Biggest find in the history of paleontology

[UTEOTW]

mareese

Alright. Lets make this simple again.

We disagree on the interpretation. Do you think that it is possible to settle this debate by examining the creation for signs? Do you accept the premise that if you are correct that there will be signs that point to a young earch and to created "kinds" while if I am correct there will be signs that point to an ancient earth and common descent? Yes or no. You are doing everything you can to avoid this simple question. You seem to think that we cannot use the creation to judge the corect method of creation but will actually say so? If this is correct, another question: why do you think that the creation will not reflect how it was created?

"I don't exactly see a willingness on your part to seriously consider that your view may be the wrong one. "

Perhaps you should know that I was once one of the YE folks who was suspicious of anything that science had to say that disagreed with my narrow view of the Bible. A few years ago, realizing there was a conflict, I decide to begin looking into the matter. I was sure that there must be a suitable YE explanation. So I started reading YE materials.

After a time, I was so mad that I could chew nails. The claims had such obvious holes in them that even I, as someone inclined to agree, could not miss them. As I looked further, I found that the YE "science" was built on lies and misrepresentation. It lead me to opening my search and reading material from all comers. I found that an old earth flowed freely from the data.

Could I be wrong? Certainly! In fact, coming from a YE background, I would welcome the better interpretation of the observations that would allow YE to be true. But it is not. And in the interim, every bit of YE "science" I have seen has only strengthened my view.

"I claimed species earlier in the thread. Mercury told me there aren't species mentioned in the Bible, only kinds, so this somewhat sarcastic comment made in reply was not to be taken as a serious statement of my views.
In other words, your question goes to Mercury."

SO you disavow the "kinds" view? No. Then the questions about "kinds" still falls to you. I'll remove the species part.

Could you define for us what a "kind" is? Tell us how you identify them. Tell us by what process a "kind" is able to produce the variations that result in different species. Tell us what process prevents a "kind" from varying right into what might be called a different kind.

 

[Mercury]

After a bit of sleep, I see I made a few blunders in my last post.

Originally posted by Mercury:
Still, I think this correspondence works better than body, soul and mind, since those aspects of you are not separate persons, as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are.

Please read "separate" as "distinct".

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Do you really believe that any resemblance to humans would make HIM unworthy of your worship? Why?

If God's physical nature were no different than ours, then he would be unworthy of worship. Jesus is worthy of worship because he is the God-Man, having the nature of both humanity and God.</font>[/QUOTE]My answer here was a dodge. To answer more more directly, if God looked just like a human being and created humans to physically resemble him, he could still be worthy of worship. However, the Bible tells us that God does not physically resemble a human being (as shown in the passages I quoted earlier) and this is why we must look elsewhere in interpreting the image of God that we have been given.

 

[mareese]

Originally posted by Mercury:
After a bit of sleep, I see I made a few blunders in my last post.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mercury:
Still, I think this correspondence works better than body, soul and mind, since those aspects of you are not separate persons, as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are.

Please read "separate" as "distinct".

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Do you really believe that any resemblance to humans would make HIM unworthy of your worship? Why?

If God's physical nature were no different than ours, then he would be unworthy of worship. Jesus is worthy of worship because he is the God-Man, having the nature of both humanity and God.</font>[/QUOTE]My answer here was a dodge. To answer more more directly, if God looked just like a human being and created humans to physically resemble him, he could still be worthy of worship. However, the Bible tells us that God does not physically resemble a human being (as shown in the passages I quoted earlier) and this is why we must look elsewhere in interpreting the image of God that we have been given. </font>[/QUOTE]I think they are distinct, and thus separable, yet work together. Your soul and spirit can operate apart from your body, etc.. For many people that is a very difficult concept though. It is more conceivable when you think about the soul leaving the body after death, or the way in which a person's spirit may linger and influence you when they haven't physically said a word or may not even be in your presence.

When you say God, are you speaking of one part of the Trinity, or of the trinity?

 

[mareese]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
mareese

Alright. Lets make this simple again.

We disagree on the interpretation. Do you think that it is possible to settle this debate by examining the creation for signs? Do you accept the premise that if you are correct that there will be signs that point to a young earch and to created "kinds" while if I am correct there will be signs that point to an ancient earth and common descent? Yes or no. You are doing everything you can to avoid this simple question. You seem to think that we cannot use the creation to judge the corect method of creation but will actually say so? If this is correct, another question: why do you think that the creation will not reflect how it was created?

I'd love to accomodate your request and anwer in a way that you will understand, but I've already reduced my reply to about as low as is can go and still be a whole sentence. It is very unethical for you to state that this particular question has not been answered.
I have consistently stated that creation goes hand in hand with scripture and that neither can be ignored.
I have stated that yes, there are signs that can be used as validation for the age of the earth, and I have also stated that IF those signs disagree with scripture we need to re-evaluate our interpretation of those signs.

 

[mareese]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
mareese

"I don't exactly see a willingness on your part to seriously consider that your view may be the wrong one. "

Perhaps you should know that I was once one of the YE folks who was suspicious of anything that science had to say that disagreed with my narrow view of the Bible. A few years ago, realizing there was a conflict, I decide to begin looking into the matter. I was sure that there must be a suitable YE explanation. So I started reading YE materials.

After a time, I was so mad that I could chew nails. The claims had such obvious holes in them that even I, as someone inclined to agree, could not miss them. As I looked further, I found that the YE "science" was built on lies and misrepresentation. It lead me to opening my search and reading material from all comers. I found that an old earth flowed freely from the data.

Could I be wrong? Certainly! In fact, coming from a YE background, I would welcome the better interpretation of the observations that would allow YE to be true. But it is not. And in the interim, every bit of YE "science" I have seen has only strengthened my view.

What difference does that make? I used to not believe in God, let alone creation.
Apparently you have changed as drastically as I have.
Yet you fall over yourself in the attempt to point out that I refuse to take other opinions into consideration, when you should well know it is possible for someone to have already examined their thoughts and come to the conclusions they are at.

 

[mareese]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:


"I claimed species earlier in the thread. Mercury told me there aren't species mentioned in the Bible, only kinds, so this somewhat sarcastic comment made in reply was not to be taken as a serious statement of my views.
In other words, your question goes to Mercury."

SO you disavow the "kinds" view? No. Then the questions about "kinds" still falls to you. I'll remove the species part.

Could you define for us what a "kind" is? Tell us how you identify them. Tell us by what process a "kind" is able to produce the variations that result in different species. Tell us what process prevents a "kind" from varying right into what might be called a different kind.

Here's simple for you. Strong's.
kind, sometimes a species (usually of animals) ++++ Groups of living organisms belong in the same created "kind" if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool. This does not preclude new species because this represents a partitioning of the original gene pool. Information is lost or conserved not gained. A new species could arise when a population is isolated and inbreeding occurs. By this definition a new species is not a new "kind" but a further partitioning of an existing "kind".

 

[mareese]

Originally posted by Mercury:
[QB]Sorry, I assumed you had easy access to a Bible. If you don't, just PM me with your address and I'll mail you one. In the meantime, you can quickly look up passages at [Bible Gateway].

While I am grateful for your attempt to provide me with access to the Word, it appears a point has been missed here. It is very simple, quick, and easy to copy and paste a verse, and saves the reader the trouble of looking it up and applying it to the topic, especially in a subject like this where it will be likely that the reader may have to review your post more than once.
If you do not know how to copy and paste just pm me with your address and I'll send you hand-written directions.

 

[mareese]

This is getting ridiculous. Please start new threads on individual topics.

 

[Gup20]

But, the question about defining the word "kind" is still something that only you (or other YECs) can deal with.

For example - dogs are dogs. You have many species of dogs, but they are still dogs. Many dog species cannot breed with each other - but they are still dogs. Some dog species don't even look much like dogs... but they are still dogs. That's not evolution - that's dogs.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/dogs.asp

Both theistic evolutionists and young-earth creationists affirm that humanity shares the image of God, and whether we came from dirt or primates doesn't change that.

However, the Bible specifically speaks to evolution (molecules to man) and how man and beast do not have a common ancestry:

1Cr 15:39 All flesh [is] not the same flesh: but [there is] one [kind of] flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, [and] another of birds.
1Cr 15:40 [There are] also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial [is] one, and the [glory] of the terrestrial [is] another.
1Cr 15:48 As [is] the earthy, such [are] they also that are earthy: and as [is] the heavenly, such [are] they also that are heavenly.

So the question is not what "could God" have done, but rather "what did God actually do". His Word tells us specifically that answer.

So, I take it you still hold the traditional interpretation of the sun orbiting the earth instead of vice versa? After all, it was the plain and simple accepted and understood interpretation for hundreds of years, and then started to change when scientific evidence came out that it needed to be interpreted differently to jibe with reality.

Actually that is inaccurate. A truthful look will show you that very few (if any) creationists support geocentricism. It is not the plain and clear exegesis of scripture that the sun rotates around the earth. No proper exegesis uses poetic verse in an ultra-literal manner - this would simply be irresponsible. Because Genesis is not written in a poetic manner, it (unlike Psalms for example) reads much more literally.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/geocentrism.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i1/genesis.asp

For some parts of my own interpretation, I can look as far back as Augustine for support.

We could simply state that we could look as far back as Isaac Newton for support (Newton was a creationist). Or we could go even farther back to Moses, Abraham, Noah, and Adam to support our interpretation. However, we are consistently reminded you do not believe the Bible's history is true in regards to those individuals. Their stories are in Genesis and Genesis is - how do you guys say it? Allegorical? A fairy tale? Not literal?

The evolutionists here were previously unable to offer any Biblical evidence for evolution. Moreover, they ultimately conceded that the Bible and evolution are all together incompatible. Yet they continue to undermine their own belief in Jesus - claiming that even HE didn't know what he was talking about when he quoted Genesis as literal:

Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female,

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.


Jesus directly quoted the first chapter of Genesis as though it were literal. Yet, the evolutionists here do not believe even Jesus.

Mat 22:31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
Mat 22:32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

If you can dismiss what Jesus says about the literal creation in Genesis 1, then why do you not also dismiss what Jesus says about the resurrection? By disbelieving Genesis, you also disbelieve Jesus and what truth is there in the resurrection? If there be no truth in the resurrection, what use is your faith in Christ?

By believing a conjecture (evolution) which is contrary to the BIble, you undermine your own faith. If the Bible is not ultimate and completely truth, then how can any of it be trusted? If we are derrived from billions of years of death and struggle, then the Nazi "supreme race" mantality is simply nature taking it's course. There is no such thing as morality, right, or wrong.

Coming to the point of the thread - there is no way that soft tissue can remain intact for 70 million years. It is far more likely that the fossil is only thousands of years old, however, the evolutionary scientists will never accept this - though it is the most plausible - because it lends credibility to creationist worldviews - which - as everyone knows - is incompatable entirely with evolution and millions of years thinking.

Again, another argument has boiled down to the founding pre-suppositions of creation science vs the founding presuppositional assumptions of evolution - which ever you believe determines the way you decide to interpret the 'evidence'. A creationist says "hrm... soft tissue can't last for millions of years, must not be millions of years old". An evolutionist says "hrm... dinosaurs all died 70 million years ago. Here is soft tissue on a dinosaur bone. We know soft tissue can't last for millions of years. Soft tissue must therefore be able to last for millions of years".

You see, here is a definitive example of the WORLDVIEW, rather than logic/science/reason determining the answer for the evolutionist.

 

[Mercury]

There's a separate thread on kinds so hopefully that discussion can continue there.

Originally posted by Gup20:
Actually that is inaccurate. A truthful look will show you that very few (if any) creationists support geocentricism.

Very few creationists now accept geocentrism. Before and shortly after Galileo's day, virtually all Christians accepted geocentrism. Science changed the interpretation of Scripture in that regard.

We could simply state that we could look as far back as Isaac Newton for support (Newton was a creationist).

It is entirely different to be a creationist before creationism was falsified. It is similar to being a geocentrist before evidence that the earth orbits the sun was widely disseminated.

The evolutionists here were previously unable to offer any Biblical evidence for evolution. Moreover, they ultimately conceded that the Bible and evolution are all together incompatible.

That's a bold claim. Where did any participant in this thread who accepts evolution "concede that the Bible and evolution are all together incompatible"?

Yet they continue to undermine their own belief in Jesus - claiming that even HE didn't know what he was talking about when he quoted Genesis as literal:

Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female,

[...] Jesus directly quoted the first chapter of Genesis as though it were literal. Yet, the evolutionists here do not believe even Jesus.

Certainly I accept what Jesus said. However, there's an interpretational issue as to what "beginning" Jesus is speaking of. There's at least three possibilities:
</font>

1. The absolute beginning, in which case Jesus was wrong, as humans were created six days later. According to Genesis 2, even when humanity was created, in the beginning there was only male, and later the first female was formed. So, male and female were not both created "at the beginning".</font>
2. The beginning period of history, including the entire creation week.</font>
3. The beginning of humanity.</font>

Now, the first interpretation is more literalistic than necessary and can be easily dismissed. It's the kind of hyperliteralism you'd expect to find on atheist sites trying to disprove the Bible. The last two allow for normal flexibility in language. Both are still literal interpretations. I hold #3 while you probably hold #2. Both of us believe that what Jesus said is true.

Also, there's an interesting wrinkle when the parallel passage in Mark is examined:

Mark 10:6: But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.'

Now, creation happened in six days according to Genesis 1. Is the beginning of creation the first day or the last day? It turns out that young-earth creationists have to step away from a hyperliteral reading of this verse as well. There's no problem with that, of course, since we shouldn't take verses more literally than they are intended, or restrict words to a single meaning instead of their larger semantic range. Instead of reading "creation" in this verse as referring to the creation week, one can read it as referring to the creation of humans or to the universe in general.

If you can dismiss what Jesus says about the literal creation in Genesis 1, then why do you not also dismiss what Jesus says about the resurrection?

Quite simple. As I have shown, I don't dismiss what Jesus said about creation any more than you do. I just don't read things into his words (such as that he is talking about the absolute beginning instead of the beginning of humans) that aren't necessarily there.

If we are derived from billions of years of death and struggle, then the Nazi "supreme race" mantality is simply nature taking it's course.

Since when have Christians taught that our goal is to follow nature? Jesus didn't come to live among us to demonstrate how to follow our human nature. The Holy Spirit doesn't help us to follow our inborn instincts. Whether a Christian accepts evolution or not, they should not see "nature taking its course" as the ultimate goal for our lives.

Once again, in a YEC's zeal to discredit evolution, they make an argument that, if valid, would weaken the Christian faith.

 

[Bro. James]

Someone suggested that geocentricity is taught in the scripture--thus suggesting a Divine Error.

There is only one source of error: human.

We have failed utterly in most everything we have tried--and still cannot decide where we came from nor where we are going.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by Bro. James:
Someone suggested that geocentricity is taught in the scripture--thus suggesting a Divine Error.

Who suggested that?

What I pointed out (and what many others have pointed out before) is that Scripture was generally interpreted as teaching geocentricity before science conclusively showed that interpretation to be incorrect.

I agree with you that humans were the source of that error.

 

[Bro. James]

The inference remains: the people of God were ignorant until "science" came along. I cannot buy that. We are not dummies getting smarter--quite the contrary, we are getting farther away from the Truth. We need to change our paradigm of what "Omni-science" might be.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[UTEOTW]

Merriam Webster Online dictionary

ignorant - lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified

Ignorant is only the case of not knowing about something. There are many subjects in which I am ignorant. And there have been and still are areas in which the people of the world, believers and unbelievers alike, are ignorant.

 

[mareese]

Concerning literal interpretations:

Quite simple. As I have shown, I don't dismiss what Jesus said about creation any more than you do. I just don't read things into his words (such as that he is talking about the absolute beginning instead of the beginning of humans) that aren't necessarily there.

Looking back, I see we should have been more specific with the question so here it is in basic form.

What criteria do you use to differentiate between literal and figurative speech in the Bible?

Why is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ to be taken literally despite the evidence showing it to be a medical impossibility?

The only answer I can figured out so far is that you believe it is different because it was a miracle. How did you come to believe that? Why should we accept it as such, but not apply the concept to other passages?

 

[Mercury]

Let me explain what I expect of a miracle, whether it's one recorded in the Bible or one that's happened since.

First, I expect it to be something that cannot be explained completely by natural means, whether forces of nature or other people. If I put a bunch of ingredients into my bread maker and let it run for three hours, it's not a miracle that I can pull a loaf of bread out of it. If, on the other hand, I only put a lump of dirt in it and my power's been shut off and I still get a loaf of bread from it after three hours, then there might be a miracle going on. So, in order for me to claim that something is miraculous, it needs to be something that can't be entirely explained by science. (If an event is just unlikely or fortuitous, certainly it may still be an act of God. However, I would call such things acts of providence rather than miracles, and barring direct revelation on the matter, it's nearly always an open question as to whether God intervened or allowed things to occur as they would, or even if there's a difference.)

Second, the miracle should leave the expected results. If the miracle is the resurrection of Jesus, then I would expect an empty tomb and a lack of a dead body within it. If the miracle is feeding thousands of people from a single bagged lunch, then I would expect that after the miracle there would be people with filled stomachs. It's no good to claim there was another miracle afterward that supernaturally removed all of the miraculous food. If the end result after both the miracle and any hypothesized extra miracles is to make things identical to how they would be without any miracle, I would be extremely skeptical that a miracle actually occurred.

Now, I do not expect the evidence for a miracle to necessarily survive long enough for me to personally analyze it. For most biblical miracles, all we have is eyewitness testimony, and there's no physical evidence to either confirm or deny them. We can't examine the people who ate the miraculous lunches. Lazarus isn't around to interview or examine. The evidence for Jesus' resurrection that has survived to this day, aside from historical records, is mainly the type that science can't analyze, such as evidence of changed lives. When it comes to the creation of the universe, however, the physical evidence is still all around us.

With that background, I'll take a stab at your specific questions.

Originally posted by mareese:
What criteria do you use to differentiate between literal and figurative speech in the Bible?

Generally, I let the Bible interpret the Bible. In the case of the creation days, there is other evidence within the Bible that the days are not literal history. God is described as being refreshed on the seventh day (Exodus 31:17), something that is literally impossible for an omnipotent God who could never suffer a lack of refreshment, so this shows that the activity on the days is using language that accommodates God's actions to our understanding. Also, the seventh day of the creation week is described as God's rest that we can still enter today (Hebrews 4:3-7). This implies that we are still in the seventh day, so the duration of the days is also not literal.

There are some cases where it is not enough to look at all of what the Bible says on an issue. Sometimes there are various interpretations and from the Bible alone it cannot be determined which one is right. In those cases, reality can be the final arbiter. Because God is truth, a proper interpretation of God's word will always ultimately line up with reality. As the Galileo debacle showed, sometimes it takes an intrusion from reality to motivate Christians to find an interpretation for Scripture that does not lead to false consequences.

Why is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ to be taken literally despite the evidence showing it to be a medical impossibility?

Because it is a miracle. If resurrection wasn't a medical impossibility in those circumstances, then the resurrection would not be evidence that Jesus is God. And, it was a miracle that left the expected results: an empty tomb (prompting rumours of a stolen body) and rejuvenated followers. So, it meets both of the criteria I outlined above.

Why should we accept it as such, but not apply the concept to other passages?

I encourage you to apply these criteria to the miracle of creation as well -- or to a worldwide flood, or any other proposed miracle. If it is truly a miracle and it truly happened the way you suggest, it should meet the criteria.

 

[mareese]

What is God's rest? If creation is still happening, what happens to those who die before it is finished? Why does God NEED rest? Following your logic we're not going to "enter" to God's "rest" as God is incapable of needing rest, so what do the words REALLY mean there?

Because it is a miracle. If resurrection wasn't a medical impossibility in those circumstances, then the resurrection would not be evidence that Jesus is God. And, it was a miracle that left the expected results: an empty tomb (prompting rumours of a stolen body) and rejuvenated followers. So, it meets both of the criteria I outlined above.

If literal creation isn't possible in a six day circumstance it must be a miracle. The results are obvious and expected: a letter from God stating he did it, humans walking around, and deer prancing throughout flowery meadows. Right?

Just as there appear to be more logical explanations for creation, there are more logical explanations for Christ's resurrection, that would have left an empty tomb, promoting rumors of a stolen body.
Such as, well, a stolen body. The eyewitnesses who spoke out were only those closely involved and with an interest in the situation. The death of a beloved one, especially a strong religious figure, has prompted odd stories and desperate actions throughout history.

You know, all of this really is pointless. This is something you can't explain away or use logic and reasoning for. You accept it on faith, despite the evidence, logic, and reasoning that tells you it can't be so.

If you didn't you wouldn't be a Christian. We walk by faith, not by sight. I'm GLAD you accept it as a miracle and believe in it, I truly am. I simply don't understand if you truly see how it makes no sense to accept it as a miracle and so completely, thoroughly, and viciously reject any possibility of 6 day creation being the same, or if you simply refuse to admit that do understand it but simply can believe in one and not the other.

 

[UTEOTW]

The six day creation is rejected specifically because the creation itself rejects a six day creation.

The creation is completely at odds with what would be observed if there had been a literal, recent six day creation.

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by mareese:
What is God's rest? [...] Why does God NEED rest? Following your logic we're not going to "enter" to God's "rest" as God is incapable of needing rest, so what do the words REALLY mean there?

I encourage you to study this issue further. Just because God doesn't need rest as we do doesn't mean that God's rest is not real. Like all symbols, the reality is something more than the symbol, not less. It is not just refreshment after fatigue. When you study what the Bible has to say about it, it becomes evident why the Sabbath was such a big deal. What the Sabbath points to -- God's rest -- is a very important biblical concept.

If literal creation isn't possible in a six day circumstance it must be a miracle. The results are obvious and expected: a letter from God stating he did it, humans walking around, and deer prancing throughout flowery meadows. Right?

No, none of those are specific results of creation over six literal days. All of those are results of creation, but then we all agree that God created the universe and that this was a supernatural event.

 

[Gup20]

Very few creationists now accept geocentrism. Before and shortly after Galileo's day, virtually all Christians accepted geocentrism. Science changed the interpretation of Scripture in that regard.

... because ... It is not the plain and clear exegesis of scripture that the sun rotates around the earth. No proper exegesis uses poetic verse in an ultra-literal manner - this would simply be irresponsible. Because Genesis is not written in a poetic manner, it (unlike Psalms for example) reads much more literally.

It is entirely different to be a creationist before creationism was falsified. It is similar to being a geocentrist before evidence that the earth orbits the sun was widely disseminated.

And how different is it now that evolution has been falsified? Unless my saying it doesn't make it so? Hrm.... that's so weird.

In fact, it is evolution that is under considerable attack these days as more and more evidence (such as the dinosaur soft tissue) defys evolution. Every day, more and more of the Bible is proven true, and less and less of man's ideas.

That's a bold claim. Where did any participant in this thread who accepts evolution "concede that the Bible and evolution are all together incompatible"?

We had a 20+ page discussion quite a while ago about Biblical evidences (and a sister discussion about scientific evidences). In the Biblical discussion, the evolutionists here were repeatedly challenged to offer Biblical support for evolution. They could not. As a matter fact, the standard answer was that other ideas were not in the Bible, so why should evoluton be (such as relativity, etc). Moreover the evolutionists here claimed that (paraphrasing from memory) "God didn't feel it necessary to tell us the truth" and that the Bible was "a little off". We were accused of "Idolizing the Bible". As we came to other discussions, I challenged the evolutionists who claimed genesis was fairy tale (they said "allegorical") to give us a non-literal exegesis of Genesis 1 and show us how it equates to evolution. Despite the many challenges it was never done. The evolutionists here just continually REPLACED Genesis 1 with evolution and in NO WISE attempted to make evolution fit into the Biblical framework.

Certainly I accept what Jesus said. However, there's an interpretational issue as to what "beginning" Jesus is speaking of. There's at least three possibilities:

Again, a thoughtful exegesis of scripture is neccessary. Lets look at the context:

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Now look at the first word of every verse in Genesis 1:

Gen 1:2 And
Gen 1:3 And
Gen 1:4 And
...

With the exception of verse 27 (which is a sort of parenthetical explaination of verse 26), every other verse from Genesis 1:2 to Genesis 1:31.

Then Chapter 2 starts:

Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
Gen 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Now look at Gen 1:1 and Gen 2:3 in context:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, .... and .... and .... and .... and ... and ... And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

So "in the beginning" God created, and on the seventh day he stopped creating. So it would seem that the term "beginning" is represented by the the six days of creation and the seventh day of rest.

I have a degreen in Electronics. I don't know if you are familiar with computer terms or logic concepts, but we have a simple concept in electronics called Gate Logic. It is based on AND OR statements. AND is inclusive, OR is exclusive. For example, if I said "Give me all the red jelly beans AND all the green jelly beans", this would have a different meaning than "Give me all the red jelly beans OR all the green jelly beans". AND is inclusive - when it's used, whereas the OR is not inclusive.

Logically speaking, a straight forward exegesis of Genesis indicates the term "beginning" is inclusive of all seven days of creation and then ends in Genesis 2:3 - at the seventh day.

Furthermore a contrast of creation and evolution reveals even more about the meaning of beginning with a scale of ages. If the earth was created 10 billion years ago, and and man has only been around for a few thousand years, then man (and woman) is not at the beginning. However, if the earth is 6000 years old, and man and woman have been here since the first week, then man and woman are indeed at "the beginning".

As I have shown, I don't dismiss what Jesus said about creation any more than you do. I just don't read things into his words (such as that he is talking about the absolute beginning instead of the beginning of humans) that aren't necessarily there.

As I have shown - it's not that you don't read things into his words... it's that you don't read his words at all. As I stated, I have repeatedly challenged the evolutionist crowd here for a non-literal exegesis, but none has come. Instead, you entirely REPLACE God's Words with evolution. You and the other evolutionists here have not been able to show any Biblical exegesis that agrees with evolution except to say that what the Bible says didn't happen, and what Darwin says did happen.

Since when have Christians taught that our goal is to follow nature?

Indeed it's not a Christian philosopy, and it's not found in the Word. However, it does bear it's foundation upon secular humanism - specifically the doctrine of evolution and it's idea of superior races.

Whether a Christian accepts evolution or not, they should not see "nature taking its course" as the ultimate goal for our lives.

I agree. But if you were to remain logically and intellectually honest, you would have to conclude that if God used millions of years of death and struggle to create and then he called that creation Good it would mean that if we use those same tools - death and struggle - perhaps we should call it murder and oppression - to advance God's will in the earth then we are also being "good". If we use Nazi tactics to oppress the world and force everyone to accept christianity, would we be using the same "good" tools that god used to create us through millions of years of death and struggle? That sounds more like Islam than Christianity.

Once again, in a YEC's zeal to discredit evolution, they make an argument that, if valid, would weaken the Christian faith.

And once again in willful disobedience to God's Word an evolutionist creates his own image of God, ignoring the Bible - just as Satan convinced Eve to do in the Garden of Eden when he said:

Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
Gen 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

You are trying to put man's word above God's Word - but the consequences are the same - Adam was wrong, and so are you. What are the wages of sin? Death. And death is your god.

r 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
Hbr 2:15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.