Young Earth or Old Earth? Here is where to post your thoughts!

Lee

have I ever sworn at you?
In my last post to you I called you naïve. In your last post to me you referred to me as:
illogical, incorrigible, and argumentative, acrimonious.

If you find naïve worse than the words you used to describe me, then yes, by all means be offended.
Otherwise, quote where you perceive I have hurt your feelings by using bad language direct to you.


And yes, I do think body, mind and spirit are interlinked, because God says so (1 Thess. 5:23)

And no, this world is not good. Yesterday I was praying for somebody who has cancer, this week one of my friend's babies may need to undergo a 3rd blood transfusion.
If you think this (and much more suffering around the globe) is good, then you have a weird definition of the word good and you can explain God's Word to mean virtually anything. Very post-modern.


Bless ya,
Lucien

Lee ...

Blogs were "Created" for spirited Debates!
There was a time when ALL Christians professed the same thoughts!
This period of History is known as the (Catholic) Crusades !!!
After Luther opened things up for debate & division of the Body of Christ ...
Satan saw a perfect opportunity to create his own splitter groups!
He could now openly walk right in through the front door of every sect
and challenge their Faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior without apology!
ONLY those who trust God and His Word without compromise are safe from
Satan's deception and manipulation!
Yes ... God wants us ALL to come to repentance and accept Salvation
through the shed Blood of His ONLY begotten Son ... Jesus !!!
BUT ... He knows (& tells us) that NARROW is the gate to Salvation ...
and FEW there are that WILL find it !!!
If MY love & passion for defending God's Word embarrasses YOU
in front of mere men? Then I am sorrowful ... but NOT sorry!
HOLD FAST TO THE TRUTH !!!

Bret* 2010

Yeah, Stu, you are finally done wasting your time debating the YEs!  I knew that you were too wise to continually try to teach the illogical, incorrigible, and argumentative.  It's fascinating to watch, but too frustrating for me when they twist every thought, ignore hard questions, and resort to name calling and bad language to attempt win the debate.  

If you want to go offsite to a new blog, I will understand so that the YEs don't pollute the meaningful dialogue I am hoping to have with you on theistic evolution. Just let me know. They really don't want me here anyway!

Lucien,

Yes, I believe God is good. God's Creation is very good. Heaven is still wonderful even before, during, and after Satan's presence there. The earth is still very good after everything that's happened as well.  It's the spirit that is capable of both good and evil. Satan is spirit, YOU are spirit, it's all about making bad free will decisions that is the source of evil, not the physical laws, Heaven or nature that has changed.  

You seem unable to separate mind from body; free will from physics; bad from good.  I stopped enjoying my dialogue with you some time back due to your acrimonious babble, aggressiveness, and bad posting behavior.  Good luck finding your way. Since you've called me names one too many times, I don't intend to dialogue with you anymore.  Read my old blogs for help if you decide to shape up someday.

Lee

Satan is evil

Perhaps the confusion over "the Fall" is because there are two different Falls we're talking about -- (1) Lucifer (Satan) (2) Adam. Both were a result of their rebellion against God. Satan's Fall took place before Adam's Fall. That's how he ends up in the Garden successfully tempting Adam into rebellion.

So when did Satan fall? I think you are saying that it took place between Gen 2:25 and 3:1. I said that it appears a stronger case can be made for it occurring between Gen 1:1 and 1:2.

I understand your case rests on your interpretation that the creation fully takes place between Gen 1:3-1:31. My point is that there are other interpretations that are equally viable. For example --

(1) The creation begins with a Big Bang in Gen 1:1 (progressive creationism)
(2) The initial creation took place in Gen 1:1, Fall 1 took place and God's judgment was administered on the creation and the rebellious angels (Gen 1:2). The earth was then "recreated" starting in Gen 1:3 (gap theory)

You claim the earth was perfect before Fall 2. I claim it doesn't appear that way.

You claim you know the right answers to all these matters. I claim that there's not sufficient information to fully know.

Of course Lucifer rebelled before the fall.
You say it is not only possible, it is likely. Not even sure why you bring up that point.
I do not bring up a straw man, because you are still moving on the same thin ice in my opinion.
Reason I say this is that I do not say there was no rebellion before the fall, there was, as you stated Lucifer and also about 1/3 of the angels.
Please separate the creation week from the Fall. You mix the two up and then blame me for setting up a straw man.
That is not fair. The Fall was AFTER (AFTER AFTER AFTER) the creation week.

"I didn't declare Satan or animal death intrinsically good or bad". Fine, but I DO: Satan is bad!!!
I think any Christian should agree, or should stop referring to themselves by Christ's name.
And yes, it is my call, as it is yours.
Matthew 12:30 says "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters."
You either choose Christ, or you choose Satan (maybe not explicitly, but if you don't belong to Jesus, you belong to Satan).

"I no longer see this YE debate accomplishing anything positive."
We are not even talking about the age of the earth, but about Satan being bad and thus not good and thus he fell after God declared everything very good.
I cannot believe that you fail to see this.
I am sorry, but am i the only person that thinks God cannot call something very good after his most beautiful angel has rebelled against Him and desired His throne.

Let's get personal here, because I want you to see what I am saying.
I do not know if you have children (and frankly it is none of my business, but purely for illustration), but if your child rebels against you and I ask you how things are, you would not say VERY GOOD. Or you would be lying, or you would be evil indeed.
Yes, this does sound like the CS Lewis analogy.

Maybe I am an arrogant prick, maybe both you and Lee hate my guts, I don't care. But are we not talking basic theology here, that the biggest enemy of God is now preying on humans and God would think that is good???

Come on guys. This is not PHD material here.
Satan is bad! Think about it. No really, sit down and think about it.

Oh man, I don;t know what to say, am flabbergasted.
The Devil, the deceiver, the accuser, the father of lies is NOT good. In fact he is evil! Work with me here!


Lucien

You are so convinced that you know that all was perfect before the Fall (no rebellion, no animal death, etc) that you are willfully blind to considering any evidence to the contrary -- whether it's from the Bible, science, even common sense. I give credit to Bret for at least trying to debate the point (when did Satan fall) and not set up a straw man as you have.

I didn't declare Satan or animal death intrinsically good or bad -- that's God's call not mine or yours. We agree the angels rebelled. I simply made the case that this rebellion was not only possible before the Fall but a more likely scenario. I'm sorry that messes with your theology. With me it fits into the category of "it's a minor issue." Whatever the truth, it doesn't change my "plot" one wit that Christ atoned for my sins and that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.

I no longer see this YE debate accomplishing anything positive. I'm moving on to debate theistic evolution with Lee.

Stu,
if you want to be a gap-theorist and think that the rise of God's arch nemesis is a good thing, be my guest.
I think you are being quite silly that calling animal death and suffering is a good thing, but if you go along with Satan going after God's throne in rebellion being called very good too, i must seriously question your theology.
For crying out loud, if it was a good thing, then why did God kick him out?
Can you please explain that to me, because I am really losing the plot with you losing the plot, while it is so clear that OF COURSE Lucifer fell AFTER creation week, although it is impossible to pinpoint when EXACTLY (personally I believe it would be in the order of days/weeks, but that is not based on any Scripture).

Lucifer's fall:

GOOD or BAD

I vote BAD, and certainly hope that all agree here.

Ezekiel 28:11-19 (King James Version)

11Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,

12Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD;
Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.

13Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz,
and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold:
the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.

14Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God;
thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

15Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

16By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned:
therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub,
from the midst of the stones of fire.

17Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness:
I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.

18Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick;
therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee,
and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.

19All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee:
thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.


Bret* 2010

Hi Lee

First of all, I had not heard of Ptolemy, so I think yo should in this case not include me in the mix.
Secondly. You speak of scientists of centuries ago in a similar fashion as scientists will likely talk about you and your fellow scientists a few centuries from now.
Either your are a little naïve, or arrogant. I prefer the first, because it has not such a negative sound to it.
You posted earlier that we know about 99.999% (or even more) of the Laws. I think that is an overrating of science.
As said before Lee, put your trust in the Word of God, not in the word of man. The latter is fallible and like science textbooks likely t be revised every few years, whereas the Scriptures are not.

Lucien

This is a very interesting question and one I never paid much attention to until Lucien came back with, "Every creationist would argue this happened AFTER day 7. (because it [i.e. Satan being free and loose] would not be very good!!!). Bret followed with, "Satan's fall must have occurred sometime after the PERFECT Creation... but before Adam's FALL." I think both arguments are meant to conclude that the world was perfect before Adam's fall so the fall had to take place after Day 7. Correct?

Leaving aside for now the discussion "What is Day 7?", and just concentrating on my YE friends' conclusion that Lucifer's fall was after the creation week, I see they offer no chronological evidence. Satan just shows up in the Garden in Genesis 3:1 ("the serpent was more crafty")after the last verse of their "perfect world" of Genesis 2 where Adam and Eve "were naked and not ashamed." That's a lot of action not recorded in Scripture -- rebellion, fall, judgement.

However, if we piece together Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 with Job 4:18; 15:15;38:1-7. And then add in Psalm 148:2, 5, along with the NT's 2 Pet 2:4 and Jude 6, we can get a plausible picture of the cosmic creation of Lucifer and the angels, and the consequences of their rebellion and fall; along with some clues as to a possible chronology.

Many ancient rabbis and church fathers have argued from antiquity that Satan's fall and the angels rebellion took place after creation (Gen 1:1) but before the creation days (Gen 1:3). Thomas Aquinas put it this way, "It seems better to maintain that the creation was prior to any of the days." Of course the YE creationists insist it happened their way in spite of the silence of Scripture because "well, it just had to." They know (assume) that the Garden was perfect (in spite of the biblical evidence that it wasn't -- "very good does not equal "perfect") because they already have in mind their conclusion. But, of course that is circular reasoning.

Actually it is our "gap theory" creationist friends who have a fairly well developed biblical theory of the fall of Satan. Is 45:18 says that God did not originally create the earth to be a wasteland but formed it to be inhabited with mankind. Yet Gen 1:2 says that the earth was (became) formless and void and darkness (judgment) was over the surface of the deep. If I had to vote on who has the best biblical case for positioning the fall I would have to give it to the gap theorists. So have many contemporary theologians and pastors including Robert Saucy, G. Campbell Morgan, Charles Hodge, James Montgomery Boice, Donald Grey Barnhouse, John Sailhamer, and everybody's favorite radio Bible teacher J. Vernon McGee.

You've got to love the Christians in China!
We've all heard this claim before ... so enter with caution!
No matter what this is ...
I'm praying that this might lead thousands of Chinese (& others)
to the Door where Jesus is standing & knocking !!!

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2949640/Noahs-Ark-found-in-Turkey.html

Just watch ALL of the God HATERS run out to attack this !!!


Bret* 2010

Bret and Lucien, now I know why my YE brothers don't believe scientists know very much about how the world operates. It is because they believe Ptolemy was just like any other scientist. Now I have nothing against Ptolemy, I am certain that he was wise for his era and very intelligent. However, he had very little understanding of physical laws and virtually no instrumentation to perform his 'scientific' work of drawing maps of the world, estimating the curvature of earth badly and applying euclidian geometry to poorly observed motions of heavenly bodies without adequate time reference or telescopes. Your schooling failed to matriculate the value of the collective scientific endeavor that crosschecks results and grows knowledge about our universe. This is so sad that you stereotype all scientists into a common mold of being mistaken about virtually everthing in our world. I really feel sorry for you that you have so little trust in such a large group of fellow Christians doing honest and serious work. May God grant you better insight into the value of science for exposing the truth about God's wonderful creation.

Lee

http://creation.com/why-did-jesus-die


And another, shorter one, which I dedicate to Lee:

http://creation.com/why-most-scientists-believe-the-world-is-old

Hi all, and mostly Lee

I am sure (I think) that Lee would admit that scientists can (and could have) be(en) wrong in the past.
He either has to, or he must devise that they are not scientists.
But somehow, Lee's faith has now grown so much in science, that THIS time, they have it all right.

It is like my brother, for every single big tournament in football (soccer I am speaking of) he has remained convinced that THIS time, The Netherlands is going to win it. Unfortunately every time since 1988 (when he was too young to be so arrogant) he has been wrong.

Just like so many who were proven wrong in the past, so too evolution will be proven a fairy-tale for grown-ups.
The fact that even the evolution camp has split into gradualism and punctuated equilibriumist may well be a point in case. The latter, try to fit evolution with the still total lack of millions of intermediate forms.
And good on them, they are going where the evidence leads them. Gradualists tend to keep the faith in thinking that after 150 years of Darwin saying that the fossil record was the weak point of his argument, and it is now becoming embarrassing, since many more fossils have been found since then, that those missing links still will be found.
Note the media shout for every possible missing link found. But unfortunately, they don't shout so loud when that one too has been proven to fit nicely with one or another kind, if they mention it at all. After all, it is not easy to admit you're wrong.

First off ...
I would like to apologize to my Catholic Friends & Family members
for broad-brushing their Church because of some selective Historical
black-eyes in the past!
As for Lee's revisionist History of Science ... say "Hello" to Ptolemy!
For 1500 years ... this Secular Scientist's model of a Geocentric Solar System
was impossible is refute !!!
It PERFECTLY withstood every challenge that Science & Mathematics could
throw at it !!!
A PROVEN FACT OF SCIENCE FOR 1500 YEARS !!!
Well ... at least until it was proven WRONG !!!
His model was NOT influenced by the Bible ... but by his
OBSERVATIONS OF NATURE !!!
I guess he put his FAITH in the WRONG thing !!!

Bret* 2010

Guys,

just because some catholics ,molested little children, does not mean they all do it.
Likewise, don't generalise all protestants.

Lee, surely there were scientists before the 1500's! Or do they not meet the Lee standard?
Science comes from the Greek word for knowledge. i hope you don't think that nobody cared for, or had any, knowledge in the years before 1500?

And yes Lee, of course people (including you!!!) use the verses that they think build their case.
It seems to serve little purpose to quote unrelated verses, don't you think?


Lucien

Bret,
Isn't that just typical of a Protestant, blame your problems on the Catholics and the scientists. Since the scientists didn't exist much before Copernicus, you'll have a hard time blaming them about crystal spheres of the Heavens and immovable earth before the fifteen hundreds. What about those fifteen other centuries? Also, how about the literal reading of the passages that I quoted right from the Bible? Don't those count for someting to you? Or do you plan to ignore those verses also since they contradict scientific fact and led the church to the flawed view that Galileo and Bruno were heretics. It seems to me you are using only those verses that you like to support your scientifically heretical YE viewpoints. That's pretty hypocritical of the YEs to claim that we should interpret the Bible literally except those passages that the YEs want to ignore or claim as symbolic. Please splain why the stars don't move around us like the Bible tells us literally that they do!

Lee

You'll be happy to know that Heaven is too sweet for ...
"I told you so's" !!!
But ... until then ... I will exercise my Free Will as to
postpone my predetermined response to predestination one more time!
In defense of all of us Flat-Earth ... Snake-Handling ... Geo-centrists!
I think I should finally expose this tired lame rap about how the Young Earth
Christians chased Galileo with flaming torches back to Frankenstein's Castle!
Back in the "Day"...
it was the Scientists who told us that the World was Flat ... & that the Sun
rotated around the Earth!
The (always ready to compromise) Catholic Church searched (and found) some
ancillary passages that they could "interpret" as aligning with the Scientific
teachings of the "Day"!
Ignoring more descriptive verses such as:
Isaiah 40:22 (New International Version)

22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

So ... after being sold a Bill-of-Goods by the Scientific Guesswork of the "Day"!
The Church was reluctant to fess-up to the grift ... and was too lazy to search
the Scriptures for the Truth!
The Catholic Church has changed little over the centuries ... as evidenced by
their embrace of Darwinian Evolution as a fact!
So PLEASE! ... stop blaming the Young Earth Creationists for the Blasphemies of
the Great Harlot (the False Prophet) ... the Catholic Church !!!
Now ... when Evolution loses favor with those seeking the Truth ...
the Catholic Church will (once again) flounder like a fool with egg on her face!
Then ... given enough time ... they may even be blamed for the acceptance of
this FALSE teaching (Evolution) as well?


Bret* 2010

Hi Bret and Lucien,

Thanks for the warm reception from my brothers! I'm loitering while waiting for my joust with Stu, so I'm not really back or throwing in the towel.  I'm just wasting time trying to dialogue with you, and trying to get any questions that I ask you answered. I sure hope things get better in Heaven.

Bret wrote:
'Either the Bible is in Error?
... or Dr. Ross is in Error?'

The answer: neither is in error. There are more possibilities that you haven't considered and you're trying to oversimplify to force a conclusion. One of my favorite possibilities is that the interpretation of the Bible's symbolic language in Genesis 1 is flawed by Walter and YEs. 

We have covered the day age question excessively as well as the events over the six 'days'. The primary issue is that the YEs ignore God's own declaration of the fixed laws of physics and insist on the literal interpretation of day to mean 24 hours instead of allowing 'day'/yôm to have a longer interpretation like age or 'like a thousand years' as God intended it. Otherwise in Ross's view Genesis 1 is an exact summary of a scientifically compatible event sequence in the evolution of the earth and heavenly bodies. I don't think Walter understood Hugh's viewpoint fully.  Read my long posts on Creation Days 1-5 for how science is compatible with the Bible. 

When you infer that 'virtually all Bible experts' interpret 'day' as 24 hours you seem to be implying that to be an expert you have to agree with the YE interpretation and other views don't count.  If you take the YE literal view, then you will have to claim that the earth is still flat and immovable with the Heavens circling around it in spite of the scientific evidence against it. A lot of Biblical scholars through the ages believed the earth and heavens to be flat and at the center of the universe because of the verses below.   The early view by Christian theologians that everything revolved around the earth resulted in their persecution of Galileo and Giordano Bruno based on intolerance to truthful and accurate observations of nature. The viewpoint of Biblical literalist seems sometimes to be: kill them or silence them if they don't agree with our interpretation.     

The literalist strongly held beliefs that were based on Bible passages such as Ecclesiastes 1:5
'The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises...' 
An immovable earth at the center of the universe was also supported by 1 Chronicles 16:30
'tremble before him, all earth; yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved.'
And,
Psalms 93:1
...Yea, the world is established; it shall never be moved.
Yet, after seeing the earth from space while standing on the moon can leave no doubt to the moveable status of the earth and with the earth traveling around the sun even to the most steadfast YE fundamentalist. 

A strict literal reading of Deuteronomy 28:64 should convince you that the earth is still flat.
 
The LORD will scatter you among all nations, from one end of the earth to the other.

If this is not enough, there are plenty more phrase in the Bible with a similar implication: e.g. Job 28:24 For he looks to the ends of the earth and observes everything under the heavens. 

Why do you insist only on a literal interpretation of the English translation 'day' of Genesis 1? Why do you trust science that the earth is a spheroid, spinning, and circling the sun, while not trusting science on the earth's age or biological evolution? 

If you are worried that long time periods allows Darwinism to produce all of the species, you shouldn't.  New species require informational guidance in their genes that only God could provide. Unless one believes in a lot of extremely fortuitous miracles along the evolutionary path to mankind, educated people are forced to conclude that the Darwinian process over eons is still insufficient. Read Dr Behe's books on the probabilities of random chance finding the right direction for evolution and you will understand why Darwinism needs divine help.

On the other hand, God being the perfect gardener tossed the evolved humans out of the garden (where no thorns or thistles grew although it did contain one evil serpent that was likely Satan in disguise). The ungardened world where Adam and Eve and ourselves now live contains plenty of plants with thorns and thistles created in land vegetation hundreds of millions of years ago for defense against animals that ate (killed) them. These plants were the descendents of Cyanobacteria from Day 3 whose seed (genetic code) that survived into the modern world of Adam and Eve on Day 6.

This is no great mystery, read your books on evolution and the history of the earth. The only thing that the YEs fail to understand is that God was involved with the selection and mutation process for the entire biological developmental period of four billion years. That process requires predetermination and control of biological events by the only being that can accomplish making such a wonderous world as ours: God.  

Lee

So why are there so many californians on here?
I thought that was supposedly the most liberal state?

Anyway, not wanting to distract from the great questions being asked (no, not the one about predetermination) just prior to this, but it struck me...

In a Loving attempt to divide and conquer ...
I will let Lucien defend the "NAD" ... while
I'll expose Ross's "PC" as just plain SAD !!!
Don't worry Lee ... I'll jump into your web of
"Predestination" on my next Post ... for sure!
But ... while I'm waiting for some REAL answers
to Ross's fatal flaws ... I'll pose another!
I've read Lee's explanation about how simple
Bacteria can exist in an extremely low-light
environment ... but God's Word seems to be
clearly speaking about much more complex plant
life than that?

(Gen 1:11-13)
11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation:
seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear
fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds."
And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants
bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing
fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God
saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening,
and there was morning—the third day.


Bret* 2010

So how do old-earthers see the curse?
Did it only affect man?
If animals death and suffering is acceptable in their theology, then what about plants?

It (the ground) will produce thorns and thistles for you [Gen. 3:18]

But we find fossilised thorns and thistles, allegedly millions of years old.
Was God's statement pointless?

How do you reconcile this old-earthers?


Lucien

I had a feeling that Lee wouldn't be comfortable
with throwing in the towel ... But I am enjoying
his NEW Twitter-esque Blogging style!
I'll address (reluctantly) the age-old balancing act
of Predestination & Free Will ... next time!
For now ...
Let us take a DEEPER look at Hugh Ross's Achilles' Heel?
"Reasons to Believe" is a multi-million dollar ministry!
Point being ... that they have sufficient enough funds
as to search-out, find, & secure a Top-Notch Bible Expert
that agrees with Dr. Ross's interpretation of The Sacred Text!
It would appear that Walter Kaiser is the closest thing that
they could find ... to fill the void?
Since Walter's very liberal reading of the Bible still came up
critically short of harmonizing with Hugh's views of the Word ...
it leaves us faced with the following conundrum!
Either the Bible is in Error?
... or Dr. Ross is in Error?
I give Dr. Ross a lot of credit for NOT calling the Bible flawed !!!
But ... why should I believe that his Progressive Creation Model
is a better, more accurate, & clearer understanding of God's Word
than the STRAIGHT-UP common definition reading that is STRONGLY
endorsed by virtually EVERY Bible Expert throughout history?

Bret* 2010

Speaking of muddying the waters, if you must talk about predetermination, can you do it in another thread?
I have been able to start a new thread and I don't see how this relates to the age of the earth.
Of course, since Lee is predetermined to defend evolution, it is bound to be affected by it somehow.\

Lucien

If I answer your question about Hugh Ross will you answer mine about predetermination?

[Bret] I am predetermined to get an answer to THIS question by someone that has enough
respect for Hugh Ross to defend his honor and reputation !!!'

I think I know Hugh Ross fairly well since I have read all of the Reason to Believe books and had two conversations with him lasting for about ten minutes. Not that I'm a close friend, but I do find him to be a thoughtful, polite, reserved, and caring individual when I've seen and talked to him in several public forums. I sincerely believe that although he disagreed with his point, he didn't want to be argumentative with his colleague on his debate team as it would reflects badly on his team. This is what I would expect from him, since he is so polite and reserved. That's how I see it anyway.

You must have known the answer that I would give you since you were predetermined to get it. How close did your initial wish match the outcome. If it matched exactly, then you truly are God's son. Now that would be the predetermination that I'm talking about. In any case would you please try to answer my question this time. This has a great impact on the whole evolution debate, believe it or not!

Lee