| Origins Theology Forum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums. |
 | | 
19th March 2008, 01:28 AM
|  | Senior Veteran
29    
 | | Join Date: 6th March 2006
Posts: 6,088
Blessings: 53,547
Reps: 18,889,155,825,852,136 (power: 18,889,155,825,864) | | | Got to love it when those who haven't devoted themselves to the study of God's creation imply that those of us who have are somehow deluded about the issue.
Ballsy.
__________________
"There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well." -- creation scientist Dr. Todd Wood |
19th March 2008, 07:37 AM
|  | you are not reading this.
24  
| | Join Date: 18th February 2005 Location: Shah Alam, Selangor
Posts: 8,060
Blessings: 18,378 My Mood 
Reps: 15,461,686,232,085,960 (power: 15,461,686,232,100) | | We all have the right to our opinions however misinformed they may be. 
__________________ And who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars?
- Origen, 215AD [De Principiis 4.1.16]
... to insist that the rising of the sun is figurative while the rising of the Son is literal is also hypocrisy.
- Geraldus Bouw,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
23rd March 2008, 03:29 PM
| | you are not reading this.
24
| | Join Date: 18th February 2005 Location: Shah Alam, Selangor
Posts: 8,060
Blessings: 18,378 My Mood
Reps: 15,461,686,232,085,960 (power: 15,461,686,232,100) | | Bumpity bump. (A question finally too hard for mark to answer? ) Originally Posted by shernren 
__________________ And who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars?
- Origen, 215AD [De Principiis 4.1.16]
... to insist that the rising of the sun is figurative while the rising of the Son is literal is also hypocrisy.
- Geraldus Bouw,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
25th March 2008, 12:32 AM
|  | Senior Veteran
  
| | Join Date: 20th June 2006
Posts: 3,347
Blessings: 1,072,785 My Mood
Reps: 27,749,724,098,880,132 (power: 27,749,724,098,889) | | Originally Posted by mark kennedy At any rate, Darwinism cannot be removed from scientific thought based on scientific research. Darwinism is not science it's metaphysics and spans legal, political and social philosophies ad infinitum ad nasuem. Darwinism does not qualify even as a theory in any way that makes sense. He simply presented the naturalists of his day with a naturalistic assumption applied uniformly across the entire history of life on this planet.
How is it that one can entertain two notions in the same brain or institution: 1. intelligent design is a basis for dismissal and censure; 2. snowflakes and DNA self organize?
Yes, it is metaphysics. Like voodoo is metaphysics, because voodoo is the art of doing serious damage to your enemy by metaphysical means. An email to the Dean: "Professor Wallace is a thestic, hegemonistic embarrassment to science, since he has published against Darwin in the name of Intelligent Design." Not exactly pins in a effigy, but the effect is the same. http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playgroundvideo3.swf
The words these people use are funny. Ben Stein nailed them. Dawkins is "hostile" to a "rival doctrine." Watch the clip at about 3/4 through.
Imagine that, hostility to competing ideas.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(as it is written, "I have made you a father of many nations")
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
in the presence of Him whom he believed--God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did; |
25th March 2008, 05:01 PM
| | Senior Veteran
| | Join Date: 20th June 2006
Posts: 3,347
Blessings: 1,072,785 My Mood
Reps: 27,749,724,098,880,132 (power: 27,749,724,098,889) | | Originally Posted by shernren By actually knowing what self-organization is as a scientific concept, instead of waving it around like a wooden sword in a school play ...
Darwin may be like a long tail cat in a room full of rockers, but so what? As for your "wooden sword", why does that have any content? I find none. Enough with the freakin' metaphors, like "self-organizing."
What the h e double hockey sticks are you people talking about?
Try talking about ID without talking about the (presumed) character or politics of the people involved. It is a very simple concept, like "self-organizing." Both are a bit vague in similar ways.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(as it is written, "I have made you a father of many nations")
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
in the presence of Him whom he believed--God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did;
Last edited by busterdog; 26th March 2008 at 11:08 AM.
|
25th March 2008, 05:20 PM
| | Junior Member
 
| | Join Date: 20th March 2008
Posts: 30
Blessings: 90,295
Reps: 4,673 (power: 8) | | Originally Posted by gluadys Yes, its funny.
But what is it all about?
Revision. Just like neo-Darwinism was a revision.
Not a renunciation. Not a dismantling. And no, not a relapse either. Definitely not a retreat.
A revision. Maybe a major revision. Could be quite interesting. But haven't we all been expecting a revision sooner or later?
Hang on a second, I was over in the creationist forum before viewing the clip of the film 'Expelled', according to Ben Stein though not in as many words, evolutionary biologists are rigid, inflexible with regards to the toE, and fiercely opposed to any criticism of it, a revision would suggest that the ToE isn't perfect something Darwinian scientists can not stand to hear apparently
Seems to me the creationists want to have their cake and eat it too. |
25th March 2008, 09:20 PM
|  | Natura non facit saltum Angels Team
48  
| | Join Date: 16th March 2004 Location: Ft Carson, Colorado
Posts: 7,317
Blessings: 48,224,263 My Mood 
Reps: 37,247,279,516,221,256 (power: 37,247,279,516,236) | | What explanation do you have for me, a Darwinist Biblical theist? I am either a flagrant liar, hopelessly deluded, or simply nonexistent, and I am waiting impatiently for you to tell me which I am.
I think you are dishonest but I don't consider you a liar. I don't think for a minute you are deluded, I think you are just taken in by the spirit of the age.
I keep trying to tell you that I'm not the enemy but our philosophical moorings keep us from actually agreeing. If you were going to be honest with yourself you would have to ask yourself some fundamental questions with regards to our origins. The most important being why this stubborn refusal to accept Creationism as an alternative to Darwinism.
We can do this one of two ways, you can accept the propositional truth of the common ancestor or you can face the possibility that God did indeed act and consider the implications of a special creation event.
Your choice.
__________________ “Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel) |
25th March 2008, 09:32 PM
| | Natura non facit saltum Angels Team
48
| | Join Date: 16th March 2004 Location: Ft Carson, Colorado
Posts: 7,317
Blessings: 48,224,263 My Mood
Reps: 37,247,279,516,221,256 (power: 37,247,279,516,236) | | Originally Posted by busterdog How is it that one can entertain two notions in the same brain or institution: 1. intelligent design is a basis for dismissal and censure; 2. snowflakes and DNA self organize?
You can entertain as many possibilities as you like but you can only understand the truth. The truth is that evolution has very little to do with Biology. Yes, it is metaphysics. Like voodoo is metaphysics, because voodoo is the art of doing serious damage to your enemy by metaphysical means. An email to the Dean: "Professor Wallace is a thestic, hegemonistic embarrassment to science, since he has published against Darwin in the name of Intelligent Design." Not exactly pins in a effigy, but the effect is the same.
I'll check out the link later but Metaphysics is a theory of everything. Science is a very bad place to start when building a Metaphysical philosophy and fails to define very important central terms. It's all built on a false assumption that they refuse to accept alternatives to their assumption. http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playgroundvideo3.swf The words these people use are funny. Ben Stein nailed them. Dawkins is "hostile" to a "rival doctrine." Watch the clip at about 3/4 through.
Imagine that, hostility to competing ideas.
I'll be back and check the clip, I'll let you know what my thoughts are then.
Grace and peace,
Mark
Edited to add:
Ben Stein has nailed the hypocrisy of Darwinians down but he is not the first and won't be the last. It's the status quo and they won't go quietly.
That is the most important film I will see this year. Ben Stein is my hero. Thanks BD, it's refreshing to see people wake up to the ongoing conspiracy that is Darwinism.
__________________ “Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel) |
25th March 2008, 10:41 PM
| | you are not reading this.
24
| | Join Date: 18th February 2005 Location: Shah Alam, Selangor
Posts: 8,060
Blessings: 18,378 My Mood
Reps: 15,461,686,232,085,960 (power: 15,461,686,232,100) | | Originally Posted by mark kennedy I think you are dishonest but I don't consider you a liar. I don't think for a minute you are deluded, I think you are just taken in by the spirit of the age.
So dishonest people aren't liars, and deceived people aren't deluded? You really have a way with words mark.
If I am taken in by "the spirit of the age", then pray tell what this spirit might be? Perhaps it is the denial of the existence of God - but I believe God exists. Perhaps it is the denial of supernatural miracles - but I believe miracles happen and I have witnessed them firsthand. Perhaps it is the denial of the inspiration of the Bible - but I believe that the Bible is divinely inspired and in fact the text leads me to reject creationism as much as scientific facts do. Perhaps it is the denial of orthodox doctrine - but I am a Calvinist Trinitarian and people far more fundamentally creationist than me have propounded far worse heresies than I have.
The fact is that if this "spirit of the age" has left me a Bible-believing, miracle-trusting, Trinitarian Christian, then perhaps it is not much of a spirit at all. Perhaps the dogmatism is only in your head. Originally Posted by mark kennedy I keep trying to tell you that I'm not the enemy but our philosophical moorings keep us from actually agreeing. If you were going to be honest with yourself you would have to ask yourself some fundamental questions with regards to our origins. The most important being why this stubborn refusal to accept Creationism as an alternative to Darwinism.
Really? You are not the enemy? But you have said yourself: You can embrace the Scriptures as redemptive history or you can embrace Darwinism as a substitute, you can't have it both ways because Darwinians won't have it.
Well to me, if I embraced the Scriptures as redemptive history (and I do), then anyone who did not would be an enemy to me in some way, since they are enemies with God to reject His Scriptures. And if I believed that all Darwinism was predicated on rejecting the Scriptures as redemptive history, and I believed that all who rejected the Scriptures as redemptive history were enemies in some way, then I would have to believe that all Darwinism was an enemy to me, and that all Darwinists are.
You are right that I am not your enemy. But it is only precisely because I embrace the Scriptures as redemptive history. Doesn't that throw a spanner in your tidy dualism? If Darwinism is antithetical to Christianity, how can I be a Darwinist and yet not your enemy?
In any case, my "stubborn refusal" to accept Creationism is really just a reasoned view of the evidence at hand. You and your views have consistently failed to explain almost all the physical evidence surrounding evolution, whether they be cranial capacities or genetic traits. Even creationists when they try, by "baraminology", to separate animals into kinds, cannot avoid lumping humans with apes - they can only separate them on shoddy theological bases instead of biological facts. I was once a creationist too. Physical evidence has brought me where I am, and physical evidence will get me out - if only you had any! Originally Posted by mark kennedy We can do this one of two ways, you can accept the propositional truth of the common ancestor or you can face the possibility that God did indeed act and consider the implications of a special creation event.
Your choice.
Of course God did indeed act in a special creation event: God used evolution to create humanity.
__________________ And who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars?
- Origen, 215AD [De Principiis 4.1.16]
... to insist that the rising of the sun is figurative while the rising of the Son is literal is also hypocrisy.
- Geraldus Bouw,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
25th March 2008, 10:43 PM
| | you are not reading this.
24
| | Join Date: 18th February 2005 Location: Shah Alam, Selangor
Posts: 8,060
Blessings: 18,378 My Mood
Reps: 15,461,686,232,085,960 (power: 15,461,686,232,100) | | Originally Posted by busterdog How is it that one can entertain two notions in the same brain or institution: 1. intelligent design is a basis for dismissal and censure; 2. snowflakes and DNA self organize?
By actually knowing what self-organization is as a scientific concept, instead of waving it around like a wooden sword in a school play ...
__________________ And who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars?
- Origen, 215AD [De Principiis 4.1.16]
... to insist that the rising of the sun is figurative while the rising of the Son is literal is also hypocrisy.
- Geraldus Bouw,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
| | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
