WrongPlanet.net an anti-christian site?

Post Reply New Topic

The problem I have with this is there are no, or almost no, sources outside the Gospels that have any record of Jesus even being a historical personage, much less the Son of God or Messiah. The bit in Josephus shows many signs of being a forgery inserted into the text centuries later by Christian apologists. Also, there are many elements to the Christ story that have much in common with other earlier Resurrected Savior myths from that area. That said, I believe one can have faith in Jesus and follow his teachings whether or not He ever actually existed, as a symbol, an ideal to live by. Still, the Bible is as good a record of historical events as anything else we have from that period, although that really isn't saying much considering the biases inherent in any written history, especially ancient ones.

The Bible is not very accurate as a science textbook though, at least not if interpreted the way some literalists do. There are multiple independent lines of evidence that all clearly show the earth is billions of years old, not six to ten thousand as some claim based on Biblical chronologies. Evolution also has multiple independent lines of evidence that clearly show it is as much a fact of nature as gravity is, and to doubt evolution happens is just as ridiculous as to doubt that gravity happens. Either evolution is a fact, or God is a trickster to plant so much false evidence, a malicious trickster, if using the senses and reason He gave us leads us to eternal damnation.

A question I have asked many times, and never received a satisfactory reply to, is since fundamentalist Christians are so obviously very wrong about evolution that has so much evidence of so many different types that anyone can check for themselves, how can I (or anyone) possibly trust their opinion on spiritual matters not so easily checked?

I know this will not happen, and that is fine, of course, but I do think this "Welcome!" post of AngelRho's should be made into a locked "stickie" placed at the very top of PPR!

Great post, my fellow.

I'm not really going to argue about it. The point is merely that it IS a collection of documented evidence for the Christian faith. It forms a basis for comparison in order to discern what IS true teaching and what is NOT. I could go on and on defending the content itself, but that's not what I was really getting at. You would have to draw the same conclusions to justify, say, Islam by examining the text of the Koran and judging whether it is legit teaching from any one given point of view. It IS evidence. But do you believe the evidence? People see evidence in courtrooms all the time, but that doesn't mean the evidence is convincing for all people. Even scientific evidence can be held suspect if there can be found a reason it should not be believed or that subsequent interpretations of scientific data are misleading--like, say, "findings" that cigarette smoke actually promotes lung health and function.


It is NOT a science textbook. The danger here is that at varying times the theological world and the scientific world have clashed over the implications one has on the other. Geocentric views reinforced by a literal interpretation of certain psalms do not show a very clear understanding of what a psalm is. It is a song, a poem, or a wisdom (philosophical) writing. From a land-based observer's perspective, the sun really does appear to rise and set; the earth seems to stay still. That's just common sense. No scientist is going to dispute that. They're just going to offer up the best available explanation for why it appears so, and we do have the ability to observe planetary rotation as well as the actual motions of celestial bodies around the sun. But the unaided person on the ground is unable to see it that way. If we're talking in poetic terms from that perspective, there is no need to say that guy or that psalm is WRONG, because the truth of it still holds in it's intended context. It just does not hold in any other context beyond what was intended. There is no need for it to.


I consider myself a literalist. But in proper perspective, a metaphor is literally a metaphor.


The Bible makes no attempt at placing a date on creation.


I have no problem with evolution inasmuch as it can be demonstrated to occur in real-time in a controlled setting. We have established that this occurs. The Bible takes no position on the matter. It just says "God created" everything. The Bible just doesn't consider the actual mechanism for creation to be relevant for getting across its message.

To make any assertions on whether God is the agent of creation or not, especially with the special creation of Adam and Eve, is to question God's power to bring about the results through whatever means He chooses. I'm not saying you do, but if we assume the God of the Bible, there is no need to doubt that God brought everything into being the way Genesis describes it because God possesses the power and capability to do so. As such, creationism and evolution don't really have that much to do with each other aside from one camp asserting "God can't" and another asserting "God can."

All I know is that in evolution, species develop according to how well their environment allows them to develop. Certain environmental factors effect one kind of change, and removal of those factors effect a reversal. So given an optimal idyllic early existence that very well could have spanned millions or billions of years, it should come as no surprise that we find the fossils we find and date them to an existence prior to our best guess according to a strict, limiting Biblical reading. We don't really know how old the earth is with any great degree of certainty, nor is the Bible terribly concerned about it. A literal reading of the Bible need not exclude some flexibility in interpretation (where reasonable).


At one time I had a big problem with "evolution is fact," but only because I had a poor understanding of it. I call Galileo on this one. You're treading dangerous waters any time you use science to cross theological boundaries. The opposite is also true.


Obvious to whom? What evidence? Is this evidence something we can observe in real-time in a controlled lab setting or in a natural setting? Exactly what kind of access do we have to this "evidence"? I'm not asking that last question as a challenge to evolution itself. I've already stated I have no problems with evolution. I'm just saying if evidence is to be believed, according to the standard you seem to be putting forth, the evidence has to actually be available and accessible, not merely something you saw on the internet or read in a book somewhere.


You CAN check spiritual matters. You can examine the evidence that we have as documented by various spiritual leaders and/or their followers. You can ascertain as to whether it makes sense. You can challenge a religious person's understanding of it. And so on. I think it might even be easier to check spiritual matters than, say, scientific matters because, at least with the Bible, the text is more available and widespread than scientific text. A lot of times scientific writings are self-referential and require specialized skills and training to understand properly. Science is growing and moving all the time--it HAS to in order to be reliable. The Bible is unchanging, and given how many Christian churches there are out there, you shouldn't have too much trouble finding a minister who can help you understand it. You can read the text for yourself and study its historical background to check for proper meaning, like figures of speech or obscure/archaic words that have no easy translation. You can check a minister's credentials, of course. Is he a Bible scholar? Does he have a reputation for staying true to scripture? It's no different in THAT respect to science: a scientist with no credibility is due for a career change. But just as with anything else, you just have to be careful. "Trust, but verify" as the Soviets said.

I was tired and had a slight headache at that time, but then when I could not go to sleep -- this is "the week that was" for me, with everything going on -- I got back up and took a couple of great (and legitimate) "headache pills" that just happen to be laced with caffeine!


We get to "freely choose" from the display of all available colors.


We can have the exact color we want, and even custom colors are readily available ... and when I was in the first grade, my most-favorite-ever teacher there once poured several colors into one container (but did not stir anything) and we all next soon had rainbow-colored, sprinkler-topped soda bottles to take home for our mothers to use while ironing.


We could easily write pages here discussing all of that, and I would be right there beside you saying exactly the same thing ...

"WTF?! I know everything I want actually is available, but I cannot get that done all by myself!"


None of those organized religions came from him, and my abandonment of them ultimately proved necessary in order for him to finally get me to wherever I am today.


Not nearly as many pages would be necessary for us to sort past all of that ... and here is what I would say in place of "generalized spirituality" ...

"The distinguished American psychologist, William James, in his book 'Varieties of Religious Experience', indicates a multitude of ways in which men have discovered God. We have no desire to convince anyone that there is only one way by which faith can be acquired. If what we have learned and felt and seen means anything at all, it means that all of us, whatever our race, creed, or color are the children of a living Creator with whom we may form a relationship upon simple and understandable terms as soon as we are willing and honest enough to try. Those having religious affiliations will find nothing here disturbing to their beliefs or ceremonies. There is no friction among us over such matters.
"We think it no concern of ours what religious bodies our members identify themselves with (or do not) as individuals. This should be an entirely personal affair which each one decides for himself in the light of past associations, or his present choice. Not all of us join religious bodies, but most of us favor such memberships." ("A.A.", the book, page 28)

Point: God is not actually "lost", of course, yet "finding him" has now proved to me to be done most easily out in a parking lot somewhere where even he has his own nose "pressed to the glass" and is trying to figure out just what those people are doing in there on the other side of that stained glass.


Ah, I was not clear there ... so now please allow me to add clarification there ...

Who owns what does not in any way effect whatever kind of "lease" or "loan" or "free use of myself" I nevertheless still do have in order to be able (or to at least still try) to do exactly as I please.[/quote]


It is actually only religion that is "throwing a bunch of arbitrary things at us" as if we were all in some kind of giant food fight within this world's pay-as-you-go, "all you want to eat" cafeteria.


I think religions certainly do mis-use "the bible" in that way, but a salvation/perdition conflict is not "its essence of purpose". As I have been taught and as I now understand-for-myself certain things from Scripture, mankind has an adversary and truly does face a "salvation/perdition" choice to be made of his own free will. However, I absolutely refuse to believe "God" had first set all of that up and had then even inadvertently somehow ended up leaving us in the middle of something ugly and horrible he had actually engineered.

Comment: This is one of the very best discussions I have ever had about all of this stuff, and I thank you!

A major misunderstanding and falsehood spread by some creationists is the idea that science or evolution is somehow anti-God. All science does is describe what we can observe and measure. That includes evolution, even so-called "macroevolution." Evolution does NOT say "God can't." Evolution has nothing at all to say for or against God. However, some people try to say that if you accept evolution you must reject God. That to me is a false dichotomy based on prejudice and ignorance. That is as silly as saying that if you accept the fact gravity happens, you must reject God.

There is a difference. There are literally tons of evidence that show evolution happens. I grant that not all of the evidence is easily accessible or comprehensible to non-specialists. However, evolution (even "macroevolution") has been observed in the field and in the lab. It is an observed testable fact of nature. On the creationist side, there is no scientific evidence at all that supports their position, and much that falsifies it. They've had their day in court at least a dozen times the past forty years to present anything, anything at all, that could show there might be some scientific evidence for the literal creationist view. So far they have produced nothing, nada, zilch. The most astonishing thing to me about this "controversy" is how incredibly one-sided it is: all the evidence supports one side; no evidence supports the other. In any logical world, there would not be a controversy over something so obvious.

But you already indicated you don't have any problems with evolution and your faith. Cool. The creationists really make Christians look ret*d though to anyone who has studied this matter as much as I have the past thirty years.



Scientists also can question anyone else's understanding of it. The difference between it and religion is one must have some physical evidence to support one's view, not just speculation such as arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.


Not really. We don't have original copies, but there are some discrepancies between some of the oldest sources. Committees voted on which books to include and which to leave out. Translations introduce more sources of error, and interpretations change according to spiritual fads, more in some churches than in others.

And why should I get my spirituality second or third hand from some ancient book or any other person? The thing I appreciate most about Buddhism is it focuses on direct experience, not dogma or doctrine. I believe Jesus taught the exact same message as Buddha, but his followers misunderstood partly because Jesus was limited to communicating his teachings using the language and cultural terms of his time and place. I believe they worshiped the messenger, putting Jesus on a pedestal, and completely missed the point of the Gospel. Of course I could be wrong, and I don't advise or expect anyone else to take my word for it.

My parents said I loved Danger Mouse, but when I got older and saw it again I do not know why.

I only watched a few cartoons, obviously G.I. Joe. One of my favorite shows was Airwolf. No one my age really knew that show or most others I watched.

Evolution is the assertion that species have a common ancestor and provides a natural law to explain all the complexity in life.

It boils the theists' blood because until then, the watchmaker's argument was actually pretty good at proving the existence of a god. Darwin showed that a god was not necessary to explain the complexity in life and that's the reason every radical theist out there that doesn't have faith in his own stuff hates the man's guts.

I used to like that, especially the theme music. They are doing reruns of it on French TV now (dubbed into French of course) and it is the most god dammed awful program, with shallow plots and acting. Don't know why I ever liked it.

Sorry for being off topic, story of my life.

I sometimes look back on some of the stuff I used to watch and even used as some kind of "guidebook" or "window to the world" in life ...

... and while now thinking about all of that, it is no wonder my life has been what some of it has been!

It depends on who is interpreting the evidence and what the purpose of that intent actually is. I'm talking specifically about those who HAVE taken a hardline stand against any possibility at all that God was and is involved in creation.


Agreed, specifically those things we can observe and measure naturalistically. I have no problem with what science IS. It's only when people use science to wander into territory into which they do not belong.

From time to time when we start talking about the "likelihood" of God's existence, I'll "call Pascal" on someone. For INAPPROPRIATE intrusions of science into religion, I call Galileo! lol


If we're being honest, yes. My concern is for the expression of anti-religious sentiment that people have no business justifying the way they do. And I'm not saying all evolutionists or all atheists are like that. I think you just have certain groups of people who are the loudest about expressing their opinions in certain ways and justifying that "scientifically" that ruins it for those who DON'T speak up. Religion, on the other hand, is emotionally driven if you don't know what to look out for. As I see it, you have people on both sides who tend to overreact.


Agreed.


Therein lies a HUGE problem for me. There's no way you can "prove" to me certain types of subatomic particles exist. That doesn't mean they DON'T exist. But in order for me to believe something or have faith in something, such as the Higgs boson and why it's even significant, you have to communicate that to me in terms that are relevant to me and which I understand. The actual truth or existence of the Higgs boson is irrelevant. "Proof" or "evidence" is even irrelevant. It doesn't matter if the person is not equipped to understand it.

In Christianity, there is little need to learn a whole new language to understand what it is about. I mean, sure, you do have "Christianisms" like "justification," "atonement," "salvation," "original sin," "Trinity," that take time to understand. But it's only because there really are no better words that describe what the Bible describes. But you don't need 3 PhDs to understand it.

So even if something is true, you can't rightly complain about someone's failure to understand when you've developed a whole cryptic language surrounding the field to make sense of it.


Unless we're talking about two completely divergent schools of thought on macroevolution, it is impossible to observe macro in the lab. To test evolution in that sense out requires millions of years of time to actually observe. All we have are fossils and what you think (hope) is the correct measure of time. It doesn't take into account other possible explanations, which, of course, can't be observed, either.


Only because they are too unwilling to give AT ALL. There are gaps in time all over Genesis. That very well COULD HAVE allowed macroevolution to happen. We don't KNOW, though. We weren't there, we didn't witness it, we couldn't document it, we couldn't test it, we couldn't repeat it. All we got are bones, rocks, and radiocarbon.

Now, yes, it is also evidence, and yes it suggests certain things. The main problem with ID is that it asserts a creator; if not God, a god or gods. So you cannot propose a Creation/Creator-based theory WITHOUT at least touching one element of religion. But it doesn't DISprove ID, either. Because of that ONE religious element, those who include ID into curriculum risk violating separation of church and state. There are ways to get around that of course, even in a public school. The creationists/IDers won't gain any ground as long as they are too inflexible in their interpretation of Genesis 1. And NO curriculum that even dares approach a deity will be acceptable on Constitutional grounds.


Right. But you're also comparing apples and oranges. You don't look for physical evidence of the spiritual. That's not how science works. Creationist assertions that seek physical evidence of a spiritual Creator beyond the very creation itself will always fail. The alternative is this:

1. I am a thinking, conscious, self-aware being.
2. My thinking processes, consciousness, and self-awareness are invisible attributes.
3. Invisible attributes exist.
4. The spirit or soul is invisible.
5. The spirit or soul possesses these same attributes.
6. The best explanation for my invisible attributes is the existence of my spirit or soul.
7. Therefore, a spiritual realm exists apart from the physical realm.

But pull that in a public school classroom and see how long your career lasts!


Evolution is NOT without its faults. You mentioned you've been at this for 30 years or so. That's really interesting. And you're still talking to ME???

Seriously, though... I'm going to assume that you have a thorough knowledge of that area, then. To honestly say you "believe" in something so easily, you really do have to have a lot of knowledge and practice in the area. I've been a Christian for as far back as I can remember because I never encountered a time in my life that it didn't "make sense." Even when I DID reach a point that I could take the time and go through all the objections to Christianity, I generally DIDN'T try to grow in my knowledge and ability in relation to my faith. For the first time in my life, I finished reading the Bible cover to cover last year, and I was just struck by how little I actually knew. If I were writing some of the things I post in PPR say, 10 years ago, it would have read MUCH differently and not all of it would have been right. When I was in grad school, I was at a school that was much more diverse in terms of culture and religion than what I was used to growing up in the deep south. So all the debates I ever had were with a dear friend of mine who was a bleeding-heart, flaming-gay, Wiccan, and here I am this straight, hard-line conservative, Southern Baptist! Back then, all I could do was hit him with facts--"Christians say WHAT??? Um, NO, it's actually THIS..." Obviously, no, I didn't cure his homosexuality or convert him to Christianity, but at the very least I cleared up some misunderstanding. We were an odd couple, but we were good enough friends that we could do that without living out ancient hatred.

Just as it has taken you this much time to reach the level of mastery you have in your area of science (or whatever it is you do), understanding my relationship with God was not easy even after I cared enough to dig into it. It just happens to be easier and more comprehensible than anything else I've tried to do.

I look at it another way. I teach piano for a meager living. I surprised myself by sitting down to a Mozart sonata and sightreading it, which I've NEVER been able to do and it blew my mind that I could do it that day. I play a wide range of styles, from classical to classic rock, from Contemporary Christian praise and worship to gospel quartet-style piano. Everything I do now comes easy for me, and when I ask myself what my big secret is and how to get my kids to do the same, the answer is always "You've been doing this for 20 years." That sucks, because there's no possible way I can get a child to do this unless the child is either a prodigy or just totally sold out for music.

But I've NEVER had people say they didn't understand music, even if the couldn't play an instrument or sing very well. Not all of us can comprehend the depths of scientific inquiry and discovery the way I can comprehend communicating my ideas through hammers and strings. In fact, the music I love composing the most is extremely intellectually difficult for the average listener to grasp, therefore I don't make my music public that often. The common apprehension of science is no less. That makes it very difficult for non-scientific types to put their faith in it. I could be wrong, because I don't KNOW this, but I suspect advocating macroevolution as FACT by using the most simplistic terms would be difficult to do without the person you're trying to teach finding fault with it in one way or the other. You can't do it any easier than I could explain the structure, function, and proper resolution of augmented 6th chords WITHOUT first instructing the student on the fundamentals of functional harmony.




True. I get your meaning here, but on a side note those kinds of arguments really are silly. But questioning spiritual matters is no less logical. Anyone who asks "Can God create a stone too heavy for Him to lift?" is playing a word game and doesn't really have any intention of going anywhere in a discussion of the nature of God. There are much more important matters than whether or not God can violate His own nature.


Yes, really. SOME discrepancies are also very, VERY minor and do not change the meaning of the document as a whole. Anyone who reads the Bible carefully can figure out what was intended. And we're talking about a negligible amount of text.

The committee vote is misleading. The problem at the time was that there were a number of different texts available, not all of which taught the gospel as it was properly understood at the time. There was a lot of information floating around, much of it good, but also some that was not. The "vote" was merely an assessment of what texts were the most used and accepted, what authority backed those texts up (penned by God's people, apostolic authorship, reliable testimony of those involved, and son on), and internal consistency. And that's just the NT. The NT presupposes the OT, and there was no question regarding the OT canon. So the "vote" was really nothing more than a formality. The authority of NT scripture had already been established before it was "made official."


You are. But "wrong" or "right" doesn't really have anything to do with it. It's whether you believe the evidence that's presented. You clearly don't. I'm not criticizing you, just stating what appears to me to be a fact!

Actually, I do like the Buddhist idea of direct experience, and I do believe that Christians ALSO rely on direct experience. But we also accept that not every "feeling" or "spirit" is a beneficent one. When the fire for Christ was still burning hot in the 1st and 2nd centuries, how did these people understand their experiences? What ultimately happened in their walk of faith? It would be foolish, I think, to wander off on some "direct experience" if there is a possible risk that the experience is the wrong one. And that goes for ANY religious sentiment, not just the choices I've made for my life. Jesus limited by the language of His time? Sure, but that's really stating the obvious, isn't it? What I find difficult, though, is why His followers would see the need to lie about it, to make Jesus out to be more than He really was. It's actually more plausible when reading the scriptures that they were telling the truth. They should have presented themselves and their actions in a much more positive light than what the Bible says. Sure, they worshiped the Messenger, but it would have been appropriate to do so. Think about it, if you knew you had God right in front of you, assuming you love God, you'd worship God, right? Also, what was the point of the gospel? Some real-good feel-good theology? Or is it that the penalty for sin is death, inescapable for all sinners? It's not a very nice message when you think about it. It's the hope of salvation that is it's only redeeming quality. Jesus claimed to be that salvation. You can't make that kind of claim unless you're crazy. Jesus' followers did not believe Him or observe Him to be crazy. Jesus had to have been who He claimed to be.

Nope, check out CB901: No Macroevolution. Point 3 in the Response makes it clear that speciation has been observed. Macroevolution is changes at or above the species level. Microevolution is changes below the species level. There is no known barrier to prevent microevolution from becoming macroevolution over time, and that is what the fossil record and genetic evidence show what happened.




There isn't any creationist argument that hasn't been thoroughly debunked long ago, including this one. Check out
CA221: Were you there?. What do you mean by "they are too unwilling to give AT ALL?" Who is unwilling? The courts? The scientists? The creationists? All we're asking for are some hard evidence that supports a creationist viewpoint or falsifies evolution. None has been found so far. If you've heard otherwise, you have been lied to by your sources. I hate lies, and many Creationist web sites are so full of distortions of the truth, quotes taken out of context in a misleading way, and out and out falsehoods that it makes me sick to be a member of the same species as those who made those web sites.


.
I'm not comparing apples and oranges. If creationism wants equal time in science classrooms, then it better have some scientific evidence backing it up. Otherwise it belongs in sociology or comparative religion courses, NOT science.

And they do fail, time after time, but they keep trying nonetheless to legislate enforced ignorance in public school science classrooms.




Why not talk to you? We're keeping it fairly civil, I hope. Let me know if I get out of line.
Evolution is quite possibly the most well-proven FACT known to modern man. Very few scientific ideas have anywhere near as much corroborating evidence as evolution does. We may not know every detail of its past or how it works, but the evidence was enough one hundred fifty years ago for thinking people all over the world to slap their foreheads and say, "Duh! It's so obvious!" Since then we have learned about genetics, discovered DNA, and found numerous transitional fossil forms between every type of creature, and found them without exception in the order and distribution that is expected and explained by evolution. Oh evolution may have faults in that we don't know every little detail yet, but we already understand more about how evolution works than we do about how gravity works. More people should become aware of this, then maybe they wouldn't be so gullible to swallow the creationist LIES.

N.B.: by "creationist" I don't mean someone who believes in a creator. I mean specifically Biblical literalist fundamentalist Christians (or fundamentalist Muslims too) who insist that there is just as much scientific evidence to support their view, or try to say that evolution requires more faith than what they believe. They try to say that creationism is just as much science as evolution is, or that evolution is just as much religion as creationism is, and they are wrong on both counts.




Hold it right there! I don't "believe" in evolution. Asking someone if they “believe” in evolution is just as ridiculous as asking if they “believe” in gravity or electricity. A more accurate question is to ask whether or not they accept the fact that evolution occurs. For further thoughts on this matter, I recommend reading Do You Believe in Evolution? and Is the Theory of Evolution Really a Matter of Faith?





I don't impugn any malicious intent to deceive, only that they may have been honestly confused by what He was trying to teach them. Imagine you are Jesus and you had a mystical experience where you found you are one with God. Try explaining that in terms of a Middle Eastern tribal culture and religion. The terms just aren't there, and in trying to explain it using terms His followers could understand, there was much potential for the message to be misunderstood.


I notice you are given to long posts with many quotations and rebuttals. Formatting this reply took a long time compared to most of my posts. I respectfully agree to disagree, and if you really have any specific questions about my points I will probably answer them, but let's keep it to one or two points per post, okay? More shorter posts are easier for me to handle than fewer long posts. Thanks

I think he was saying "the Creationists" were being inflexible in things like the timing/s and/or duration/s of creation/s.

Yes that does make sense base on what he says about the possibility of macroevolution happening in the gaps of time all over Genesis.
However, then AngelRho uses the "Were you there?" argument so beloved of Ken Ham (lead charlatan of Answers in Genesis web site and the Creation Museum).

In courtrooms, physical evidence trumps eyewitnesses every time. There are tons of physical evidence that clearly show man shares common ancestry with other living things. My favorite story showing how bogus the "Were you there?" question is comes from a Canadian web site, eh?
Canadian Cynic: Evolution and "direct observation": Be careful what you wish for.

Another fine page showing how bogus that question is can be found at Creationists-Read This

Ken Ham tells little children to ask teachers "Were you there?" when told about the age of the earth or prehistoric fossils. That is arguing from ignorance. I hope the two links I provided above give some clue to those who think "Were you there?" is a sufficient retort to crush all of science.

Granted, we can't really be sure of anything. I might be in a straitjacket in a padded room hallucinating I am typing this post. Or perhaps like the Matrix, we are all in vats with wires running to our brains sending us false images to make us think we have a life.

Zhuangzi told a story of dreaming he was a butterfly once upon a time. Then he says: "Now I do not know whether I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly, dreaming I am a man."

Finally, if Christians are going to ask "Were you there?" about macroevolution, it is only fair to ask them "Were you there at the Crucifixion and Resurrection?"

Probably a good time to stop because I still don't see anything here that grapples with my full determinism. To say "no but your wrong, free will exists" in a myriad of colorful ways is still just reasserting the first assertion without shedding any light on the mechanics of how it could exist.
I'm not picking on you and that's why, since we're likely to just keep throwing the same stuff at each other, we're probably better off just agreeing to disagree.

You're jumping to conclusions. I'm not making the "were you there?" argument in the sense that "where you there," as you put it, is supposed to "crush all of science." I take no issue with "micro" evolution and speciation at all. The issue I have with macroevolution is that in order to validate it as science in the same sense as "micro" evolution, or in order to properly validate it as "science" at all, it requires some demonstration that it really is an ongoing process. But we DON'T see it in action. None of the sources that you cite really demonstrate this to be the case.

Beyond that, my understanding of "macro" evolution is long-term speciation and natural selection over a VAST amount of time. We're talking millions of years at the very least. Like it or not, it is entirely possible that the fossil record is due to other possible explanations, but it doesn't seem to me any other plausible explanation has ever been explored. Now, you might say by the same logic that it isn't falsifiable. Well, OK, but neither is macroevolution.

Now, if we assume that "were you there" logic dictates, as you've pointed out, that we invalidate macroevolution, the same logic applied equally to all hypotheses necessarily rules them all out also. If we run with that line of thinking, then what you get is a more equitable appraisal of all possible and/or plausible causes. So if you can't teach one possibility that you cannot prove, then you must not teach the other. If, however, you do teach one, then it's only in the interest of fairness that you open the floor to debate about the others (hence how it is possible to allow creationist dialogue without offending anyone; even if someone gets offended, they don't have a leg to stand on).

I don't dare try to debate the particulars of evolution down to the detail. All signs point to either a single mass extinction or a series of mass extinctions that, for example, wiped out all the dinosaurs. This explains how it is the fossils were so well preserved. Whatever happened that caused the extinction apparently happened quickly enough that it brought natural decay processes to a near standstill. In effect, the fossil record you have, with the possible exception of sea sediment, is a snapshot of the record as a whole and would explain how it is more transitional fossils than there are aren't found (I'm not saying there aren't transitional fossils at all, just that what I'm aware of does not necessarily have quite the smooth transition that we'd like to see). Just venturing a guess here, but how many, say, complete sets of apatosaurus skeletons do we have as opposed to "in the wild" human fossils? My guess is a LOT more. Human beings never lived through a time during which the decay process was halted enough to preserve them even for a few thousand years. The remains of the Pompeii victims were a remarkable discovery almost by accident, and the discoverer had enough forethought to fill these empty spaces in the ash with plaster. Had the circumstances of their death been any different, we wouldn't even have THAT much. So do we really "know" that we even WOULD have had more complete transitional fossils than we do? How do we know any differently that the fossils and transitional fossils didn't in reality exist all at once? Have we even considered it?

DNA evidence is quite compelling, no doubt about that. Do we have DNA samples from prehistoric humans and their supposed pre-human ancestors so that we can get a match?

I never agree to disagree, yet I certainly can be agreeable!

Far beyond anything specifically about free will, I would simply hope I have spoken at least somewhat clearly in suggesting organized religion is a great source of confusion for many people.

Peace!