>I must confess that this message has some interesting
>reading material but it doesn't pass muster. To take
>this position is to ignore scripture.
I know as my Christian brother that you don't really believe that I
would intentionally ignore the words of the Creator when studying His
creation. I might be mistaken having misread, misunderstood, or
misinterpreted the Word; but I assure you that I have not ignored it.
I do not see anything in the scripture you quoted--or in what you didn't
quote--that stands in opposition to what I've said. It is precisely
because I have read (and re-read and re-read) the story that has lead me
to my conclusions.
Incidentally, young-earth creationists often pretend that evidence for
creation is evidence for young-earth creation. Evidence for creation is
exactly that--evidence for creation. The only evidence for young-earth
creation that I am ever shown is the kind that comes from the Istitute
for Creation Research--mostly denials and re-interpretations of evidence
for old-earth creation or Darwinian evolution.
Dario also wrote:
>Moreover, Paul filled his epistles with references to the
>first man Adam as a real person and not some evolved ape...
I deny that Adam was "some evolved ape". By that I mean that I deny
that such a thing occurred by purely natural mechanisms without the
acitivity of a creative, nurturing supernatural Being. I doubt that
such a thing would even be possible by purely natural means--given the
amount of time that has transpired.
You've all heard the story about the infinite monkeys typing on infinite
typewriters (keyboards for you young folk) for an infinite period of
time--one would eventually bang out the works of Shakespeare. (Maybe
that is how we got them.) Now, consider the ramifications of Big Bang
cosmology. The formulas of Einstein have taken away from Darwin the
most important ingredient in the theory of naturalistic
evolution--infinite time. In the wake of the Einsteins math, Darwin has
been left with too little time to account for the high level of
diversity of species and rate of speciation. Dr. Hugh Ross has gone so
far as to say that Darwinian materialism is breathing its last gasps
because evidence about rapid speciation is rendering naturalistic
evolution not just improbable but impossible.
Incidentally, no one has ever PROVEN that a natural mutational change in
a species ever results in progression toward newer and better forms.
Theories abound, but they do not constitute proof. When I posed this
problem to an astrophysicist his answer was that "all evidence
notwithstanding" it (naturalistic evolution) was the "only reasonable
answer worth considering". The proof is, "We can't think of anything
better."
Darwinists like to pretend that natural changes within the limits of a
species' genetic code constitutes "natural mutational change" but it
does not. The speckled moth could change from brown to white and back
to brown because there were always some of both colors in the
population--contrast with surrounding foliage together with natural
predation determines which color is predominate at any given time. This
is as far as natural selection will ever go. Beyond this requires the
work of a supernatural Selector.
Russ
-- Russell T. Cannonrcannon@usa.net