@windar12q Why would you then think that evolution-random acts of breeding and development would produce better offspring. I don't deny emotions, but they are not a good source with which to process facts. We may need to define emotions. You haven't explained why energy can be the only source of diversity in nature. Energy has not capacity to conserve itself for a purpose or gather itself together for life, only disperse to reach equilibrium. 2nd Law of thermodynamics. I do not disregard you words of everything but it always seems like you speak of things that are facts without proof. You make broad statements and I want to know the specifics. I am refreshing myself on molecular physics so that I might consider further some things you have said. I wish you well. Kirk

I did read your last post. It would require me to regard your word as authority which I do not. Your statements are not supported by scientific fact. If truth is left up to emotions, there can be no truth. If all emotions are positive, how can they teach us right and wrong? Where is the authority of one emotion over another? If emotions rule, how can their be objectivity? Facts are not your god; simple mathematics shows that life from non-life is statistically impossible. Facts would dictate that genetic mutations are not productive and that, as Burrawang stated genetic diversity is declining. Genetic manipulation to bring about desired traits actually reduces genetic diversity.

How do we weigh light? How much does heat weigh? If energy is mass then we should be able to weigh it. Windar12q, Why do you say evolution is a closed system? What closes it; what are the limits. You earlier mentioned standing outside the Universe; at what point can you know the limits to the universe so that you can look at it as a closed system. You say that God cannot be the source of biodiversity; but that is what a "God" is, he can do anything. Your god is evolution and science. Neither of them has the capability to do what ever "they" want because we know of limits that are certifiable. I believe very much in science, but not as a god; rather, a way of understanding some things about our universe. As Burrawang stated, the creation "speaks" to us about God. Biodiversity shows us that God is precise, appreciates beauty, is wise, and knows more that I certainly do. This is called "Natural Revelation". Special Revelation, on the other hand comes from the written Word. From the Word we receive revelation about God's invisible qualities, love, mercy, grace. Those who believe in God are delighted to investigate both Natural and Special revelation, not to mention historical evidence of God's work. Again, there are historical and eye witness accounts of Jesus' death and resurrection. This validates the words of the Old Testament in Jesus' own words. Drive to understand God's creation is not limited by faith in God as creator, it increases it. The Big Bang theory is more detrimental to scientific investigation. It attempts to explain things in ways that allow difficult or impossible things to occur. To do so, it violates scientific laws that can be demonstrated. Thus, true science is harmed and thinking is allowed to follow speculations about life and our physical world. Assuming that God does not exist introduces a bias that is not productive to the truth. Kirk

We can not speculate over the things people may or may not have done. We know that any wife which Cain took had to be offspring of Adam and Eve. When and how Cain acquired this bride is not told to us. Any offspring, according to the bible are sinners, capable of anything.

@windar12q, I am perplexed. Who can provide an authoritative proof for you. Whose facts will you believe? How do you know a star implodes under the forces of gravity? How does a star sustain its volume? How many stars have been observed doing this? IF you have not seen these things with your own eyes and measured them, why do you believe this is true? What methods do living energies control their volume? How do you know this? Volume as measured in what units? Volume implies a unit of spacial measurement? Do you have an example of a living energy that did not control its volume? If you have no standard of authority how do you determine what is a fact? Again, if you do not have one, you hold yourself up as a god. Is Hamiltonian evolution speaking of biological things or social and political things? I am yours, Kirk

@windar12q I have been reading all the posts. I am glad you see order necessarily coming from order, that makes sense. Normally evolutionists say that there was no order but suddenly all the necessary conditions were met and life erupted on the scene. This can't be proved in a lab. It is then understandable why I thought I knew what you meant by Evolution. I am not aware of the tenants of "Hamiltonian" evolution but I will. Is there a source of that thought that you would recommend? I continue to pray for you. Kirk

Burrawang, Thanks for the references. Good stuff, I will have to spend some time grasping it all. No problem with the 6000 years for the age of the earth. I just know that some of the calculations for that proposed age were based on assumptions I am not willing to make. Windar12Q, where did the energy come from? How was energy system arranged? Are you doing some experimentation in your research? What questions are you trying to answer? What are the "Facts" you have discovered? As to whether all living things are connected, that determination is dependent on what criteria you use. If you connect them by whether they are living or not, there is a connection. If you set the criteria at having a heart beat or not, they are not connected. If you say they all came from the same random beginning you have to provide information about that event. I do believe that all life is "connected" they were created by an intelligent designer. Jesus, the one that predicted his death and resurrection, commends the account in Genesis. Jesus is a good source according to the evidence presented in the scriptures and elsewhere. The shortfalls in scientific evidence convinces me that life can not be organized or initiated by random events. Actually, the scientific method requires you to disprove your hypothesis. If your hypothesis stands the active attempt to disprove it, then it has the potential of being true. The physical laws of thermodynamics disprove the idea that order arose from disorder on it's own. Statistical analysis of the proper arrangements for DNA stands at the very lowest levels shows that it is impossible at scientifically accepted levels of probability. God cannot be disproved. Some conditions and events in the appearance of life are only satisfied by an intelligent designer. One of the problems I see with much of evolutionary speculation is that it is just that. A correlation is seen, and it is presented as fact without statistically significant attempts to disprove it. I have also seen evidence that things that don't fit the correlations are disregarded as "anomalies". When I was involved with soil science research this was not permitted. Only a stated probability could allow for the hypotheses to pass the attempt to disprove. Also, forgive me for saying "If you accept the 6000 year" age of the earth. I should have written "If one accepts". That mistake got me into a difficulty in discussion with Burrawang. My apologies.

Windar12q, What is your version of evolution called? What kind of research are you doing with regard to it? I am not sure that the bible says the earth is 6,000 years old. I think some have estimated that it say the earth is 6,000 years old. Geneology estimates are not precise. there is evidence that does indicate less than 10,000 years. If the earth is young it indicates that evolutIion over a long period of time did not occur. If evolution is not the answer we look for another. The Chronology of the Bible is one possible answer and it appears from the evidence from the young earth argument that the Bible is correct. The supernatural miracles that Jesus did are evidence that Jesus is God. Windar12q, what basis would you accept as proof of God. The scriptures are not authoritative for you. Biology and other sciences are not authoritative for you. What would be convincing?

Burrawang, I have benefited from your experience and knowledge. To God be the glory. I am glad you had references concerning the process of fossilization. The fossilized leather is a think the first "soft" material I have seen fossilized. It is possible that according to where it was found was buried in a spring area that may have contributed to fast rate of fossilization. I only mentioned it because it was able to see it. the other artifacts were impressive as well. God's peace to you. Kirk

On Tuesday I was shown a Native American axe, or it may have been a hammer or club, made of stone, that had a portion of the material used to attach it to a handle. The material seemed to be leather, but it was fossilized. Kind of stunning to think about. In the same area there were buttons from a military uniform, it seemed to be brass. Also found it that area was a small rock mortar and pestle certainly not big enough to grind groceries, but possibly medicines or paint and dye. Here in North Dakota we have a particular kind of flint that has been found far and wide in areas of the United States where the flint does not occur naturally. I believe I read that all the examples from places far from this area were artifacts, things already made from the flint, not unworked raw material. Some jest that it was North Dakota's first export commodity. I was looking for flint to learn to make stone tools.

Burrawang, Only Evolution theory requires a old earth, correct? The rest of science can function very nicely with the acceptance of a young earth. Terms like "50,000 years ago are thrown around without any substance as are millions and millions. This is what I referenced in an earlier post; some things that were said to have occurred 100,000 years ago as "proven" by the fossil record, are now claimed to be millions of years ago. These times are so varied in the origin of man or living beings or cultures that it is astounding, because they are a claimed to be proven. I think that the need for and old earth is driving the science.

@windar12q the university system which we still enjoy today was developed by the Christian Church, it is a fact of history. Theology was at the center, but the arts were included as valid pursuits for discovery. Arts then,(another time when the word we have for art is not used the same way), meant literary, mathematics, and soon gave birth to scientific discovery. Mendl, a great geneticist, was a monk who studied genetics, so that the development of peas and other agricultural plants could be improved. He did not say, "God made the peas this way so this is how they will stay." He thought, "God made the peas this way, how can I learn how God made the peas, so that I might grow the best peas for the sake of mankind." And he did it. My intellect is a gift from my God. He encourages me to use all my talents and abilities to serve others. By meeting their needs with my intellect and my physical work, I receive my needs for life. My reason is not bound by God, it is a gift from him. I need not be shackled by presuppositions of science, or by definitions that are not proven, only suggested and defended as "fact". I point you to books to read and you bellyache about not needing them; you can think on your own. My God tells me to think about what is good and right and true. Since Jesus said he would rise from the dead and then did so, I figure he is a pretty good source of what is what. A wise man seeks to learn. Stagnation comes when you think you know it all by your own assessment. I rather think you are shackled by a hatred you have for God. If we go back to the question of food shortages, poverty, sickness, and so forth, these conditions are often man-made. While citizens in countries live with out basic needs, their political rulers stop the flow of technology, medicine, financial assistance, that is readily available. Most of these benefits are available not because secular governments want to provide them, but because Christian people are concerned for those who do not have the food, water, medicine and technology that is available to them. Are Christians perfect in this? No, but a lot is done by and through Christians because the Word of God teaches them love. Evolution depends on survival of the fittest, or so it is claimed. However, Darwin was not trained in Science, he was an economist applying an economic construct to nature. Altruism is not survival of the fittest. Darwin actually saw and wrote about the problems of evolution between species. He said there were "Gaps". As is often the case, one of his followers pushed Darwinism beyond what Darwin actually professed. There is another book, by an unbelieving scientist. The book is called, "Darwin's Black Box". I can't give you the name of the author right now I can't find it in my library. I have probably loaned it out to another Christian with a questing mind. It lays out a good explanation and evidence of the truth that every time science thinks it will reduce life to the bare essentials, the smallest components, they find more complexity. One of the other people contributing to this discussion brought up the "rotor motors" as an example. There is another book, by an unbelieving scientist. The book is called, "Darwin's Black Box". I can't give you the name of the author right now I can't find it in my library. I have probably loaned it out to another Christian with a questing mind. It lays out a good explanation and evidence of the truth that every time science thinks it will reduce life to the bare essentials, the smallest components, they find more complexity. One of the other people contributing to this discussion brought up the "rotor motors" as an example. Many of the diverse things in the animal kingdom, and plants for that matter as well, require systems to support them. These systems must all work at the same time or they do not allow the organism to function with its diverse features. Feathers are not sufficient for flight. Bones of the "flyer" have to be strong but light. The muscles must be just so. If there is not a highly efficient cardio-vascular system, the muscles can't flap, the feathers are useless, probably a detriment to survival. By saying these things happened millions of years ago, you shut your mind off to the real problem of evolution. You will probably scoff at this, but a thinker always looks for more information about which to think. Your continual unwillingness to receive references from authorities in books and such allows you to reject information and, yes, evidence that could show you better thinking. If you went to a conference of thoughtful people and said one of the topics you reject you haven't tried to understand since you were 10, they would not listen to you. You have shackled your mind and reason by arrogance and spite. Remember the University system that I spoke of earlier, it was developed to train a man of knowledge and understanding so he could preach the Word of God to the World. Harvard was not founded on "Veritas"-truth; if was founded on Veritas-truth for God and Church. My prayers are for you. Kirk

@windar12q Where do you look up evidence other than in a book, a journal, or the like? I never said that countries in Africa are Christian, I said Christianity is growing in the continent of Africa. Africa, Europe, and Asia are not secular countries. the are continents. Just because you can't demonstrate how dreams occur doesn't mean they do not occur.

@windar12q You are mistaken if you think the church is diminishing. Currently, the Christian Church is growing in large numbers is Africa and China. Though "illegal" in some places, it still grows. Darwin, however, is facing increasing pressure because of gaps in the theory. You jest about the Triune God being a God of gaps. Evolution is truly a "religion of gaps." Proponents can't decide whether evolution happens gradually, or in quick "spurts". The difficult problems are shrouded in millions and billions of years, for now, even pushed out to some planet somewhere. Although I no longer work professionally in science, I still have a "questing mind" desiring to learn and understand that which non-speculative science discovers.

@windar12q ] the very reason that the early scientists did their work was to investigate a world created by and orderly God. People were processing data and making predictions long before that. But the active science to the benefit of mankind flourished in the Christian Church. I was done to make life better.

Probably means it is not proven.

There are eye witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Not only did they see him alive, but they heard him, touched him, ate with him. Now this wJesus, predicted before he was killed that he would rise from the dead after 3 days. Eye witnesses saw him crucified to death. On the 3rd day they saw him very much alive, touched the nail wounds and the wound in his side which was cut with a spear to show that he was truly dead. All those who didn't believe this just needed to show his dead body. No one did. Roman historians speak about this event as hostile witnesses, yet no one at the time refuted it. This Jesus also fulfilled several hundred prophecies made about him over 400 years before. This Jesus, true man and true God, according to the eye witnesses who saw many miracle done by Jesus, was dead and yet rose again. Now eye witnesses are usually believed over people years later who say that their testimony is false. There are no records that indicate that as these eyewitnesses wrote their accounts, that their contemporaries proved that their account was untrue. In addition, no pun intended but I will let it stand, it has been shown by the science of mathematics that the proper sequence of DNA material is virtually impossible. The law of thermodynamics has been used to prove that order does not arise from disorder unless some outside entity organizes it, provides order. So a scientific Law militates against life from non-life, and organization from chaos. The fossil record of fantastic creatures that once lived shows no intermediate examples of links between species. Time and time again, examples of the missing link have been hoaxes for outright fraud. I cannot understand what you mean by different levels of intelligence "feeding and intelligent species. You say you are a "good thinker". What is your criteria for that assessment? What standard to you use, or do you just declare it so? What source tells you that you will have a good afterlife? Whenever you are asked to consider something, to think about something that you don't understand, you say your no scientist or bible student, just a good thinker. What things to you think about? I notice some equivocation in your last post saying that science may have proved that evolution is true. "May" and "did" are not the same words. God as creator is a more logical explanation as to how we got here. How do I know that I will have a blessed afterlife? The guy Jesus, who said he would die and 3 days later rise from the tomb, and then he did it. Seems logical to me to follow the eye witnesses, the hostile witnesses, and the Jesus who did what seems to be impossible-life from the dead. He says the Genesis account is true. To me it is logical to believe him. I don't know how you claim to be a good thinker if you don't study the things you think about. Not very logical. Philosophy has to run into actual experience at some point. When disciplines that you claim as having the answer to it all are called into question, you can't just say that you don't know about it and expect anyone to believe your good thinking. Many evolutionists are good at one scientific discipline or two, but evolution has to fly in all scientific disciplines, grammar, physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics. Only Christianity claims something that can be tested, "Jesus rose from the dead". There are eye witnesses that saw that he did just that. Now, someone 2000 years later, dismisses those witnesses without any proof that they are suspect. No miracles? Believing that life just came into being from Chaos takes faith in a miracle that cannot be demonstrated. Evolution has not been proved. I am a scientist, believe me, I am a thinker.

@windar12q Well, that is a conversation starter: I am wrong because I have a different level of intellect? I did not change the meaning of the word "suffer". You can easily google the passage and find out from people who have a higher intellect than I good references that indicate that suffer the children does not mean cause them to suffer. IT means to allow them to come to Jesus. There are people with very high IQ scores that believe in the veracity of the Bible and use logic to show evidence for its accounts. I offered a title for you to read, a couple of them, and your said you don't need to read them. I guess you consider yourself very intelligent. After all, you gave up on understanding the Bible at age 10. I know I am being blunt. You haven't attempted to understand the bible for 72 years? At age 10 you knew all you needed to know. That is pretty amazing, and it is foolish. Sorry, friend, that doesn't seem like good logic. You bring up medicine; medicine cannot explain everything it deals with. Treatments and medications are not proven to work for every person. Dr.s and Nurses treat by averages and statistical assumptions. If it were true that everything can be explained there would be no failed treatments or dosages. Of all places, the human body and the mind are full of things we don't understand, and yet the body accomplishes things with us understanding them. In addition, intellect is no guarantee of moral aptitude. If you have nothing to learn in this life, you will learn in the afterlife. I pray for you, Kirk

Windar12q, If you say the meaning of the word "suffer" is unimportant, why did you draw out the passage from Matthew chapter 11 and accuse the bible of fomenting violence against children? If, as you claim, the Bible has no meaning, why do you argue against it? IF the Bible is not true, and you do not believe what it says about God, how could you expect that God to have "a lot to answer for". You speak authoritatively about science, and yet when scientific things are brought up and offered so that you may instruct us, you say you are no scientist. When a clarification is presented to you on an earlier meaning of a word, you say it doesn't matter. You claim to be an expert on what the bible says and means, and yet you don't want to answer questions about it. I suspect that you have such a negative view of the Bible is that address topics in a way that contradicts you thoughts and actions. If you really thought it was meaningless, you wouldn't argue so irrationally against it. Although you have listened to those who told you what you want to hear, that the bible is flawed and corrupt and without merit, you are bothered by what you think it says to you. The theme of the Bible is God's mercy for you in Jesus Christ. If you are content with your prospects in the afterlife, why argue against the Holy Scriptures. You want to debate, but you don't want to allow word meanings to be clarified, science to be authoritative, or any challenge to your understanding of the cosmos. You are a god unto yourself. How do you expect to assure your claim to a great afterlife. What power do you have to cause that to happen? What basis do you claim to define morality or virtue? What standard guides you? You do not want to offer defense of you accusations against Christians: Words don't matter, you are not a scientist, you refuse to investigate debate points offered to you. Have there been unfounded claims of Biblical authority to do certain things? Yes, most definitely! But it is the misuse of the words by human beings bent on their own version of right and wrong. Do you agree that such people should be punished? Then get in the line because you are using the Bible incorrectly persuade other people to follow your assessment of right and wrong, good and evil. You might be surprised to find that what you consider morality is Judeo-Christian. Your sense of justice probably came from the Bible. I offered you a book title that would help you see that, but you claim you don't have to read anything that might assist you in thinking critically. Sorry, friend, I can't do much else for you. I pray that God would change your heart and mind, and I leave room for what he can do. Yours, Kirk

Windar12Q, My comment on Stalin and Hitler was in response to your statement that science should not be constricted by anything. Stalin and Hitler did terrible atrocities to human beings in the name of science. "Suffer the children"- an important practice in biblical study is to remember that the Scriptures were written in Hebrew and Greek, and a bit of Aramaic. These writings have been translated into languages that are fluid. "Suffer" does not mean to inflict harm upon young people. "Suffer" in that instance means "allow" the children to come to Jesus. The science of grammar is biblical interpretation. very important in examining the Bible. The hatred you have for a "book" shows through. If the bible is only words, why are you so angry about it? Your bias against it and your refusal to read the documents that are offered to you is not very scientific. I am not working as a scientist anymore, however, true science is still fascinating and I read journals and articles about science often. The wonders of the natural world are amazing. You claim that i follow along with the bible without questioning things. You have no knowledge about the struggling and questioning I have experienced concerning religion and the Bible. For me, faith in a Creator was strengthened in college botany class. The complex timing of gymnosperm seed production is so intricate that it does not seem logical to attribute it to chance. Good science requires that one investigates all the possibilities not just the ones that you favor. Otherwise, you are operating in faith concerning your bias. True science requires that you work hard to disprove your theory. If it still stands after severe criticism, your particular hypothesis may be valid. Please do the calculations concerning the probability of the sequence of DNA forming by chance. Millions and billions of years do not improve the probabilities. Please list for me some of the examples of evolution from one phylum to another. Please list for me examples of non-life giving rise to life. All the best, Kirk Burrawang, thanks for the wonderful and logical treatment above. Kirk ,