I dunno Baker. I just watched March of the Penquins and I could see God all throughout that movie. I never heard the fact that 99% of all the created species are extinct. Where do you get that tidbit of info? That seems quite high IMO.

I don't "need" the creation story to be literally true. I just take it as faith...like I said before in my original piece here...Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. I think like I said earlier our origins have more to do with history than biology. I don't believe we are ever going to be sure this side of heaven to be honest. But for me I take the scriptures literaly including creation, because the rest of it has proven accurate or just plain makes sense. Otherwise I'm left to my own opinion and to me.....that's not an option.

One thing I do know tho is controversy can be good. It creates heat which in turn creates light......but of course we do need to keep our eyes open.

Where do you get that tidbit of info? That seems quite high IMO.

It's pretty easy to figure out why. There were unknown hordes of dinosaur, god knows how many species of freakish fish, the megadons of pangea and countless species of insect, not to mention that at the current rate a few hundred species die out every year. 99% is probably a conservative estimate.

"Where do you get that tidbit of info? That seems quite high IMO."

Not really, like cacto said. It's probably 99.99...%.

How many fossils have you seen of creatures that still exist? I have a small collection, and other than a couple of bugs in amber none of them are still around. We've recorded hundreds of extinctions in the modern era ourselves, and who knows how many they missed.

I'll see what I can dig up on it.

Thanks guys for this bit of info. Still seems high to me but I'm listening here. I will likewise check my resources. I've just never heard this before. I would probably check it with Ken Ham and Kent Hovind since they are the most vocal Creation Scientists I know of. They back everything up with hard evidence which I like. Don't just tell me, show me.

Also, just want to say that I understand that we can argue till the cows come home about evolution. Is it really what it says it is? Could it be true and not just a theory? I know for as many Christian Scientists are on my side, you also have just as many good Scientific guys on your side making equally valid points. I do think both sides require quite a bit of faith regardless of the evidence we have before us.

Now having said that, I do think the Christians have a slight edge. We have God and what we have written down from Him.. Basically meaning when it all comes down to it, it, the question comes down to Do you believe in God or not? Do you believe the word of God is what it says it is? Most evolutionists do not. There are some theistic evolutionists which Baker I think you may be, but for the most part it does come down to that first question.

From what I know of the history of Theistic Evolution it came about as a result of Darwin's book "Origin of Species." This book caused quite a stir among church people of the time. Not wanting to make the same mistake they did with Galileo (the church is still feeling the embarrassment of that episode) they went with it. They thought that it was true Science and if so, they tried to reconcile what the bible said with what Darwin was saying. So some got on the bandwagon and said both are true uniting Moses and Darwin in Holy Matrimony. From a Christian POV we think it's nothing more than Satan watering down God's word. He's very good at that. It's just mixing truth with error.

I'll see what I can dig up on it.

hahaha....... thinking there's a pun in there somewhere Baker.

Okay, I did my side of the research. This is what I'm thinking.

If there are a million species (which is grossly underestimated) then that would mean that we would have to have 99 million species in fossils according to you 99.9% number. Is this possible? Do we have 99 million fossils that are extinct now?

Also according to my source (Ken Ham) he said this:

The number of species living in the past, as estimated from fossils, is not as great as once thought, according to a new study seeking to catalogue every fossil ever dug up. So far, the researchers have found that a number of fossils have been misidentified as being separate species, whereas in fact they are the same species. Poor communication between taxonomists in different countries can often lead to fossils being wrongly given their own species status. Accordingly, it is now estimated that the overall number of species in the fossil record is inflated by 32–44%. New Scientist, 23 August 2003, pp. 32–35.
A common claim that 99% of fossil species have become extinct is based on the assumption of evolution, i.e. that billions of intermediate species once existed.

wouldn't that last sentence fall under the category of circular reasoning?

There's more. Check out this......Link

There's a problem with relying on fossil evidence though. Animals which are eaten - like the dodo - leave little in the way of remains. Animals which don't die in the right conditions also tend to break down entirely, leaving no evidence of their existence. Most insect species, for example, could die out without leaving much evidence of their existence, if they left any at all.

Whilst it's certainly true that the fossils we've found could be duplicates, and therefore estimates based on fossilised remains could be reduced by 35-40%, that still leaves a lot of room for extinctions. There are no fossils, for example, of wombats save for their megadon cousins. And yet clearly they exist.

Oh, and this argument shouldn't simply cover fossil extinctions - we should consider all animals, not just those we've found fossils for. Limiting it to fossils limits the argument fairly significantly.

"Now having said that, I do think the Christians have a slight edge. We have God and what we have written down from Him.. Basically meaning when it all comes down to it, it, the question comes down to Do you believe in God or not?"

Again, you're thinking in terms of the Bible. There are a lot of people who believe in God or other gods that don't subscribe to the creationist story in the Bible. Your creation story isn't tied to the existence of God, it is tied to the inerrancy of a couple of chapters in a book that doesn't even claim to be inerrant; and we don't even know who wrote those chapters or when.

Here's the problem, you demand that evolution be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, but you refuse to prove what you claim here, that the Bible is God's word 'from him'. If anything that can't be proved 100% is equally untrustable, then you have to rate bigfoot, who thousands of people have claimed to see, is MORE believable than God. These demands for untarnishable proof can come back to bite you.

I don't want to insult the people you mention, but neither of them are scientists. Ham has a BS, and Hovind has a couple of mail-order degrees in religious education that he isn't supposed to even cite unless he specifies what they are for, which he never does.

Don't get me wrong, you won't find anyone as supportive of the self-educated as me, but in the eyes of a lot of people, many Creationists included, Hovind is not someone to look to. Have you seen some of the stuff he believes?

Hovind tends to lie a lot, just be careful what you swallow. I don't appreciate the "lying for justice" thing from liberal activists, and I most certainly don't appreciate it from Christians. He has a Bachelors in religious educations and the rest is in Christian Education. If you read what he really believes about the creation, well, I think you'll see through him.

Here's an article from answersingenesis.com that is really worth reading. It addresses what Mr. Hovind and others often claim, and it is a reasonable request from actual young-earth creationists to stop embarassing them, lol. When young-earth creationists start backing away from you, you know you've gone too far...

BTW......what current prophet? Are you Mormon?

Hee hee hee, found me out.

"The number of species living in the past, as estimated from fossils, is not as great as once thought, according to a new study seeking to catalogue every fossil ever dug up. So far, the researchers have found that a number of fossils have been misidentified as being separate species, whereas in fact they are the same species. Poor communication between taxonomists in different countries can often lead to fossils being wrongly given their own species status. Accordingly, it is now estimated that the overall number of species in the fossil record is inflated by 32–44%. New Scientist, 23 August 2003, pp. 32–35. A common claim that 99% of fossil species have become extinct is based on the assumption of evolution, i.e. that billions of intermediate species once existed."

I've seen that logic, and I LOVE this argument, because it is really an argument IN FAVOR of evolutionary theory.

There are way over a million species on earth today. We only have a fossil record 250,000 or so species. Ham's argument is that we haven't had as many extinctions as we think. Ponder that for a moment.

The creationist argument is that we can't suppose the exitence of creatures we don't have fossils for. Well, oddly enough we don't have fossils for the vast majority of species living today. Ouch. Has it hit you yet? Either:

• You have to admit that the vast majority of creatures didn't leave fossils...
• ...or that the vast majority of creatures living now WEREN'T ON THE EARTH THEN, since we can't presume their existence without fossils.

You see where that leads? In order to be a young-earth creationist you have to accept that the fossil record is only the smallest slice of species that walked the earth. You have to because you are making the claim as a creationist that the species we have now were there with the dinosaurs.

If we don't have a fossil record for them, does that mean they weren't there, or does it mean that very few creatures leave fossils? If you admit that very few creatures leave fossils, and the majority of fossils we have now are of exinct creatures, the the obvious conclusion is that the vast majority of creatures who lived on Earth a) didn't leave fossils, and are now exinct.

Otherwise it is a huge coincidence that the fossils we have just happened to end up being mostly extinct creatures.

So, in a nutshell, if you insist upon 99 million fossils, you have to insist on the million fossils of the creatures we have now. If THEY aren't in the fossil record, you have to admit the fossil record is vastly incomplete, or that modern creatures didn't exist then. Anything else is assuming the existence of creatures without fossil evidence, which is what Ham is condemning.

I know there are some, I'm not sure how you word it, but disagreements from Hovind and Ham's camps. They are totally different in approach and manner. One, to me, is sort of diplomatic and the other very blunt to the point of being rude. I've listened to and watched both. If I was going to choose between the two, I'd go with Ham. Hovind is very sarcastic, not very liked by anyone other than the Christians where I think Ham is well respected from both sides. While I laugh at Hovind and how he operates, I do wish he'd tone down some because I think he can be a great big turn off to some people.

Basically Hovind is a Science teacher that goes around and shows how they are lying to us using the textbooks. He makes his living off reading this bad textbooks. I have a very good friend who is a Science Teacher. He has to be very careful as to what he says. He does not believe what he's teaching most of the time when it comes to this subject matter. He has ways to get around it somewhat, but he is mandated to teach it nonethless. I think he was in agreement with Hovind. I'll ask him tho.

As far as lying? I'm not sure what you mean by that. But I'll check the link. Christians shouldn't lie and I agree with you. But I've not known that to happen here. His bedside manner needs some work but as far as I've heard and seen I've not had any issues with what he said.

Here's the problem, you demand that evolution be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt

that's not true Baker. I've said numerous times that both have to be taken on faith. But I believe the creation story because the other stories have been proven true mostly by historical records or archeology but the creation story itself has to be taken on faith. That's not true with evolution. There's nothing I can hang my hat on here. It keeps changing. I feel I have solid ground with scripture that I don't have with the evolution theory.

Ok, another thought on the scripture thing. What is the Word of God? What is it to you? The prophets spoke of it, Jesus spoke of it, the NT writers spoke of it. You may want to check out Psalm 119 and see the different ways the word is defined.....ordininces, law, precepts, commands, statues, judgments, decrees, etc. Check to see what it's supposed to do for you. This Psalm conveys the thought that the Word of God contains everything a man needs to know.

"Basically Hovind is a Science teacher that goes around and shows how they are lying to us using the textbooks."

No, I challenge you to look at his credentials. He has an undergraduate degree in religious education, and a correspondance course degrees in "Christian Education". Neither, if I recall correctly, are from government accredited schools. I don't know how he became a science teacher with no degrees from accredited schools.

"But I believe the creation story because the other stories have been proven true mostly by historical records or archeology but the creation story itself has to be taken on faith. That's not true with evolution. There's nothing I can hang my hat on here. It keeps changing."

Here's a question, they discovered Troy, proving historical detail in The Iliad to be correct. Do you believe in Athena, Apollo, etc.?

People love to write stories based upon historical events. If you lived two or three generations, or two or three hundred years after an event, you might have a reasonable amount of knowledge about the area, the names of the cities, their positions, etc.

Can you tell me who wrote Genesis? Was it Adam? Of course not, because he was one of the first to die. Was it one of the last people mentioned? If so, were they eyewitnesses to the creation and the fall of Adam, etc.? Again, of course not.

So we are taking someone's word for the fact that someone else we can't identify was inspired by God and wrote what he was supposed to with perfection. James Michner wrote tons of great historical novels, but in the end they are fiction, even though they are saturated with fact. Folk tales, myths and urban legends often hinge their believability on a smattering of fact.

I'm not saying that God or the Bible are folk tales, only that the presence of fact doesn't make a book inerrant. No one has convinced me that the Bible even claims to be inerrant. The difference, as you say, between science and religion is there is a humility in science of being able to revise and change as new data appears.

In religion, no amount of new data would matter. You, yourself know that if Jesus came back and told people the Bible wasn't inerrant, many people would call him a fake because they KNOW the Bible is inerrant. If He claimed it wasn't, that means He's lying, so he can't be Jesus. They'd deny him over their devotion to a book.

Think about that for a second. Is that really a higher standard than science, or is it a lot more arrogant and close-minded?

Ham has a BS

Ok I checked out the link you sent. I've never read that page before, but I'm glad to see I've been pretty good not using the arguments he presented save the infallibility of scripture that came up here and the micro vs macro thing. Most of the other stuff I am aware of tho like the Darwin on his deathbed scene. I never bought that nor used that along with alot of that stuff he mentioned.

It doesn't matter exactly what a man's credentials are. What does matter is what he is saying. Is he correct or not? Let's stick to that Baker. You don't need to have a Ph.D to be a scientist. Do you do the research? Ham oversees the Creation Museum that is a breeding ground for Creation Science research. Ph.D or not. He is a Scientist and is well respected. How respected is He? Well take a look at this very long impressive list of those backing Ken Ham...... all hold a doctorate in a Science related field I may add. I was amazed myself.


Link

I can ask you the same question. What credentials are you holding? Do you have a list of great men of Science behind you like this? I've got more to write but I'll be back later.....it's getting way too late.

The creationist argument is that we can't suppose the exitence of creatures we don't have fossils for. Well, oddly enough we don't have fossils for the vast majority of species living today. Ouch. Has it hit you yet? Either:

ok I lied, I'll repent later. I'm back.

We don't need fossils to prove the existence of species today. Do the species of today really exist? We can just look out the window. How can you believe in a creature that lived, went extinct, but didn't leave any evidence of its existence? do you believe in UFO's as well?

Extinct fossils are added to your statistic but there's no proof of their existence. how logical is that?

You have to because you are making the claim as a creationist that the species we have now were there with the dinosaurs.

Of course. God made all animals on the sixth day. So we understand each other here.

If we don't have a fossil record for them, does that mean they weren't there, or does it mean that very few creatures leave fossils?

it means we can't prove it either way .

You should know Baker that most fossils are bits and pieces and fragments and are put together based on the best guess.

Ham quoted from a source with respectable scientific credentials. Are your credentials better than the authors at New Scientist Magazine?

Also since you don't like Ham's credentials....I'm not really taking it personally tho it sounds like it.....I really do think he's really good. and knows what he's talking about.....check out this guy with a Ph.D in Chemistry who works for Ham. Ham is surrounded with guys like this one. Why is that?

This is called Extinction
Link

Do you believe in Athena, Apollo, etc.?

you know my answer here. You are asking leading questions based on bias.

Can you tell me who wrote Genesis?

Moses, and you know that. I already told you Jesus verified this over and over.

Of course not, because he was one of the first to die. Was it one of the last people mentioned? If so, were they eyewitnesses to the creation and the fall of Adam, etc.? Again, of course not.

How good are you at math? Charts? Go to Genesis. Look at the ages very carefully. Map it out Baker. You will see very interestingly that Adam lived almost up to the birth of Noah. Was that by accident? See you didn't even see this. This was done all by providence of God. He made sure that the eyewitness account went up thru Noah very easily. I think he lived up until Noah's father. So there's the rest of the story for ya. Don't you think they sat around the campfire and talked about these things? Adam had a God story like no other. I'd definitely think he had bragging rights here.

God does this all thru scripture. The answers are all there. If we lack understanding it's not the scriptures fault. the fault usually lies with us. Only the "whys" are not always answered. Jesus referred to the scriptures like treasure. Well where your treasure is there your heart is also. I dunno about you but I like digging for treasure and I've found alot of stuff while digging over the years.

You, yourself know that if Jesus came back and told people the Bible wasn't inerrant, many people would call him a fake because they KNOW the Bible is inerrant.

Yes, I would think he was the Anti Christ cuz that's exactly what the anti christ is going to do. The spirit of AC is already here.

You know I haven't been fair Baker. I used my source Ken Ham to show you that your 99% is off and not proveable....but because I want to be fair and I like you.....I'm going to give you your very own source....one from your side that backs up what my source says...

Link

she is a voice from the evolutionists and has written 497 articles.

So this has nothing to do with Hovind's or Ham's credentials. Let's stick to what they are saying. Is it true or not?

We don't need fossils to prove the existence of species today. Do the species of today really exist? We can just look out the window. How can you believe in a creature that lived, went extinct, but didn't leave any evidence of its existence?

But doesn't the lack of fossil evidence for many of today's animals suggest those animals came from somewhere else? Either God spawned them at a later time - in which case they appeared out of thin air - or they didn't exist at the same time as the earlier animals. Unless of course they somehow dissolved into nothing upon their deaths in the early millennia.