Archive for the 'Atheism' Category

An Overdue Apology

Published
by
David
on 2008-01-20
in Atheism, Philosophy, Religion, Science and Theology/Doctrine
. Closed

Being recently and well reproved, I am sorry to have wasted so much time on unprofitable things as this arguing science, “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called (1 Tim 6.20):” Let us strive for better things. “Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things (Philippians 4.8).”

Considering Our Origins

Published
by
David
on 2008-01-13
in Atheism, Philosophy, Religion, Science and Theology/Doctrine
. Closed

I recently initiated a conversation with a scientist by email. He stated on his site that he believes in an old earth and evolution and is an orthodox Christian. I offered that there is a much easier way to resolve the issue of a seeming old earth in light of the Genesis account of creation. To be clear, I disagree with the notion that it is somehow necessary for salvation to apprehend every doctrine of Scripture to be saved, but I think that it is incumbent upon us to believe those things that are plainly taught as they are presented, and it is imperative to understand the gospel aright.

First, I wrote him explaining that I did not believe in an old earth. I offered an explanation that I think is both reasonable and logical given the tenor and context of the passage. That said, here is a modified portion of that conversation:

Adam and Eve were adults when God created them. He was able to name all the animals and they worked in the garden, understood and reasoned both with God and the serpent, etc. There is no scientific evidence for a young earth. The scientific evidence is for an old earth. but the reason from scripture is that God created the earth not in infancy, but in maturity. [Furthermore, it seems illogical that the earth could have performed all those things necessary to sustain human and other life if it had not been created in adulthood.] You cannot prove it. If you could, it would not be of faith, and we would receive less blessings by it. Consider, Jesus told Thomas (John 20.29), blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. Likewise, the preamble to the “hall of faith” in Hebrews 11:

1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

2 For by it the elders obtained a good report.

3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

I don’t believe in some fundamentalist notion of checking your brain at the door. But I do believe that it is apprehended by faith, not “so-called science (1Tim 6.20).”

I believe that all things were created, in that respect, in an adult form. All the ‘suns’ and stars and satellites and planets. All the animals, all the plants, they were all mature and able to reproduce and do those things for which they were intended at the point they were created.

In his response, he said that he thought that for God to create the earth and universe in maturity was deceptive. To which I responded:

I think that the idea that it is deceptive is strange, considering that if a person did take [Genesis 1] at face value (since [his view seems to be that] it would be acceptable for a Christian to take either [a literal or symbolic/hyperbolic] view), they would logically assume that Adam was mature at creation, and so was Eve. [Likewise,] the plants produced fruit, etc., [which proved] their maturity (in the third day: he created plants and herbs which made seeds after their kind—Gen 1.11-13). Rather, within a literal understanding—which is the most plain and likely historical understanding—it seems only logical that all things were created in their maturity.

…It is not necessarily a requisite that a man believe the creation account for salvation, and further it is not saving in itself to believe it. Consider that the thief on the cross may not have understood much about the earth’s origins, and the Pharisees held much orthodoxy, but not in a saving way. However, that passage does not seem to be hyperbolic, consider the use of the words evening and morning and day, they do not seem to be indicative of ages, etc. I know that passages in the Scripture are figurative: the wings of God (metaphor), the anger of God (anthropomorphism), all Judea came to see Christ (hyperbole), etc. That passage does not, however, seem to use those or other similar literary devices [specific to day-ages, etc.].

It seems also likely that without our current scientific understanding it would have been impossible for saints of old—like Abraham and David and Mary—to have held a consistent orthodox view of our earth’s creation that was internally, scientifically consistent. So, which is stranger? That God would create the earth in maturity, or that it would take 5800 years for a Christian to comprehend the nature and extent of God’s creative work?

God was pleased as it says in the scriptures to confound the wisdom of the wise. Consider:

But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; (1 Co 10.27)

Jesus thanked God for hiding things from the wise:

In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight. (Luke 10.21)

Would it be unlawful for God to keep people from understanding these things?

I will try to develop this more later. While I would not hold that you must believe the way I do about the issue of the mature earth, I would say that you should always believe God rather than man, and man’s so-called science, when they conflict, because they will.

Jesus, Son of God. God the Son?

Published
by
David
on 2007-06-23
in Atheism, Theology/Doctrine and Worship
. Closed

Many today deny the deity of Christ from the Scriptures, “Jehovah’s Witnesses,” Mormons, many Liberal Christians (as in the Jesus Seminar, with notable fellow Bishop Shelby Spong, DD). Why would they say that he is not the Son of God? Maybe a more appropriate question would be, why would anyone say he is the son of God?

Consider John 9, where the man born blind saw Christ after being interrogated by the Pharisees:

35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?

36 He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?

37 And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.

38 And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.

39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.

40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?

41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

Note here that Jesus does not rebuke the man born blind for his worshiping him. That is not the only example. Consider also the example of Thomas’ worship of him after his seeing him following the resurrection. He worshipped him calling him, “Lord” and “God.”

27 Then saith he to Thomas, reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

If he was not God, he would have been a liar, and a blasphemer as the Pharisees said often of him. More than that, the fact that he called himself the Son of God all the time was making himself like unto God, as the Pharisees often affirmed.

Consider also the following (from John 1), where Jesus is called God—“In the beginning was the Word,…,and the Word was God,” etc.:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

And Hebrews 1, where God calls the Son, God, and commands the Angels to worship Him, etc.:

6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.

8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

10 in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

Consider that no one is to be worshipped in this manner but God. John, when he received the vision was in the presence of an angel, and John worshipped him. Then the angel corrected John, calling himself a fellow servant, Rev. 22.8,9, and again, consider Peter, who when Cornelius worshiped him, corrected him (Ac 10.25,26). In the Old Testament (OT), Jesus is often foreshadowed, and known by David to be God, a member of the Godhead, as with the aforementioned passage in Hebrews, And the Lord said to my Lord, sit thou at my right hand (Psalm 110.1). Consider from the OT: Isaiah 9.1-7, esp. 6; and from the NT: John 10.28-ff • Col. 1.16-19.

I will try to expound on this more later. But in the meantime, it would be fair to say that if the Bible is correct, and I believe it is, Christ is the Son of God. But if Christ be not the Son of God, because the Scripture shows that he is not, then the Scripture is full of error, because it also shows that he is, so cast off your foolhardy faith before this ship goes down. Consider the foolishness, darkness and fundamental flaw of this heresy, in the end, his name is Immanuel/Emmanuel, or “God with us.” Even the Pharisees understood that he ‘made himself like God (John 10.33).’ How much more plain must it be?

Environmentalists ‘Bad for People’ & Down the Rabbit Hole

Published
by
David
on 2007-05-20
in Atheism, Current Events, Media and Science
. Closed

It is ridiculous to think that I can cover so many bases in one story. I am only posting it now until I can pull it down and piece it out into separate stories.

In a recent story in news.com.au, Sarah Kate Templeton (London) said that children are bad for the planet, in her story, Children ‘Bad for Planet.’ Her thesis is basically this: the more children people have (especially in developed nations) the more resources we use, which leads ot a greater carbon footprint. Neat! What does that mean to real people?

Of course that means that the world is headed for gloom and doom. The fallout is going to be terrible if we don’t change our ways. What is carbon (dioxide) really doing for us? In 1997, Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT gave testimony to the senate on this subject. During which he cited from the American Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):

Our ability to quantify the human influence on global climate is currently limited because the expected signal is still emerging from the noise of natural variability

There are a couple problems with this whole global warming thing: it is at its root godless. It presumes that science is king, not God. But science is man’s knowledge, where the Bible is God’s knowledge. Men constantly waffle and bend on their views, noteworthy among them is the fact that in the not-so-distant past, American scientists thought we were headed for an ice age, and thought it was prudent that we ramp up to curb the ebb of that activity. Now we are saying that we are headed for global warming.

The hypocrisy of the media is not helpful. They continue in the pattern of Dan Rather, Jayson Blair, CNN’s Iraq coverage, and the BBC’s coverage of all things American, to spin things that they think are appropriate. The problem with that is that they don’t have the knowledge to keep them from being bowled over by their interviewees. But they do not mind, because they are looking for a scientist to support their own theses, not for the most honest or correct. This is the very problem that science has always had: if you go into your work with a hypothesis, you will slant your work. If you go in without a hypothesis or direction, you will not know where to begin or end or what to collect.

Reporters are no different. They don’t know what they are talking about, they only find people who seem to. If reporters knew what they were talking about, they would be the expert and reporters would be asking them the questions. So where does this leave us?

We need reporters, because we live in a democratic system, and they help us to make informed decisions, they ensure that our right to know is maintained, and a bunch of other cliché tripe: We are not guaranteed (so far as I know) a right to a fourth estate (which acts more like a fifth column anyway). The only right to know we seem to be guaranteed is by the Government, and that is only the stuff that they say we are allowed to know with the freedom of information act. We are not a democracy or a democratic republic. We are a representative republic, we are probably most akin to an aristocracy.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (2001, May 2). On the Climate Change Debate. Cambridge, MA: Lindzen, Richard S. Retrieved July 17, 2006 from the World Wide Web: <http://eaps.mit.edu/ /faculty/lindzen/Testimony/Senate2001.pdf>

So-Called Science

Published
by
David
on 2007-05-20
in Atheism, Science and Theology/Doctrine
. Closed

There are three scientific thoughts which run parallel to each other and which are technically separate from one another, but are truly logically intertwined, and are in a most wicked friendship: atheism, Darwinism and modern thought on geology. They are at the face separable, and they are at the root separable, but somewhere in between, they are of a very strong accord.

Evolution is a belief based in Darwin’s thought that gradual transitions in the composition of animals (transitional forms) allowed for species to make adaptations to their surroundings over time, which would allow them to thrive in any circumstance, and become increasingly complex and well-suited to their environments.

Phyletic Gradualism (PG) is the assertion that evolution takes place in slow progression. Notable among the illustrations is the lizard: who seeking for an ever-escaping food source begins to stretch its neck and its scales, over time, become feathers, etc. until it is able to leave the ground for its food source.

PG has generally been left in light of the new school of thinking, called punctuated equilibrium (PE). This considers evolution to occur in fits and starts. A lizard could give birth to a sort of intermediate bird lizard thing that may in the future give birth to a bird through successive generations, but not with the generations of gradual changes, rather in a few short steps that may be rather abrupt.

Already there are a number of insurmountable problems with this line of thinking: Namely among them are sexual reproduction, speciation, cellular and genetic biology, etc. If the Lord allows addressing those topics will come later.

Faith and Infidelity (Excerpts from a Dialog)

Published
by
David
on 2007-02-18
in Atheism and Theology/Doctrine
. Closed

Prefatory Note

This is taken from a dialog with a man on a forum/blog where he was talking about his attempt to commission artwork for an anti-creation website. I discussed some points with him. I have extracted my points here, for the reader’s edification:

Furthermore, I am not of the mind that you need to know all sides to know the truth. That is an American idea, and is not (necessarily) philosophically sound. I have not offered both sides here, and do not encourage you to know both sides, but know the truth, “buy truth and sell it not” as Solomon says (Proverbs 23.23). He also says, “12 And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh. 13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man (Ecclesiastes 12.12,13).” That said, I hope you enjoy what follows.

Entry 20 - 20061117

Science is knowledge, etymologically speaking. Contrariwise, any system of thought that purports dogmatically something that is not provable is called faith. Atheism, Christianity, Evolution, and Creationism are all forms or parts of faith. The single biggest difference between Atheism and Evolution, and Christianity and Creation is that Christianity and Creation are admittedly faith, while Atheism tries to call itself a simple scientific understanding. It flies in the face of a simple realization that logically speaking, thought not at all imperically, there must be an immaterial first cause. It is easy enough to see in light of energy conservation and entropy that there must be something external to all of this that is responsible for bringing it all about.

Darwin said himself in his acclaimed work on the subject that the evidence lay necessarily in transitional forms and their fossil evidence (Origins, Chapter 10 [end]). However that has been given up on, in light of a lack of fossil evidence. What we have now is not his graduated equilibrium, but the punctuated equilibrium. The idea that life-forms would give birth to far evolved species that would then go on to breed their newfound traits with another like life. However, that requires a male and female of the new species be present at each genetic turn. It is not reasonable to think that such a thing is so. It is necessary to stretch the imagination and to allow for millions (1,000,000) of years (roughly 4.5 billion [1,000,000,000] by modern estimates) to have passed in order to allow for such an incredible story to be so. I do not mean to be antagonistic when I say that allowing for evolution to happen is tantamount to saying that the moon must be made of green cheese because there is no proof to the contrary.

Here is my hypothesis: Evolution, Romanism, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, atheism, and agnosticism, etc. are all forms of faith. Agnosticism is the most internally consistent of those that do not rely on Scriptures. An agnosticism that allows that there is a God and seeks him is a well-reasoned one. One that says that he is unknowable is nearly as absurd as Atheism, because it again is a statement borne out of ignorance not proof (another faith in scholarly clothes). For my part, I am a Christian and I believe in a literal 6-day creation and a young earth. Why? Because the Bible says so. How foolish is that? This foolish: If I believe it because some other silly Christian says that science and history say it is so, then I am subjecting God’s word to the words of men. That is silly. And if I believe it because that day some scientist makes a finding that is in support of the Bible, then I am again subjecting the Word of God to fallible men. I believe the Bible because it is God’s Word and says that it is. (Circuitous reasoning - much like atheism.) And while it may seem absurd, it is not more absurd than atheism, rather it is far less, because I don’t have to fight against nature to believe there is a God, and I readily admit that there is not enough proof for what I believe, it is faith, but the atheist cannot prove his hypothesis and still says he is in accordance with science (knowledge) which it is not and he is not.

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Psalm 14.1a

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Romans 1:21

Entry 21 – 20061118

I suppose that it is late to add this, but in keeping with Mr. Child’s previous post, I mean to explain a couple of definitons definitions: fool - biblically speaking is anyone who is void of the knowledge of God, so its meaning could almost be equivalent to the word atheist in the ending verses. Though in context I think I only used it of myself, in the more contemporary way. Ignorance above is not meant in its current, derogatory sense, but in the sense of lacking knowledge, from the same root as agnostic, simply meaning without ‘gnosis’ or knowledge. Science is synonymous with gnosis, both meaning knowledge though generally in different contexts. I included the meaning of million and billion to avoid the UK/US difference between the two. I have here used the US meaning, but expounded in context. I am sorry for the verbose explanation of my verbiage.

Entry 23 – 20061118

If it were the position of every semantically careful atheist to say that they do not believe there is a god, I suppose that could be fair. Suppose. It is a presupposition based in a lack of evidence, however, that there is no God.

But honestly, saying that you don’t believe there is a god, with such a careful distinction, sounds more like agnosticism. Atheism is the assertion, positively that there is not a god. Etymologically, “a-” means “no”. That is then a positive assertion, so the onus is on the atheist to prove that no god exists.

You may want to check that [punctuated equilibrium], because it shows your points to be either willfully ignorant or just plain deceptive.

That is a large assertion, it would be worth it to read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium .

That would be a different theory to evolution, and one that would be unsupported by the evidence. I’ve not heard of any scientists claiming something as ridiculous as this ever took place.

While I agree with you that it is unsupported by evidence, I am afraid the same is true of Phyletic Gradualism. I did not dream either up. And while Darwin’s theory fails, in light of his ignorance of cellular and molecular biology, and lack of fossil evidence that has so far followed his death, punctuated equilibrium has come alongside to fill the void. The old stance (Phyletic Gradualism) can be found on Wikipedia.org:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyletic_gradualism

It is not willful deception; rather the contrary is true. Those institutions that suggest that the idea of transitional forms is alive and well are leaving up old straw men. While Darwin’s finches and the Pepper Moth are examples of survival of the fittest, they are not examples of beneficial genetic mutation. I will be happy to agree that “survival of the fittest” is not only a viable model but active. However, I don’t see any positive changes in the animal kingdom’s gene pool, only negative: sickle cell anemia, Down’s syndrome, cancers, etc.

About the Bible: You said let’s focus on one issue. But you listed out many (unless you meant that the Bible is one issue). I suppose we could try to argue many, point by point, but that is going to be a while in coming. I will argue that the Bible and the Calvinism that logically results are both internally consistent, and without flaw. However, if either has a fault, it would be my understanding first, and Calvinism second, the Bible remains true. My willingness to maintain that this is so, in light of the seeming contradictions may seem irrational, (and maybe it is). But I would argue that it is faith, which the Bible lauds. However, to hold fast to atheism despite the transcendent nature of the order of our creation, etc. is also based on a lack of evidence, but is never called faith, rather is strangely and gleefully termed “infidelity”, and while it is, it is still a form of presupposition. There is still a lack of evidence.

By the way, while I know this is not the forum for it, I really dig your cheat sheets for CSS, HTML, PHP, etc. Thanks for the hard work.

Very Sincerely, David

Entry 29 - 20061120

Before I go far let me say I understand that atheism and evolution are not inextricably intertwined, only often and deeply-affectionate bedfellows. So while I go back and forth between the two I understand that they are not necessarily “symbiotic” or mutually dependent. However, if creation is shown to be untrue, the Bible fails, as it presents the account as an historic not a metaphorical account. So, while dispelling evolution does not keep an atheist from being an atheist, undermining creation ought to undermine a Christian’s faith. If they say it does not, then it is an insubstantial faith, not based on the Bible but on their mere ascription to a title “Christian”. And their Christ is not the Christ of the Bible but of their own imagination. More than that, if I, God forbid, ever cast off my profession, I am of the mind that evolution is such a thready line of reasoning that I could not commend my frail mind to believe it, though I be the most ardent agnostic.

A common misconception, that one. “a-” means “without”. Atheism = without belief. Strictly speaking almost eveyr every atheist is an agnostic to some degree. I am - it is impossible to disprove the existence of gods, by their nature. I am also agnostic in the same way about the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.

That common misconception is held by some dictionary writers, like my favorite, UK-native Oxford. Atheism: a - without, theos - god; no god. agnosticism: (again) a - without, gnosis - knowledge; without (complete) knowledge. Infidel (or infidelity) seems to be the best fit for what you describe. There is no moral or Bible dig when I say that: Infidel: in - no; fide[l] - belief. I don’t say that to be pedantic, but these distinctions are clearly important, which is clear by the fact that we keep coming back to them.

I think the spaghetti monster is a poor representation of the God “hypothesis”. However, I do not think God can be proven (nor can creation). If He could then the Bible is untrue, for it says, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (cf. Hebrews 11.1-ff). While I rely on the Bible and not science as the only (not primary) pillar of my understanding (and faith more specifically), I know that others do not. Even so, your own so-called science, bears witness against the idea that we are of a composition that has spiritual (immaterial) beginnings. I don’t mean to say that this proves that there is a God in a way that is Biblical, is necessary to please God, or is substantive, but that science in all of its inadequacy bears witness to an immaterial first cause. I don’t need anyone to call that God, but there was something that is beyond tangibility and scientific/empirical understanding.

Lord Kelvin understood the three laws of thermodynamics, of which we “know” that all things in a closed system (a system which has no external energy source) tend toward chaos - which is generally called entropy. This shows a necessary beginning to this system, because a system that is left without energy will slip into a diffuse, cold, gray, mess of atoms or sub-quarkish material. If you say that there is something larger than the universe that is piping energy into it, then that becomes a part of the closed system, like our sun, and there is still an end to that energy source. The fact that we are not in a state of utter disorder shows that we have not been around for an infinite period.

Which leads in part another of those laws, energy conservation, which says that matter cannot be created, nor destroyed, only converted to energy, and energy cannot be destroyed, only diffused. This shows that there had to be something outside of matter that created all of it, because (at least in our western cause-and-effect understanding) all things have come about as a result of something else. However, if matter cannot be created, whence did it come?

It is possible to say that Kelvin was a crack or a loon and his laws should not have been understood to be laws, like the “fool” that decided the world is flat. However, two problems lie in that: Darwin’s theory is still a theory, and even our current laws in science will be subject to the same scrutiny in the future, and nothing is really able to be known. So none of it is worth knowing. I am getting a post-modern headache.

For me, I don’t care about science. It is fallible, it gives us medicine that often kills us, theories that sometimes lead to further godlessness, and computers (and we know what a mess they have become). And it is built on minds as incapable as mine, so I know it cannot be trusted. People become tired and are bought by money, etc. I don’t rely on this argumentation, because the Bible in all of its seeming fallibility is a much more sure law or word of truth than any silly, scientific hypothesis or law will ever be.

On the subject of Punctuated Equilibrium (PE):

You misquoted me above.

I am sorry if I did, please forgive me.

While PE is more gradual than my hyperbolic, spaghetti-monster-style analogy may have alluded to, it does not take long to realize that if all of the “gradual changes” take place in PE that are asserted, they lead to a new lifeform that is no longer of the same species and no longer able to mate with others within its species. It is then necessarily imperative that at any time there is a substantial ‘upgrade’ which in software terms would merit a new version number but in biological terms would merit a new species, that there is member of the complementary gender born in the same generation, so that all of that great new genetic information is not lost. That makes it amazingly difficult to continue these new species since the “odds” of these substantive and positive mutations appearing not only in one specimen, but in two contemporaneous and sexually complementary specimens is impossibly ridiculous. There is an understanding within the scientific title species that you cannot cross-breed unto viable offspring outside of a species, i.e. the mule (horse and donkey), etc.

I think it is valuable to note that mutation is a word with a negative connotation. While mutation only alludes to the fact that something has changed, it usually assumes that it is for the worse. We have not yet documented beneficial mutation in the animal kingdom through our own experience. We only assume that it is possible, in order to offer a crutch to the ailing evolution. So then, mutations are not so far able to produce anything helpful, rather our records have only proven that these changes are harmful (as before, cancers, Down’s syndrome and other genetic/chromosomal disorders, etc.), while I understand that there remain exceptions to that rule outside of the animal kingdom, namely among bacteria and viruses. My point: mutations always work out for the worse in our records, it is only in the minds of hopeful evolutionary priests (and their unfortunate parishioners) that it holds hopes of new species more capable than their ancestors.

Dave, I am a full-time student with a lot of webs to build, an internship (co-op sort of), and another part-time job, to boot. I am sure we will both benefit if I leave off here, because I cannot afford to put so much time into this dialog. But I really appreciate your prompt and thoughtful responses.

Sincerely, David Eldridge

200702180132 – In closing, I think a statement I made about Phyletic Gradualism and Punctuated Equilibrium and which is which and which Darwin supported is incorrect. I intend to clarify that later. I have also heard that Michael Behe has recanted some of his points about the argument of irreducible complexity which I alluded to above. I don’t believe it is so, but even if it is, insofar as I made reference to them above, I think that the reasoning is sound. However, as I said in my argument, I do not use the creationist arguments to bolster my faith, only to show the ridiculousness of the infidel’s argument.