Dear Dan,

You wrote: "I don’t particularly enjoy evolutionary thinking, the idea that we’re accidents descended from bacteria, fish, and ape like creatures. This is the myth that derives from atheist culture. No, thanks."

The above is a nonsense statement. I see no need to give an answer since it is a meaningless statement.

David,
I’m sorry if I wasn’t terribly clear. I’ll say it again a bit differently.

You brought the discussion over to myths. Evolution is the current popularly accepted creation myth, with special application for the atheist. Or at least, nothing so far on this thread has suggested otherwise.

Dear Dan,

Calling conclusions reached from scientific observations and reasoning a creation myth does not mean it is a creation myth. It just means you have chosen to ignore the scientific observations and reasoning. I am afraid you are arguing by name calling.

Equating evolution and atheism as you have done postulates a limited God who must fit the creation myth of the Bible. That is truly a myth as there is no evidence to support it.

Evolution does not mean we are here by accident. It means we have arrived where we are by a process of natural selection which is not an accidental process.

David,

I’m glad you picked up on the name calling. It was mirroring your 2nd post on March 8, when you called the biblical account a ‘myth’.

The common labelling of evolution as ‘scientific’ and creation as ‘myth’ means evolutionists avoid having to properly defend their view. Their position will always be the only ‘scientific’ position by default. But a proper investigation or debate requires a level playing field.

By accidents, I was referring to the everyday properties and processes of matter and energy present in the natural world. The evolutionist says these are sufficient to have created life as we see it. The creationist says they are not.

Which is the most justifiable conclusion to reach after observation and logical reasoning? That is the question, and not attaching the labels would help keep the question in focus.

As for there being ‘no evidence to support’ creation, such a comment is misplaced considering we’ve only recently being discussing how the fossil record is consistent with creationist predictions.

You speak of the God who is limited within the constraints of the Bible. I believe in a God who is capable of speaking clearly and always truthfully.

Dear Dan,

You wrote: "I believe in a God who is capable of speaking clearly and always truthfully."

One can believe anything. Does he speak to you? Did he write the Koran?

I called the biblical account of creation a myth because there is absolutely no more evidence for it than for any other creation myth. Christians unlike the Australian Aborigines and the Japanese didn't even invent their own creation myth. They used a Jewish one.

Arguing from your belief really means you have no argument. Belief is no indication of validity. Best wishes.