Joined: July 2005
First the post was dierected to Saddle and I await her answer.
There is of course some internal debate as to the six day creation and its a friendly one without rancor and its sometime considered a non-essential among the faithful.
For me to be consistant I except it as literal within my understanding of the meaning of the original language definitions as best understood by respected scholars.
I have no problem with a God who has the capibility to perform such creative acts through processes which have no counterpart in our experience or understanding.. that's one characteristic of God which He actually claims for Himself as part of His character. He has no obligation to share the how or why ... it may well be beyond our ability to even comprehend such abilities with our present limitations.
The issue is that since no one was around to observe His work of creation we are left with His words of description
so you either believe Him or not... that's freedom of choice.
All the evidences against my position assumes a uniformitarian approach to every law of nature and a certain knowledge of initial conditions and/or boundary values mathmatically speaking and we know such is not the case.
People look at the same data and get entirely different views and interpretations because they come to them with a established world view and bias... scientists are not exempt. Thats why there are perfectly respectable scientific types on both sides of the debate whether you people admit it or not.
In fact the real indicator of your weakness is the dogmatic, unrelenting, egocentric, uncompromising attachment to your theory in the face of the most incredulous inconsistencies and conflicting evidences.
Couple that with your vicious personal attacks not just on you opponents but on your own camp members who fail in the slightest to toe the mark; the documented lies and misrepresentations of findings and experimental results, the secretetive and selective presentations of known severe inconsistencies and conflictive findings and the blatant hostility to all things religious, especially Christianity by your primary writers and spokes people and you have all the evidences of "A Theory in Crises".
A little faith is necessary in all world views and that is very much the case with evolution. That is why abiogenesis is not a problem because you trust it will be shown and demonstrated true, resolved, in the future and all the other myriad problems in the theory will as well. That I suggest is a form of religious faith in a naturalistic process that cannot even be adequately illustrated or defined ... essentially unknown.
You may laugh about the helium to human brain argument but it is a logical imperative of your belief system there is no other path of reasoning available to you in the natural view and you are completely aware of that. It is the view of the majority of evolutionists and they choose to hide it because it exposes the tenuousn nature of their position. That alone should make the rationally thinking person question the entireity of the theory, it has no logical underpinnings, it rests on nothing but "thin air".
The very organism you depend on as the first life form had to come from non-life no other choices are acceptable to you... and its chemical precursors were formed from yet simpler arrangements and so back to the majority element after the particle epoch and that was altogether helium gas. So whether you admit it with a degree of "Intellectual Honesty" or stay in denial, that's your inherent position.
What a basis for a belief system... pitiful.