Arjay first.

Mate.. 2 points.
First.. I've lived through my adopted dad and alzheimers. Yes..its an ugly disease. I watched my mum slowly die as she was choked by a cancer around her neck....little by little.. again.. an ugly disease.
In neither case do I 'blame God'... one of my Vietnam vet peers once said "Don't talk to me about God....I've BEEN to Vietnam"... I didn't see the connection then, and I don't now.

Second... you are just echoing Pauls words

"Enjoy the moment since our own vainety of yearning the eternal existence in bliss,can be our own worst enemy."

Paul puts it like this:

1Cor 15:32
If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus for merely human reasons, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised, "Let us eat and drink,
for tomorrow we die."

How true. If we are peddling a lie.. or a falsehood.. for what reason or benefit do we suffer for it? On the other hand.. if there is nothing to believe in except "The Moment" (raw, hard_nosed, pedal to the metal, foot to the floor, no holds barred existentialism) then.. we would be rather hypocritical to do other than "eat, drink and be merry".. feed out sensual pleasure zones day in and day out with no regard for anyone else.

STEVE.. I was not quoting those specific things as any kind of 'proof' so you don't need to worry about 'arguing with a creationist' in the way you mean.

Ultimately, it boils down to "my scholar can kick your scholars rear end" kind of thing, and then we just stare each other down and wander off :)

I BELIEVE in 'evolution' in so far as 'natual_selection' modifying species. 'Origin' of the species? I just can't see a slug becoming a horse.. get me? But a modified CICHLID.. sure..why not? So...where is the problem ?

You admit the BIGest problem is 'origins'.. aaah..*bingo* but its also a longgggg bow to draw to get 'once it started everything else followed' that my friend is 'faith' :)

Something strange is going on here. This is two posts in one day where I'm substantially agreeing with Steven. Yes, there does seem to be an awful lot of money being thrown lately at 'research' aimed at debunking evolution - with very little success, it seems.

However, while I agree with the futility of arguing with diehard creationists, I think in Boazy's case the answer may lie in a suggestion I made to him in another thread a few days back - and which he has unsurprisingly and studiously avoided.

It's clear that Boazy doesn't really understand science (or history, anthropology etc). I've suggested that Boazy consider getting himself a real education at a university, rather than relying on the bible, mass media and dubious websites for knowledge and analysis. When I taught at a university, over the years I had several students who were fundamentalist ex-missionaries with worldviews as narrow and distorted as Boazy's, but some of them were able to redeem themselves intellectually over the course of their degrees.

I think that bigotry such as Boazy constantly espouses is based fundamentally on ignorance and a deliberately blinkered view of the world. Education - of the sort that is still available at Australian universities despite 15 or so years of vandalism by bureaucrats - is the way to enlightenment in worldy matters like the evolution of species.

And as I said elsewhere - it's never too late to start :)

BOAZ,

I asserted that places like ICR had never produced research worth a damn. In response you posted a link to the Baumgardner et al paper among others.

I infer therefore that you believe the Baumgardner et al paper is a good counterexample to my assertion. That is, you believe Baumgardner is an example of solid research produced by an institute dedicated to, inter alia, debunking evolution.

It turns out that Baumgardner et al omitted certain relevant FACTS from their paper. Facts which, I discovered, are well known to experts in the field.

Get this BOAZ, we're not talking about a '"my scholar can kick your scholars rear end" kind of thing.' We're talking about relevant FACTS omitted from a so-called scientific paper.

I could tell you what those facts are but I'd rather you discovered them for yourself. I'm sure you're up to the task.

Prove that critics like CJ MORGAN, ARJAY and BELLY are wrong about you. Prove that you're capable of more than parroting the party line of whatever church or sect you belong to.

Don't post excuses for not doing what I suggested.

Just do it.

What's the harm?

The earth is four and a half BILLION years old.
Some of the bones we dig up so very much more than the 6.000 years we are told the world existed for.
Strange but fear is what drives some to believe in God, fear of death, life, the unknown.
Man is his own God ,sometimes his own Devil, in time he/she may let go the straw and be one people.

Sorry Steven,I read half of your post and assumed incorrectly.

My point is that you don't have to believe in god to feel spiritual of feel self worth.The concept of god is for children and at some stage,we all just have to grow up.

We are the masters of our own destinies and the wrong choices can mean oblivion.

Hi Steve again...

Well..I 'just did it' as far as my googling took me, but it seems that the shoe might be on the other foot about relevant facts.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative6-26-2000.asp

This email from a critic of the 14c issue seems to suggest the deception if any was on the critics head rather than Dr Snelling.

Its interesting to note the adjectives used by the 'critic'.

As I've said. I've followed these types of discussions between claimant, critic and counter claimant.
The most common link usually is the attack on the CHARACTER of the Creationist.
Here is a classic example of Joyce Arthur attacking Duane Gish Phd.

She opens her article NOT with something about the issue itself.. wait for it...this:

>>"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church...a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." (Luther)<<

It seems CJ Morgan has sat at the feet of Joyce Arthur as a young Jedi .. because that is his approach also.

Steve.. you could look at the various verbal wars between say Gish and Arthur.. and others
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html This one seeks to humiliate Gish. I recognize though, that Gish might have gone just a tad off the beaten track on his "Chicken Lysozomes" and "Bullfrog" thing. But show me a scientist who has never made mistakes or accepted information from others?

For me, the debate is simple. "Did Christ rise from the dead" now.. you may well ask "What has THAT got to do with evolution?" well.. quite a bit, it confirms that God Created. As to the details, the method, the science...people can fight that out till the cows come home.. and won't convince the other side.

You yourself admitted that the biggest challenge is 'origins' and I agree. "Natural selection" is an observable fact.... but I'm yet to see a turkey become a pig. It does not explain origins, nor adequately the diversity of life.