Evidence for God from Science

In order to avoid the question as to why DNA is the way it is the Darwinist use natural selection. Of course natural selection is a logical argument but it does not address the issue. That issue is random mutations. If natural selection is a method of choosing a mutation then the field is limited by mutations.

I am not sure how natural selection and random mutation would apply to the origins of a base 4 system. Before any Darwinian evolution can take place, you have to have a code (language) in place which natural selection & random variation can act on. Having said that, this is more of a question about DNA evolution and how nature chooses a base 4 system over a base 2 system or even a base 6, 8 and so on. I have heard that a base 2 system would work just fine, a base 4 system is extremely efficient and a base 6 system is more than enough for coding. An increase in base system is directly proportional to the complexity of a given system by a certain factor. An increase in complexity and perhaps efficiency is the result overall. It is also true that a base 2 system is far more easier/simpler to work with, thats why we use it.

frankbaginski wrote:Sleep,

Canuckster and I feel the same way about evolution. He stated it well. There is an edge where the processes of evolution won't allow what we see. Now I may have a dfferent point at which I draw the line than with Canuckster. I would draw the line where Michael Behe draws it. In his book "The Edge of Evolution" he makes a good case for drawing the line real close to macroevolution. He uses malaria to make the case since it is well studied and we have a vast amount of data on this parasite.

Now I do believe that God created the animals in the beginning. Have they evolved since then? I think they have but not into new species. The basic genes and the genes which turn on or off due to environmental factors allow for wide changes to occur. The fossil record does not show a slow drift from one species to another. Now I believe that it took a major catastrophe to create fossils. So these snap shots do not give us a clear picture. The evidence we have is lacking to conclude either side of the issue. I have laid out a model on the thread -young earth old universe. Now this is a model and may or may not represent what actually happened in the past. The point I am making is that the same data can be looked at a different way. I look at the data thru the lens of scripture. Others look at the same data thru the lens of naturalism. These worldviews are really the issue not the models.

Your point about 10 to the 10th complexity. I think it is like eating an elephant, one bite at a time. There are many small molecules that can be sequenced if the steps back in time were small and caused by acident. We understand the process of mutation. The problem is once you change a protein or some other molecule you must show it still functions but to a lessor degree. This is not what we see in practice. What we see is it breaks completely. I am waiting for the first molecule to be sequenced. I have read many articles that talk about this issue but none so far have shown any real progress.

i need you to further explain why things can evovle but a not across species. it seems like you'd have to accept certain facts to believe in evolution at all but blatantly disregard them to not believe it across species. how is one ok and the other not? especially from a biblical perspective? what scriptures allow for specie evolution but not cross specie evolution?

and again, i ask what of the human genome project? how can you deny that's not real progress?

Sleep,

Within a species the genes can and do make for a wide variety of adaptation. The color of fur, the length of an ear, etc. But this is limited to a mix of genes that are already there in the population of a species. A mutation could also happen but these are limited to a single or double neucleotide change. There is widespread agreement on this limited microevolutionary model. Once you try and get beyond this the numbers don't add up. Either the time required goes outside of known time (15 billion years) or the number of host goes beyond the number of host that could ever have existed. We do see this type of evolution in small creatures that have high populations. Bacteria and similar life can have populations in the trillions every few days. So what we see in these populations can reasonably be expanded into past time and past populations of other species. When you do that you find that the number of steps required to make a unique species makes the chances of any species evolving with this process zero. You either don't have the time, you don't have the population, or you don't have the small steps. In all cases that I know of all three apply.

The human genome is a sequence of codes. In a similar manner a computer program is a sequence of codes. I can dump a program into a printer and print out its ascii code. This does little to tell me how it was created. To date we have matched up large sections of the codes with molecules in the species. Again this does not tell us about how it was created. We are getting a good understanding of what it does and also how it can break. I hope one day that the medical field will understand enough to make retro viruses so genetic defects can be fixed. I am a student of science and hope that science will continue to make life easier for man. We were told to take dominion over the earth.

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

frankbaginski wrote:Sleep,

Within a species the genes can and do make for a wide variety of adaptation. The color of fur, the length of an ear, etc. But this is limited to a mix of genes that are already there in the population of a species. A mutation could also happen but these are limited to a single or double neucleotide change. There is widespread agreement on this limited microevolutionary model. Once you try and get beyond this the numbers don't add up. Either the time required goes outside of known time (15 billion years) or the number of host goes beyond the number of host that could ever have existed. We do see this type of evolution in small creatures that have high populations. Bacteria and similar life can have populations in the trillions every few days. So what we see in these populations can reasonably be expanded into past time and past populations of other species. When you do that you find that the number of steps required to make a unique species makes the chances of any species evolving with this process zero. You either don't have the time, you don't have the population, or you don't have the small steps. In all cases that I know of all three apply.

The human genome is a sequence of codes. In a similar manner a computer program is a sequence of codes. I can dump a program into a printer and print out its ascii code. This does little to tell me how it was created. To date we have matched up large sections of the codes with molecules in the species. Again this does not tell us about how it was created. We are getting a good understanding of what it does and also how it can break. I hope one day that the medical field will understand enough to make retro viruses so genetic defects can be fixed. I am a student of science and hope that science will continue to make life easier for man. We were told to take dominion over the earth.

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

i think you dismiss the complexity of the genome, computer codes and human codes are vastly different. we made computers from nothing, we didnt make humans from nothing. so it's going to take an exponentially longer time to understand human or natural code. of course.

i am not a creature of science. i'm an artist. i'm not smart. i dont get math. i dont get biology, and a lot of this stuff is greatly over my head. and, since we're being honest, i dont entirely know how i feel about evolution. i dont think i believe humans evolved from sea creatures into modern man. but that's based on a lack of evidence, not a spiritual conflict. i dont think that discovery would in any way conflict with a creator God, the same creator God i know and love now. but it's something i'm interested in and thinking much about-still learning.

as for mutations within a species, what you said about fur and color and that stuff is real, we agree. but if that mutation goes further it becomes a new species. think of bats and rats. the structures are the same, it's just a matter of scale. longer fingers with skin between. and poof you have wings. is a bat not a flying rat? both are rodents. but one is more specialized than the other. is this not the same than a short or long haird domestic house cat? is a sphinx more specialized than a persian? yes. both are felines. i cant see a difference between cross and intraspecie evolution. i think it's merely a matter of scale.
all vertebrates are so related, it's difficult for me to not see the commonalities in them. bone structures stay the same, but are stretched or smooshed or whatever.

doesnt this exist in mathmatics, too? like the torus vs the sphere? i dont know if i understand completely, but cant you make all shapes from one or the other?
to me, this symbiosis...er maybe homeostatic relationship between everything lends itself to an intelligent creator.

but then again it's over my head. so. who knows.

Bats and rats are not that similar, first of all. Bats are not just rodents with long fingers with skin in between.

Secondly, as Canuckster has pointed out very nicely already, this is a matter of trusting circumstantial evidence for the large-scale changes (i'e, trusting that this did happen in the past). We can't observe that large-scale changes because they have happened over hundreds of thousands of years. What we can see and measure in our realistic time-scale is merely microevolution, changes within a species. Everything that has been established as to the how and what in the past in terms of macroevolution is due to extrapolation of this idea of mutation bringing about the proper number of variations needed. Then through in the magic phrase "given enough time", we have, voila, the history of our evolutionary past. Even fossils are controversial, look at the debate between gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. Punc. Eq. was established in large part because the large periods of stasis in the fossil record didn't support the gradulasim model. This model was born from the fact that the fossil record doesn't support gradualism.

Going back to the bats and rats. Whatever the ancestor of the bat wwas, consider that it's not simply the length of the fingers that had to change. Musculature had to change, skin had to change. For fuit bats, their intestines would have to evolve to match the fruit diet (very short intestines, very quick metabolism...). For insect-eaters, the ears and parts of their brains would have had to evolve, not to mention vocal cords.

All I'm asking for is that we not oversimplify this process. It's not just a matter of fingers getting longer.

zoegirl wrote:Bats and rats are not that similar, first of all. Bats are not just rodents with long fingers with skin in between.

Secondly, as Canuckster has pointed out very nicely already, this is a matter of trusting circumstantial evidence for the large-scale changes (i'e, trusting that this did happen in the past). We can't observe that large-scale changes because they have happened over hundreds of thousands of years. What we can see and measure in our realistic time-scale is merely microevolution, changes within a species. Everything that has been established as to the how and what in the past in terms of macroevolution is due to extrapolation of this idea of mutation bringing about the proper number of variations needed. Then through in the magic phrase "given enough time", we have, voila, the history of our evolutionary past. Even fossils are controversial, look at the debate between gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. Punc. Eq. was established in large part because the large periods of stasis in the fossil record didn't support the gradulasim model. This model was born from the fact that the fossil record doesn't support gradualism.

Going back to the bats and rats. Whatever the ancestor of the bat wwas, consider that it's not simply the length of the fingers that had to change. Musculature had to change, skin had to change. For fuit bats, their intestines would have to evolve to match the fruit diet (very short intestines, very quick metabolism...). For insect-eaters, the ears and parts of their brains would have had to evolve, not to mention vocal cords.

All I'm asking for is that we not oversimplify this process. It's not just a matter of fingers getting longer.

hang, on. define "not that similar." a bat is not just a flying rat, but it's more a flying rat than a flying monkey. the similaritys in bone structure are strikingly similar in all vertebrates, so is musculature and organ systems. you can say 'not that similar' but that's a relative term. a bat IS a rat when compared to a tree. a bat is in no way a tree.
my point is a both are rodents and similarities are very easy to see.
maybe that was a bad example. what about a zebra and a horse? or a mule and a horse and a donkey? or ants and wasps?
i thnk what i meant to illustrate was a question (which i forgot to ask). how do you relate these animals? an ant is a modified wasp, but are not the same creature. how do you reconcile the relation/difference?

as for the argument we cant see evolution, i ask about cancer, again. i also ask about faith-based religion. we cant see God, or gravity. are these things not to be trusted, either?


these are not arguments, they are questions.

Sleep,

Actually Zoegirl described the problem with macroevolution nicely. The rat had to change in many ways to become a bat. So when the wings were half formed and slowed down the rat so it was caught easily it should have died out. The list of problems to overcome is huge. Many systems had to change at the same time or they would not work. What if the skin grew but the arms did not. All of that loose skin would make the rat/bat slow. In some cases not just two systems had to change at once but 100 or more. How can mutations coordinate like that, we see no evidence of this in the world today.

You cannot take microevolution and extend it to macroevolution. It is like taking a pogo stick and wishing it could become a rocket to the moon. The step is too big. Take the pogo stick and attach a 500 lb rocket engine. It becomes useless. Now put on the fuel tanks but no engine. You start to see the problems.

My point was a lot more basic. With the bat and the rat, I was more just correcting your knowledge. A bat is not a rodent. It belongs to the order CHiroptera, not Rodentia. They are both mammals and yes, they are more similar to each other than a bat and a tree, or a bat and a bird. But they are in their own right their own grouping.

And you missed my point. Whatever the ancestor would have been, the evolutionary pathway would not SIMPLY have been the elongation of the fingers. It takes multiple adaptations to have created what we know of a bat.

LOok , personally, I am not opposed to the idea that God, mind you, a sovereign GOd (scripture after all, points to a God that was involved in the creation of the universe, He didn't just sya "I wonder what will happen") could have used a process in His creation. And to that end, I don't panic about these things. Does an evolutionary pathway disprove the existience of God? No....Would a speciation event prove that God doesn't exist? NO.

However, that being said, what scientists have today is simply a process, microevolution, EASILY observable within species, that they can observe over only several generations of most organisms (and those generations of fruit flies that have gone thousands of generations haven not shown true speciation yet, they have been successful with breeding gereations of fruit flies that prefer mating with certain other fruit flies). What they look at when they extrapolate this process is historical evidence, fossils and DNA evidence. Evidence, sure, but historical in its basis.

Could God have used this? I have no probelm with this. From scripture, though, I now that He was involved through the process.

Sleep

i know we DO evolve. even within the mirco-cosm of our single life we evolve. our bones fuse, we grow. we can work out and get more muscular, learn, become smart. perhaps it's not genetic, but principly it's the same. we do these things to adapt to our environment. is that unholy? unbiblical? not at all.
cancer is rapid evolution. what about that?

Our growth and development, in and of itself, is not evolution. Simply because our bones fuse is not an example of evolution. They examples you gave are not principally the same, and in fact, have nothing to do directly with evolution.

Developing our muscles and learning is not evolution. These are plastic abilites within our species. These are things that respond to the environment, not mutations. They are NOT the same as evolution. These are akin to two plants, one given more fertilizer and growing more. These responses are not due to evolution, but natural changes to the environmental stimulus.

IF one group of people who were more musclular due to their genes reproduce more therefore leading to a higher frequency of people with a naturally more musclular build (but again, even these more muscular people would develop these muscles if they trained versus those who do not train), THIS would be microevolution. The next generation would have a higher frequency of people with more muscle mass. But even within this group, their muscles would develop with training. This training is not evolution.

Or if one group of plants can utilize resources better in one particular environment therefore producing more seeds therefore leading to a higher frequency of plants with those genes in the next generation, that would be mcroevolution. But these examples are due to the genetics of the plant.

A common misconception, for example, is the idea that we have gotten taller over the last gew centuries and that this is due to evolution. But this increase in height could be due and most probably is due to better diet, not taller people simply reproducing more. (or growth hormones )

In fact, this plasticity is one one the things evolution experiments must be careful of. Is the change mrerely due to a natural response to a diffrent environment? Or is this a genetic difference between groups of a species that allow of group a reproductive advantage over the others.

Before I address your question on cancer....In what way do you consider cancer to be rapid evolution. Please elaborate here. What is your source?

Sleep,

In my example of the pogo stick and rocket to the moon I forgot to tell you the relative complexity between the rocket and the bat. The changes between the rat and the bat are millions of time more complex than the difference between the pogo stick and the rocket. A good study in molecular biology points this out.

here are a few questions for evolutionists:

1. why would God wait 1800+ years to reveal the theory of evolution through a man who was a non-believer in God?
2. How fair is that to all the people who died believing Gen. 1 over through those years and never heard of the theory of evolution?
3. Why didn't God have Moses write the right way in the beginning so that all people would have the same opportunity to read what actually took place (if evolution were true)? Doesn't that make God an unjust God?
4. 30+ years ago, the end result of evolution was nothing, when a person died that wasit. Now in 2007 we are told that evolutionists have much more knowledge of the theory, more details and much much more YET the end result is the same, when a person dies--thats it. Doesn't that result make evolution useless, a waste of time and money? Doesn't that make evolution purposeless and all the advancements a detriment to society as thattime, energy, and money could have been spent making people's livs better instead of wasting it on something that gives yo nothing in return?

(Please don't come inwith the marrying of the ible with evolution as #1 & 2 cover that and shows how short-sighted theistic ev. and progress. creationists are and how wrong they are.)

These questions show how fair and Just Creationism is and how Everyone has had the same opportunity to know what God has done, which makes creationism as recorded in Gen. 1 right and all else wrong. It fits with the nature of God and who He describes Himself to be while the alternatives contradict that description.

I'm not an evolutionist but then, I don't have to be to point out some of the flaws in your post.

1. I don't presume to know why God allows anything. Do you? The truth of evolution, to the extent it has been scientifically demonstrated to be true, which is significant in many areas, is not dependent at all upon the religious belief or non-belief od the person discovering it. God reveals truth through his creation which we are constantly discovering, and the religious faith of a person making the discovery is certainly important in other contexts, but there is no connection here.

2. You'd have to discuss the fairness of this with God. I don't presume to know enough to conjecture a guess in this regard as to what God's purpose was. A belief in evolution is not necessarily exclusive of religious faith. Salvation doesn't have anything to do with the mechanics of creation. Therefore, again your question is meaningless.

3. I suspect God didn't have Moses write a 20th century science book 3500 years ago because it wasn't His purpose to reveal science so much as to establish his role as the creator and how that ties into our salvation. There's nothing unject I see there, unless you're presuming to teach that belief in your interpretation of Genesis is necessary for salvation.

4. You appear to be equating evolution with atheism. There certainly is a cross-section there and atheists who appeal to evolution beyond pure science and extend it to make a materialistic philosophy. I don't accept or endorse that at all. There's no corellation between evolution as a science and the religious beliefs you're equating with it and sadly, from my perspective as a fellow believer, I have to respectfully tell you that your arguments are poorly constructed, ill conceived and completely unconvincing.

I hope you'll respond with better than I see here. I'll be glad to discuss it further if you wish.

Blessings,

Bart

drddunks wrote:here are a few questions for evolutionists:

1. why would God wait 1800+ years to reveal the theory of evolution through a man who was a non-believer in God?
2. How fair is that to all the people who died believing Gen. 1 over through those years and never heard of the theory of evolution?
3. Why didn't God have Moses write the right way in the beginning so that all people would have the same opportunity to read what actually took place (if evolution were true)? Doesn't that make God an unjust God?
4. 30+ years ago, the end result of evolution was nothing, when a person died that wasit. Now in 2007 we are told that evolutionists have much more knowledge of the theory, more details and much much more YET the end result is the same, when a person dies--thats it. Doesn't that result make evolution useless, a waste of time and money? Doesn't that make evolution purposeless and all the advancements a detriment to society as thattime, energy, and money could have been spent making people's livs better instead of wasting it on something that gives yo nothing in return?

(Please don't come inwith the marrying of the ible with evolution as #1 & 2 cover that and shows how short-sighted theistic ev. and progress. creationists are and how wrong they are.)

These questions show how fair and Just Creationism is and how Everyone has had the same opportunity to know what God has done, which makes creationism as recorded in Gen. 1 right and all else wrong. It fits with the nature of God and who He describes Himself to be while the alternatives contradict that description.

Canuckster1127 wrote:1. I don't presume to know why God allows anything. Do you? The truth of evolution, to the extent it has been scientifically demonstrated to be true,

Bart, can you be more specific? Are you talking about Darwinian evolution here or just evolution in general?

First, i read your reply and this:

I have to respectfully tell you that your arguments are poorly constructed, ill conceived and completely unconvincing.

is uncalled for as you do wonderful gymnastics to avoid addressing the issues raised.

Second, These are just questions with some commentary to provide the context. No argument was being made, I was just looking for some information.

Third, I noticed you completely ignored and avoided addressing the futility of evolution and the complete waste of time it is to investigate and promote when there is nothing there to investigate nor promote. By adding God to the picture many people 'get around' this problem but it still isn't the truth.

Fourth, i will now address your response:

1.

I don't presume to know why God allows anything. Do you

Yes, we have the book of Job to give us an idea why God allows things. We also have the New Testament which talks about testing, proving and other areas to make a believer strong.

God reveals truth through his creation which we are constantly discovering,

Please back this up with scripture that supports this idea, in 40+years of being a christian I have never found any.

2.

You'd have to discuss the fairness of this with God. I don't presume to know enough to conjecture a guess in this regard as to what God's purpose was

What a cop out. We know God is just and fair as in Micah 6:8 we find what God requires of us so why would God be so unjust and let believers die without this knowledge?

Salvation doesn't have anything to do with the mechanics of creation. Therefore, again your question is meaningless.

What an excuse to allow yourself to follow after what unbelievers say. Ps. 1 tells us 'not to walk in the counsel of the ungodly' yet here are people following after a theory solely constructed by an unbeliever who rejected God and the Bible. (see Darwin's biography). Then added to by more unbelievers as they reject Gen. 1 and other passages which refer to the creation act. Saying the Bible is wrong in Genesis has everything to do with one's salvation.

3.

I suspect God didn't have Moses write a 20th century science book 3500 years ago because it wasn't His purpose to reveal science so much as to establish his role as the creator and how that ties into our salvation

Do you actually believe this crock that you are trying to push? Why would God have Moses pen a bunch of lies and have people follow after those words only to change them when unbelievers in the last 150 years 'discovered' the truth. That makes God out to be a liar and deceiver and goes contrary to what He taught about Himself in the Bible. By those words you wrote, you equate Hm with the character of the devil.

There's nothing unject I see there, unless you're presuming to teach that belief in your interpretation of Genesis is necessary for salvation.

You can't teach John 3:16 if you do not believe Gen. 1. Again you take the coward's way out and avoid dealing with the issues raised by the questions.

4.

You appear to be equating evolution with atheism. There certainly is a cross-section there and atheists who appeal to evolution beyond pure science and extend it to make a materialistic philosophy.

Not at all. I have looked at the theory of evolution for a long time for a long time now and have seen where they do not teach anything that pertains to 'life after death'. There is nothing which states there is any hope or 'salvation' for those who follow this theory's teachings. Which again makes me say that pursuing this theory, studying it, presenting more 'details' is a giant waste of time and is leading people away from the truth.

Also, you come from the assumption that science got it right and is the final authority with the power to over-rule the Bible. I think you have the cart before the horse here and make science infallible and God fallible. That is not what a believer does and you are not a fellow believer with me, you preach a different gospel.

Now, anyone else want to take a stab at answering those questions HONESTLY without avoiding the reality they point towards?

drddunks wrote: 4. 30+ years ago, the end result of evolution was nothing, when a person died that wasit. Now in 2007 we are told that evolutionists have much more knowledge of the theory, more details and much much more YET the end result is the same, when a person dies--thats it. Doesn't that result make evolution useless, a waste of time and money? Doesn't that make evolution purposeless and all the advancements a detriment to society as thattime, energy, and money could have been spent making people's livs better instead of wasting it on something that gives yo nothing in return?
have looked at the theory of evolution for a long time for a long time now and have seen where they do not teach anything that pertains to 'life after death'. There is nothing which states there is any hope or 'salvation' for those who follow this theory's teachings.

Don't mix up the mechanisms of evolution with the philosophy of atheists who use this as a worldview. Evolution as a mechanism does nothing but POSSIBLY explain how organisms came to be. It addresses the mechanisms involved, whereas the atheists who use this mechanism for their worldview are the ones who proclaim that it is sufficient to explain life. But as you yourself have noticed, evolution offers no solutions to life, to sin, to death, merely explains the mechanisms invovled (and those who proclaim otherwise are overapplying the theory). I think too many Christians fear this uneccesarily.

AS for why God inspired to Moses to write Genesis in its style, may I respectfully offer that were God to truly explain how He did it (no matter how He did it), it would have taken a ridiculously huge amount of the scripture, would not have been appropriate given the timespan and the nature of society then AND really would not have provided any other clues as to God's majesty, glory, and power. Genesis 1 is short, but immensely powerful. God is in control, God planned this, God accomplished what He set out to do and there was order and planning in the doing. God may not explicitly tell us how He created, yet many assume that the *absence* of such detail is proof of the mechanism. The absence of a mechanism, of the "doings" of God during creation is somehow turned into proof that God simply poofed things into existence (and I am not doubting HIs power or His ability to do this) . I think we need to be careful to avoid reading into the text more than is there.

srddunks wrote:You can't teach John 3:16 if you do not believe Gen. 1.

Agreed, but none of here, none, have ever said that Genesis one is not true. See above. Simply because progressive creationists propose a *mechanism* or the possible *historical* detailing of how God created does not negate His role in creation or His sovereign nature. It is clear in Genesis that GOd is fully in control of creation. We have never said otherwise.

drddunks wrote:why would God wait 1800+ years to reveal the theory of evolution through a man who was a non-believer in God?

Why would God choose to reveal multitude of medicinal facts to non-believers? Why would God choose to reveal His majesty of His universe to skeptical atheists looking through a telescope. They see God's creation as well as us. I certainly do not doubt DArwins observations about microevolution, but he certainly extrapolated more than the evidence at the time provided. Mankind is fallible....it's a simple as that. We get some things right and more things wrong. Why would God wait thousands of years after Adam and Eve to reveal His Messiah? Why wait? God's timing is amazing and mysterious.

drdunks wrote: 2. How fair is that to all the people who died believing Gen. 1 over through those years and never heard of the theory of evolution?

First of all, those who want to reject God before Darwin's time were perfectly capable of doing so. Darwin didn't suddenly open the eyes of possible atheists. (Don't get me wrong, it certainly makes it easy for them.....but in the end it is their *heart* that makes them reject God, not some theory. Romans makes it perfectly clear that God's creation reveal His glory and makes us without excuse. And goodness, here are all of these atheists who get to study God's creation every day, seeing the "heaven declaring the Glory of God".

Secondly, your argument strikes at the fairness of God is revealing certain things throughout time, as if this is some reason to dismiss a theory. IS the fact that the mechanism of evolution didn't arrive until the 1800's a reason to dismiss this as a theory? This is a silly argument. YOu might as well ask why God waited until the 1800's to reveal facts about bacteria, several hundred years after the Black Plague. Was it fair to those milliions who died a horrible death while God waited to reveal to men the secrets of bacterial transmission? Or why reveal to Jenner about the nature of vaccines in the 1700's, after millions have died deaths due to viruses.
What about all of those people who died thinking that the earth was flat? Or that serpents and mermaids roamed the seas? There are plenty of examples of people who died not understanding God's creation.

And what about those people who died during the plague believing that it was bad air or evil spirits causing the plague. Was it fair for them to die in ignorance? Does this ignorance mean that we should dismiss vaccinations as a mechanisms for diseases prevention? (for that is your argument--- evolution is stupid and unreasonable because God would not have waited so long to reveal it)

dunks wrote: 3. Why didn't God have Moses write the right way in the beginning so that all people would have the same opportunity to read what actually took place (if evolution were true)? Doesn't that make God an unjust God?

nope, see above. That is indeed the beauty of Genesis one. It reveals exactly what God wants it to reveal. God did it, He is powerful, He is the one who is in control. If your argument is that because not everybody gets to have a chance to learn about evolution then God is unfair, then this criteria must be applied to all other aspects of people's ignorance. Why allow people to believe in incorrect doctrines? Why allow people to believe that health was controlled by the balance of four humours of the body? If this is silly (as it should be) then you must dismiss your argument about avolution. Dismiss evolution because of what is wrong with it as a theory, but not because of its timing.

(Please don't come inwith the marrying of the ible with evolution as #1 & 2 cover that and shows how short-sighted theistic ev. and progress. creationists are and how wrong they are

#1 and 2 do NOT cover this at all. This is a silly argument. When GOd reveals things has NOTHING to do with their validity, as already shown by the multitude of examples. The fact that God did not reveal everything about His creation also does not cover this at all. Even if God choose direct fiat as the means for creation, revealing how and what He created would have made for a ridiculously burdensome book. Genesis one does not reveal even remotely ALL of what God created, but this does not negate a mechanism invovled, nor does the specualtion of a mechanism make the person speculating somehow doubting God. Speculating on HOW God did it does not mean that we doubt He did it.

Finally, Canuckster did a fine job addressing your arguements succintly.