Questions For Evolutionists

[Revolg]

This is a little outside topic but...

In light of the beauty in the universe do some of you (evolutionists) acknowledge that there was possibly a God to jumpstart the universe?

Also as one of the foundational principles of astronomy the cosmological principle says that the universe is finite therefore has a cause. But most astronomers say the Big Bang is what this cause is, do you agree? Or was there another possible way the universe came about?

[Blake Reas]

03-08-2003 @ 05:38 PM
Revolg:

This is a little outside topic but...

In light of the beauty in the universe do some of you (evolutionists) acknowledge that there was possibly a God to jumpstart the universe?

Also as one of the foundational principles of astronomy the cosmological principle says that the universe is finite therefore has a cause. But most astronomers say the Big Bang is what this cause is, do you agree? Or was there another possible way the universe came about?

To get around the uncomfortable problem of a Ex Nihilo Universe the Scientist Alan Guth and a guy by the name of Fuchs( I think) have come up with a interesting theory.
They say that we do not live in a universe but multiverse. They take quantum theory and Relativity and say that the only way to wed them together is to postulate a multiverse. There are not just a few multiverses but an infinite amount of them. This also destroys the anthropic principle and the teleological argument, IF it is true. Then again I think it just pushes the question back. WHO created the first universe?
Another interesting thing that they say is that for instance when you read the newpaper or use a computer you do something to atoms (don't remember exactly what was said) and when you do this each time you create a new multiverse.
They admit that this is highly speculative but just like my post in the religion section about presuppositions, they explain it this way because they cannot allow God to get a foot in the door because of Naturalism.

By His Grace, For His Glory
Blake
P.S. this is not towards Evolutionist so to speak. I know there are Theistic evolutionist on this site I just thought this would start conversation.
:thumb:

[Revolg]

They take quantum theory and Relativity and say that the only way to wed them together is to postulate a multiverse. There are not just a few multiverses but an infinite amount of them. This also destroys the anthropic principle and the teleological argument, IF it is true. Then again I think it just pushes the question back. WHO created the first universe?

The problem with the concept of infinity has more questions than does it have a answer. Obviously since time is linear and that the concept of entrophy is true; the cosmological & teleological arguments are still employed through science. Although not in any Godly plant is why most astronomers hang onto a finite universe started by a Big Bang explosion billions of years in the past which led to stellar evolution. If a eternal regression is needed to explain all that there is here in the physical world, the question arises where did the eternal regression come from? It can be logically defined as why the teleological and cosmological arguments still run in science today. Probably most scientists realize that the universe is finite except for that fringe group. Albert Einstein (although not a Christian) posed the problems and believed in God later in his life (not Jehovah mind you!). These were based on the systems of argumentation based on Thomas Aquinas and Norman Geisler.

[Gracchus]

03-08-2003 @ 05:38 PM
Revolg:

This is a little outside topic but...

In light of the beauty in the universe do some of you (evolutionists) acknowledge that there was possibly a God to jumpstart the universe?

Also as one of the foundational principles of astronomy the cosmological principle says that the universe is finite therefore has a cause. But most astronomers say the Big Bang is what this cause is, do you agree? Or was there another possible way the universe came about?

At the limits of physics and cosmology strange things happen. down toward absolute zero some non-conductive substances become superconductors; toward the speed of light matter becomes more wave-like; when you study very small things you are unable to determine the total state of a system; too much mass and a singularity forms. By theory there is a finite amount of time between the big bang and the determination of the laws of physics.
And what physics, biology, and chemistry have not demonstrated to my satisfaction, is why I am. :huh:

[Stratnerd]

Rev,

the question arises where did the eternal regression come from? I don't know how a person could answer that. If it is eternal then how could it come from anything since the "from" implies origin and "eternal" makes it not have one.

[Revolg]

Exactly and that's the major reason why I believe in God. I believe eternal regression is flawed because you can do the hook-up with entrophy to all the universes.

[Bubba]

I'm a thiestic evolutionist and yes, I do belive that in essense an intelligent beginning for the universe is not only possible but probable. The best evidence in my mind would be perhaps the fitness of carbon as a basis for life. This however is not a proof of God, it merely shows at a basic level the universe shows finely tuned design.

Bubba

[Blake Reas]

03-08-2003 @ 07:13 PM
Revolg:

They take quantum theory and Relativity and say that the only way to wed them together is to postulate a multiverse. There are not just a few multiverses but an infinite amount of them. This also destroys the anthropic principle and the teleological argument, IF it is true. Then again I think it just pushes the question back. WHO created the first universe?

The problem with the concept of infinity has more questions than does it have a answer. Obviously since time is linear and that the concept of entrophy is true; the cosmological & teleological arguments are still employed through science. Although not in any Godly plant is why most astronomers hang onto a finite universe started by a Big Bang explosion billions of years in the past which led to stellar evolution. If a eternal regression is needed to explain all that there is here in the physical world, the question arises where did the eternal regression come from? It can be logically defined as why the teleological and cosmological arguments still run in science today. Probably most scientists realize that the universe is finite except for that fringe group. Albert Einstein (although not a Christian) posed the problems and believed in God later in his life (not Jehovah mind you!). These were based on the systems of argumentation based on Thomas Aquinas and Norman Geisler.

I agree I just knew it would start conversation!:yipee:

By His Grace, For His Glory
Blake

[Gracchus]

Instead of "eternal regression", I would use the phrase "hyperdimensional fractal geometry". :hrm:

[Yog^sothoth]

:huh: :dunce:

I just have one statement to make and it's so weird i don't understand it.

what if time isn't linear?

[The Barbarian]

Would it be considered rude to point out that evolutionary theory makes no claims about the way life or the universe started?

In my experience, a great deal of frustration comes about because of that misunderstanding.

[Socratism]

Today @ 06:53 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=118858#post118858)
The Barbarian:

Would it be considered rude to point out that evolutionary theory makes no claims about the way life or the universe started?

In my experience, a great deal of frustration comes about because of that misunderstanding.

Of course they don't, because they have stupidly extrapolated themselves backwards into an impossible dilemma.

The only solution is to cop out.

:rofl:

BTW, Pat, do you still post to CARM? (That is where I first ran into her silly postings).

[garthoverman]

03-08-2003 @ 05:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=30135#post30135)
Revolg:

This is a little outside topic but...

In light of the beauty in the universe do some of you (evolutionists) acknowledge that there was possibly a God to jumpstart the universe?

Also as one of the foundational principles of astronomy the cosmological principle says that the universe is finite therefore has a cause. But most astronomers say the Big Bang is what this cause is, do you agree? Or was there another possible way the universe came about?
Where the universe is equivalent to the set of everything that exists, in order to discern a beginning of the universe, one would need to observe a state of absolute non-existence so that it might be compared to the state of existence of the set of everything that exists.

Such a state is not observed.

Furthermore, where eternal describes something that exists for all meaningful time values, the universe as it is presently observed certainly qualifies.

Lastly, the cosmological principle says that on average the universe is homogeneous and isotropic. It does not say that the universe is finite, nor does it speak to the existence of a cause to the universe.

Yours,
Garth

[Zeus]

03-08-2003 @ 05:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=30135#post30135)
Revolg:

This is a little outside topic but...

In light of the beauty in the universe do some of you (evolutionists) acknowledge that there was possibly a God to jumpstart the universe?


Yes - I find the anthropic principle as an argument for God to be compelling.


Also as one of the foundational principles of astronomy the cosmological principle says that the universe is finite therefore has a cause. But most astronomers say the Big Bang is what this cause is, do you agree? Or was there another possible way the universe came about?

I would say most astronomers don't know how the universe came to be. The Big Bang is taken axiomatically. It had to have a cause of some sort. Even if it is the result of a quantum fluctuation (a possibility far from demonstrated scientifically), that does not explain the origin of quantum fluctuations.

Z

[garthoverman]

Today @ 12:22 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=118874#post118874)
Socratism:

Of course they don't, because they have stupidly extrapolated themselves backwards into an impossible dilemma.
Who are "they"? If you'll re-read The Barbarian's post, you'll note that he said that evolutionary theory makes no claims to the way the universe may or may not have begun. The theory is about a process (i.e. many, many events aggregated), not any single event like a beginning of the universe.

The only solution is to cop out.

There is no need to "cop out" of a dilemma that only exists in the minds of creationists.

Yours,
Garth

[Socratism]

It's still a cop out. If one assumes (as many do) that God created the universe then why is it such a big deal that he also created life in multiple forms, since it is easy to see that even a downhill process like copying errors could generate a lot of variation along the way?

Those of you who believe that God acted and still acts in the universe don't have to buy into those silly ideas the evolutionists are peddling.

[Zeus]

Today @ 03:21 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=118987#post118987)
Socratism:

It's still a cop out. If one assumes (as many do) that God created the universe then why is it such a big deal that he also created life in multiple forms,

It's not a big deal. Its just not what happened.

Those of you who believe that God acted and still acts in the universe don't have to buy into those silly ideas the evolutionists are peddling.

Um, I'm an evolutionist and I believe that God acted and still acts in the universe. Does your above statement make any sense at all (in any universe)?

[The Barbarian]

It's still a cop out. If one assumes (as many do) that God created the universe then why is it such a big deal that he also created life in multiple forms, since it is easy to see that even a downhill process like copying errors could generate a lot of variation along the way?

Evidence doesn't support that idea. Nor does God say that He didn't create the diversity of life by evolution. That being so, it's not hard to accept that the evidence is what is says.

Those of you who believe that God acted and still acts in the universe don't have to buy into those silly ideas the evolutionists are peddling.

I'm guessing you're now confusing evolution with deism. That's wrong, too.

BTW, isn't speculating about the identity of a member here, forbidden by the rules? Be careful.

[Socratism]

Today @ 10:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=119006#post119006)
The Barbarian:
Evidence doesn't support that idea. Nor does God say that He didn't create the diversity of life by evolution. That being so, it's not hard to accept that the evidence is what is says.

Actually all the evidence fits our ideas perfectly. How could it be any other way?

I'm guessing you're now confusing evolution with deism.

That would be the day. :rofl:

BTW, isn't speculating about the identity of a member here, forbidden by the rules? Be careful.

No speculation here. I don't know who you are, but your handle seems familiar.

[Socratism]

Today @ 10:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=119003#post119003)
Zeus:
It's not a big deal. Its just not what happened.

Sure it is.

Um, I'm an evolutionist and I believe that God acted and still acts in the universe.

You must have been invented by a committee.

:rofl:

[Zeus]

Today @ 04:23 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=119027#post119027)
Socratism:
Socratism:
Um, I'm an evolutionist and I believe that God acted and still acts in the universe.
You must have been invented by a committee.

:rofl:

No - it's quite simple.

Evolution is science, which states nothing about the existence or non-existence of God, nor anything about whether God acts or acted in the Universe.

I am one of those who believes what science tells us is valid.

You, on the other hand, appear to confuse theistic evolutionism with Deism. They are not the same. Why?

Because one can simultaneously believe in an active, interactive God, while also believing that God enacts His will via natural causes.

Do you believe that God controls the weather?

Do you also believe that weather is explained by such naturalistic things as "highs" and "lows", gas theory, etc.?

I bet you do, but even if you don't, most people who consider themselves theists, and not deists, do.

Evolution is no different, except it concerns life instead of weather.

Z

[Zeus]

Today @ 12:22 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=118874#post118874)
Socratism:

The Barbarian:
Would it be considered rude to point out that evolutionary theory makes no claims about the way life or the universe started?


Of course they don't, because they have stupidly extrapolated themselves backwards into an impossible dilemma.

The only solution is to cop out.

And by your logic, Newton's theory of universal gravitation is a cop out, since it does not attempt to explain the origin of mass, but assumes its existence a priori.

By your logic, quantum mechanics is a "cop out", since it does not attempt to explain the origin of fundamental particles, but simply assumes their existence.

And statistical thermodynamics is a "cop out", because it makes no attempt to explain the origin of atoms, but simply assumes their existence.

Etc. etc. ad infinitum.

As Barbarian said, Socratism, a lot of confusion exists because of a failure to understand that scientific theories have specific domains of explanation.

For evolution, both the origin of life and especially the origin of the universe fall outside its explanatory domain. That fact has no bearing upon whether evolution, statistical mechanics, universal theories of gravitiation, quantum mechanics, or any other theories, are true or false.

Today @ 12:22 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=118874#post118874)
Socratism:
:rofl:


You'd be much better off if you quit laughing, got up off the floor, and actually reasoned about these issues.


BTW, Pat, do you still post to CARM? (That is where I first ran into her silly postings).

Isn't this board moderated?

[The Barbarian]

Socratism says:
Actually all the evidence fits our ideas perfectly. How could it be any other way?

I'm wondering how the sorting of fossils in the geologic column supports your ideas "perfectly". Have you finally accepted science after all?

[Socratism]

Today @ 08:38 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=119216#post119216)
The Barbarian:

Socratism says:


I'm wondering how the sorting of fossils in the geologic column supports your ideas "perfectly". Have you finally accepted science after all?

The so-called "sorting" of the fossils is one of the biggest frauds ever invented by evolutionists.

[Socratism]

Today @ 01:00 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=119071#post119071)
Zeus:

And by your logic, Newton's theory of universal gravitation is a cop out, since it does not attempt to explain the origin of mass, but assumes its existence a priori.

Newton accepted that God had a hand in it. Evolutionists don't.

Etc. etc. ad infinitum.

Ditto to all that too.

As Barbarian said, Socratism, a lot of confusion exists because of a failure to understand that scientific theories have specific domains of explanation.

Evolutionists deliberately create confusion by refusing to accept the necessary consequences of their extrapolating backwards without limit.

For evolution, both the origin of life and especially the origin of the universe fall outside its explanatory domain.

Evolution attempts to demonstrate that God was a liar or that He doesn't exist. When the going gets tough they cop out, demonstrating that their theories of a Big Bang and goo to the zoo are rubbish.

That fact has no bearing upon whether evolution, statistical mechanics, universal theories of gravitiation, quantum mechanics, or any other theories, are true or false.

It has everything to do with the fact that half a theory is not better than no theory at all. It is actually worse because it deludes the naive into thinking that God is not necessary.

You'd be much better off if you quit laughing, got up off the floor, and actually reasoned about these issues. \

Sometimes it may be better to illustrate the absurdity of your arguments with laughter for many of them deserve no serious attention.

[Zeus]

Today @ 02:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=119231#post119231)

Zeus:

And by your logic, Newton's theory of universal gravitation is a cop out, since it does not attempt to explain the origin of mass, but assumes its existence a priori.


Socratism:

Newton accepted that God had a hand in it. Evolutionists don't.


First, whether Newton accepted God's involvement or not has nothing to do with his theory. His theory does not mention God.

Second, the statement that evolutionists don't accept that God had a hand in evolution is a bald lie. Some do, some don't - just like many physicists today accept God's hand in the world and some don't. I am a prime example of an evolutionist that does. Many of the greatest evolutionary biologists of our time also did/do. Have you ever read Ken Miller's book, "Finding Darwin's God?

Really, Socratism - don't you have any Christian friends that are also research biologists? Nobody in your church? Seek them out and talk to them for goodness sake!


Socratism:
Evolutionists deliberately create confusion by refusing to accept the necessary consequences of their extrapolating backwards without limit.


And like I said, by your warped logic gravitationalists also deliberately create confusion by refusing to accept the necessary consequences of extrapolating backwards without limit. Where did all that motion and matter come from anyway? Neither Newton's nor Einstein's theories address that question. In science, that is not a fault.


Socratism:
Evolution attempts to demonstrate that God was a liar or that He doesn't exist.


Why do you have to lie, Socratism? There is nothing in the theories of common descent or natural selection that says anything about God one way or the other. The exact same thing is true of any other scientific theory.

You are buying into a false dichotomy. Just because we can explain natural phenomena using a scientific theory does not mean that God is no longer actively involved. That is a "God of the gaps" mentality, and it is very poor theology. God is free to use many different methods to enact His ends. Some of them use regularities and laws.

[The Barbarian]

Socratism says:
The so-called "sorting" of the fossils is one of the biggest frauds ever invented by evolutionists.

But even creationists admit that it exists. Are you denying that different fossils are found in different layers? That's demonstrably untrue.

Haldane, when asked what might refute evolution, said that the fossil of a rabbit in undisturbed Cambrian deposits would do it.

Yet, there's nothing of the kind. Everything neatly sorted. Why?

[Zeus]

Today @ 01:50 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=119225#post119225)
Socratism:

The so-called "sorting" of the fossils is one of the biggest frauds ever invented by evolutionists.


Nice rewriting of history. The observation that fossils are sorted according to stratigraphic layers was made by devoted Creationist geologists, not evolutionists, long before Darwin.


Fossils have been long studied as great curiosities, collected with great pains, treasured with great care and at a great expense, and shown and admired with as much pleasure as a child's hobby-horse is shown and admired by himself and his playfellows, because it is pretty; and this has been done by thousands who have never paid the least regard to that wonderful order and regularity with which nature has disposed of these singular productions, and assigned to each class its peculiar stratum.

notes written January 5, 1796
William Smith, English canal digger
http://www.wtgs.org/geolinks2.html


In 1835 and 1839, before anyone had read Darwin's views on evolution, Adam Sedgewick and Roderick Impey Murchison published papers where they first identified the Cambrian, Silurian, and Devonian layers, based largely upon fossil sorting.

"On the Silurian and Cambrian Systems, exhibiting the order in which the older sedimentary strata succeed each other in England and Wales."

Both were creationists who rejected Darwin's theories when they came out in 1859.

http://www.bartleby.com/65/mu/Murchiso.html

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/sedgwick.html

There are many more examples, but I'll let you do the research. Just get any book on the history of geology (an introductory college textbook will do).

[Socratism]

Today @ 12:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=119331#post119331)
Zeus:

Nice rewriting of history. The observation that fossils are sorted according to stratigraphic layers was made by devoted Creationist geologists, not evolutionists, long before Darwin.


No rewrite. There is obviously a general pattern of simple marine forms on the bottom and large land forms on the top, but evolutioinists exaggerate this generality to claim a detailed sorting far beyond what is justified by the evidence.

Every year more data emerges to falsify the "detailed sorting" claims. Finding fish in the Cambrian is just the latest example of this long term trend.

[DunnySaze]

Today @ 08:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=119510#post119510)
Socratism:



No rewrite. There is obviously a general pattern of simple marine forms on the bottom and large land forms on the top, but evolutionists exaggerate this generality to claim a detailed sorting far beyond what is justified by the evidence.

Every year more data emerges to falsify the "detailed sorting" claims. Finding fish in the Cambrian is just the latest example of this long term trend.

The 'fish' were very primitive and not unlike other chordates of the time. It's not like they found carp swimming around.

Yes, if you don't really look too hard, if you just give the fossil record a quick glance, it might appear this way. But as you look closer questions tend to emerge. Like why do brachipods show the fossil distribution that they do, of specific patterns emerging at specific times? See http://www.palaeos.com/Invertebrates/Brachiopods/brachiopoda.htm#evolution.

This is just one example of course. There are many many more.
Since I doubt you actually look at the evidence (despite your claims to the contrary), I won't ask you why brachipods are distributed this way if not because that is how they evolved. But to others who might be misled by your statements, there they are.

[Socratism]

Today @ 03:29 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=119537#post119537)
DunnySaze:
The 'fish' were very primitive and not unlike other chordates of the time. It's not like they found carp swimming around.

This just proves to me that evolutionists would not flinch even if mammal bones were found in the Cambrian.

Yes, if you don't really look too hard, if you just give the fossil record a quick glance, it might appear this way. But as you look closer questions tend to emerge. Like why do brachipods show the fossil distribution that they do, of specific patterns emerging at specific times? See http://www.palaeos.com/Invertebrates/Brachiopods/brachiopoda.htm#evolution.

This is just one example of course. There are many many more.
Since I doubt you actually look at the evidence (despite your claims to the contrary), I won't ask you why brachipods are distributed this way if not because that is how they evolved. But to others who might be misled by your statements, there they are.

I have all kinds of books on this stuff in my library. I just happen to be more skeptical than you apparently are.

Sometimes I think that people who focus too much on the details fail to see what the overall picture is trying to tell them.

[Zeus]

Today @ 08:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=119510#post119510)
Socratism:

No rewrite. There is obviously a general pattern of simple marine forms on the bottom and large land forms on the top,


That is not the pattern at all. There are plenty of large, complex marine forms near the bottom and middle (from the Devonian on). There are large landforms in the lower layers (Paleozoic, Carboniferous and Permian). In fact, the largest land forms are in the middle (Mesozoic - think dinosaurs here), not at the top (Cenozoic). And there are plenty fo simple marine forms in the most recent (highest) layers.

Socratism:
Every year more data emerges to falsify the "detailed sorting" claims. Finding fish in the Cambrian is just the latest example of this long term trend.

The "fish" in the Cambrian are very primitive fish, which were in fact predicted from evolution to be there (by Darwin himself 140 years ago). These fish are unlike any known today, lacking bones, jaws, and fins (except for two small lateral fins extending the length of the body). They are basically advanced worms.

[Zeus]

Today @ 09:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=119564#post119564)
Socratism:



This just proves to me that evolutionists would not flinch even if mammal bones were found in the Cambrian.


Mammals are not predicted to be in the Cambrian. Primitive fish are. You have plenty of examples of evolutionary biologists predicting that mammals will never be found in the Cambrian, but not a single one of an evolutionist claiming primitive fish will not be found there. In fact, Darwin predicted they should be. Of course scientists do not "flinch" when predicitons are confirmed - that is considered to be a good thing.

[Socratism]

Today @ 04:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=119579#post119579)
Zeus:



Mammals are not predicted to be in the Cambrian. Primitive fish are. You have plenty of examples of evolutionary biologists predicting that mammals will never be found in the Cambrian, but not a single one of an evolutionist claiming primitive fish will not be found there. In fact, Darwin predicted they should be. Of course scientists do not "flinch" when predicitons are confirmed - that is considered to be a good thing.

One can predict that anything found in the Cambrian would automatically be called "primitive", since that is what would tend to salvage the paradigm.

Of course lots of stuff today could easily be thought of as "primitive" if this would help an argument.

[The Barbarian]

It gets even better. The early Cambrian has no fish, but does have primitive chordates. Craniates, including early fish show up later in the Cambrian.

Which is exactly what evolutionary theory predicts. Creationists can only mutter "Godmustadunnit". But science knows why.

[Fedmahn Kassad]

Today @ 03:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=119564#post119564)
Socratism:



I just happen to be more skeptical than you apparently are.

You should add "as long as the subject is not Noah's Flood or a 6-day Creation".

FK

[Zeus]

Today @ 09:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=119601#post119601)
Socratism:

One can predict that anything found in the Cambrian would automatically be called "primitive", since that is what would tend to salvage the paradigm.


Well, I suppose one could hypothetically, but that is not how science is done. The meaning of "primitive" in biology has a very specific meaning, and it is based solely upon the structure of an organism -- not where it is found or what layer it comes from.

For a layman's explanation of these technical terms, see:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#cladistics

[DunnySaze]

Yesterday @ 09:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=119564#post119564)
Socratism:




This just proves to me that evolutionists would not flinch even if mammal bones were found in the Cambrian.

Finding a primitive chordate pre-cursor to fishes there, while nice to see, isn’t exactly shocking. Now if mammals (or for that matter even modern fish) really were found there, that would be shocking. An ‘unexpected’ result is not necessarily the same as a result which falsifies the theory.

I have all kinds of books on this stuff in my library. I just happen to be more skeptical than you apparently are.

Sometimes I think that people who focus too much on the details fail to see what the overall picture is trying to tell them.

And people who refuse to consider the details of the creation at all are bound to come up with false paradigms of how it got that way. If creation is structured as you picture it, then the details should only confirm that. The fact you ignore the details only goes to cast suspicion on your model.

Notice that I said your model, which is young earth creationism. I do NOT mean Christianity, which I think is fully compatible with an old Earth, biological evolution, and the Big Bang.

[twohumble]

Would it be considered rude to point out that evolutionary theory makes no claims about the way life or the universe started?

In my experience, a great deal of frustration comes about because of that misunderstanding.

Are you familiar with the term "prebiotic evolution"? Of course Darwinism does not deal with that, but in studying evolution, and if darwinism is correct, beginnings must ultimately be intertwined. I most certainly agree that 'darwinian evolutionary theory' makes no claims about origins, yet, in studying the over all concept, origins must be dealt with. Hence the field of 'prebiotic evolution' began.