User:Wekn reven i susej eht/Debate

Dude, Yo. I joined the Wike Creationist page to help. My motivation for doing so is somewhat complicated. On the one had, IMHO, there does seem to be some "adaption" that life is very obviously undergoing all the time. Macro evolution is something different. Although, hard core supporters of the ToE act and write that the evidence for transitional species and the evidence provided by fossils is "irrefutable" I am far from convinced.

Generally, and perhaps stated in too simple a manner, IMHO that although some good points are made by the ToE, it is certainly NOT a slam dunk. . . and there is much, IMHO that is not explained by the ToE or the ToE have to do some really fancy footwork to make things work.

I am much astonished at the wave of hand given to the discovery of soft tissue in T-Rex. To me this is akin to the destruction of the basic premises of Evolution. . . that is, what the heck is soft tissue doing in bone marrow of a supposedly 64 my T-Rex. This is the arrogance of science that frankly astonishes me at times. .. too often. For, the discovery of non-fossilized soft tissue in T-Rex, IMHO, brings the whole fabric of Evolutionary Theory to its knees and possible utter destruction. ALL is dependent on dating. . . account for a T-Rex that apparently died perhaps 1 my ago?

Having said that, Creationism needs help if only for the reason that it be shown to be an equally viable option to the ToE, so that the ToE be forced to open itself up to self-criticism. I Creationism is shown to be the better scientific explanation then so be it. That is what the scientific method is all about.

Best Regards.--TDurden1937 (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Once again greetings - I read your message on my page.

When we go forward with this Wiki Creationism page I hope we can all endorse and follow the highest standards of scientific methodology in gathering and ordering the data we will use along with authoritative sources which are strongly weighted to scientists who support Evolution. In this way I envision our Wiki Creationism page becoming the quintessential beacon of light showing the way for future debate between Evolutionists, Creationists and in between.

IMHO, this is the ONLY way we might be able to gain credibility and at least start people listening to each other. A first good step would be to discuss what neo-evolution has right such as adaptation. I don't think anyone can really dispute that adaptation goes on. But as you know adaptation is NOT in anyway related to Evolution. It is merely the redistribution of the frequency of the alleles. Right?

I'm not suggesting that we have a topic such as "What Darwin got right." What I'm suggesting is examining the data and literature through a Biblical perspective judging the worth of this argument.

Now when we start talking about the age of the Earth. . . well, I can just hear the groans from the Evolutionists now. So what I would like to see, IMHO, would be something like assessing the data and written sources and from a Biblical perspective once again judging the worth of the arguments.

Sooner-or-later radiometric dating will have to be addressed. Now practically if we just do a frontal assault and list all the ways radiometric dating can go wrong - and you and I both know there are a lot of ways for it to go wrong - we will loose 99.9% of the science oriented readers. What are we going to do about that? Well. .. ahem. . . I'm not sure. But there must be a way. I've prayed about this and I believe that we can overcome this circle the wagons mentality that both sides have.

IMHO, I believe that one of the reasons that Evolutionists are so violent in their opposition to Creationism is that they are terrified. Deep down inside I think many supporters of Evolution sense that there is something deeply wrong with the theory as it now stands. I really feel sorry for most of them. I'm sure there are other reasons such as intellectual pride. And I think some really hate Christians for whatever reason.

I've written a lot on your page and apologize if it is too much.

I hope you get the gist of what I'm saying. As far as my own belief in the inerrancy of the Bible, IMHO, I don't that is necessary but that is just my opinion. Frankly, I've read tons of stuff on Theologycalweb.com about this very thing and I still cannot take a position.

What happens if after examining the data and sources that it seems the Earth is 1 my old. If we are intellectually honest we must face that. Then what. We can't cherry pick the data!

Best regards.--TDurden1937 (talk) 23:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm pleased that we can discuss these issues without getting "steamed" as so many people seem to.

I have a very high regard for using reason in all its complexity to make a judgement. Reason never has worked well for me if I allow myself to get too emotional about something. I have faith in the Truth of the Word of Jesus during His ministry here on Earth. Therefore, I have no anxiety at all that examining naturalistic data or sources based on naturalistic data will undermine my belief in the Words of Jesus.

On the other hand I have no anxiety that an honest and reasonable evaluation of the Holy Texts hold any threat to my Faith.

I find the most distructive things in the "debate" or "war" between the two sides is the unreasonable possitions that "circling the wagons" demands.

For example, I talked with a Pastor who was firm in his believe in the inerrant nature of the Bible. I personally don't think that is necessary as long as the message of salvation is accurately communicate. That be as it may, this pastor explained that he held his doctrin of the inerrant nature of the Bible, because to hold otherwise would allow the possibility of finding the whole or substantial parts of the Bible as untrue.

To me this is a political position. And I ask myself, how would Jesus feel about this? The word of God as expressed in the Holy Bible is so fragile that we must insist that every little bit of it, every comma, nuance, etc., is accurate? No. The word of God is all powerful and cannot be defeated by some minor scribes that changed a few words around to their liking, our made a bunch of punctuation mistakes! That is just MHO.

I think this type of duplicity must be extremely annoying to Evolutionists and those holding to naturalism in general and for good reason, IMHO. If the Pastors or our own Church hold to such things how can I expect supporters of Evolution to be reasonably flexible in an honest way regarding the "obvious" shortcomings I detect in Evolution? Not likely.

This is why I try and mantain a firm balance when talking about all aspect of my belief and what others believe. I have a Christian Love for all people. And as creatures of God they deserve my highest respect and the benefit of the doubt, IMO. I am humbled by the intellectual abilities of many, many who espouse the naturalistic view. They are much smarter than me. Yet intelligence must be tempered by good judgement and common sense, IMO. Some of the smartest people I know are really, really dumb;)

I too hope that we both together can work toward an "honest" and fully scientific model using a competing model of creation. Hopefully, Creationism can fit that bill. I feel deep in my heart, thought, that if we are not honest in our Wiki page as to the "weaknesses" and areas that "need" further development and explanation we will not be breaking new ground. If this Wiki page is just going to be a rehashing of all the old dogmatic arguments and essentially is a "circle the wagons" position, it won't be worth our while. We might as well just put up a few links to the "Bible Thumbing Apologetics Sites" on the internet;) I really don't have much interest at all in that.

I hope you are in an influential position in this group. You seem very reasonable.

PS Are you aware that there is a page already called "Young Earth Creationism." It is basically NOT about YEC but a Evolutionist criticism of YEC and a bad one at that. The page is under the general subject Creationism which is more balanced although I have not read it all as it is rather long. So a problem arises how fit our page into already existing pages. I can easily see any new page being nominated for integration into the already entitled "YEC" page. Not sure what to do about that. I've tried to make some changes to the page but the editing Wiki members are hard core Evolutionists and very anti-Christian.

Best regards.--TDurden1937 (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)