a creationist mindset

[Christian Soldier]

"I suggest that you try reading The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins.   It explains evolution in a very easy-to-understand way, yet it maintains the complexity of evolution and natural selection.   What I especially recommend you read is the section on the minute, infinitesimal mutations and changes that lead, gradually over billions of years, to more complex organisms."

I read that enormous pile of speculation years ago. It's one of many evolutionist titles that I own. I especially enjoyed Dawkin's fairy tale about how the flying squirrel might have evolved. Sheer lunacy and quite funny. If that book is all you can recommend, you're nowhere close to convincing me.

By the way, I think it was more of an archaic bacterium that gave rise to homo sapiens over the aeons.

Oh my! Another meaningless opinion on what man allegedly evolved from. Why don't ALL the forum evos give us their opinion on what man allegedly evolved from, we'll probably end up with at least half a dozen or so unprovable hypotheses. Evolution is such an exact science---NOT!

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by Christian Soldier
"In other words some genuine human creativity is involved in the process of scientific discovery - not just pure rational scientific method."

Thank you for the very enlightening look into evolutionist methods of scientific inquiry. When "pure rational scientific method" repeatedly fails to prove their hypotheses, the evos just get "creative" and start making things up!

CS,

CS's remarks did not contain the data in your reply. I wonder where you dug it up?

 

 

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by Christian Soldier
Evolution is such an exact science---NOT! [/B]

No science is exact. Every science is precise.

 

[chickenman]

I apologise for my baseless rhetoric, hopefully christian soldier will see fit to do the same.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Einstein said "Imagination is more important then intelligence".
Imagination and creativity go hand in hand. Without the ability to imagine and think creatively, we would literaly not be able to envision, and therefor undersand scientific concepts. Creativity does not mean making things up, or lying as CS is insinuating.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Cristian Soldier has clumsily sidestepped my direct assteration (and indirect accusation) that he has not read the essay from which he quoted.

CS, have you or have you not actually read Stephen J Gould's "In the Mind of the Beholder." ? Yes or No.
If you have read it, then I have misjudged you.
If you have not read it, then it is irresponsible and intelectually dishonest of you to critique it based on a single out of context quote.

 

[sbbqb7n16]

Actually it sums up the "human" mindset. EVERYONE looks for the slightest way to make their case more presentable when trying to win an argument. It's all tactics and it's all human nature...

 

[Christian Soldier]

"No science is exact. Every science is precise."

Evolution is neither. Nor is evolution a science in itself. It is an unproven theory of the science of biology.

Please don't bore me with semantic games. Bottom line---there isn't an evolutionist alive who can prove humans evolved from a one-cell organism or anything else.

 

[chickenman]

http://www.registrar.fas.harvard.edu/Courses/BiologicalSciences.html

a course list of biological subjects at harvard

evolution is an integral part of modern biology

 

[Christian Soldier]

"Cristian Soldier has clumsily sidestepped my direct assteration (and indirect accusation) that he has not read the essay from which he quoted."

What in blue blazes is an "assteration"?!

"CS, have you or have you not actually read Stephen J Gould's "In the Mind of the Beholder." ? Yes or No.
If you have read it, then I have misjudged you.
If you have not read it, then it is irresponsible and intelectually dishonest of you to critique it based on a single out of context quote."

Let me explain something to you. I already had to straighten out Jerry on this particular point. I am a book distributor and retailer. I can buy books very cheaply. I have a personal library numbering in four figures, and my books on the creation-evolution debate number in three figures.

Most evos automatically assume that Creationists have never read any books or papers by prominent evolutionists. I have read Darwin, Dawkins, Gould, Ruse, Ager, Eldredge, Wilson, Prigogine, Huxley, Lewontin and many others. So don't bore me with your presumptuousness.

I rejected Darwinism BEFORE I was a Christian. I'm not a Young Earth Creationist, I don't know how old the earth is. I'm amused by the several evos on this forum who automatically brand anybody who doesn't blindly accept evolution as a YEC. Some evos here have foolishly assumed that I am one.

Most evos, not all, presume that evolution "proves" there is no God--or that science can never prove the existence of God. However, that view is not shared by even staunch evolutionists like Edward O. Wilson. In his book Consilience, Wilson states that science may indeed eventually prove the existence of a deist God. Stephen Hawking acknowledges that a deist God is a possibility. Einstein was a committed believer in a deist God.

The claim made by many atheists that all "highly educated" individuals are staunch atheists, is pure baloney.

Now to answer your question, I read Gould's essay in its original source, Natural History magazine, an evolutionist periodical. Since you claim to own the book that it later appeared in, I'm curious why you won't provide an extensive quotation from the book to bolster your argument. So far, you have given only your interpretation of what it says.

 

[Christian Soldier]

"a course list of biological subjects at harvard

evolution is an integral part of modern biology"

Your link does nothing to disprove my completely accurate statement that evolution is not a science in itself, like biology or chemistry. It is a theory of the science of biology. Please don't bore me with semantic games.

 

[Joe V.]

Please don't bore me with semantic games.

I would likewise ask the same of you, because all you've done so far is criticize evolution. Are you ever going to offer a better theory, or just provide us with the usual endless, ho-hum tirades against evolution?

- Joe

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by Christian Soldier
Most evos automatically assume that Creationists have never read any books or papers by prominent evolutionists. I have read Darwin, Dawkins, Gould, Ruse, Ager, Eldredge, Wilson, Prigogine, Huxley, Lewontin and many others. So don't bore me with your presumptuousness.

If you have truly read these people, then why do you consistently misrepresent their opinions?

I rejected Darwinism BEFORE I was a Christian. I'm not a Young Earth Creationist, I don't know how old the earth is. I'm amused by the several evos on this forum who automatically brand anybody who doesn't blindly accept evolution as a YEC. Some evos here have foolishly assumed that I am one.

Do you accept the scientific evidence that the Earth is ~4.5 billion years old and that the Universe is ~15 billion years old? If not, why not?

Most evos, not all, presume that evolution "proves" there is no God--or that science can never prove the existence of God.

Please tell us which of the evolutionists you listed above makes that claim and provide us a quote which illustrates that. You will not be able to do so.

However, that view is not shared by even staunch evolutionists like Edward O. Wilson. In his book Consilience, Wilson states that science may indeed eventually prove the existence of a deist God. Stephen Hawking acknowledges that a deist God is a possibility. Einstein was a committed believer in a deist God.

The claim made by many atheists that all "highly educated" individuals are staunch atheists, is pure baloney.

Please list several atheists who make this claim with quotes to support your assertion.

Now to answer your question, I read Gould's essay in its original source, Natural History magazine, an evolutionist periodical.

Please give us, then, a quick one or two sentence summary of what you think the point of the essay was.

 

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by Christian Soldier
"No science is exact. Every science is precise."

Evolution is neither. Nor is evolution a science in itself. It is an unproven theory of the science of biology.

Please don't bore me with semantic games.

or valid representations of scientific thought either, eh?

Repartee aside, do you not understand the scientific difference between accuracy and precision? If not, then I recommend a good science dictionary. They are invaluable references.

 

[sbbqb7n16]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
Do you accept the scientific evidence that the Earth is ~4.5 billion years old and that the Universe is ~15 billion years old? If not, why not?

Because no one is that old to say for a fact except God alone... and because all relative dates are based off specualtion about things they see... and there is no proof that time has always moved at the same rate either...

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

"Most evos, not all, presume that evolution "proves" there is no God"
Statistics please?

I bought Dinosaur in a Haystack at a used bookstore for $10 CDN, I can assure you I own it and am currently reading it. What exaclty would providing extensive references accomplish. I am sure I could find some of the essays published in that book on the web, then cut and paste them.

I gave you my interpretation of the essay, I also clearly pointed out that your quote was out of context and did not mean what you claimed.

"What in blue blazes is an "assteration"?! "
Proof that I can't spell

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by sbbqb7n16
Because no one is that old to say for a fact except God alone

I'm not asking if you accept it as absolute fact. I'm asking if you accept it as the best conclusion given the evidence.

.. and because all relative dates are based off specualtion about things they see...

False. The dates are based off of logical inferences made from the evidence. Radioactive decay, one of the primary sources of evidence, is hardly "speculation".

and there is no proof that time has always moved at the same rate either...

The same rate compared to what? If you accept Einstein's theory of relativity, then there is no such thing as absolute time.

 

[sbbqb7n16]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
I'm not asking if you accept it as absolute fact. I'm asking if you accept it as the best conclusion given the evidence.

I'm sorry... wait no I don't apologize for it... creation is the best conclusion from the given evidence, because it fills in all the blanks that Big Bang and evolution can't. What you really mean to say is "the best conclusion given the evidence-> apart from God" Because as soon as you put God into the equation everything else you think is automatically thrown off....

False. The dates are based off of logical inferences made from the evidence. Radioactive decay, one of the primary sources of evidence, is hardly "speculation".

So radioactive decay automatically makes the universe 4.3 billion years old (or whatever the current running number is)? However when a more relevant and fully substantiated source, such as the Bible, says otherwise... one is compelled to wonder. How do you know when the radioactive decay kicked in? How do you know how much was there before the decay? Are you calculating values for decayed substance that wasn't even there to begin with? Here's another thought... the moon currently moves away from the earth at what oh 1 or 2 inches a year... not much right? But consider this... it must have been closer to move away, right? Let's figure oh 1-2 inches a year for as many years as you would have us to believe and there is just not enough space for this to be possible...

The same rate compared to what? If you accept Einstein's theory of relativity, then there is no such thing as absolute time.

So how do you know how long anything has been around? Your logic confuses me a bit I must say...

 

[WinAce]

Originally posted by sbbqb7n16

So radioactive decay automatically makes the universe 4.3 billion years old (or whatever the current running number is)? However when a more relevant and fully substantiated source, such as the Bible, says otherwise... one is compelled to wonder.

Thanks for making me choke on a gulp of soda!

Funniest. Message. Ever. *Steals it for later use on Christian parody website*

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by sbbqb7n16
I'm sorry... wait no I don't apologize for it... creation is the best conclusion from the given evidence, because it fills in all the blanks that Big Bang and evolution can't.

I fail to see you creation can be the best conclusion given the evidence when there is not one scrap of emprical evidence to support it. We have repeatedly asked for such evidence on this board and received nothing in return.

What you really mean to say is "the best conclusion given the evidence-> apart from God" Because as soon as you put God into the equation everything else you think is automatically thrown off....

By that logic, why bother with any science? Why bother studying the workings of the atom if adding God into the equation makes our study worthless? Why study geology? Or chemistry? Isn't "putting God into the equation" just as likely to invalidate all of these sciences as it is evolution?

So radioactive decay automatically makes the universe 4.3 billion years old (or whatever the current running number is)?

Unless you are proposing that the laws of physics changed drastically at some point, yes.

However when a more relevant and fully substantiated source, such as the Bible, says otherwise... one is compelled to wonder. How do you know when the radioactive decay kicked in? How do you know how much was there before the decay? Are you calculating values for decayed substance that wasn't even there to begin with?

Do you think you're the first genius to ask these questions? None of your objections has any scientific merit.

Here's another thought... the moon currently moves away from the earth at what oh 1 or 2 inches a year... not much right? But consider this... it must have been closer to move away, right? Let's figure oh 1-2 inches a year for as many years as you would have us to believe and there is just not enough space for this to be possible...

Ah. The old, discredited, recession of the moon argument. See below for an explanation of why it is invalid.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html

So how do you know how long anything has been around? Your logic confuses me a bit I must say...

This introduction to radiometric dating will perhaps clarify the logic:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html