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 stated there are no gaps. I guess he can dialogue with his own evolutionary buddies who disagree with him.

"Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin was virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species." As a result Gould proposed punctuated equilibrium which is ironically a version of a Creationist model.

Jim, you just need to be honest with the facts! Even Darwinians admit the problem. You can be in denial as long as you want; however, ID best explains the facts. You just don't want to admit it. It is because your worldview keeps you from exploring all possibilities.

God has a plan for your life Jim no matter how hard you try to fight it. I am praying for you!

[DENNY]

Stephen Jay Gould is right and Dawkins recommendation to mock those who disagree with you seems to be advice you are following.

Behe is right though because if Darwinian evolution were true, then typology would not be possible. Your argument that all fossils are transitional is meant to make Darwinian evolution unfalsifiable; however, it has never been verified so I guess you have to argue in this manner for your own sake since Darwinian evolution is a matter of faith rather than based on fact.

God Bless...

[luminary2009]

You know, it seems to me that there are simply some things that people are better to agree to disagree on. When our ability to truly listen to each other and find common ground deteriorates into finger pointing and blaming (by either or both sides of a conversation), what is to be gained by furthering the discourse.

While there is a great deal that we could all find in common, including the wonder and awe of the world around us and all of the intricacies of nature (regardless of whether we agree on how our world came into being); the acceptance of the mystery of the many things we don't know (it's as impossible for a believer to explain God -- though we try to do so in poems, music, and scriptural text, as it is for a scientist to explain precisely how it is that life actually sprang into existence on this planet -- though there are numerous theories about it).

I would suggest that since this conversation has deteriorated past the point of people truly listening to each other... that we find what we can agree upon, in this case, not what we disagree about; or that we cease the conversation until we can sit down and really explore the complexities of life with open ears, hearts, and minds and with the level of respect that better suits the foundations of both science and religion.

Because, seriously, does either side in this discussion really intend to hear the other fully and to consider the validity of the other person's perspective whether or not you agree with it? It doesn't seem that way, from my perspective at least.

[DENNY]

I think luminary has some good advice. I don't know of anyone who disagrees that kinds adapt and that certain traits dominate in different environments. The fact is that Darwinian evolution makes the claim that there is a transition between kinds and this has never been demonstrated or observed.

I don't mean to anger you in any way. I simply mean to point out that which everyone including Darwinians know is true. There has been no demonstration or observation of the allege claim. In fact, they make it unfalsifiable by arguing that it takes millions of years.

Jim, the bottom line is that we really don't know since no one existed in the past when these things took place. The evidence is a draw and no specific conclusions can be reached.

The people here want to take you to the next level and show you the wonderful reality of God's love that is known through Jesus Christ. The idea of Darwinian evolution is simply an idea that some believe is true but that most believe is false.

God Bless...

[luminary2009]

Thanks to both of you.

And the point is precisely this. Regardless of how hard and fast, or how firm the facts we feel our beliefs are founded upon, there are missing pieces to both the claims of religion (we have anecdotal evidence of what people say happened) and that of the full extent of evolution of exactly how it may have taken place (there are pieces we are still trying to piece together and fully understand). At the end of the day, we all rely on a certain amount of faith or extrapolation as to what and with whom we're placing our bets on.

Some bet on science to the exclusion of God, others bet on God to the exclusion of science. Some bet on both. The deeper truth may be that while we may like to believe we can disprove each other's beliefs we can't. The absence of proof (whether it be of evolution or God) does not equal disproof. Merely the lack of sufficient evidence to prove either without qualification.

So let's place our bets where we will and be at peace with those bets. And being realistic, let's get over the notion that others will necessary agree with our choice. We can still find the passion, excitement, and enthusiasm that our paths provide and share the elements in which we agree (regardless of how few or small they are).

All the best to us all!





Jim Gardner said:

"There has been no demonstration or observation of the allege claim. In fact, they make it unfalsifiable by arguing that it takes millions of years."
Please demonstrate water turning into wine.

[DENNY]

Jim,

You and I have a different starting point. You start with naturalism which is a worldview that has its own set of assumptions. It operates just like a religion because it assumptions cannot be proven.

My starting point is with human observation. As a result, I allow my beliefs to follow that which can be observed based on credible testimony. The reason for my distrust of Darwinian evolution is because it has not been observed and I know the view of morality held by those who are doing the research. The reason for my trusting the Scripture is because the resurrection has been observed and I know the price that was paid by the witnesses for that observations. The water into wine could have been a trick; however, the resurrection could not have been staged given the data that we currently have.

When I was a student in Graduate school, I loved Aristotle because he started with human observation too. I thought he held the best starting point and have kept that starting point as I approach science.

As time progressed away from Aristotle, science moved away from human observation to a more philosophical approach that depended on a worldview correlation with Christianity being attached followed by naturalism. I simply don't accept dogma as proof for anything; however, I do accept human observation when given by credible witnesses.

I honestly look at the conclusions you reach and from my perspective it simply appears that you have faith in 'an' interpretation of the current data. You also have to realize that millions have been poured into this research by Darwinians because they have to justify their research. When you got millions of dollars involved, and people doing science whose view of life does not consist of an inherent morality, you got a situation that makes for really bad science including information that comes out that is used for propaganda purposes so the money keeps rolling in.

I just read a book by Dennett where he had a graph. He indirectly was trying to show an abundance of life in the pre-Cambrian which is just so dishonest. I know the fossil evidence prior to the Cambrian is very sparce; however, he was misleading his readers in his book as he tried to show how the tree of life began literally over 700 million years ago. I can see a student reading that book and coming across that graph only to make the connection that life was abundant prior to the Cambrian. It is that type of hocus pocus that I don't enjoy reading as I read a book.

Your worldview will limit your description of reality because you are unable to follow the evidence to wherever it leads. My starting point is human observation which then dictates what is reasonable to believe. In my opinion, it is much much more reasonable to believe in the resurrection than to believe Darwinian evolution. In fact, it is more reasonable to believe that Jesus turned water into wine that Darwinian evolution for that matter.

The fact is that only a mind is about to see Event A causing Event B. A mind is the starting point of knowledge. Without a mind, knowledge is impossible. If you add a worldview to the human mind, then you just put weight on your shoes that will slow you down and trip you up. Human observation does not depend on a worldview and human observation is the starting point of science in my opinion. As a result, based on credible witnesses, I am compelled to accept the resurrection since it has been confirmed by the mind of man.

God Bless..

[Lisa]

Hey Jim and Zdenny we are going a bit to far here. This is getting way off topic. Also do you realize that Kingdom Insight can delete us all if it gets too out of line. There is too much good information here. I don't want that to happen do you?

[DENNY]

Jim, I think the answer is for our colleges to begin putting diversity back into our education system. Your video is simply one ad hominem attack after another. 15% of SCIENTISTS are ID PROPONENTS! You should start calling for colleges to hire people that disagree with the status quo. The only reason that 85% of scientists are atheists/agnostics is because of scientific fascism.

I find it interesting that you are dishonest in how you represent me in your post and then claim in your video that ID proponents and Creationists are all liars. (Christians just don't believe it nor can they.) If you have ever spent time with a person like Ken Ham you will find that he is sincere, passionate, educated and bright and very honest. I am personally a Contemporary Creationist so I disagree with him on some things; however, I don't question his sincerity.

The fact is that morality is inherent to Christianity so you should always believe a Christian over a Darwinian. I wouldn't put it past a Darwinian to actually lie about the facts in order to get grants, receive recognition, be praised, or receive power. Morality is not inherent to the Darwinian system and many forces are at work that corrupts the system. In fact, you just demonstrated this in your previous post. The really fun fact is that you know you are misrepresenting the disagreement. If you are not above misrepresenting the facts, then why do you trust your Darwinian comrades? I wouldn't... Just look in a mirror and you will discover that you need Jesus just like me.

God Bless..

[luminary2009]

ZDENNY, I truly have to ask if this discussion is really productive any more? When we're getting down to personal affronts and innuendos about who's a better person, where is this really going?

As for Christians being better people than Darwinists, where on earth does one find any grounds whatsoever for that kind of a statement? Blanket stereotypes don't do any of us good and only lead to wild generalizations. Heaven knows, all one has to do is look back at history to see that many who claimed to be "Christians" committed some pretty awful atrocities that were anything but moral.

As human beings we all have our failings and we who follow Christ ought to know that as well as anyone.

My suggestion -- let's give this topic a rest because it's actually getting embarassing. I think we've all got our egos so firmly inserted into the process that little good will come out of it.


ZDENNY said:

Jim, I think the answer is for our colleges to begin putting diversity back into our education system. Your video is simply one ad hominem attack after another. 15% of SCIENTISTS are ID PROPONENTS! You should start calling for colleges to hire people that disagree with the status quo. The only reason that 85% of scientists are atheists/agnostics is because of scientific fascism.
I find it interesting that you are dishonest in how you represent me in your post and then claim in your video that ID proponents and Creationists are all liars. (Christians just don't believe it nor can they.) If you have ever spent time with a person like Ken Ham you will find that he is sincere, passionate, educated and bright and very honest. I am personally a Contemporary Creationist so I disagree with him on some things; however, I don't question his sincerity. The fact is that morality is inherent to Christianity so you should always believe a Christian over a Darwinian. I wouldn't put it past a Darwinian to actually lie about the facts in order to get grants, receive recognition, be praised, or receive power. Morality is not inherent to the Darwinian system and many forces are at work that corrupts the system. In fact, you just demonstrated this in your previous post. The really fun fact is that you know you are misrepresenting the disagreement. If you are not above misrepresenting the facts, then why do you trust your Darwinian comrades? I wouldn't... Just look in a mirror and you will discover that you need Jesus just like me.

God Bless..

[DENNY]

Dear Jim,

Your comment is once again misinformed. Atheists are the ones that demand a secular government. Muslims are the ones that demand a Islamic Government. The individuals who believe in a totalitarian government are Atheists and Muslims!

Christians on the otherhand argue that our government is more or less Christian depending on who was voted in. Christians gave us free speech and freedom of religion here in the U.S. because they knew that if these rights were protected that our country would always be free and Christian. Of course, Atheists who demand a secular government are in the process of making sure that no Christian one is allowed to be authentic in public. Christians grow the Kingdom through sharing and spreading the love of God in our world. I don't know of any Christians alive today who believe that you use the military or take over the universities (which the secularists have done) and force your views on our children (which the secularists have done).

The point to consider though is that you were dishonest in your portrayal of our disgreement. I know you are aware of this. You decided to misrepresent the facts. Since you cannot rise above the tactics of other Darwinians, what makes you think that your fellow Darwinians are telling you the truth? If you look at your own life and the techniques you use, how do you know that those same techniques are not being used as propaganda to convince you of the beliefs that you currrently hold to?

If you were really committed to science, you would be pushing for diversity which included all worldviews in our scientific communities instead of the censorship, suppression and manipulation of data that currently exists. The people engaging in this immoral activity are Darwinians! You can take to any ID or Creationist Scientists who will tell you the same thing.

[DENNY]

Luminary,

I appreciate your advice and I appreciate your views on the Christian faith. As a Christian I support diversity of opinion because all knowledge for a finite being is based on probability. As a result, all knowledge rest on faith. Christians all recognize this and are humble enough to admit it. The idea that we can know the love of God through faith in Jesus Christ makes perfect sense when you realize that faith is the foundation of all knowledge.

Atheists simply need to recognize this one truth which in fact could change their lives; however, acknowledging this fact requires humility. As a result, I appreciate your discussion and even your methodology because ultimately you are correct.

Jim's big issue is that he blindly believes whatever the scientific consensus is (completely controlled by Darwinians). He doesn't know what the evidence is directly; rather, he simply has a blind faith that they must be right. If the facts were solid, you wouldn't hear ID or Creationist constantly bemoaning the current climate in science; however, the facts are open to interpretation because neither is able to demonstrate their position. Instead the debate centers on, "Trust ME"

When you have two groups coming up with two to three opinions, the "Trust Me" argument which Darwinians constantly use now becomes the real issue. In order to undermine the Darwinian argument, all you have to do is demonstrate who you should trust and show why Darwinians currently dominate the system (scientific fascism). The reason Jim wants to call all non-Darwinians liars is because he knows that the bottom line is a matter of faith. All Christians who actually know the Creationist and ID proponents know that these guys are extremely sincere and honest to the core so his argument doesn't carry much weight. It is really a matter of disagreeing over an interpretation of the evidence that we currently have. As a result we should be pushing for diversity in science (which Christians support) rather than supporting the current system which hold scientists at gun point if they step out of line (Darwinian totalitarian system).

Keep up the good work in the Lord and His love will continue to bless your life!

God Bless.

[DENNY]

Jim,

There is no evidence for Darwinian evolution. NONE! Darwinian evolution is completely dependent on unproven assumptions. The dating techniques are all based on unproven assumptions, the interpretation of the fossil record is based on unproven assumptions, the geological data is based on unproven assumptions, the biological evidence only supports Intelligent Design arguments, the evidence in the field of paleontology is based on unproven assumptions.

If you were honest, you would acknowledge that the entire edifice that currently support Darwinian evolution is based on a model, a faith, and a need to speak the Darwinian language because of the money that is being thrown at the research.

If the money was being given to Creationists or Intelligent Design proponents, they would be able to build a really great edifice too all based on unproven assumptions.

I support the expression of ideas in science for science that has not been observed or demonstrated. Darwinian evolution has never been observed or demonstrated so we don't really know which assumptions to accept. The idea that science is suppose to describe reality is the goal of science. The goal of science is not to support the worldview of naturalism.

Darwinian evolution has been falsified over and over again; however, Darwinians simply change the story line or the expectation when things don't work out. I don't blame them since their view has never been demonstrated; however, that does not give them the right to suppress ideas that are currently opposed to the model that is being presented to the world that is based on unproven assumptions.

You simply have a blind faith in a bunch of assumptions that produce a model that currently dominates the system. If a person questions that edifice for which millions have been spent to produce are mocked. Just ask Dawkins. This is completely unscientific...

Once again, and I repeat, there is no evidence that supports Darwinian evolution and never has been. All the interpretations that they have are based on unproven assumptions. Darwinians have yet to demonstrate their theories.

Once they do, then we will have something to talk about. In fact, Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents won't have anything to talk about.

Jim, you need to open your mind. I support diversity on a mega scale which you don't currently support. Christians believe in free speech and freedom of religion for a reason. We want the best ideas to come out. We don't support suppression, manipulation, power politics and the viewpoint discrimination that currently overwhelms the system.

Darwinians don't have the morality to be open. They are not committed to science. They are commited to naturalism. They are just as dogmatic as the Islamic guy out there.

God Bless....