What is Creationism?

Originally posted by Micaiah
I reject the theory of evolution. I propose another explanation for origins - the expalnation provided in Scripture. I am not under the slightest compulsion to disprove evolution.

So you admit that your denial of evolution is scriptural and not empirical.

I seek to assist those who have been fooled into thinking we came spontaneously from nothing as a result of random chance.

I seek the same thing. That is why I teach people about evolution.

If you wish to demonstrate that the theory of evolution has been proven scientifically as fact, then I await a catalogue of fossils that shows the evidence of say the evolution from ape top man.

Okay, I can now only assume that you do not know anything about the evidence for human evolution. You have claimed that the evidence is insufficient, yet have made it very clear that you don't know about the evidence. That amounts to an argument from ignorance. If you have no knowledge about something then you cannot pass judgement on its validity. There is a good reason why convictions can be overturned if the jury or judge slept through the trial.

Here is a site that catalogs fossil hominid finds: Fossil Hominids.

Hominid Species

Hominid Fossils

Comparason of Skulls

More Skulls

The Journal of Human Evolution

A Theistic Viewpoint

The Chromosome Challenge

hominids2_big.jpg


(BTW, save yourself the trouble with arguments on evolution not being the result of chance, and evolutionists not believing man coming from nothing. We know these responses and have dealt with them many times in the past.)

:rolleyes: Do you build your house out of straw too?
 
Upvote 0

Pete Harcoff

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce
Jun 30, 2002
8,304
71
✟9,874.00
Faith
Other Religion
Originally posted by Micaiah
(BTW, save yourself the trouble with arguments on evolution not being the result of chance, and evolutionists not believing man coming from nothing. We know these responses and have dealt with them many times in the past.)

Then why needlessly repeat things like "spontaneously from nothing as a result of random chance"? All this shows is you're not paying attention.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by Micaiah
Are these sites adequate evidence for you to state conclusively that man evolved from apes?

They are just a minor part of all the evidence. But yes, the fossil lineage, the morphological similarities (humans are apes), genetic similarities, and the structure of the bifurcating tree of life are enough to conclusively conclude that we share common ancestors with the rest of the apes.
 
Upvote 0

Micaiah

Well-Known Member
Dec 29, 2002
2,444
37
61
Western Australia
Visit site
✟2,837.00
Faith
Christian
Originally posted by RufusAtticus
They are just a minor part of all the evidence. But yes, the fossil lineage, the morphological similarities (humans are apes), genetic similarities, and the structure of the bifurcating tree of life are enough to conclusively conclude that we share common ancestors with the rest of the apes.

I take that to be a yes. I don't share your confidence. As the history of the various supposed fossils indicates, there have been a number of frauds that have fooled even the experts. That demonstrates how wrong pwople can be about the fossil evidence.
 
Upvote 0

Arikay

HI
Jan 23, 2003
12,674
207
40
Visit site
✟21,317.00
Faith
Taoist
Well, he said that this was only a small amount of all the evidence out there.

People have gotten fossils wrong, but they have been corrected. They are only individual fossils. The amount of fossils that they have gotten right, out weighs the number they have gotten wrong, by a huge factor.

The most famous fraud fossil is old, and even the correction of it, is almost 50 years old.



Originally posted by Micaiah
I take that to be a yes. I don't share your confidence. As the history of the various supposed fossils indicates, there have been a number of frauds that have fooled even the experts. That demonstrates how wrong pwople can be about the fossil evidence.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by Micaiah
I take that to be a yes. I don't share your confidence. As the history of the various supposed fossils indicates, there have been a number of frauds that have fooled even the experts. That demonstrates how wrong pwople can be about the fossil evidence.

Really now? What frauds would you be talking about? They wouldn't happen to be ones like Piltdown man (which was never taken seriously out side of Britian) that were disproved in part because they didn't agree with the rest of the fossil record. You must really be grasping at straws if your only response is "they could still be wrong." Are you going to argue that the DNA evidence is also a fraud? What about the morphological eviodence?
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
2nd February 2003 at 10:21 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #68

Because the Bible is truth. If their theory does not line up with the Bible, then their theory must be a lie. We know that all liars will be thrown into the lake of fire. Esp. those who give false testimony.  

Here you are confusing your interpretation of the Bible with the Bible. Post one scientific paper that shows that God does not exist, God did not create, or that Jesus was not the Son of God.  These seem to be the basics of the Christian faith, the theological messages of the Bible. 

Since giving false testimony gets you thrown in the lake of fire, according to Revelations, then that lake is filled with professional creationists, who give false testimony constantly.

However, John, thank you for making your position so clear.  Any evidence that goes against your interpretation of the Bible is wrong. Never mind that it comes from the second of God's books -- Creation -- it is wrong.  It's nice to know that you set yourself up as higher than God.
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
2nd February 2003 at 10:34 PM David Gould said this in Post #70

The Bible may be true, but which interpretation of it is true? Which interpretation of the Bible must science line its theories up with or be considered as lying?

It makes more sense (imo) to allow the findings of science to inform us as to which interpretations of the Bible are false.

Thus, it is obligatory on the interpeters of the Bible to line their interpretation up with the theory of science.

Else they will be thrown into the pit of fire as liars ...

Thank you, David.  You said what I did only better. I should have read your post before I did mine and just referenced it for John. 
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
3rd February 2003 at 05:03 AM Micaiah said this in Post #75

From what I can see, the evolutionist camp has its own breed of 'fundamentalists'. These are the fanatics who refuse to accept reasonable evidence that we are not the result of chance.

Interestingly there are a number of folks who from within that camp who recognise it is improbable enough to be impossible, and are looking for other expalnations.

Micaiah, science has never said the we are the result of "chance".  The physical processes of the universe are not chance. Evolution is not chance.  Selection is the exact opposite of chance; it is pure determinism.

The ones "within the camp" simply don't understand the science outside their own specialty.  Hoyle and is probabilistic "calculations" on proteins, for instance.

In general, physicists don't understand evolution and natural selection.
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
3rd February 2003 at 05:19 AM Micaiah said this in Post #77

I seek to assist those who have been fooled into thinking we came spontaneously from nothing as a result of random chance.

Well good, then you are on the side of science then, since science never said humans popped into existence from nothing as a result of random chance.

I reject the theory of evolution. I propose another explanation for origins - the expalnation provided in Scripture. I am not under the slightest compulsion to disprove evolution. 

If you want to claim the mantle of science, you most certainly are under the most severe compulsion to disprove evolution.  Science works by falsification.  If you can't falsify an idea, it stays on the table.

I've told you this before, and you ignored it. I'll try again. You should be thankful science works this way, because it keeps deity possible for science. Since science can't disprove the existence of deity or that deity created, it remains a possibility.  Look at all the atheist arguments against the existence of deity; they all try to get around falsification as the criteria to judge whether entities exist or not.

If you wish to demonstrate that the theory of evolution has been proven scientifically as fact, then I await a catalogue of fossils that shows the evidence of say the evolution from ape top man.

Done that, three times. You ignored the list all three times.  One time in this thread.  Until you address that list you have nothing.


(BTW, save yourself the trouble with arguments on evolution not being the result of chance, and evolutionists not believing man coming from nothing. We know these responses and have dealt with them many times in the past.)

Then cite the post, please. I haven't seen you do it once. All I've seen is the assertions, not dealing with the responses.
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
6th February 2003 at 11:52 PM Micaiah said this in Post #86

I take that to be a yes. I don't share your confidence. As the history of the various supposed fossils indicates, there have been a number of frauds that have fooled even the experts. That demonstrates how wrong pwople can be about the fossil evidence.

I know of two 'frauds' within the hominid lineage: Piltdown and Nebraska.  Now, can you show me that OH-7, 13, 14, 24, Omo -1 and 2, Broken Hill, ER-3733, 1813, 1805, LH-18, Tautavel, Petralona, and Mabwa are frauds?  I'm listening.
 
Upvote 0

MartinM

GondolierAce
Feb 9, 2003
4,215
258
42
Visit site
✟5,655.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Engaged
Upvote 0

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Today at 11:10 AM lucaspa said this in Post #92 
If you can't falsify an idea, it stays on the table. 


I guess you can clutter up your table with whatever you want to clutter it up with. The banquet table we eat at is not cluttered up with a lot of junk. It only has good wholesome food on it.

Usually when my wife invites people over for dinner, she clears all the clutter and all the junk off of the table.

Untell you actually come up with a better mouse trap and prove that it is works, then the average person could care less anyways. They are just to polite to say anything.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Nathan Poe

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2002
32,198
1,693
49
United States
✟41,319.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
Today at 02:06 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #95

I guess you can clutter up your table with whatever you want to clutter it up with. The banquet table we eat at is not cluttered up with a lot of junk. It only has good wholesome food on it.

Usually when my wife invites people over for dinner, she clears all the clutter and all the junk off of the table.

Untell you actually come up with a better mouse trap and prove that it is works, then the average person could care less anyways. They are just to polite to say anything.

I gotta tell you John, I love it when you don't even pretend to follow the thread. The honesty is refreshing.
 
Upvote 0

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Today at 07:37 PM Nathan Poe said this in Post #96 I gotta tell you John, I love it when you don't even pretend to follow the thread. The honesty is refreshing.

Proverbs 21:24
    A proud and haughty man--"Scoffer" is his name;
    He acts with arrogant pride.
 

Proverbs 22:10
    Cast out the scoffer, and contention will leave;
    Yes, strife and reproach will cease.
 


 
 
Upvote 0

Arikay

HI
Jan 23, 2003
12,674
207
40
Visit site
✟21,317.00
Faith
Taoist
John:

can you explain to me what this has to do with explaining what creationism is?

Today at 05:09 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #97 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=647497#post647497)

Proverbs 21:24
    A proud and haughty man--"Scoffer" is his name;
    He acts with arrogant pride.
 

Proverbs 22:10
    Cast out the scoffer, and contention will leave;
    Yes, strife and reproach will cease.
 


 
 
Upvote 0

Nathan Poe

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2002
32,198
1,693
49
United States
✟41,319.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
Today at 08:28 PM Arikay said this in Post #98

John:

can you explain to me what this has to do with explaining what creationism is?


I think he's responding to me. He says "scoffer" like it's a bad thing.

And he does have a point (or I should say,Proverbs 22:10 has a good point): When you cast out scoffers, and only allow in people who agree with you, the strife and reproach does tend to wear down.

But I'm a scoffing boomerang: The harder you cast me out, the harder I come back. :p
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Today at 02:06 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #95

I guess you can clutter up your table with whatever you want to clutter it up with. The banquet table we eat at is not cluttered up with a lot of junk. It only has good wholesome food on it. 


I agree with Nathan, your non-sequitors are quite amusing.  Of course, they undermine your credibility about everything you post, but they are quite amusing.  The junk food of these forums, if you will.

John, let's walk you thru this one more time in hopes that you finally get it.

1. Micaiah made the claim that he rejected evolution.

2. Micaiah claims that is opinions are based on science.

3. Micaiah claimed that he was not required to falsify evolution.

Now, those 3 claims don't go together.  Science works by falsification and, if you invoke science, you must falsify.

If you reject ideas on any other criteria, you aren't doing science.

Now, you and Micaiah should like that criteria and process of science.  Because it prevents science from rejecting theism and deity. That you use criteria other than science to reject entities means that you are accepting the arguments of atheists.  The Logical Positivists had the same idea that you do -- don't clutter up your table with all kinds of preposterous ideas.  And one of the ideas that they considered preposterous was the existence of God.  Therefore, using the exact criteria that you proposed, they decided that God didn't exist!

Are you sure you are not an undercover atheist, John?    You are certainly one of the best destroyers of Christianity I have yet met!
 
Upvote 0