[arcura]

asking,
I thought so.
Fred

[Str8stack71]

Interesting thought... I had my 8 yr old confront me with this issue... my children go to a christian school and my son asked me one day.. we were watching Discovery channel one evening and they have an episode on about how the earth was create. My 8 yr old of course, was baffled by this because he has always been taught that God make everything.

My husband and I discussed this between ourselves. My thinking is that possibly when God made man, it was in the form of a monkey or such... thus leading to man evolving from a monkey...

Just a thought... but an interesting discussion and point brought up by my son.

[Tj3]

interesting thought..... i had my 8 yr old confront me with this issue... my children go to a christian school and my son asked me one day.. we were watching Discovery channel one evening and they have an episode on about how the earth was create. My 8 yr old of course, was baffled by this because he has always been taught that God make everything.

my husband and i discussed this between ourselves. My thinking is that possibly when God made man, it was in the form of a monkey or such.... thus leading to man evolving from a monkey......

just a thought..... but an interesting discussion and point brought up by my son.

I used to believe in evolution, and when that did not hold up, I transitioned to what you describe, theistic evolution. I found that, as a person with a background in science, as well as my faith in Christ, theistic evolution is the least defensible position of all.

There are not a lot of good books for children on the topic of creation that I am aware of, but here is one that I would highly recommend:

Dinosaurs By Design: Duane Gish, Earl Snellenberger, Bonita Snellenberger: Amazon.ca: Books

This is another one worth considering:

http://www.amazon.ca/dp/0890511128?t...W7G5JC1R3RJMX&

[arcura]

Str8stack71,
If you read all the posts on this here I think it will be of great help to you as it was for me.
The evolutionary belief is not that man came from a monkey but is more related to an ape.
The apes evolved into intermediate species which eventually became man.
I believe that God gave Man a soul and self awareness, determination and recognition.
That is what make man so much different than other animals.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

[asking]

This is another one worth considering:

Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record: Duane T. Gish: Amazon.ca: Books

The very first Amazon review of this book by Duane Gish is an excellent rebuttal to Gish's book and was written by someone who says he is a born again Christian.

I would like to know what young earth creationists like you (Tom) think the fossil record does show or say.

Also, I am curious to know why you (Tom) think that theistic evolution is the least defensible position?

Of course, I am interested in what others have to say as well.

[ordinaryguy]

We have many such clear and specific examples of micro-evolution - if macro-evolution has been proven (as some on here explicitly stated), proof must exist.

The distinction between micro- and macro-evolution is not as clear and unambiguous as you seem to think, nor is the distinction between organisms that are "different kinds" and populations that are "the same kind", but with variation between individuals. Your argument against macro-evolution depends on these distinctions being sharp and clear, but in actuality they are fuzzy, more like a probability distribution than a bright line.

Living things form a vast continuum of organisms of every type, size, function, and degree of complexity. The distinctions that we draw and impose upon that restless, ever-changing sea, are the constructions of our logical mind, not properties inherent in nature. I'm not saying that these distinctions aren't "real", just that we humans created them to help us understand the diversity and complexity of life.

[Tj3]

I would like to know what young earth creationists like you (Tom) think the fossil record does show or say.

That is a whole topic all on its own as I am sure that you know, because of the number of potential aspects to the fossil record (i.e. dating, layers and their placement, rate of fossilization, etc.). I am also not in a good position to put together a lengthy response on something like that right now because I am doing some project planning this afternoon also, and can only take out a few minutes from time to time until I am done this planning. But I have looked at this over the years and have found little to bring comfort to evolutionists. Darwin agrees BTW - have you read his book?

Also, I am curious to know why you (Tom) think that theistic evolution is the least defensible position?

As stated above, I do not have time today to put together a detailed summary, but as I have stated previously, I have many concerns with respect to evolution from a scientific perspective, and when you look at theistic evolution, most of those concerns remain (the evidence does not change). In addition to those remaining concerns, theistic evolution now adds in additional problems such as the clear contradictions between scripture and evolution. Not just the timeframe and sequence but some important concerns with respect to the gospel.

This may not concern you because if I remember correctly, you are not a Christian, but they are important for Christians because I believe what God said in His word, so how can I, as a professing Christian say that what God said in His word is wrong because of some assumptions that have been made by some scientists who hold to a specific hypothesis of creation? Do you see what I am saying - from what I have see, the science behind evolution is weak, and in theistic evolution, it is combined with a weak theological explanation.

I was an evolutionist for many years, but a theistic evolutionist for only a brief period due to the difficulties in defending the position even to myself. I am a person who follows truth wherever it leads and if the facts won't support it, then I cannot.

[Tj3]

Living things form a vast continuum of organisms of every type, size, function, and degree of complexity. The distinctions that we draw and impose upon that restless, ever-changing sea, are the constructions of our logical mind, not properties inherent in nature. I'm not saying that these distinctions aren't "real", just that we humans created them to help us understand the diversity and complexity of life.

Then that should make it easier to find proof of one species turning into something completely different.

[asking]

Tom,
I was busy most of today too and I totally understand. I am happy to wait until you have some time to explain in more detail about what the fossil record says (as opposed to what you think it does not say). I want to know why you think it's there and why it takes the form it takes. I will just listen.

I think what you are saying about theistic evolution is that it necessarily compromises your belief and the support for evolution seems flawed to you, so therefore, it makes more sense to stay with what you know is true, rather than compromise for the sake of what appears to you to be a tenuous idea.
Is that right?
asking

[Tj3]

I think what you are saying about theistic evolution is that it necessarily compromises your belief and the support for evolution seems flawed to you, so therefore, it makes more sense to stay with what you know is true, rather than compromise for the sake of what appears to you to be a tenuous idea.
Is that right?
asking

Pretty close. I might not have worded it that way, but I think you have the general idea.

[compsavvyimnot]

I think I might want to agree with STR8stack71's 8 year old.:p
Because Macro evolution takes such an amount of time,we as mere humans with a life span may never get our hands on "proof". After all, there has never been any discoverys that have lead to any proof of Adam and Eve. It's based on our faith. Adam nor Eve kept a log for us to follow, the bible is purely based on our faith to believe that the accounts of God was passed on centuries later.
Why can't it all fit together?
God's "days" may not have been the same 24 hours that we as man appointed. Can any one say that men have found all accounts of life form in all era of the earth life?
It is proven that micro evolution exists, amazing as that is, why can't macro evolution have existed too, and may happen again in our far future?
Tj3, you keep speaking about "proof"... but as Christians we can't "proof" to a non believer that God exist. Is it that impossible to have faith in the Lord that he when willed can make wonders happen? Even wonders such as macro evolution.

[ordinaryguy]

Then that should make it easier to find proof of one species turning into something completely different.

My point was that the concept of "species", as well as the type and degree of differences required to qualify an organism as "completely different" are both in the eye of the (human) beholder.

Also, the idea of "proof" is not one that has much currency outside the field of mathematics. Physical and biological scientists almost always frame their conclusions as probability statements, not categorical certainties.

[ordinaryguy]

I believe what God said in His word, so how can I, as a professing Christian say that what God said in His word is wrong

This is what it really comes down to, isn't it? You believe that the Bible is "God's Word", and that a particular interpretation of it is the only correct one, and therefore anything that appears to be inconsistent with that interpretation must be rejected out of hand.

And yet, we have right here on this thread professing Christians like Fred and compsavvyimnot who interpret the Bible in such a way that they can accept macro-evolution. Go figure!

[Tj3]

Also, the idea of "proof" is not one that has much currency outside the field of mathematics. Physical and biological scientists almost always frame their conclusions as probability statements, not categorical certainties.

There were those on this thread who claimed that macro-evolution was "proven". That is why I am asking for the proof.

I would disagree that proof has no basis in science,

[Tj3]

This is what it really comes down to, isn't it? You believe that the Bible is "God's Word", and that a particular interpretation of it is the only correct one, and therefore anything that appears to be inconsistent with that interpretation must be rejected out of hand.

I note how you took that out of context ignoring what I said about science. I also note that you ignored the fact that this was to do with theistic evolution which by definition says that God created evolution.

And yet, we have right here on this thread professing Christians like Fred and compsavvyimnot who interpret the Bible in such a way that they can accept macro-evolution. Go figure!

People can believe whatever they wish. That does not make it true.

Fred also claims that macro-evolution has been proven. Where is that proof?

[ordinaryguy]

People can believe whatever they wish. That does not make it true.

So their interpretation of the Bible is wrong, and yours is right. Yours is "what God said", and theirs is a misconstruction at best, or a deception of the Evil One, at worst. It doesn't get much simpler than that, I guess.

I have always been nonplussed by folks like you who manage to be SO SURE. So sure that you have correctly understood "what God said" to you, and so sure that He would say exactly the same thing to everybody else as well, if only they would listen and interpret properly.

[asking]

I have always been nonplussed by folks like you who manage to be SO SURE. So sure that you have correctly understood "what God said" to you, and so sure that He would say exactly the same thing to everybody else as well, if only they would listen and interpret properly.

Isn't this the essence of faith?

[arcura]

Tj3,
You said, "Fred also claims that macro-evolution has been proven"
Once again I ask you to quit twisting what I say.
I never said that macro-evolution has been proven.
I agreed that there is so much micro-evolution shown in nature that that may indicate macro exists.
Please quit trying to put words in my mouth or twisting what I say.
That has been a bad habit of your for years and often pointed out to you by many.
So PLEASE stop it.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Akoue]

Isn't this the essence of faith?

Boy, I sure hope not. I like to think that faith can live harmoniously alongside doubt, humility, intellectual rigor, and, at times, deference. I'm not an astronomer, but I believe them when they tell me that the earth rotates on its axis and orbits the sun. The Bible says otherwise (I cited several passages in an earlier post, but Ps.104.5 sticks out in my mind). I see no reason why a person of faith cannot defer to the biologists in the same way. I'm repeating myself, I know, but I just don't see the faith-science conflict here. Perhaps astronomy and physics can teach us that we had misinterpreted Ps.104.5; perhaps biology can teach us that we had misinterpreted the creation story. To me this looks like progress.

[Tj3]

So their interpretation of the Bible is wrong, and yours is right.

I am not interpreting it. There are very specific statements made in scripture regarding creation. Either they occurred or they did not. I accept what scripture says. If anyone feels that it is subject to interpretation, let them bring forward their private interpretation of it and we can certainly look at it and discuss.