From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On Fri, 17 Apr 2026 16:41:14 -0500, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
wrote:

On 4/15/2026 3:56 PM, sticks wrote:

If you haven't read it, I would suggest "Did God Use
Evolution...Observations from a Scientist of Faith" by Dr. Werner Gitt.
It is a fairly quick read, and he does write a chapter on 'The
Consequences of Theistic Evolution' that explain the error in the ways
of people exactly like the Emperor.a It might also help you in your
understanding of things.a It's a solid book.

I wanted to add a couple things for you, Mark. Saying he writes a
chapter on Theistic evolution is probably a mischaracterization of
sorts. For me, the whole book lays out his beliefs in the problems
arising for the Christian in Theistic evolution. But his process of
doing so, is similar to what I went through, which I'd like to explain
for you.

I've said before, three things are the most important for me in deciding
how to move forward in my daily life. Dr. Gitt touches on all three.
The first is the origins of the universe. I know the materialists have >rightly recognized they have to explain where the stuff that went bang
came from, and have moved into the quantum realm. It's great science
and I love the thought of understanding how things might work. Yet, for
me they've still not given a workable theory how it could have started
from truly nothing.

How about starting from a false vacuum?

They've just made the parts smaller. At least
we've gotten to what is believed to be the smallest particles there is.
It is a step the naturalist would deem absurd, but I am in the camp that
has decided it couldn't have happened on it's own.

Why did you decide that?

To believe otherwise
one would have to give the property of being eternal to something,
something material in one way or another. I could start the next step
here in moving forward it is so conclusive for me, but I use two others.

Second is the initial conditions and fine tuning of the universe, along
with our specific place in it and the properties of our planet. The >Anthropic principle is what I would say if I was a naturalist, and I
would run from the Multiverse hypothesis. Neither cuts it for me, and
the fine tuning actually rolls into the origin of the universe for me.

Why don't they cut it for you?

Third, the origin of life, though most likely outside of complete
scientific exploration, is something that cannot be explained by natural >processes for me. I love the research into it, as it keeps giving us
the amazing discoveries like the real complexity of the cell. It would
be a much longer discussion than this post permits, but the origin of
DNA and the where the initial information came from alone for me is
evidence of intelligent design. Again, the research is great. It
continues to show just how powerful and intelligent the designer was.

Anything could be evidence for intelligent design, given designers
that can do anything. And something that explains everything at the
start actually explains nothing. Saying "god did it" is no better
than saying "a natural law did it."

So after concluding these three things could not arise by natural means, >yes, I go looking for what could have caused them. This is where we get
to that dirty word.....the Supernatural <gasp!>

First, I look at how through our known history humanity has processed >thinking about a creator. What were their beliefs and what religions
rose from them. "Many Infallible Proofs" by Henry M. Morris III, aside
from being a great book, does exactly this and gives a relatively short,
but precise accounting of all the major religions we know today. I have >chosen and am a Christian. The Bible's historical accuracy, the widely >accepted correctness to known original manuscript, prophecy, and the way
the apostles lived after witnessing the resurrected Christ are all
powerful motivation for me. But most important, obviously, are the >Messianic prophecies. I have accepted all the above and truly belief
Jesus was resurrected and fulfilled these prophecies.

The Bible is full of errors, prophecies are only valid after-the-fact
(and sometimes not even then), and you're assuming your conclusion
when you refer to how the disciples reacted to *witnessing the
resurrected Christ*!

It's all a personal choice, and I don't care if anyone else has a
similar belief or not.

Didn't Jesus say "Go ye therefore and teach all nations"?

I'm not a preacher. The only reason I am even
bringing this up is because I have said I would explain why people who
do things like what the Emperor does are wrong. This is where it gets
to the point, I know, finally. Once I accepted Christ, it came with the >realization that he himself supported the whole of Jewish scripture as
the direct word of God. As Dr. Gitt put it in this book, oThe special
key to understanding Scripture is given by GodAs Son himself. Jesus
states that His words will never pass away (Matt. 24: 35). He guarantees >that everything that has been written will be fulfilled (Luke 18: 31).
He authorized all the meaningful elements of the text of the Bible
(e.g., Luke 16: 17) and confirmed that all biblical accounts described
real historical events, for example the creation of the first human
couple (Matt. 19: 4u5), the universality of the Flood and the
destruction of all air-breathing creatures (Matt. 24: 38u39), and the >history of Jonah (Matt. 12: 40u41).o When people here claim we like
being lied to, I just laugh. I have made my choice

Should beliefs come about through choice, or through compelling data?
Do you just believe whatever you want to believe? And why quote the
Bible in what's supposed to be a scientific discussion?

in who I believe. I
believe the Bible is the inspired word of God.

Yet, while my faith does influence the things I'm willing to accept,
that does not mean I refuse to listen to science. The difference
between someone like me and theistic evolutionists lies right here.
People like the Emperor demand others accept their interpretations of >everything, and he especially seems to revel in saying flat out that The >Bible is wrong. I will never do that. I may not understand things >completely, but I believe there will be a time I will, which is
obviously after my death.

Once you make the decisions like I have, yes, you look at things
completely differently. The materialist cannot do this. He has to
figure out things on the assumption that all this came about on its own,

Is an auto mechanic bound by materialism when he diagnoses problems
with your car engine?

and there was nothing supernatural involved. I don't have to do that.
I don't have to accept geological uniformitarianism, I can question the >assumptions made in accepting Radiometric dating,

Radiometric dating is doing fine with its well-verified assumptions.
But going back to fine-tuning in cosmology, why would God create
physical constants that allow for time to evolve in the universe if
nothing actually evolved?

I can consider
evidence along the lines of thousands of years instead of millions, and
yes, I can believe you can't get something from nothing, and that
includes not only the universe, but life itself.

No one claims that life came from "nothing".

I don't care if others
share my beliefs. It is what I have to do to live with myself, and try
to honor my creator.

This is getting too long for the other thing about Dr. Gitt's book I
wanted to comment on. I'll do that for you in another post.

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2