Want Some Answers ???


Hi Dale

>>As In have already stated Mark I never avoid debates in public. There is some point to them then. But people with entrenched positions seldom listen properly . You may accuse all you like . I am quite unmoved.<<

I wasn't out to ‘debate’ or ‘arm wrestle’ those are your words. You were the one who first posted to me (Was it just junk mail?). What made you suddenly send me an email? Did somebody ask?

I just reply to your mail. And do I ‘accuse’ you? Yes I accuse you of teaching a message contrary to the gospel. And posting articles without been prepared to explain them (which leads to confusion). Are we to believe anything you post without question. Post your articles to Cult-Watch, Mark Vrankovich will believe without question, but I won't. If your articles on Progressive Creationism are not worth defending, don’t ask the "
public" to believe them. If what you say is true - the Bible is deceptive, am I supposed to accept that?

You say, “
I don't think you are reading what I send you”. Yet you 'avoid' my questions seeking clarification and 'avoid' defending your articles. While address subjects, they don't answer the points I made.

Ed just says, "
If the evidence leads to the conclusion that living creatures have been struggling for survival for eons and if the position of Scripture is in agreement, so let it be..." Well the evidence doesn't. It's shocking to me that anyone can defend such cruel and ugly process that Jesus (supposedly) set-up and ruled over till the creation of man. My God is incompatible with this plan. GOD IS LOVE. He sees even the sparrow fall. Animal death came because of man. He said "Blessed are the meek" - not blessed are the strongest and most aggressive!! So just who is your God?

>>Actually I'm a little to the left of Hugh Ross. I'm pretty sure he believes in individual "fiat" creation of each species. I accept the idea of common ancestry, at the same time denying that this necessarily constitutes "evolution". Richard Dawkins renowned evolutionary Atheist, and Darwin himself would agree with me. (see item below).<<

No Dawkins and Darwin wouldn’t agree with you. The 'item' you posted read -

"For Darwin, any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God was not evolution at all." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker," [1986], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, pp.248-249).

The founder of Progressive Creationism couldn't convince Darwin (Letter from Darwin to Gray 26 Nov.1860). Dawkins, Darwin and the others based their theory of evolution on matter, motion, and force. It was purely a system of naturalism, that did not recognize God, the Bible, or what Christians regard as supernatural.

"No cosmic evolutionist can accept a miracle at any point of the natural process. To him a miracle as a part of Evolution would be unthinkable."

So you believe in ‘common ancestry’? I accept there are many varieties of dogs and cats. Dogs could be said to be related or 'common' to each other. But we never see any kind of new animal intermediate between a dog or cat. Or between a horse or elephant, or an ape or man. As a matter of fact, since all living plants and animals supposedly have arisen by gradual modification from a common ancestor, it stands to reason that they all ought to be exactly alike!

To have ‘common ancestors’ one must find an instance of change from one species into another. So where are the missing links in the evolutionary chain from primitive to modern plants? From single cells to invertebrates? Invertebrates to fish? Fish to amphibians? Amphibians to reptiles? Reptiles to birds? Reptiles to mammals? Land mammals to sea mammals? Non-flying mammals to bats? Apes to humans? Millions of fossils have been discovered and identified but those ‘missing links’ have not turned up. The idea of a time-scale and any 'common ancestor' sequence is an utter shambles in the fossil record.

>>Youth Earth Creationists have a very narrow definition of what constitutes "creation". Anyone stepping outside their definition automatically gets labelled "evolutionist". On the evolutionist side every one who disagrees with their naturalistic evolutionary "facts" are automatically labelled "Creationists" . Well they both welcome to their hyper-fundamentalism. Yuk!<<

Well why not open your mind to the fact the universe and earth could be young? All scientists (young-earth or old-earth) have the same evidences from nature. Their interpretation of that data is often dependant on foundational assumptions and presuppositions. But there is plenty of scientific evidence supporting a young-earth Creation (which I posted you and you ignored). I've found when witnessing about these matters, there's a real joy experienced by those who been enlightened. A heavy burden of confusion has been lifted from their shoulders. God's truth brightens their minds and hearts. I pray you come to realize recent Creation is not a trivial belief. It's based on the sound literal interpretation, not the ever-changing theories of men.

You wrote that writing is a "waste of time" and clearly you are not going to answer questions or discuss what I believe is important. So I'll leave you to chew over our last words.