VJ:> >As I have pointed out to others, the Bible - and, I suggest, our
own
> >experiences of life - make it abundantly clear that man's natural bent
> >is to oppose God, and line up with the forces of darkness. I say this
> >because it is particularly germane to our present discussion. What
> >Genesis 1 describes is a sequence of miraculous events; by definition, a
> >miracle defies scientific analysis, yet you and others appear to
> >recognize no truth unless it is 'scientific truth'! Your version of the
> >latter includes macroevolution - which, because no one has actually
> >observed it to occur, and because it is based upon evidence that is
> >equivocal, is clearly being accepted as an article of faith. So much for
> >'scientific truth'! In preferring the conclusions of men to the
> >Scriptures you are merely confirming our Creator's words through
> >Jeremiah, 'The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately
> >wicked...' (Jer.17:9). Christians have no excuse for neglecting to take
> >account of these truths - which filter through into every aspect of our
> >lives.
>
DC:> How are you defining macroevolution? The evidence for common
descent is
> not equivocal. In a biological context, macroevolution is defined as
> evolution that occurs at or above the species level that is different from
> what occurs at the everyday level of individuals and populations. Some
> believe that such ordinary evolution is adequate to explain the evolution
> of all organisms from a common ancestor, and so do not believe in
> macroevolution but believe in common descent. Macroevolution has also
> gained popularity in young earth, intelligent design, etc. circles as a
> term for "evolution I do not believe in", usually with a vaguely to
> specifically defined taxonomic level at which it is claimed that things
> were specially created. Creation of new species and genera has been
> observed to happen, and there are transitional fossils between different
> classes of organisms (possibly between phyla, depending on how narrowly or
> broadly you define phyla) and molecular and anatomical features connecting
> different phyla, kingdoms, and urkingdoms.
VJ: My idea of 'macroevolution' is, for example, what was undoubtedly
fish gradually becoming amphibian. Would you not agree that the best
data you can offer to support this contention must be taken with a
considerable degree of extrapolation? Are you not, therefore, proceeding
by faith rather than by sight? And when you claim that the evidence of
'the geological column' removes all doubt concerning common descent, are
you denying, categorically, that there could be a straight
Bible-honouring explanation?
VJ:> > It is hardly
> >reasonable, then, to accept an unproven notion - essential to atheists -
> >which actively questions and clouds our understanding of God's
> >Word.
>
DC:> Evolutionary ideas are not essential to atheists. However, they do
fit the
> observations of biology and paleontology. Anti-evolutionary ideas are not
> essential to the Bible, and they do not fit the observations of biology and
> paleontology.
VJ: Wouldn't you say man has a natural desire to know his 'pedigree'?
Without evolution, there would be a 'hole' in the atheist's philosophy
of life.
DC:> We should be actively questioning (not skepticism but testing) our
> understanding of God's Word in order to detect and avoid or disperse the
> clouds.
VJ: Perhaps we should all be paying greater attention to him who came to
bring us truth; the one who countered the devil's lies with the words
'It is written...'.
Sincerely,
Vernon
http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/index.htm
http://www.compulink.co.uk/~indexer/miracla1.htm