Is the Human Brain the Null Hypothesis for Darwin's Theory?

mark kennedy · #41 21st September 2008, 10:13 PM

Originally Posted by SLP

Just wondering why you decided to post this stuff in the one forum where you were the most likely not to get any actual criticism...
Just thought it interesting to see these same arguments making the rounds, as if they'd not been discussed before.

When I started posting on CF it was remotely possible to get a civil discussion, now it's not. I saw a small group of creationists in this forum thrown to dogs of debate on 7-7-7 and lost all confidence in the boards commitment to theology specific debate. Most creationists wouldn't be caught dead in one of these debates so it makes it difficult to actually find creationists with similar views.

When I happened upon CARM early on it was great, had some very interesting exchanges. Inevitably the threads were populated with the standard flames and trolling tactics. I honestly never intended to get into the debate again because frankly I am convinced that the academic and scientific community is simply pushing prejudicial bias on the subject.

I think creationists would benefit greatly from learning more about the life sciences but not if they have to endure constant ridicule for religiously oriented views.

This forum had a growing number of creationists who were serious about pursuing the subject. I do enjoy those brief moments when creationists actually take an interest in the scientific literature and I posted it here in hopes of encountering one.

That's really all there is to it, just hoping to find like minded creationists looked for detailed specifics. The problem is that there is always a band of evolutionists poisoning the well before I get the chance to talk to them.

shernren · #42 22nd September 2008, 02:25 AM

Out of curiosity, are you honestly going to say that "the academic and scientific community is simply pushing prejudicial bias on the subject" based on your experience at ... 7-7-7, CARM, CF.com, and CvE? I don't think I need to spell out the disparity between the claim you are making and the evidence you are using to back it up.

Have you really interacted with many biological scientists with the questions you are unsure about? I will readily agree with you that there are irrational atheists aplenty on Internet discussion boards. I'm sure a case can be made that the very demographic likely to spend most of their time on Internet forums is the demographic most likely to host angry immature anti-religionists. But have you ever talked to science people? Or do you assume that they cannot be talked to?

Because such prophecies are self-fulfilling, you know; and to be quite frank, I think sfs has been far more reasonable with you than you have ever been with any evolutionist I saw you talk with here.

mark kennedy · #43 25th September 2008, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by shernren

Out of curiosity, are you honestly going to say that "the academic and scientific community is simply pushing prejudicial bias on the subject" based on your experience at ... 7-7-7, CARM, CF.com, and CvE? I don't think I need to spell out the disparity between the claim you are making and the evidence you are using to back it up.

I'm not playing this game with you anymore, everyone of you talks to creationists like they are fools. I've backed up what I have said with relevant, current scientific literature and you continue to consume the substance of the discussion with incessant ad hominem attacks. TEs are the worst and I consider it little more then another form of Liberal Theology that seeks to supplant traditional Christian theology with a secular philosophy.

I'm in a kind of transition right now but I'm changing my approach from evidential apologetics to the Calvinist presuppositional approach I am convinced is the only viable approach. I won't be derailed by these theatrics anymore,

Have you really interacted with many biological scientists with the questions you are unsure about? I will readily agree with you that there are irrational atheists aplenty on Internet discussion boards. I'm sure a case can be made that the very demographic likely to spend most of their time on Internet forums is the demographic most likely to host angry immature anti-religionists. But have you ever talked to science people? Or do you assume that they cannot be talked to?

They argue in circles around two central assumptions, the a priori assumption of universal common descent and the incredulity of creationists. It is unbending and colors ever reaction to creationism I have encountered. I talk to these scientific and academic professionals on a regular basis and they simply don't have any rules of ethics or civility when it comes to attacking creationists. The fallacious nature of their arguments makes engaging them on the issues is tantamount to playing the fool in a mock opera.

Because such prophecies are self-fulfilling, you know; and to be quite frank, I think sfs has been far more reasonable with you than you have ever been with any evolutionist I saw you talk with here.

I happened to like sfs very much and I was thrilled to have the opportunity to talk to him. He was one of the few I considered reasonable and genuinely concerned with raising the level of discussion. You him and the others went on for five pages in a previous discussion ranting about how a transcript error is not a mutation. I clearly demonstrated that an uncorrected transcript error was a mutation and I am convinced that all you intended to do was to contradict me.

It happened again on CARM only it was the opening line from the Kimball Biology pages discussion of mutations. I paraphrased the opening line and when I showed them both the credentials and context of the statement they refused to soften their unbridled criticism of the statement.

Frankly I am appalled that these debates and discussions are joined by academic and scientific professional who encourage this. I was patient and as studious and thorough and I was capable of. I often invited the more serious debaters to formal debates and when they demonstrated the courage of their convictions they won my respect. You on the other hand refused even in an open invitation to a formal debate made by you.

I have decided on another approach simply because it has became impossible to reach creationists and expose the evolutionist's fallacious debate tactics when they flood every thread with insults and mockery. It may come to nothing but I will no longer aid these mob scene debates in making a spectacle of a Christian view of origins. You guys have lost your credibility with me and now I'm going after your false assumptions, straight up, flat out.

7-7-7 sealed my opinion of CF and the pretense that this is supposed to be a fellowship forum has become evident and obvious. One thing is sure, the evidential approach is worse then useless when dealing with the rhetorical theatrics of evolutionists on this topic.

Think what you like but I am through playing this game with you. You don't like my take on the evidence? Ok fine but you are really going to hate presuppositional apologetics and it's coming buddy, rest assured.

Have a nice day

Mark

shernren · #44 25th September 2008, 09:08 PM

I will limit my replies to what I hope will build friendship between me and the creationists who hang around here.

Originally Posted by mark kennedy

I'm not playing this game with you anymore, everyone of you talks to creationists like they are fools. I've backed up what I have said with relevant, current scientific literature and you continue to consume the substance of the discussion with incessant ad hominem attacks. TEs are the worst and I consider it little more then another form of Liberal Theology that seeks to supplant traditional Christian theology with a secular philosophy.

They argue in circles around two central assumptions, the a priori assumption of universal common descent and the incredulity of creationists. It is unbending and colors ever reaction to creationism I have encountered. I talk to these scientific and academic professionals on a regular basis and they simply don't have any rules of ethics or civility when it comes to attacking creationists. The fallacious nature of their arguments makes engaging them on the issues is tantamount to playing the fool in a mock opera.

Honestly, mark. I really wish we were talking face to face so that you could look me in the eye and tell me:

1. that I am a liberal theologian or subscribe unquestioningly to liberal theology;
2. that I presume that all creationists are incredulous and treat them all as fools without second thought.

To the first, I stand by what I have said before, but which you seem to conveniently ignore every time I try to disagree with you on something:

Originally Posted by shernren

As I have said before and will say again, I believe that I am inherently sinful as a human, that Jesus Christ died on the cross for my sins and that His atoning sacrifice avails for the propitiation of my transgressions before God's righteous judgment because He has imputed His righteousness to me. What more can you ask from a Christian?

Originally Posted by shernren

Of course I am affirming the historicity of an enormous number of miracles mark, it's about time you agreed with me about that! But I believe that every miracle the Bible bears witness to left behind substantial, impartially detectable physical evidence which would not have existed if the miracle had not happened (even though in most cases that physical evidence is of too small magnitude to detect today by conventional historical methods). In plain terms, if Richard Dawkins had been by the tomb come Easter Sunday and looked inside he would still have seen it empty, however he chose to explain it afterwards. I'm sure you can agree with me on that.

Do those sound like the statements of a liberal theologian, mark? Of course I read liberal theology and I try to appropriate whatever I find Biblical and helpful, knowing full well that in many cases liberal theology is neither.

As for the second - just show me where I have treated you as a fool. Just show me where I have assumed that you don't know what you're talking about. To be entirely fair I will ask you (and any other creationist, and any other evolutionist) if you know what you're talking about ... but only if prior conversation shows it. Take for example my recent conversation with mindlight on dark matter over at the main forum. Did I treat him as a fool?

Originally Posted by shernren

I mean ... what do you want to know about dark matter and dark energy? Ask away. You might be surprised at what we know.

Is this how you would talk to someone you assumed was a fool, mark?

I hope you won't be offended by my modest suggestion that perhaps, mark, if there are inherent presuppositions that the other side is not going to be reasonable ... they aren't coming from us.

Originally Posted by mark kennedy

You on the other hand refused even in an open invitation to a formal debate made by you.

I can't believe you're still harping on this, mark. I believe I was entirely within my rights to withdraw an invitation to debate that, after all, I had initiated. I just happened to think that there were more important things for me to do at that time than debating an ill-formed motion with an opponent possessing both your caliber and your vitriol. Like living real life. Will you please stop confusing that for intellectual cowardice?

Originally Posted by mark kennedy

You guys have lost your credibility with me and now I'm going after your false assumptions, straight up, flat out.

I really wonder which of my "false assumptions" you're going to go for, mark. That the Bible is divinely inspired? That miracles did and do really occur? That Jesus Christ was God incarnate who was born of a virgin, crucified at the hands of Pontius Pilate, and rose from the dead? Oh, please tell me which of the five points of TULIP I am erroneous in believing.

What would make you think that

Originally Posted by mark kennedy

you are really going to hate presuppositional apologetics

mark? Apologetics is for convincing non-believers, remember? Talking apologetics to me is like trying to convert your pastor: it's fun and I don't see why your pastor would get offended unless you actually thought he needed conversion. I really don't know where you're going to learn your presuppositional apologetics from, though; you'd have to start with Cornelius Van Til, but I can't foresee you being friendly with the man who conceived the framework hypothesis ...

mark kennedy · #45 28th September 2008, 01:10 AM

Originally Posted by shernren

I will limit my replies to what I hope will build friendship between me and the creationists who hang around here.

Yea right.

Honestly, mark. I really wish we were talking face to face so that you could look me in the eye and tell me:

1. that I am a liberal theologian or subscribe unquestioningly to liberal theology;

You express nothing but a secular philosophy that is overtly hostile to Christian theism. If we were eye to eye you would hear a lot more about the heretical nature of dialectical humanism. So tell me, you still a big fan of Tillich?

2. that I presume that all creationists are incredulous and treat them all as fools without second thought.

You say that like you ever gave to slightest indication to the contrary. Honestly I don't think you have the slightest interest in a fellowship post, you just candy coat you venom with the phrase.

To the first, I stand by what I have said before, but which you seem to conveniently ignore every time I try to disagree with you on something:

That's supernatural is it not? As a matter of fact I don't ignore it but I pressed you on it repeatedly and you finally said, 'yea, I believe it so what'. Paul Tillich said he believed in God but it was just an abstraction, I don't doubt that you are doing something similar.

Do those sound like the statements of a liberal theologian, mark? Of course I read liberal theology and I try to appropriate whatever I find Biblical and helpful, knowing full well that in many cases liberal theology is neither.

Yea actually it does otherwise we would be talking about the historicity of Scripture rather then talking around it. Theistic evolution is just another version of Liberal Theology, apparently the religion is appealing but the convictions are negotiable to secularists.

As for the second - just show me where I have treated you as a fool. Just show me where I have assumed that you don't know what you're talking about. To be entirely fair I will ask you (and any other creationist, and any other evolutionist) if you know what you're talking about ... but only if prior conversation shows it. Take for example my recent conversation with mindlight on dark matter over at the main forum. Did I treat him as a fool?

I'm sure you corrected him constantly, that's what you always do, that's what you are doing now. It's in every post and didn't you notice that creationists were actually plentiful on here for a short time. Then you guys invade and they just fade away. You wonder why?

Maybe it had something to do with the over abundance of 'fellowship posts' drenched in secular venom.

Is this how you would talk to someone you assumed was a fool, mark?

Yea, they would just constantly correct me and continually break it down to kindergarten level.

I hope you won't be offended by my modest suggestion that perhaps, mark, if there are inherent presuppositions that the other side is not going to be reasonable ... they aren't coming from us.

Right, like you don't nurse, propagate and pontificate a priori naturalistic assumptions regarding common descent. I'm not offended and it's not modest to insist that it is incredulity (ignorance) not to accept universal common descent unconditionally.

I can't believe you're still harping on this, mark. I believe I was entirely within my rights to withdraw an invitation to debate that, after all, I had initiated. I just happened to think that there were more important things for me to do at that time than debating an ill-formed motion with an opponent possessing both your caliber and your vitriol. Like living real life. Will you please stop confusing that for intellectual cowardice?

It was a scornful taunt you don't expect anyone to take you up on. Heliocentric astronomy has never been a Biblical issue except to Medieval Aristotelian clerics. Darwin has become the modern Aristotle and that represents the modern heliocentricism. It's rather odd that you never tire of responding to my posts but for whatever reason lack the vitriol to deal with me formally. It couldn't be because it's harder to draw a crowd that way.

I really wonder which of my "false assumptions" you're going to go for, mark. That the Bible is divinely inspired? That miracles did and do really occur? That Jesus Christ was God incarnate who was born of a virgin, crucified at the hands of Pontius Pilate, and rose from the dead? Oh, please tell me which of the five points of TULIP I am erroneous in believing.

I think your just spoon feeding me what you think I want to hear, that's what I think. You have no problem believing the God took on human nature and you see no way he could have specially created man from the dust, I don't get it. Theology is not a rule book, it's a conviction that people are born in sin and cannot escape by their own efforts.

What would make you think that

yea you are just going to keep running it in circles, somehow I'm not supprised.

mark? Apologetics is for convincing non-believers, remember?

No it's not, it's a legal defense in court against accusations. The term just came to mean a defense of the faith and the view has always been on ministering to the Church, not to persuade the proud scoffer.

Talking apologetics to me is like trying to convert your pastor: it's fun and I don't see why your pastor would get offended unless you actually thought he needed conversion. I really don't know where you're going to learn your presuppositional apologetics from, though; you'd have to start with Cornelius Van Til, but I can't foresee you being friendly with the man who conceived the framework hypothesis ...

I have read Van Til but he is not the only Presuppositional Apologist out there, try Therefore Stand by Wilbur Smith sometime. Of course you missed my point entirely, the evidential approach is utterly worthless. I don't go around defending the historicity of Scripture to believers, or unbelievers for that matter. It seems to me that after 20 years of having an active interest and nearly incessant appetite for Christian Apologetics that I wouldn't really need any advice on where to start.

Now you want to condescend to me about Christian apologetic, that's a hoot.

GratiaCorpusChristi · #46 28th September 2008, 07:55 PM

Originally Posted by shrenren

I really don't know where you're going to learn your presuppositional apologetics from, though; you'd have to start with Cornelius Van Til, but I can't foresee you being friendly with the man who conceived the framework hypothesis ...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Goodness me, that's got to be one of the funniest things I've seen in ages. Good call!!

Melethiel · #47 28th September 2008, 07:59 PM

Honestly shernren, it's not worth it. We'll never convince mark that we're actually Christians who are actually quite serious about the traditional, historical, Christian faith handed down from the Saints. The time could be better spent worshiping God and going about doing His work than arguing with those who hate us.

busterdog · #48 1st October 2008, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by Melethiel

those who hate us.

reprove, not hate

mark kennedy · #49 3rd October 2008, 09:40 PM

Originally Posted by Melethiel

Honestly shernren, it's not worth it. We'll never convince mark that we're actually Christians who are actually quite serious about the traditional, historical, Christian faith handed down from the Saints. The time could be better spent worshiping God and going about doing His work than arguing with those who hate us.

Dear I don't hate you and certainly don't hate shernen <staff edit>. I don't hate or despise Buddhists for being Buddhists and consider their religion comparable with Christianity but core convictions are not forthcoming. You may well be Christians after a fashion but when you convictions lead you to simply hurl insults and criticisms at other professing Christians I'm thinking your philosophy is all you care about, not the primacy of the faith.

Only once have I heard the gospel from a TE, that just doesn't cut it with me. As far as I can tell TE is devoid of theology and at best you are being used by secular materialists and atheists to attack a literal interpretation of Scripture and when they are satisfied they have effectively neutralized creationism and the many forms of fundamentalist theology your next.

I hope you like your friends because they don't have any more regard for your religion then they have for mine. Theism is the target, not creationism.

Obviously you have lost all regard for creationists as Christians and that's on you. My personal opinion is that the Life Sciences have nothing to do natural history and they know it, their aim is cultural not scientific. So they encourage TEs to continue their full court press of creationism but it won't end there. TE is secular humanism, nothing more. I don't hate people for their sincere convictions but I reserve the right to regard only what I can recognized as proceeding from Christian conviction and to reject what I consider a philosophy simply put in theological terminology.

Such a philosophy is TE and while I do not hate it I do not now, nor have I ever regarded it as Christian. It is nothing more then a contentious and divisive secular philosophy and if it's not then it's something worse.

mark kennedy · #50 3rd October 2008, 09:50 PM

Originally Posted by busterdog

reprove, not hate

I don't hate anyone, this is an intellectual exercise for me. I feel like they have been taken in by a subtle and venomous philosophy and it's going to cost them in the long run. My convictions are not threatened, I know what I believe and why I believe it. Right now I'm just reading up on the subject and enjoying learning about the Life Sciences without the dry drama.

I don't hate them at all, I don't even dislike them. I simply get nothing out of discussing these things with them anymore, not sure I ever did.