God in His creation.

[Lisa]

The Bible tells us that the Lord is visible even in His creation. I learn concepts and am horrible with exact scripture references. Can you scholars help me out here? I see God in His creation all of the time. Ever notice the incredible varierty of color and beauty in the birds or the flowers. Although similar they are all different. Shape, color, size, behavior each is unique and fascinating in its own way. For me the ultimate in the Lord's creation and complexity is a bug. Yes, I'm weird that way. I like bugs, especially bottom dwelling stream instects (Macrobenthic insects). It is amazing how complex these things are; every leg has numerous joints, their mouths have numerous moving parts, and the immature stage ussually looks radically different from the adult. At the genus level identification may be determined by the size of a "hair", the prescence of a "thumb" on a mouth part, or the location and shape of a hard skeletal plate (sclerite). When even these "simple" things are so complex how can evolution even be considered? A random beneficial mutation? Since when? How/where do you see the Lord in his creation?

[DENNY]

Jim,

I just wish you would debate substance. You simply have this blind faith in the words coming from Darwinians. On the other hand, I am a free thinker who wants to know the world myself. I was never liked by religious teachers or by secular teachers because I was after facts and information rather than simply hearing them pontificate on what I was suppose to believe.

I never accepted an argument on the basis of authority, but you do. You think Darwinian consensus is truth which is very hard for a free thinker like myself to accept. It is like me accepting YEC consensus as truth. I personally call myself a Contemporary Creationist since I believe that rationally based on the current evidence that this view is best supported and explains the facts.

The diversity of hearing the arguments from Creationists to Darwinians gives me more considerations and that is what science is suppose to be about. I just wish you would accept diversity. The only people who reject diversity in science is Darwinians. You can't even see how totalitarian they are in their tactics. Ironically, you condemn those who have an open mind who encourage diversity of ideas. Christians believe that everyone can contribute ideas and hypothesis. We don't believe that only Darwinians have something of value to say, but this is what you believe because your worldview limits your tolerance of other viewpoints.

God Bless...

[DENNY]

Jim,

Once again, Darwinian is a term I came up with. A true freethinker creates their own terms. I later found out that ID proponents also use the term which I found ironic; however, it makes sense because there are different views on evolution which need to be clarified. For instance, Lenski has disproven Darwinian evolution; however, his research does not necessarily disprove theistic evolution so there is a difference.

Jim, you are not a free thinker in my opinion because you don't debate substance. As soon as something pops up that you disagree with, you go to Ad Hominems. Ad Hominems are always evidence of a box thinker, not an original thinker.

God Bless...

[DENNY]

Darwinians are simply mistaking the mechanism for variation within a kind for Darwinian evolution. We don't have two exact humans, two exact snow flakes, two exact stones, etc... Every thing is an original having intrinsic value! Nothing in our experience is exactly the same just like no two circles are every exact.

However, the fact that all things have form tells us that their is a mind that stand behind reality that is the cause of the form. Form demonstates a design no matter where the form is found.

Darwinians simply mistake the mechanism responsible for diversity and fail to recognize the limits of that mechanism within a kind.

God Bless...

[DENNY]

As I stated, Lenski doesn't even understand the implications of his research yet. Lenski is obviously a Darwinian which is why this is BIG! Lenski and evolutionary biologist has disproven and falsified the theory of Darwinian evolution forever. Lenski's failure to demonstrate Darwinian evolution now provides an argument by which all raitonal minds have to reject Darwinian evolution. The bottom line is that Darwin was wrong because he failed to recognize the limits of natural selection which clearly show up in the fossil record, the genome as well as his own research! Lenski is a firm believer in Darwinian ideas and I don't suspect his faith will be overturned until he becomes blue in the face trying to demonstrate it. However, the research has clearly demonstrated that Darwinian evolution is false and that it cannot happen.

[Denise]

Lisa,
Martyrdom is common to many religions and causes. Look at the number of young Muslims willing to die for their beliefs on an almost daily basis. There have been many Jewish martyrs, Hindu martyrs, political martyrs etc over the years. Many of these causes are contradictory. The Druid priests died for their faith rather than submit to the Romans.

Strength of belief is not itself an indicator of truth. It is an indicator of faith, which is belief without proof.

[DENNY]

Denise,

All knowledge is based on faith because we can only know things with a degree of probability. The difference is that Christianity is an informed faith that has overwhelming evidence. You are proposing that the witnessess died for something that they knew was a lie which is irrational. Martyrdom takes place only when a follower really believes something is true.

[DENNY]

Since the oceanic crust is always growing and being replaced, the evidence most likely has been turned into molten lava at this point. I believe that the continental crust was created by the oceanic crust. If you flatten North and South America, you can end up with a worldwide flood. I just think folks are way to fast to discount the Biblical record which was observed by a human mind and revealed by God. We have fish fossils on every major mountain range which would seem to indicate that either they were once under water or that fish used to be able to swim above ground on land (lol).

[Sierra Nichole]

Something interesting I found.

http://www.theistic-evolution.com/theisticevolution.html

[DENNY]

Jim,

Lenski has still not shared the bacteria with other "competent scientist" such as other non-Darwinians. I believe your claim Jim simply ignores the fact that Darwinians are not up front and honest with the data. In addition, we don't know if intelligence was involved in the mutation of the gene which remains to be seen.

The fact is that no one can repeat the experiment. The problem with the view though is that at 44,000 generations they have only experienced one change. Even if what he says were true, it would disprove Darwinian evolution. When you elevate that to macro-evolution, you discover that Darwinian evolution is impossible.

Lenski has in fact proven that Darwinian evolution is false. Your article merely demonstrates the closed system of propaganda that people like Lenski try to operate in. Lenski still doesn't understand the implication of his work which is what I find really funny.

God Bless...

[DENNY]

Jim,

You are simply an example of a person who accepts everything that a Darwinian says. The article you provide tries to say that the Christian was trying to discredit the research. Actually, he was trying to substantiate the work.

Lenski is the one who assigned negative intension to the letter. You see, Lenski saw a political opportunity; however, Andrew Schlafly was simply making a request. Lenski should have welcomed the request, instead, he obfuscated.

The fact that Schlafly put the request on the internet was merely to pressure Lenski to provide the information; however, he never did saying that evidence would only be released to another fellow Darwinian (or someone who is in his club).

This is a great example of a Darwinian suppressing and manipulating data. In any event, the experiment cannot be duplicated so it cannot be subjected to a peer review.

God Bless...

God Bless...

[Denise]

Hi there,
Knowledge is based on evidence, not faith. Evidence is measurable. What you have is overwhelming belief, not overwhelming evidence. You don't seem to grasp that people who believe totally different things from you have that same overwhelming belief and are willing to die for it. They are martyrs for beliefs that you believe are lies, but which they know with absolute certainty to be true.

Deeply religious people construct "evidence" around their beliefs rather than the other way round.

Denny


ZDENNY said:

Denise,

All knowledge is based on faith because we can only know things with a degree of probability. The difference is that Christianity is an informed faith that has overwhelming evidence. You are proposing that the witnessess died for something that they knew was a lie which is irrational. Martyrdom takes place only when a follower really believes something is true.

[DENNY]

Denise,

The evidence for the resurrection is very measurable with over 500 witnesses of the resurrection. Human observation provides that best evidence for any fact since only minds can understand cause and effect relationships.

Darwinian evolution has never been demonstrated or observed so it cannot be measured as it has never been observed. We have evidence for variation within a kind, but we have no evidence that one kind can become another.

The fact is that all knowledge is based on faith. You have faith in your senses that they are accurately informing you about the physical world. It is the same faith in Jesus Christ that informs you about the love of God that is found in Christ Jesus. Since man is not God, we can only know things by faith in either case.

The real question is whether you have a blind faith or an informed faith. Darwinian evolution is based on a blind faith since it has never been observed. The resurrection is based on an informed faith since it has been verified and confirmed.

In fact over 75% of NT Scholars believe that the disciples saw the resurrected Christ. The evidence that we have can only be explained by the resurrection itself and rational minds agree. The only people that disagree are those who hold to a worldview called naturalism which says that all human observation is limited by natural causes; however, this is simply a worldview that is not justified rationally either by science or by reason.

Even if a naturalist saw the resurrected Christ himself, they would be forced to believe that they were hallucinating no matter how strong the evidence. Your worldview can limit your ability to desribe reality which is the goal of science. As a result, naturalism is anti-scientific because it puts a limit on knowledge and experience that is unjustified that forces you to deny the obvious.

God Bless...