Creationists False on Key Point

[Speedwell]

Without interpretation no text has a meaning.
That doesn't mean you need a presupposition, and frankly, as a theist, it's silly to subscribe to far fetched and problematic naturalistic (i.e. atheistic) models for origins of our highly complex ad fine tuned reality (and (some of) its problems).
Also, we're supposed to test everything. (if possible)Well, i just read the text and i try to understand what it wants to get across.

You read ancient Hebrew fluently? You understand ancient Hebrew literary forms--as used in the Bible and other ancient Hebrew literature? I don't. I need the expert help of scholars and theologians to understand "what it wants to get across."

 

[Hieronymus]

You read ancient Hebrew fluently?

I don't, but scholars do and they share their knowledge.
The ESV (for example, most other too) renders it fine.

You understand ancient Hebrew literary forms--as used in the Bible and other ancient Hebrew literature? I don't. I need the expert help of scholars and theologians to understand "what it wants to get across."

It's a must (i.m.o.) to verify stuff, yes. "Test everything" (if possible)
But you also know that there is nowhere in Scripture a hint to Genesis 1 being allegorical.
It is hard to believe for us modern folks, that's a fact.
But what other than a day can anyone make of "and it was evening and it was morning, the 1-6th day", really?
Sure, it could be "God's days" somehow, but then you're trying to put naturalistic presuppositions in your interpretation.
It doesn't change the text telling us God created every kind of organism more or less 'as is', and kind begets kind.

Should mention though, that both the fall in Genesis 3 and the Flood (according to Scripture) had consquences for the organisms and nature as a whole.
The point we're discussing is obviously if DNA can (re)write itself by dead unconscious forces.
And that's just highly unlikely, if not impossible.

 

[Speedwell]

I don't, but scholars do and they share their knowledge.
The ESV (for example, most other too) renders it fine.It's a must (i.m.o.) to verify stuff, yes. "Test everything" (if possible)
But you also know that there is nowhere in Scripture a hint to Genesis 1 being allegorical.
It is hard to believe for us modern folks, that's a fact.
But what other than a day can anyone make of "and it was evening and it was morning, the 1-6th day", really?
Sure, it could be "God's days" somehow, but then you're trying to put naturalistic presuppositions in your interpretation.
It doesn't change the text telling us God created every kind of organism more or less 'as is', and kind begets kind.

Should mention though, that both the fall in Genesis 3 and the Flood (according to Scripture) had consquences for the organisms and nature as a whole.
The point we're discussing is obviously if DNA can (re)write itself by dead unconscious forces.
And that's just highly unlikely, if not impossible.

Then your scholars have betrayed you if you think that the only options are 100% accurate literal history or "allegory."
Whoever is explained the theory of evolution to you isn't telling you the truth either.

 

[Hieronymus]

Then your scholars have betrayed you if you think that the only options are 100% accurate literal history or "allegory."
Whoever is explained the theory of evolution to you isn't telling you the truth either.

So you assume...

 

[Speedwell]

So you assume...

I don't have to assume anything; it's beyond argument. Science may be wrong about the theory of evolution, but they are not wrong about what the theory says, right or wrong.

Suppose someone said to you, "Christianity is stupid because it claims Jesus was an Olympic figure skater and the faithful are all going to heaven on ice skates", and called your denial of that foolishness "an assumption."

That is how your rejection of the theory of evolution comes across.

 

[Hieronymus]

I don't have to assume anything; it's beyond argument.

No.

Science may be wrong about the theory of evolution, but they are not wrong about what the theory says, right or wrong.

Suppose someone said to you, "Christianity is stupid because it claims Jesus was an Olympic figure skater and the faithful are all going to heaven on ice skates", and called your denial of that foolishness "an assumption."

That is how your rejection of the theory of evolution comes across.

I think i have explained my point of view in the first pages of this topic.
Evolution lacks evidence and it's improbable if not impossible.
IF God exists, creation is likely and probable.
Ever so much more explanatory power than dead unconscious unintelligent purposeless processes.
It's the problem of (the existence of) evil that gives us doubts and / or reluctance (i.m.o.).

 

[Speedwell]

No.

I think i have explained my point of view in the first pages of this topic.
Evolution lacks evidence and it's improbable if not impossible.

How would you know? You have no idea what the theory actually claims.

IF

God exists, creation is likely and probable.

Hint: it says nothing about whether God exists, one way or the other.

Ever so much more explanatory power than dead unconscious unintelligent purposeless processes.
It's the problem of (the existence of) evil that gives us doubts and / or reluctance (i.m.o.).

Wow. Well, if I expect to get to heaven, I'd better go out and buy ice skates.

 

[Dale]

I originally said:
Creationists are not fighting science, that's a gross misnomer. It's not even opposed to evolution as properly defined scientifically, it's defined as the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time. Darwinism is the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means.

Then you replied with this anecdotal...whatever it is....
I'll have to differ on this. Where I live, a local judge, who is a Baptist, delivered a sermon where he said, “Evolution is stupid” at least three times. From his following remarks it is clear that by evolution he means science, he does not distinguish between the two. This is only one example of someone who clearly believes that fighting science and fighting for Christianity are one and the same.

I defined both Darwinism and you equivocated a random statement that obviously equivocated Darwinism and evolution in the first place. The are not the same thing, pretending that they are is the essence of the relentless fallacious logic of Darwinism.

Then I say:
Christianity wasn't weakened by Darwinism, in fact, the conflict over creationism and Darwinian logic has been a profoundly important addition to Christian Apologetics.

And you blissfully respond:


Which tells me you never read Darwin and you don't know the definition of evolution

all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)
​

The philosophical reconciliation of natural selection and genetics was known as the Modern Synthesis, aka neodarwinism.

Define evolution. Seriously, what is the scientific definition for evolution? Because you will find that it's not universal common ancestry by exclusively naturalistic means going all the way back to and including the Big Bang. It's actually the change of alleles in populations over time. Or you can repeat this equivocation in circles, that's what most evolutionists do.

Have a nice day
Mark

Reply to Mark Kennedy in Post #206:

Mark Kennedy:

<< Creationists are not fighting science, that's a gross misnomer. >>


On the contrary, they do nothing else. I wish they would defend Christianity, instead they attack science. I'll give another example. Where I live, a few years ago I bought a book sold, probably at cost, by a local church, a Pentecostal church. This book is The Evolution Cruncher by Vance Ferrell. It is over a thousand pages and the Pentecostals apparently think it is the last word in the struggle against science, I mean evolution.


Instead of being the last word on the subject, Vance Ferrell sets a world record for how many mistakes can be made in one book. He leaves you wondering if he could pass sixth grade science.


As an example of the endless blunders made by Ferrell, try zebras and hummingbirds.

Ferrell says that a zebra is a type of horse.
Science says that there is one species of horse and three species of zebra.
Ferrell says that there is one species of hummingbird.
Science says that there are over three hundred species of hummingbird.


In other words, Ferrell makes incredible blunders even in matters that can be very easily checked. It's not so much that he's wrong as that he doesn't care. When you deal with creationists, you are dealing with people who put their guesses above the conclusions reached by the recognized experts. Even worse, they do this even for subjects where they have no knowledge, no experience, things they haven't spent any time on. They simply don't care what the experts think.


Mark Kennedy goes on to say that my story of a judge who says “Evolution is stupid” is an anecdote. Actually, I was able to do a refutation of the judge's absurd views that was printed in two newspapers, who considered it of general interest.

 

[Dale]

I originally said:
Creationists are not fighting science, that's a gross misnomer. It's not even opposed to evolution as properly defined scientifically, it's defined as the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time. Darwinism is the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means.

Then you replied with this anecdotal...whatever it is....
I'll have to differ on this. Where I live, a local judge, who is a Baptist, delivered a sermon where he said, “Evolution is stupid” at least three times. From his following remarks it is clear that by evolution he means science, he does not distinguish between the two. This is only one example of someone who clearly believes that fighting science and fighting for Christianity are one and the same.

I defined both Darwinism and you equivocated a random statement that obviously equivocated Darwinism and evolution in the first place. The are not the same thing, pretending that they are is the essence of the relentless fallacious logic of Darwinism.

Then I say:
Christianity wasn't weakened by Darwinism, in fact, the conflict over creationism and Darwinian logic has been a profoundly important addition to Christian Apologetics.

And you blissfully respond:


Which tells me you never read Darwin and you don't know the definition of evolution

all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)
​

The philosophical reconciliation of natural selection and genetics was known as the Modern Synthesis, aka neodarwinism.

Define evolution. Seriously, what is the scientific definition for evolution? Because you will find that it's not universal common ancestry by exclusively naturalistic means going all the way back to and including the Big Bang. It's actually the change of alleles in populations over time. Or you can repeat this equivocation in circles, that's what most evolutionists do.

Have a nice day
Mark

Mark Kennedy in post #206:

<< Which tells me you never read Darwin and you don't know the definition of evolution. >>


I'm not sure who you think you are talking to. In High School, I took Biology 1, Biology II, and Molecular Biology Research. In other words, I took three years of biology. My teacher was given an award as the best teacher in the state. Since then, I have attended three universities and I have a degree in chemistry from Georgia Institute of Technology. I have a degree in the natural sciences from a major university. I also mix socially with people who are professional biologists.

If you want the definition of evolution, go to dictionary.com and read the definition under Biology. I'm not using some special definition made up for my own purposes.


Is it wrong to look for patterns in nature?


You seem to be trying to tell me that Charles Darwin is a philosopher, rather than a scientist.

One thing that I have read about Charles Darwin is that his children remember that he had a desk covered with barnacles. He spent countless hours examining barnacles to see what could be learned from them. Instead of being a philosopher with fixed ideas, he was an acute observer of the natural world, and a hands-on observer.

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark Kennedy in post #206:

<< Which tells me you never read Darwin and you don't know the definition of evolution. >>


I'm not sure who you think you are talking to. In High School, I took Biology 1, Biology II, and Molecular Biology Research. In other words, I took three years of biology. My teacher was given an award as the best teacher in the state. Since then, I have attended three universities and I have a degree in chemistry from Georgia Institute of Technology. I have a degree in the natural sciences from a major university. I also mix socially with people who are professional biologists.

If you want the definition of evolution, go to dictionary.com and read the definition under Biology. I'm not using some special definition made up for my own purposes.


Is it wrong to look for patterns in nature?


You seem to be trying to tell me that Charles Darwin is a philosopher, rather than a scientist.

One thing that I have read about Charles Darwin is that his children remember that he had a desk covered with barnacles. He spent countless hours examining barnacles to see what could be learned from them. Instead of being a philosopher with fixed ideas, he was an acute observer of the natural world, and a hands-on observer.

What is missing from your post is a definition of evolution that is not an equivocation with Darwinism. Actually I know what evolution is but I call for a definition because that's a cure for equivocation. The argument from credulity was equally telling, someone with so much knowledge should just be able to say ok, here's the definition, what's your point? You didn't do that, fallacious reasoning is impartial, it betrays the illiterate and well educated without prejudice.

 

[Dale]

Radrook,

I don't believe that any of your claims are true.

Do you understand that every day people are leaving Christianity because creationism doesn't make sense? I've talked to these people. No one ever became a Christian because they thought creationism works out.

I talk to people in their 80's who have been creationists all their lives. Even they can't make sense out of it. They still want to know who Adam and Eve's sons married. I don't have to ask this question, they bring it up.




Just to deal with your points (1) and (2):

Many creationists say that the world is 6,000 years old, even though written history alone goes back 6100 years.

Jesus never said that the world was 4,000 years old, when he was on earth.

Peter never said that the world was 4,000 years old.

Paul never said that the world was 4,000 years old.

Jude never said that the world was 4,000 years old.

Luke never said that the world was 4,000 years old.

Matthew never said that the world was 4,000 years old.

John never said that the world was 4,000 years old.

Objection duly noted.


Interpretation and rejection are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they usually go hand in hand.


Really? Very sad since then you unfortunately don't really understand Christianity.

BTW
Misspelling names in order to annoy proves NOTHING.

I have absolutely no difficulty locating original sin in Genesis and neither did first century Christians and all the millions of Christians who have followed them. Neither is there anything to defend since the Genesis contend concerning sin is self-explanatory. I think that you are tilting at windmills.

I didn't say a few chapters bon ami. I clearly said GENESIS.

Do you believe that written history goes back 6100 years?

It is clear that you have no answer to the points I made in post #227. Neither Jesus, Paul, Peter, Jude, of any of the Gospel authors ever said that the world was only 4,000 years old at that time.


I won't discuss Original Sin in this thread. Remind me to do a thread on it sometime.

 

[mark kennedy]

Reply to Mark Kennedy in Post #206:

Mark Kennedy:

<< Creationists are not fighting science, that's a gross misnomer. >>


On the contrary, they do nothing else. I wish they would defend Christianity, instead they attack science. I'll give another example. Where I live, a few years ago I bought a book sold, probably at cost, by a local church, a Pentecostal church. This book is The Evolution Cruncher by Vance Ferrell. It is over a thousand pages and the Pentecostals apparently think it is the last word in the struggle against science, I mean evolution.


Instead of being the last word on the subject, Vance Ferrell sets a world record for how many mistakes can be made in one book. He leaves you wondering if he could pass sixth grade science.


As an example of the endless blunders made by Ferrell, try zebras and hummingbirds.

Ferrell says that a zebra is a type of horse.
Science says that there is one species of horse and three species of zebra.
Ferrell says that there is one species of hummingbird.
Science says that there are over three hundred species of hummingbird.


In other words, Ferrell makes incredible blunders even in matters that can be very easily checked. It's not so much that he's wrong as that he doesn't care. When you deal with creationists, you are dealing with people who put their guesses above the conclusions reached by the recognized experts. Even worse, they do this even for subjects where they have no knowledge, no experience, things they haven't spent any time on. They simply don't care what the experts think.


Mark Kennedy goes on to say that my story of a judge who says “Evolution is stupid” is an anecdote. Actually, I was able to do a refutation of the judge's absurd views that was printed in two newspapers, who considered it of general interest.

This isn't that convoluted, it's really about cause and effect. You seem pretty well read, tell me how HAR1f accumulates 15 substitutions after accepting only two after hundreds of millions of years.

 

[Radrook]

Do you believe that written history goes back 6100 years?

It is clear that you have no answer to the points I made in post #227. Neither Jesus, Paul, Peter, Jude, of any of the Gospel authors ever said that the world was only 4,000 years old at that time.


I won't discuss Original Sin in this thread. Remind me to do a thread on it sometime.

I don't believe that the world is 4000 years old.

 

[Speedwell]

What is missing from your post is a definition of evolution that is not an equivocation with Darwinism. Actually I know what evolution is but I call for a definition because that's a cure for equivocation. The argument from credulity was equally telling, someone with so much knowledge should just be able to say ok, here's the definition, what's your point? You didn't do that, fallacious reasoning is impartial, it betrays the illiterate and well educated without prejudice.

"Any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."

That is the standard definition. I wait with interest your attempts to twist it into metaphysical naturalism.

 

[RickG]

On the contrary, they do nothing else. I wish they would defend Christianity, instead they attack science.

Just my personal view, but I think the creation science community and those who propagate it do more to push people away from Christianity than anything else.

 

[mark kennedy]

"Any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."

That is the standard definition. I wait with interest your attempts to twist it into metaphysical naturalism.

Notice the standard definition doesn't include universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means.

 

[Hieronymus]

Just my personal view, but I think the creation science community and those who propagate it do more to push people away from Christianity than anything else.

Yeah, and never mind the actual content of what they want to share.

 

[Speedwell]

Notice the standard definition doesn't include universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means.

I notice you've slipped in a metaphysical claim there. For the theist, nothing in reality is exclusively naturalistic. Science only explains the naturalistic part of it. The proposition that reality is exclusively naturalistic is a metaphysical statement which science does not make.

 

[RickG]

Yeah, and never mind the actual content of what they want to share.

The creation science literature is full of false claims, deliberate misrepresentations, and some stuff just made up. They present no original data or research, only opinions. The sad thing is that they target people with no scientific background and know their audience will never fact-check their information. I even know of one creation scientist, who has actual science credentials, who has published research in the mainstream scientific literature having no problem with an old earth, but also publishes in the creation science literature stating that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

 

[Hieronymus]

The creation science literature is full of false claims, deliberate misrepresentations, and some stuff just made up. They present no original data or research, only opinions. The sad thing is that they target people with no scientific background and know their audience will never fact-check their information. I even know of one creation scientist, who has actual science credentials, who has published research in the mainstream scientific literature having no problem with an old earth, but also publishes in the creation science literature stating that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

Now why are you not equally critical to naturalistic teachings of man?

You don't have to answer, i'm done with this.

Toodles.