And your background in science and particularly the evolutionary sciences is what? Handouts at The Lord's Harvest Bible Study? Who's making BIGGER assumptions here?! Why are there a hundred religions when yours is true? I'm sure your religious beliefs are based upon solid scientific inquiry and thought.
When you find a single mammal or even dinosaur skeleton among the millions of fossils recovered from Precambrian layers from thousands of locations, then let me know. Why don't we ever find them? Creationists have no evidence when it should be ABUNDANT if true! Why is that? There have been plenty of "link" fossils found in the past 150 years. I read about them often in Science and Nature (they're top journals in science). I gather you don't bother keeping up with advancements in science. Why is that?
The Creationist arguments for irreducible complexity were thoroughly destroyed as a religious argument made from ignorance in the Kitzmiller vs Dover Trial in 2005. Even the Christian judge who presided over the trial was disgusted with fundamentalist Christians for their intellectual dishonesty. Why is that?
"The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom."
Wow. That's a mighty wide shotgun blast there. The time it takes to address each of those issues requires a book, not just a few lines there.
As to my credentials in science, I only have three years of a zoology minor in college, basic chemistry, math, physics. I was in in long enough to understand I could not imagine a career in that. I don't have the personality to do well in a lab. I was there long enough to learn basic vocabulary, scientific methods, and such. However I was there long enough to see over and over that evolution was always presented to be as a conclusion of how things must have come about. There was in my mind, no proof that It was a cause..
I want to thank you for your sharp reading of my post. When I read your insightful reply, I realized that as a I typed at the end of a long day (for me) I misspoke. Your post made me refocus on the gist of my argument, and your comments actually make my argument stronger. in my prior Post I was referring to the Pre-Cambrian explosion. That was a gross error, and I misspoke. Thank you for catching that. Of course, The Cambrian layer, by definition was when the explosion of diverse life began. The shallow layers of sedimentary rock just below the Cambrian is by definition, pre-Cambrian. If evolution is true, one would expect that in the pre-Cambrian layers there should be fossils of pre-dinosaurs, pre-fish, pre-mammals, and pre-man. There are none. That is what Darwin was afraid of.
Darwin himself wrote in his Origins, Chapter 6:
LONG before having arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to the reader. Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered; but, to the best of my judgment, the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, fatal to my theory.
These difficulties and objections may be classed under the following heads:-Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?
Secondly, is it possible that an animal having, for instance, the structure and habits of a bat, could have been formed by the modification of some animal with wholly different habits? Can we believe that natural selection could produce, on the one hand, organs of trifling importance, such as the tail of a giraffe, which serves as a fly-flapper, and, on the other hand, organs of such wonderful structure, as the eye, of which we hardly as yet fully understand the inimitable perfection?
Thirdly, can instincts be acquired and modified through natural selection? What shall we say to so marvellous an instinct as that which leads the bee to make cells, which have practically anticipated the discoveries of profound mathematicians?
Fourthly, how can we account for species, when crossed, being sterile and producing sterile offspring, whereas, when varieties are crossed, their fertility is unimpaired?"
In Chapter 9 of Origins, Darwin agreed with me, not you. He wrote:
"
Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown, periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures.
To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer....
The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained."
He acknowledge his theory has this fatal flaw and hypothesized some day someone will find a solution.
Your evolutionary hero was not the proponent of the evolutionary movement that he is made out to be today . His argument had holes and he knew it.
As to Kitzmiller. That case was an establishment clause case under the 2nd amendment. A school board wanted to force a statement about ID into high school science classes. In that case the School board was found to be inserting a religious bias into the curriculum.. I personally understand the legal reasoning behind the opinion. Former Justis Thurgood Marshall , fabricated the concept of separation of church and state where ther had not been such before his time, and the judge in Kitzmiller found a violation of the establishment clause..To me, that's no biggie..
In close reading of Kitzmiller, it largely depends upon what the definition of "science" is, particularly as it relates to old earth theory. By definition "science" precludes any possibility of any supernatural explanation, such as God. Similarly, Intellegent Design at its roots works its way back to God. That judge said that inserting ID into a text book was insertion of religion into a curriculum..
Kitzmiller also pointed out the lack of peer reviewed articles. Kitzmiller was decided several years earlier, but a later event demonstrates the fear-instilling and hostility the evolutionists exert on those who break ranks. They will shut down dissenting voices. See this article of a case in point about the Smithsonian's attack on an editor who merely published an ID article.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/18/AR2005081801680.html When there is no ability to publish, there can be no debate.
I met a professor who earned a PhD from Harvard who had to keep his personal views secret to get his doctorate. The bias against his views would have prevented his degree. There is institutional bias.
As to my views on religion, does it matter? You have read above intelligent and respectful discussion of the issues. Would you view my positions on the substance of the issues differently if I were an atheist, or a Hindu? Think about it. The observations stand on their own footing. The integrity is strong. Even Charles Darwin had to scratch his head that somehow, there was a universal erosion of pre-Cambrian evidence of evolution, yet higher levels of deposits survived where protected levels of fossils below somehow can't be found. ! ?
I am a follower of Jesus. I once argued against miracles. God moved me. I repented. I can tell you no other vector or religion moved this vile man. I know from experience God is real. Moreover, I read my Bible. And by the way, to me it is no smear to call me a Bible thumper, or religious hack. It merely shows the Holy Spirit is convicting you of your sin and need for Him.
