact," which it isn't -- at least not the kind that's referred to in long-age scenarios.

The other alternative is often a blind faith that sees everything in black and white. (What a pity, when God made rainbow colors!!) I believe God wants us to have an intelligent faith. My aim in such discussions is to demonstrate that it's possible to be intellectually honest and believe in the historicity of the first chapters of Genesis.

When both scenarios of origin are intellectually viable, we have the opportunity to choose where to put our faith when we must exercise faith. And both scenarios require a faith. For me, the evolutionary scenario just requires a whole lot more faith than my little mustard seed.

Thanks for the welcome back, LHC


I believe it's fair to recognize that those who believe in a long chronology do not "ignore" Scripture evidence, but they interpret it differently. In that case, the appropriate response is to deal with the argument without questioning their faith. (That judgment is God's perogative alone.)

There is plenty of good evidence that allows belief in the historicity of Genesis for those who have a need for integrating science with Scripute -- and Bravus is one of those. And so am I.

If I gather correctly, the Origins forum was disbanded because it was too hostile for the few equipped to argue for the historicity of Genesis. I remember taking a peek at it & figuring I didn't have time to get involved. However, since I saw this & am currently already involved in a creation discussion on another list, I couldn't resist a reply ...

By the way, there's a good explanation for the white cliffs of Dover from a creationist perspective. But that's for another post. For anyone interested in truth (as opposed to defending a currently held view), such a discussion should have merit ...

Wish I had more time to reply, and I might get back to it later. But very quickly:

1. If 'shared features means shared origin/DNA' (i.e. evolution) is a logical flaw, then 'shared features means shared designer' (i.e. special creation) is also a logical flaw: every car shares a host of similar features, but was not designed by Dr Porsche... they share those features due to the common history of cars and because they are well adapted to their environment.

2. There are a few modern fossils. Those who believe in a long life of the earth combine this fact with that belief, and recognise that with millions of years of life and billions of living things, it requires only a tiny, tiny proportion of them to be fossilised to account for all known fossils. If the assummption is that earth has a short history, then a flood is definitely required to account for the fossils. If the assumption is different, the fossils are satisfactorily accounted for.

3. We've kicked the micro/macro evolution thing around here before, and it's basically a distinction from the Creation Science camp that is not recognised by other biologists. We do know that there are examples of evolution at the species level occurring within living memory, but that such will be rare because evolution for anything with a longish lifespan requires huge amounts of time.

You've addressed two elements of evolution: natural selection and time. The third element, which adds to the DNA, is mutation. It's essential to evolution, and is observed.

Two final points:

1. I'm not an evolutionist, at least in the sense that evolution accounts for all of life - I believe God had a crucial creative role. So to the extent that I talk about evolution here I'm explaining, not advocating.

2. I don't think that you have given an entirely fair account of the history of the Origins forum (of which I was one of the originators). It died of disuse, rather than being closed down due to hostilities.

Thanks for the thoughtful way you've conducted this discussion - I really enjoyed reading your posts, and you've made substantive, strong points in a way that leaves the space open for discussion.

Darn. I missed it.

It is a common tactic when one assumes an attack, to go on the offensive with an attack. The result is a holy war of different magnitudes that declares the correctness of the position without sacrificing a sense of personal righteousness.
The difference between a faith and a blind belief is that the former requires what has already been found to be true through the Word of God, can only be substantiated by that which is yet to be found true.
A pastor of skill in the original Hebrew languages, convinced me
that those of early Jewish ancestry had nothing in their discourses of God that included either/or in their conclusions, but instead would follow an and/and conversation. This facilitated immensely the arrival of undiscovered truth as the "new" truth always corroborated what was already known to be true and it wasn't found necessary to prove anything personally, something that very seldom happens in today's religious dialogues about the God Who always was, is , and is to come.

"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." Hebrews 13:8 NASB
Regards!