Russ, all I can gather from the links you gave here was that you do not believe the earth is 6,000 years old. Three questions then:

So how old is it?

Why do you persist in posting things from YECs like Hovind when you do not agree with them?

And if the Bible is a scientific document, then why are you at odds with your own leaders about what its "science" actually says? Do you think Hovind, after listening to your reasons for why the earth is older than 6,000 years -- even if you base them on nothing but the Bible -- is going to thank you for showing him the error of his ways? Are creationists supposed to pick and choose which parts of the creationist dogma of their leaders they would like to follow? You are sounding a lot like Glenn Morton. You probably would be interested in his website. I think you would find you have a lot in common.

Here again we have the same statements: you don't believe bilateral symmetry could have evolved. And you claim that because conspiracies exist, science has to be a conspiracy as well. I don't actually see any facts here.

I don't have a need to believe that the world poofed into existence, so I don't see why it is so implausible that the mechanism I described for symmetry could have evolved. I think Sheldrake's morphic field idea could fit in with it very well. Does the fact that someone proposed morphic fields mean that all the ideas that have gone before it are invalidated, or that the very premise of all these ideas is invalidated? No. Like I said, the only people who tend to doubt evolution are creationists. However, it would be silly to say that we have all the answers about how it works. And because we don't have all the answers, does that mean it is false? Of course not. I think it's hard to get around the fact that there is clear evidence that organisms have lived and changed on the earth for billions of years. The sorts of hoaxes like Piltdown man that creationists like to cite are a handful of samples, and the hoaxes were debunked by scientists. It is illogical wishful thinking to say that the millions of other fossils that have been found are also hoaxes, that scientists have covered them up instead of validating them through various kinds of testing, and that science is all a big conspiracy. If that really is how you think then I don't suppose I'm going to change your mind about that but it seems a little far-removed from reality, especially since presumably you accept at least some of the evidence for an old earth. Why else pick out a part of the Bible that you think proves this, rather than just toe the creationist line along with all your leaders?

I've said elsewhere that all creatures -- not just fossils -- are transitional forms, because evolution does not stop. We ourselves are transitional forms, though how lifestyles and science are going to shape this in years to come is anyone's guess. Why do so many fossils exhibit symmetry? Because it evolved very early in the history of life. Why do so many creatures also have eyes, mouths, limbs? They evolved early because they were very useful adaptations. Mutations that wiped these characteristics out in most cases also killed the organisms and so those characteristics were not passed on. And again, I think morphic fields could come into play too, though they are not needed as such to add any "plausibility" to existing theories.

Mutations do not just create moles and cancers. Really Russ, these are basic things we're talking about here. How often do you accuse me of talking from ignorance? Please, if you're going to argue against the ToE, at least learn about what it is you are arguing against. Go to TalkOrigins. Explain here why you disagree with it if you want, but let your aguments be educated ones.

Into your comments about the Bible, what I'm mainly interested in is this idea that it is a scientific document straight from God. OK you've got around some problems by saying it was written through men, who could have introduced the errors. I'm not sure, though, what you mean by saying:


What result?

I've got a Bible next to me that is 125 years old. We have newer ones but I like the language in this one. However when I open it and look at the Old Testament, I see God condoning the killing of thousands upon thousands of people, either because they have "sinned" or because they were the enemies of his chosen people. Heck, almost every living thing on earth gets wiped out in the flood. This is justice is it? If you sin you get killed or sent to hell? All I see here is rule through fear and punishment, and those not among the "chosen" had better watch out. It's justification enough for religious crusades isn't it, so why do you think there aren't more of them today?

The sort of Catholocism that my family practiced was based more on the New Testament. A little love and forgiveness go a long way.

But really, if you think about it, this is all pretty incomprehensible if you see God as truly omniscient. He knows before you are born what is going to happen to you. He knows whether you are going to heaven or hell. He knows what sins you will commit and how you will or will not be punished for it. Why would he bring so many people into the world whom he knows are going to be wicked? And why then would he wipe them out, say, in a flood? Isn't there an element of futility here somewhere? Why, also, bring "infidels" into being who are going to get slaughtered by the Israelites, who are the only chosen people? Goodness me, I'm glad God seems to have decided to stop killing and cursing non-Israelis, or a lot of us would be in trouble.

Anyway, this is all beside the point. I'd like you to explain, if you would, what your creation ideology actually is, how old you think the earth is, and your reasons for this.