Would you allow evolutionists to teach Sunday School?

[BobRyan]

At the close of his arguments Darrow instructed the Jury to find his client guilty!!

The "reason" for doing such a thing - is that Darrow DID NOT want to be subjected to the SAME treatment by Bryant that HE had just given to Bryant.

(How surprising - eh?) I think our evolutionist friends don't fully grasp the significance of that ploy on Darrow's part.

Further - in Darrow's "lie and misdirect whenever possible" model of obfuscating the truth - Darrown presented "NEbraska man" (A pig's tooth) as the shining example of early man found as living proof of evolutionism.

And then - as Scopes HIMSELF pointed out - the whole thing was a farce fabricated by evolutionists - who WANTED to claim that Scopes HAD taught evolutionism - when in fact Scopes (the math teacher and FOOTBALL coach) never taught evolution to the class in question a day in his life!

The "issue" in the trial was ONLY whether Scopes HAD TAUGHT evolution. The jury was never instructed to evaluate the correctness of the law OR to evaluate WHETHER creation is true as stated in God's Word!

Notice - these are all historic facts that go UNCHALLENGED by Craig's verbose-age churned out above.

But then that would require that we "pay attention" to the salient points of history.

There is no question that Bryant was not the best informed Christian scientist to serve as an "expert". RATHER he was a good lawyer who was duped by an evolutionist into SERVING as a witness - when in fact Darrow was never going to allow "equal review" of HIS OWN blunders, gaffs and foibles!

This is the sad story that is "unchanged" by the mistakes that Bryant makes when duped into serving as "expert witness".

So the facts remain - unchallenged.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Scopes himself ADMITS that the 14 year old child Darrow was coaxing to speak about evolutionism was lucky to remember anything from the few days of class that the football coach subbed in for.

Notice what SCOPES ADMITS!

In Sprague de Camp's book, The Great Monkey Trial there is recorded a remarkable conversation between Scopes and reporter William K. Hutchinson of the International News Service which occurred during the last days of the trial.

Scopes said:
"There's something I must tell you. It's worried me. I didn't violate the law ...I never taught that evolution lesson. I skipped it. I was doing something else the day I should have taught it, and I missed the whole lesson about Darwin and never did teach it. Those kids they put on the stand couldn't remember what I taught them three months ago. They were coached by the lawyers."

"Honest, I've been scared all through the trial that the kids might remember I missed the lesson. I was afraid they'd get on the stand and say I hadn't taught it and then the whole trial would go blooey. If that happened they would run me out of town on a rail."

When Hutchinson replied that would make a great story, Scopes said:
"My god no! Not a word of it until the Supreme Court passes my appeal. My lawyers would kill me." (de Camp, page 432)

Ahhh - when evolutionist sources "confess" how sweet it is not to have to place one's head in the sand and ignore this fact of history.

Clearly the perfidity of the evolutionist characters in this tale is blatantly obvious in the case of the Scope's trial.

How fascinating that anyone would use it as an "exhibit" for the excellent methods of evolutionists!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Examination of W.J. Bryan by Clarence Darrow, of counsel for the defense:

That says "it all" - a LAWYER cross examining the state's counsel INSTEAD of an expert witness!!

Notice that Darrow DID NOT allow Bryan to return the favor and expose Darrow's gaffs. How did he get out of it? Why of course - by instructing the jury to "FIND HIS CLIENT GUILTY"!!

How sad that Craig should "miss" the facts in the case so salient to his initial claims for the wonderful truths of evolutionism.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

AS we observe how Craig kicked the jury for finding Scopes guilty ---

Darrow--May I say a few words to the jury? Gentlemen of the jury, we are sorry to have not had a chance to say anything to you. We will do it some other time. Now, we came down to offer evidence in this case and the court has held under the law that the evidence we had is not admissible, so all we can do is to take an exception and carry it to a higher court to see whether the evidence is admissible or not. As far as this case stands before the jury, the court has told you very plainly that if you think my client taught that man descended from a lower order of animals, you will find him guilty, and you heard the testimony of the boys on that questions and heard read the books, and there is no dispute about the facts. Scopes did not go on the stand, because he could not deny the statements made by the boys. I do not know how you may feel, I am not especially interested in it, but this case and this law will never be decided until it gets to a higher court, and it cannot get to a higher court probably, very well, unless you bring in a verdict. So, I do not want any of you to think we are going to find any fault with you as to your verdict. I am frank to say, while we think it is wrong, and we ought to have been permitted to put in our evidence, the court felt otherwise, as he had a right to hold. We cannot argue to you gentlemen under the instructions given by the court--we cannot even explain to you that we think you should return a verdict of not guilty. We do not see how you could. We do not ask it. We think we will save our point and take it to the higher court and settle whether the law is good, and also whether he should have permitted the evidence. I guess that is plain enough.

Notice that at every turn Darrow offers misdirection and lies. He claims scopes does NOT testify because he can not refute the word of the children. But as Scope's OWN interview showed - he certainly COULD refute their testimony if pressed to do so in cross examination!

The ploys of evolutionists in that case are "obvious".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The fact that Bryan was a good lawyer but a bad expert witness is not under dispute and does not prove the case for the myths of evolutionism - AND was not the subject of the trial.

Hence Darrow's statement about finding his own client "guilty".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
" Take something simple. Imagine you carve your name into a stone. Then imagine that some time later someone found it and for whatever reason operated on the (very unreasonable) assumption that only natural, not intelligent creative, forces operated to produce the carving."

Scott, that's a nice example!

You say that you don't doubt that God could have done it in 6 days. I don't either. But what I (and I would assume Craig BTS as well) assert is that God ISN'T SAYING that He did it in a literal 6 DAYS, rather just that He did it. The literal 6 days is part of a theologically figurative account.

The problem is that by defining the day "morning and evening" God has very specifically denoted a period of time. There is no indication here that He was speaking figuratively.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"I truly don't understand why you or Craig have difficulty believing that God could accomplish everything that you assume took billions of years in a few hours."

I am not placing any limits. He could have done so in any means He chooses. He is God!

However, the evidence from God's own creation is not of a young universe. Either the six days are not literal or God went way out of His way into deceiving us by making it look like inflation and common descent happened. God is not the author of confusion and would not have done any such thing.

There is no case to be made for a young earth. NONE! And there is no evidence that God would deceive us in such a way. YE makes God out to be a liar or a trickster. Not the God I believe in.

UT, Please answer a very simple question. When you make things out your own creativity, do you make them "mature" and ready for your designed use or not?

Are you trying to deceive someone who might believe that your creation came to be by some other means?

Again, you contend that unless your interpretations of natural history are correct then God must be a liar. I contend that your fallible interpretations support no such conclusion.

 

[aefting]

This has been mentioned before, but when Jesus turned the water into wine and fed the multitudes, He created wine, fish, and bread with the appearance of age. There is, therefore, Biblical precedence for God creating things that appear to be older than what they really are.

Andy

 

[Scott J]

Thanks Andy.

To continue that thought, do angels as recorded in scripture have an appearance of age? Would it be considered deceptive that they did not appear to be 100's or 1000's of years old when they met Abraham, Mary, and others?

 

[Johnv]

Aefting, that may explain the apparant age of things that were created in the Genesis days of 1 to 6, but would not explain why dinosaur and human remains (that were born and died after the Fall of Man) generally do not date to be within the same age group.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Johnv:
...generally do not date to be within the same age group.

Generally?

Perhaps the remains we have found were a) not deposited at the same time/place and b) were not exposed to the same ratios of heat and pressure or general enviromental factors.

 

[Todd]

John, obviously you've raised a legitimate issue here, and I'll be the first to admit that I don't have the "iron-clad" answer to your question. Yet, you are still left with a huge biblical problem if you say that death, disease, and disorder entered the world before the Fall of Man. Remember Rom. 8:19-22:

"For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now."

Consider the following exegetical observations about the passage:

1. The word translated "creation" throughout these four verses is ktisis, and BDAG states that the meaning of the word in these verses is "the whole creation below the human level" (animate and inanimate). Thus, it defies honest exegesis to say that the creation being spoken of here is mankind - in fact, it must mean just the opposite because Paul deals with man's deliverence in v.23. Understanding the word ktisis in vv.19-22 as mankind is something that defies honest exegesis and must be somehow read into the text.

2. Verse 19 says that this creation waits for the "revealing of the sons of God." This, of course, is a reference to the consumation of the age when Christ makes all things new. Just as all believers will receive the "redemption of their bodies" (Rom. 8:23) at that time, so Paul says the whole of creation will also be restored to its original perfection at that time. Thus, we are led to believe that if both humans and creation will be restored at the consumation of the age, then they must've both been subjected to futility at man's Fall in the Garden.

3. Verse 20 plainly says that "the creation was subjected to futility." Obviously, this subjection was done at sometime in the past. That begs the question, "When?" John Calvin provides us with his answer: "For in the sad disorder which followed the Fall of Adam, the whole machinery of the world would have instantly become deranged, and all its parts would have failed had not some hidden stength supported them." Clearly, he taught that this subjection took place at the Fall of man, as does nearly every other credible theologian of the last 500 years. I would submit that this is the only possible interpretation. And why, you ask? Because it was at the Fall of man that humanity became subject to human depravity. Thus, if one will argue that man's "sufferings of this present time" (Rom. 8:18) were brought about at the Fall of man (which Genesis 3 plainly demonstrates), then he must be consistent and say that it was also during that same Fall that creation suffered it's own futility. That is honest exegesis.

4. Verse 21 says that "the creation itself ALSO will be delivered from the bondage of corruption." The Greek term translated "also" is just the little word kai, but it is crucial to a correct understanding of this passage. The use of the word plainly indicates that something else is going to be delivered from the curse of the Fall along with creation. Obviously, mankind is going to be delivered from the curse, and Paul's choice of the word kai here means that if both man and creation are going to be delivered at the same time, then they must've both been subjected to futility at the same time. Don't miss the fact that Paul writes Rom. 8 after laying a foundation that defines the effects of the Fall in Rom. 5-7. That is the irrefutable context in which Rom. 8 is written.

5. Notice in v.22 that Paul says "the whole creation groans and labors." The Greek terminology is pas ktisis, and it leaves no part of creation out of the "present groaning." Thus, once again, you can't just say that it was man that was adversely affected by the Fall. Honest exegesis requires that the whole of creation became subject to death, disease, and destruction only at the Fall of Man.

I hope this plainly illustrates how one could not possibly say that Rom. 8:19-22 is speaking of anything other than the entrance of death, disease, and disorder into God's creation only at the Fall of Man. To say that the verses are speaking of death, disease, and destruction coming only to mankind, the Garden of Eden, etc., simply will not wash with v.23. Paul doesn't take up the subject of the effect's of man's Fall upon all of humanity until v.23: "Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body."

Now, as far as the issue you have raised about dinosaur and human remains not usually being dated within the same age group, consider this one possible explanation: When Moses died, the Bible tells us that the Devil contended with Michael the archangel in the hopes that he might use Moses' body for his own evil schemes (Jude 9). On that particular occasion, we know that God didn't grant victory to the Devil over Michael, because surely the Devil could've deceived many were he to have the remains of Moses - God simply wouldn't allow it. Yet, in the life of Job, we have an example of a time when God did allow the Devil to touch Job's family in a way that brought great calamity to Job and tested his faith.

Here's the point: If we know that Satan is capable of touching mankind in adverse ways and of manipulating things within the natural order for his own evil purposes, who's to say that God wouldn't have allowed the Devil to manipulate the placement of dinosaur remains so as to try and deceive many within our new era of geology and palentology?

I know this possible explanation will sound far-fetched to some, but all I'm attempting to do is to provide you with just one possible explanation of why dinosaur remains appear to be the age that they are in relation to other animal and human remains. If I can satisfactorily show you that this is at least a possibility (which it must be since we are talking about supernatural powers at work here), then that is all I have to do. There could be any number of possible explanations of the issue, but if I can provide you with at least one (as I have here), then the burden of proving macroevolution through biblical exegesis still rests with the macroevolutionists.

 

[Todd]

John, consider one further thing about creation's being subjected to futility that I didn't mention earlier when addressing Rom. 8:19-22. If you (or anyone) say that only mankind, and not the "whole creation" (Rom. 8:22), was subjected to death, disease, and disorder at the Fall of Man, then answer this question:

When was the "whole creation" subjected to this death, disease, and disorder? Many (such as Paul of Eugene) who have posted on this particular thread have said that Rom. 8 is only a reference to man's death, but they have provided no alternate time that the whole of creation was also subjected to death, disease, and disorder? The only time-frame that I have heard any of them mention is that "it happened before man was created." Really...then when? Are we to be led to believe that the Scripture would somehow be silent about when God allowed the whole of the created order to be subjected to the horrible curses of death, disease, and disorder? If it was important enough for God to reveal to us when mankind was subjected to those aforementioned things, then why wouldn't it be important for us to know when the creation was subjected to those same things? Just something to consider...any answers?

Further, what purpose would a world filled with death, disease, and destruction have possibly served - a world that evolutionists would have us to believe existed billions and billions of years before the creation (or evolution) of mankind? What delight would our Lord have taken in a world that only brought forth such calamity and survival of the fittest for billions of years? Again, I believe the burden of proof rests solely upon the shoulders of the macroevolutionists.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Todd:
John, obviously you've raised a legitimate issue here, and I'll be the first to admit that I don't have the "iron-clad" answer to your question. Yet, you are still left with a huge biblical problem if you say that death, disease, and disorder entered the world before the Fall of Man.

I wasn't attempting to enter the C/E debate, or start an agenda on its own. The reason for my asking the question was a continuation ofmy earlier point that those who support evolutionary theories tend to do a better job of presenting scientific evidence for their view than those who espouse a 6-day, 6000 year ago creation. Not stating a personal opinion on the topic, but am simply stating an observation on how these discussions go.

But the original topic of the OP has long since been lost, and, at this point, neither those espousing an evolutionary view nor those who espouse a YEC literal view have remained on the topic of the OP.

 

[Craigbythesea]

RobRyan wrote:

posted December 07, 2004 04:26 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the close of his arguments Darrow instructed the Jury to find his client guilty!!

The "reason" for doing such a thing - is that Darrow DID NOT want to be subjected to the SAME treatment by Bryant that HE had just given to Bryant.

(How surprising - eh?) I think our evolutionist friends don't fully grasp the significance of that ploy on Darrow's part.

We have here another statement by BobRyan, and of course it is another false statement that is contrary to historical fact. Darrow asked (defense attorney’s can NOT instruct the jury, only the judge can do that) the jury to find John Scopes guilty with the purpose that he could appeal the case to the Tennessee Supreme Court so that he could get Tennessee’s anti-evolution law overturned by that court.. The jury complied with the request and the judge, John T. Raulston, fined John Scopes $100. One year later the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision, but not on the grounds that Darrow had hoped for. They reversed in it on a technicality, stating that the fine should have been imposed by the jury rather than the Judge (Raulston). They did not, however, send the case back to the lower court, but dismissed the case with the comment, "Nothing is to be gained by prolonging the life of this bizarre case."

 

[Baptist Renegade]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
There is no physical evidence for a young earth.

How old was Adam when God created him? Was he a zygote, fetus, infant, adolescent? From my (Simple, redneck) understanding of the scriptures, God created Adam as a fully developed adult male!

How old were the trees when adam was created? since they were only a few days old, they couldn't have even been seedlings now could they? Don't you believe God could create what appears to be a 1,000 year old sequoia right alongside a young sapling? I'm sure that if Adam had cut down that great sequoia, evidence would've dictated that the tree was 1,000 years old! SO WHAT!!

How old were all the stars (red giants, yellow dwarfs, super novas, Etc)? Certainly it takes hundreds, thousands, and millions of years for light to travel from these stars to be visible to our planet. Would it not be unreasonable that God could create the light from these starts INSTANTANEOUSLY?

So what if there is NO EVIDENCE of a young earth! You have proven NOTHING aside from the fact that you do not believe the Bible!

 

[Todd]

John, in regard to the original question of this thread, a long time ago I stated that I would not want a macroevolutionist teaching a SS class in my church and I offered about four reasons (see my earlier posts).

Further, you are correct in saying that the macroevolutionists put forth more scientific arguments than others such as myself. That is because, as a Christian, my first priority is to the Word of God, and not my own observations of the natural order. Time and again, we have seen that Craig, UT, and Paul of Eugene are more committed to their own fallible observations of the natural order than they are to the plain exegesis of God's Word. Therefore, I don't feel an overwhelming burden to put forth a litany of "evidences" from the natural order that make a case for a young Earth (though I have studied some of those evidences and could list them here, but to do so would be pointless because they would all be blasted as ignorant and irrelevant by the "intelligensia").

Rather, what I have attempted to do is to prove beyond any shadow of doubt that macroevolutionary claims simply will not comply with the faithful exegesis of God's Word. Time and again, I believe that I have demonstrated that macroevolutionary claims are dishonestly forced on God's Word, and that they certainly aren't grounded in reputable hermeneutics. To this point, none of the macroevolutionists have been able to prove me wrong (in my humble opinion, and hopefully in yours too). Here's what they have done with God's Word so far:

1. They've said that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are nothing more than allegory, and that from them we are to simply learn "lessons."

2. They've said that Adam and Eve were not literal human beings.

3. Consequently, they've said that there was no literal Fall of man in the Garden of Eden.

4. They've said that Christ nor any of the other NT writers affirmed a literal Adam, Eve, or Fall of man, and that none of those things are even necessary to NT Christianity. In fact, Craig told us that one need not know anything about the OT in order to be saved (FYI - I'm just going to carry my Gideon Bible from now on).

5. They've redefined the effects of the Fall upon creation as clearly delineated by Paul in Rom. 8:19-22.

6. They told us that Gen. 1:1-2 is a reference to some pre-existing world that came to an end just before the creation of Adam and Eve (for what purpose we were not told).

7. They've said that the Fall of man was nothing more than banishment from the Garden of Eden - the only place that the Fall did not touch. Upon being banished, they entered the "real world" of death, disease, and disorder.

Again, I have attempted to provide faithful exegesis based on the exposition of the Bible. Now what the macroevolutionists posting here have done with the Bible...that's a different story (as you can plainly see).

 

[Baptist Renegade]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
[QB] That this statement is absolutely false has been proven in this thread.

I have not read this thread nor do I even need or am inclined to do so! Evolution is not compatible with scripture. even from the most basic of premise!

There is absolutely no scriptural or ethical reason for excluding even an adamant evolutionist from teaching Sunday school.

I am a HISTORIC FUNDAMENTALIST! Fundamentalists believe in the authority, inspiration, and infallibility of scripture. I therefore would reject any teaching or philosophy that is contrary to the holy scriptures!

There are today thousands of them doing so and no one has posted any data to show that any harm has resulted from this.

And I would not go across the street to hear ANY OF THEM! As far as any harm goes, the evidence is irrefutable! Those who deny the scriptures yet call themselves a "Christian" denomination has resulted in rampant heresy being propagated and idiotic notions that it is an acceptible "Christian" practice to murder your unborn, for members of the SAME SEX to cohabitate as "Husband and Wife" Etc. and so forth!

False and malicious allegations have no place in the Christian community, and those who make them should not be allowed on the premises of any church without constant supervision.

Am I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth?

Most certainly these evildoers should not be allowed to teach Sunday school.

So now who is being intolerant?

The theories of evolution do not contradict the Bible;

At what point did man come to be in the image of God? Was it Peking man, Piltdown man, Cro-Magnon man, or Neanderthal man?

At what point did mankind fall from grace necessitating the vicarious sacrifice of Calvary to redeem him back to God?

they merely contradict the uninformed opinions of poorly educated individuals regarding the Bible.

You mean those who have not been brainwashed (I think the bibllical term would be "Spoiled through philosophy, through vain deceit...Etc.) by a secular educational system that is HOSTILE TO THOSE WHO NAME THE NAME OF CHRIST? I am not against education as I have been "Edgycated" myself in secular universities. The nonsense you are spouting, however, just goes to show that secular institutions as well as certain "Funny-Mental-ist" Bible Colleges tend to "Indoctrinate" rather than educate their pupils! A little critical thinking goes a LONG WAY!!

Arguing that evolutionists should not be allowed to teach Sunday school makes no more sense than arguing that individuals who drive white cars should not be allowed to teach Sunday school.

If we are talking about the Unitarian Church across town, the Mormons, or Catholics, I would agree. Evolution would be the LEAST of their problems! Additionally, I do not attend any of these Churches! Whatever they teach is of no concern to me! I cannot dictate what should or should not teach in other autonomous Churches of which I am not even a member. Those that hold to and/or propagate the myth of evolution will not be teaching Sunday School in any Church that I AM A PART OF!!

Do you deny teaching positions to those who teach that the earth is spherical rather than flat?

The Earth IS flat! Don't you know nothin?

 

[Baptist Renegade]

Originally posted by Todd:
This quote was definitely the ringer:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Personally, I believe that Romans 5:5:12-21 teaches that we all sinned in Adam and that death passed upon all men as the direct consequence of that sin, but that interpretation is not central to the gospel message. Indeed, it is not necessary to know anything at all about Adam in order to be saved.

Is there anyone on the Baptist Board who would like to defend this comment by Craig? Is there even one poster who would dare to join Craig in saying that the effects of Adam's fall in the Garden are "not central to the gospel message?"</font>[/QUOTE]This so succinctly illustrates the very basic reason why I would be against anyone holding to the theory of evolution teaching Sunday School in any Church I had a part of!!

I'm sure Craig is a nice guy and is very knowledgable in his profession. I do not doubt that he is a Christian (Though the above quote is quite troublesome). I merely call his understanding of the Scriptures into question!

 

[UTEOTW]

Responding to various comments from various people...

"The problem is that by defining the day "morning and evening" God has very specifically denoted a period of time. There is no indication here that He was speaking figuratively."

If it is figurative then it is figurative. If the description is figurative, then it does not matter whether if 24 hour days are specified or not? Now if someone was arguing that the days were literal BUT that the period of each day was not determined, then you would be making the correct response. But if the creation of the heavens and earth is meant to convey God as Creator of all using figurative language, then the mornings and evenings are part of that figurative description.

"UT, Please answer a very simple question. When you make things out your own creativity, do you make them "mature" and ready for your designed use or not?"

Of course they are made ready to be used. But this appearance of age is a tricky thing.

"Are you trying to deceive someone who might believe that your creation came to be by some other means?"

and

"How old was Adam when God created him? Was he a zygote, fetus, infant, adolescent?"

Not at all. But fully functional is different than an appearance of age.

To make a fully functional earth, was it necessary to...

...create stars billions of light years away with a history that extends over those billions of years? Was the light created in transit? Do you realize that this means that when we look at, say, a supernova a few million light years away that the start never actually existed and never accually exploded? That is the implication. Those are not static points of light in the sky.

...create a set of intermediate fossils that connect man back to the other apes through a common ancestor? This can be checked through genetic means. Did you know that primates, including us and the other apes, are nearly unique in that we cannot produce Vitamin C on our own? Did you know that all the primates, including us, share the same deleterious mutation? Why? Do you know that retrovirii can insert parts of the genome into the genome of their host? If this happens to a germ line cell, this viral DNA can be passed on to the offspring. Did you know that somewhere around a few percent of your DNA is retroviral in origin? Did you know that you share almost all of the same inserts with the other apes? Did you know that the tree of evolution for the apes looks the same when made from the fossils as when made from the various viral inserts? There are quite a few other genetic lines to confirm this.

...create a set of intermediate fossil that link the horse and the rhinos? Both the horse and the rhino (and tapir) can be traced back to the same ancestor about 50 - 60 million years ago. The fossil series is quite rich and detailed. Better yet, genetic testing confirms that these two animals, quite different I might add, are closely related.

...create a set of intermediate fossils linking the cetaceans (whales and dolphins) back to a common ancestor in the ungulate family (hooved animals). Specifically the even toed ungulates. The fossil record strat with a generalized land dweeling animal and progresses thtough increasingly amphibious animals until you arrive at animals with only tiny, non-functional legs remaining which eventually are only internal. Amazingly, genetic testing has confirmed the close relationship between whales and other even toed ungulates such as deer, pigs and hippos.

...create all the other transitional series that exist and to make sure the genetics matches the series and that where the series are found in rock layers match the other two?

...create the rocks of the earth sorted according to their ratios of radioactive isotopes?

...create the rocks of the earth with evidence of several previous supercontinents?

...create layers of rock in the mid-Atlantic which can be dated by the ratio of the radioisotopes and the distance from the rift to the same age complete with records of magnetic field reversals?

...create the Hawaiian island chain such that there is a linear relationship between the age of the individual volcanoes and the distance from the active volcanoes? This shows the steady movement of a hotspot over millions of years. So it was merely necessary to make it look like the hotspot had been moving for that long complete with individual volcanoes showing just the difference amounts of erosion that would be expected if they had been formed by a moving hotspot over tens of millions of years.

...create a pattern of temeprature variations in the sky that match exactly what would be expected if the universe formed through inflation?

Hmmm. That is a lot of trouble without purpose.

"I contend that your fallible interpretations support no such conclusion."

So even though we are both fallible and even though the data unquestionable supports my position while none supports yours it must be that I am the only one able to draw incorrect interpretations and you are incapable of such a mistake.

"This has been mentioned before, but when Jesus turned the water into wine and fed the multitudes, He created wine, fish, and bread with the appearance of age. There is, therefore, Biblical precedence for God creating things that appear to be older than what they really are."

Did He suddenly make a vitner remember making this wine? That is the level you are taking this to.

Pointed question. Do you think that God made the creation to appear as if common descent were a fact along with inflation when these really did not happen? If you do, then you agree that this is what the data shows, you just choose to believe otherwise. If you do not agree, then you should be able to present logical, factual, supported, falsifiable explanations of the old earth data in a young earth. Have not seen that done yet.

"Perhaps the remains we have found were a) not deposited at the same time/place and b) were not exposed to the same ratios of heat and pressure or general enviromental factors."

More explanation is needed. Why is all of the layers finely divided into the same small slices of life worldwide. So finely that when you find a rock with a given mixture of fossils, you can guess that radiometric date to a high degree of accuracy ahead of time.

Just how do you think that "heat and pressure or general enviromental factors" affect dating?

"[odd made a general comment about how maybe the devil did it]"

So again, you are willing to admit that the fossils really are sorted in accordance with common descent but thatGod allowed the devil to do so to fool us? That's pretty far out! Did the devil also make all those changes to the DNA to make things line up? Is that why my diet must include vitamin C? The devil gave us the cosmic microwave background and it really is not astounding evidence of the predictive power of inflationary theory?

Wow!