Creationists - Christ's worst enemies

[Upsilon]

To tocis:

How about we start off by defining why creation is essential to Christian doctrine with a quote from atheist Richard Bozarth:

Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.

In other words, Jesus' Earthly life is 100% predicted on Adam's Fall. This is why creation is so important to Christianity. In fact, I am simply surprised how and why many Christians reject Genesis and believe in evolution, in doing so destroying the reason for Jesus' death and why it was made possible.

Then, some two months after my deconversion, I came into contact with US-style "christianity" and the fundamentalist cults, including creationism.

This is your first flaw. Creation is not a "fundamentalist cult". Creation, either way you look at it is just saying God made everything - did He do it by evolution, or did He do it the way that He said He did in Genesis? These are two opposing views, for sake of argument we call a literal interpretation of Genesis "creation".

As a matter of fact, it's kind of silly to say "fundamentalist creationists". For one, what is creation? A literal reading of Genesis. What are creationists? People who believe a literal reading of Genesis. What is a fundamentalist? A person who literally reads and believes the Bible. In the case of Genesis, they both say the same thing! So, why not just drop the "fundamentalist" part considering that "creationist" means the same thing?

It was almost child's play for me to see through the painfully obvious lies and other dishonesties propagated by them ("evolutionists say that we are just animals"? Gee, funny, in all my biology lessons I never ever heard anything like that!).

Let's really see what is going on here, okay? Both creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence available to them, e.g. red shift of starlight, fossils, animals and plants, etc. Both creationists and evolutionists also have the same science to use, e.g. physics, genetics, chemistry and so on. Yet, for some reason we just can't seem to come to agreeance about the origin of the same piece of evidence, e.g. a fossil. Why is that? We are using the same evidence and the same science - so why do we come to different conclusions about the same piece of evidence? The answer: we interpret the evidence differently.

It should be noted that the facts don't "speak for themselves" and for us to conclude anything from them we have to firstly try and interpret them. Okay, so now we have a new varriable coming into the equation. It is obvious, therefore, that this interpretation is the only thing that is different when trying to determine the origin of the evidence. So, why is the interpretation of the same evidence using the same science different? Because the interpretation is based on some philosophy and belief that is taken to be true, e.g. millions of years, atheism, Christianity and that the Bible's account of what happened is true - for atheistic evolution and Christian creation respectively.

You don't believe me on all of my talk about there being interpretations? Try reading what Stephen Jay Gould (a name renoun to all of you I would assume) said:
Facts do not "speak for themselves"; they are read in the light of theory. Creative thought , in science as much as in the arts, is the motor of changing opinion. Science is a quintessentially human activity, not a mechanized, robot-like accumulation of objective information, leading by laws of logic to inescapable interpretation.

Even Darwin himself appears to acknowledge that the evidence must be interpreted by humans with initial beliefs that they know (i.e. believe) to be true:

For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this is here impossible.

What implications, then, does such a belief hold? It means thata belief in the theory of evolution [ in the sense that Darwin spoke of and which most of you agree with (i.e. microbe-to-man evolution or molecules-to-man evolution) ] is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, have been capable of proof. (L. Harrison Matthews, 1971).

Why, then do you believe that creation is "lies"? Because it goes against what you initially believe to be "truth". When something goes against what we perceive to be "truth", it is thus "lies" and "evil". This, is what you are like. I am not like you in this respect, I realise that evolution is just another interpretation of the evidence that IMO is false - but I don't go around screaming that it's "lies". I move to show how it's predictions don't match what we see in nature.

Also, if evolution is true, are we not just "naked apes"? In fact, Nietzsche called human beings "jumped-up apes"! If our ancestors are animals, why are we not? Who said we are not? Besides, man has been classified by many as an "animal". That said, most people, including myself, say "Man and the animals" as I believe that we are far higher than animals because we are made in the image of God (although not all believe the latter part). The idea that mankind is an animal is a natural conclusion derived from the belief that man evolved from animals. In fact, back a hundred and a bit years the Aboriginals in Australia were labelled as "animals" and many scientists arranged for people to go out and hunt them down and bring some back so they could be put in museums. THEY ARE MOST DEFINITELY HUMAN BEINGS. It shows how arrogrant man can be - they only reason why some people appear a "black" colour is because they have more melanin in their skin, hence making them dark brown. I, for example, don't have as much melanin in my skin thus making me appear "white", rather I am "light brown". Of course, they didn't know this then and they thought that "black skin" meant that they were the closest thing to the primitive animals from which we came. If only people believed what the Bible says in which we are all of "one blood" and everyone is equally important in God's eyes. If only some Christians would believe it!

Especially, I saw that the most common tactic of creationists is "If the unbelievers soundly refute my claims as nonsense, I'll just disappear for some days or weeks and then re-publish them. Sooner or later it will work!". In other words, supreme arrogance.

Even after posting this message I'll probably still have those evolutionists comes up and say, "Evolution is science, It's a proven fact", etc, etc, blah, blah. As you can see, evolutionists do exactly the same thing. They are being wilfully ignorant and will probably say, "I never saw anything in your whole post that supported your views" or say that I'm wrong without pointing out where. Some will even make the stupid and unfounded remark that creationists are out to destroy science, aren't real scientists, don't like science, change the evidence, and etc, etc, blah, blah, wah, wah. And that saddens me, because each time I have challenged them to prove it or substantiate their claims (on other forums) by quoting reputable creationist organisations or reputable creation scientists, they have not. And days later I see them enspousing the same rhetoric. Now that is supreme arrogance or supreme ignorance. Either one. I'm not saying that all evolutionists do this, just most that I've come across on the various forums I travelled through.

I am close to contemplating leaving this site, lest I some day start to blindly lash out at everything christian, hitting far too many innocents in the process. And while shortly after my deconversion, it was simply "unlikely" that I could ever reconvert, it's now utterly impossible.

That is your choice, of course. But when before the throne of God, blaming creationists won't help you...

In all of that, you never said why you deconverted. I take it as your new faith says nothing about "Love thy neighbour" then? I hope that you will come to realise just how wrong you really are in your opinions and that you do more unbiased research to see if you really do have a point.

Think about that, you creationists. You can believe whatever you want, but if you want to convince/convert someone else, live your faith instead of just claiming to do so. Specifically, be humble and honest. Be a good example, just like your Jesus supposedly did. This would have more power in and of itself than any amount of regurgitations of PRATTs.

Always have been and always will be (humble and honest) . Oh no, my halo is falling ... choking ... me... Seriously though, I don't believe in spreading the truth through lies, so everything that I say I honestly believe to be the truth and will consider re-evaluating my position if someone brings up a reasonable argument. Also, I don't believe in the use of PRATTs as it proves nothing. It would be wise for evolutionists to explain or give a link to an explaination rather than just say "PRATT". It's the naturalistic equivalent of "God did it". Thus if creationists choose to ignore it then all can see that they are wilfully ignorant (unless they have disputed the information provided).

Okay, that's it. Let the shells come in now

lol. The man's smart, he knows when to take cover...

References:
* Quoted: G.R. Bozarth, The Meaning of Evolution, The American Atheist, p. 30, Sept. 20, 1979.

* Quoted: Charles Darwin, 1859, from Introduction to Origin of Species, p. 2. Also quoted in "John Lofton's Journal", The Washington Times, 8 February 1984.

* Quoted: Stephen Jay Gould from "The validation of continental drift" in his book Ever Since Darwin, Burnett Books, 1978, pp. 161-162.

* Quoted: L. Harrison MAtthew, FRS, Introduction to Darwin's The Origin of Species, J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1971, p. xi.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Both creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence available to them, e.g. red shift of starlight, fossils, animals and plants, etc.

The difference of course being that scientists actually use all of the available evidence and creationists throw out what they don't like and twist what they can to fit a preconceived, fixed conclusion.

Scientists and creationists simply do not use the same evidence. It's not simply a matter of interpretation here, it's a matter of intellectual honesty.

 

[Upsilon]

The difference of course being that scientists actually use all of the available evidence and creationists throw out what they don't like and twist what they can to fit a preconceived, fixed conclusion.
Scientists and creationists simply do not use the same evidence. It's not simply a matter of interpretation here, it's a matter of intellectual honesty.

Am I a prophet or what?! Didn't I say that I would get such unfounded remarks? All of these are baseless accusations to which Mechanical Bliss has not provided evidence.

He just 100% ignored what I wrote and continued saying the usual anit-creationist rhetoric. Creation scientists are true scientists who do real science, take Dr Werner Gitt, for example. He is a leading authority on information science and has made up several new laws and theories. As you can see, your argument is dubunked easy and holds no water. So long as we both live in the same universe, we can only use the same evidence or facts, e.g. fossils, stars, sun, planet, rocks, etc.. Your argument denies logical thinking as well.

He's saying exactly what I said he would say. Evolutionists just work from a different framework than creationist. Thus, what Mechanical Bliss is essentially saying is that because creationists use different underlying assumptions and come to different conclusions about the origin of the evidence, then they must be liars and therefore dishonest. The whole debate is a philosophical one - not science vs creation - rather philosophy vs philosophy. It is a battle of interpretations! As proven above in previous post.

Tocis, and you were saying that creationists are wilfully ignorant and arrogant? A prime example is Mechanical Bliss (an evolutionist). Ignores what I said without providing any evidence what so ever and continues to say the usual unfounded rhetoric.

I'm not trying to be mean to you Mechanical Bliss, you just so happened to be the first person to do what I predicted and knew many evolutionists would do, and as such I am using you as an example to illustrate the point I was making in my previous post.

Perhaps you can post some examples of reputable creationist scientists and organizations doing what you accuse them of doing?

 

[Upsilon]

I only really noticed the first part when I re-read your post:

The difference of course being that scientists actually use all of the available evidence and creationists throw out what they don't like and twist what they can to fit a preconceived, fixed conclusion.

Evolutionists, of all people, should be the last ones to make such accusing comments. Need I bring up all of the frauds that has been committed in the name of evolution to prove it? Ernst Haeckal, various so-called ape men, peppered moths, .........

I'll just illustrate my point of this in action:

* Clark and Caswell:

Clark and Caswell pondered upon the question Why have the large number of expected remnants not been detected?

They then conclude:
"It appears with the above expaination there is no need to postulate values of Eo/n differing greatly from those in the galaxy, and the mystery of the missing remnants is also solved."

Well, the logical question is what are they referring to? The explanation was:
1. There was an incorrect estimate so anomalies should be included.
2. Assume the detection limit is expanded by a factor of 3.
3. Claims that there was an erroneous number deteced by a factor of 2.

So basically, Clark and Caswell made up assumptions to try to fit the evolutionary model. In essence they said that since the data didn't match evolutionary premises, they would assume that it ws an incorrect estimate, the detection rate is wrong and anomalies should be included, then they conclude that this fits with evolution. I say this not to put anyone down, but to show this doesn't solve the problem (and is an embarrassing interpretation) but shows their allegiance to evolution over the observed facts.

See the evolutionary article in which Clark and Caswell published their work for more information and Dr Sarfati's article as well.

* Radiometric Dating Dates:
In general, dates in the "correct ball park" are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are discrepancies fully explained.

Dr Richard L. Mauger in "K-Ar ages of biotites from tuffs in Eocene rocks of the Green River, Washakie, and Uinta Basins, Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado", Contributions to Geology, University of Wyoming, vol. 15(1), 1997, p. 37.

Basically what Dr Mauger is saying is that dates that aren't initally considered to be right are just ignored and not fully explained.

In other words, evolutionary scientists themselves "fix" the data by using un needed assumptions or they just ignore it altogether and hope that no one else picks up on it. Very seldom is it that the discrepancies are fully explained.

You'd probably do good to be more careful in the future before leaping to accuse creationists of doing what you accuse them of doing when evolutionists themselves have done it and still do it, as shown in this post.

 

[Elduran]

I only really noticed the first part when I re-read your post:



Evolutionists, of all people, should be the last ones to make such accusing comments. Need I bring up all of the frauds that has been committed in the name of evolution to prove it? Ernst Haeckal, various so-called ape men, peppered moths, .........

I'll just illustrate my point of this in action:

* Clark and Caswell:

Clark and Caswell pondered upon the question Why have the large number of expected remnants not been detected?

They then conclude:
"It appears with the above expaination there is no need to postulate values of Eo/n differing greatly from those in the galaxy, and the mystery of the missing remnants is also solved."

Well, the logical question is what are they referring to? The explanation was:
1. There was an incorrect estimate so anomalies should be included.
2. Assume the detection limit is expanded by a factor of 3.
3. Claims that there was an erroneous number deteced by a factor of 2.

So basically, Clark and Caswell made up assumptions to try to fit the evolutionary model. In essence they said that since the data didn't match evolutionary premises, they would assume that it ws an incorrect estimate, the detection rate is wrong and anomalies should be included, then they conclude that this fits with evolution. I say this not to put anyone down, but to show this doesn't solve the problem (and is an embarrassing interpretation) but shows their allegiance to evolution over the observed facts.

See the evolutionary article in which Clark and Caswell published their work for more information and Dr Sarfati's article as well.

* Radiometric Dating Dates:
In general, dates in the "correct ball park" are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are discrepancies fully explained.

Dr Richard L. Mauger in "K-Ar ages of biotites from tuffs in Eocene rocks of the Green River, Washakie, and Uinta Basins, Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado", Contributions to Geology, University of Wyoming, vol. 15(1), 1997, p. 37.

Basically what Dr Mauger is saying is that dates that aren't initally considered to be right are just ignored and not fully explained.

In other words, evolutionary scientists themselves "fix" the data by using un needed assumptions or they just ignore it altogether and hope that no one else picks up on it. Very seldom is it that the discrepancies are fully explained.

You'd probably do good to be more careful in the future before leaping to accuse creationists of doing what you accuse them of doing when evolutionists themselves have done it and still do it, as shown in this post.

Ernst Haeckal, various so-called ape men, peppered moths

Haekal was proved to be a fraud within his own lifetime, which is why modern evolutionary theory uses modern embryology, not Haekel's drawings.

Ape-men... technically speaking we're still apes, and the transitionals are legitimate apart froma few fakes over the years.

Peppered moths are a good example of microevolution, what's the problem?

 

[random_guy]

He just 100% ignored what I wrote and continued saying the usual anit-creationist rhetoric. Creation scientists are true scientists who do real science, take Dr Werner Gitt, for example. He is a leading authority on information science and has made up several new laws and theories. As you can see, your argument is dubunked easy and holds no water. So long as we both live in the same universe, we can only use the same evidence or facts, e.g. fossils, stars, sun, planet, rocks, etc.. Your argument denies logical thinking as well.

You seem confused between Creationism and Creationists. Creationists can be scientists and can contribute to science. Netwon was a Creationist and he did a lot for science. However, Creationism contributes nothing to science and is anti-science.

Prove me wrong by showing a scientific theory that includes God.

 

[gluadys]

Welcome to the forum. I am sure tocis will answer soon. But I have to respond to some of this myself.

To tocis:

How about we start off by defining why creation is essential to Christian doctrine with a quote from atheist Richard Bozarth:

Do you really think an atheist can understand why creation is essential to Christian doctrine? Why not ask a Christian?


Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.



And this atheist's arguments are rubbish. Many Christians hold that Adam and Eve are typological characters in a creation myth, not historical individuals. Jesus' role as redeemer is just as much intact without historical first parents as with them. (Creationists disagree with this, of course, but they are not the only Christians in the world--not even the majority of Christians.)

In other words, Jesus' Earthly life is 100% predicted on Adam's Fall. This is why creation is so important to Christianity. In fact, I am simply surprised how and why many Christians reject Genesis and believe in evolution, in doing so destroying the reason for Jesus' death and why it was made possible.

Sure, but that makes sense when one understands that Adam is typological. Adam is simply a handy mythological way of saying "humanity" or "each and every human being". We all sin, we all fall from grace (i.e. out of harmony with our creator) and we all need redemption from sin. G.K. Chesterton once said that original sin is the one dogma of the Church capable of empirical verification.

And btw most Christians who accept evolution do not reject Genesis. Only a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Creation is not a "fundamentalist cult". Creation, either way you look at it is just saying God made everything - did He do it by evolution, or did He do it the way that He said He did in Genesis?

A lot of Christians would answer "both".

These are two opposing views, for sake of argument we call a literal interpretation of Genesis "creation".

It is not really fair to all the Christians who do not accept a literal interpretation of Genesis to limit "creation" to that meaning. All Christians believe in creation. Only a minority believes Genesis is a literal description of how it happened.

As a matter of fact, it's kind of silly to say "fundamentalist creationists". For one, what is creation? A literal reading of Genesis. What are creationists? People who believe a literal reading of Genesis. What is a fundamentalist? A person who literally reads and believes the Bible. In the case of Genesis, they both say the same thing! So, why not just drop the "fundamentalist" part considering that "creationist" means the same thing?

Wrong all through. Most fundamentalists are creationists, but not all creationists are fundamentalist. And "creation" is not a literal reading of Genesis. Christians who do not accept a literal reading of Genesis still accept that God is the creator of all.

Let's really see what is going on here, okay? Both creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence available to them, e.g. red shift of starlight, fossils, animals and plants, etc. Both creationists and evolutionists also have the same science to use, e.g. physics, genetics, chemistry and so on. Yet, for some reason we just can't seem to come to agreeance about the origin of the same piece of evidence, e.g. a fossil. Why is that?

Because creationists don't do science.

It should be noted that the facts don't "speak for themselves" and for us to conclude anything from them we have to firstly try and interpret them. Okay, so now we have a new varriable coming into the equation. It is obvious, therefore, that this interpretation is the only thing that is different when trying to determine the origin of the evidence. So, why is the interpretation of the same evidence using the same science different?

Because creationists ignore, suppress and distort evidence to make it fit their beliefs, while science constructs its theories to agree with all available evidence.

I realise that evolution is just another interpretation of the evidence that IMO is false - but I don't go around screaming that it's "lies". I move to show how it's predictions don't match what we see in nature.

I would like to see an example of how you do this.

Also, if evolution is true, are we not just "naked apes"?

Yes. And your point is......?

If our ancestors are animals, why are we not?

We are animals. Or do you want to contend that we are plants or fungi? We belong to the phylum of animals known as Chordata, to the sub-phylum Vertebrata, to the class Mammalia, to the order Primates and to the family Hominidae (apes). This classification of humans was set out by pre-Darwinian Christian taxonomists like Linnaeus. Only modern creationists have taken the odd step of trying to deny that humans are animals. Pre-Darwinian Christians did not dispute the obvious.

Who said we are not? Besides, man has been classified by many as an "animal". That said, most people, including myself, say "Man and the animals" as I believe that we are far higher than animals because we are made in the image of God (although not all believe the latter part).

What does being created in the image of God have to do with humans being animals? What does it mean other than that among all animals, we are the animals created in the image of God?

The idea that mankind is an animal is a natural conclusion derived from the belief that man evolved from animals.

Actually it is a natural conclusion from observation and was made by people of many cultures, including the ancient Hebrews, long before Darwin came on the scene. God even revealed this fact to the writer of Ecclesiates. See 3:18.

In fact, back a hundred and a bit years the Aboriginals in Australia were labelled as "animals" and many scientists arranged for people to go out and hunt them down and bring some back so they could be put in museums.

True. Similarly European settlers in South America debated whether Native peoples had souls or were "just" animals.

Note also that in both cases the perpetrators of these atrocities (and many others) were Christians.

However, this irrelevant to evolution and creation.

Some will even make the stupid and unfounded remark that creationists are out to destroy science, aren't real scientists, don't like science, change the evidence, and etc, etc, blah, blah, wah, wah. And that saddens me, because each time I have challenged them to prove it or substantiate their claims (on other forums) by quoting reputable creationist organisations or reputable creation scientists, they have not.

Probably the best evidence of this is the way these organizations handle so-called "evidence" for the flood. The attacks on dating methods are also a good example of misrepresentation and obfuscation.

If you want a more detailed answer, just ask.

Always have been and always will be (humble and honest) . Oh no, my halo is falling ... choking ... me... Seriously though, I don't believe in spreading the truth through lies, so everything that I say I honestly believe to be the truth and will consider re-evaluating my position if someone brings up a reasonable argument. Also, I don't believe in the use of PRATTs as it proves nothing. It would be wise for evolutionists to explain or give a link to an explaination rather than just say "PRATT". It's the naturalistic equivalent of "God did it". Thus if creationists choose to ignore it then all can see that they are wilfully ignorant (unless they have disputed the information provided).

It will be great conversation if you hold to this. I have indeed come across creationists who are sincere and honest and I do respect them, though I disagree with them.

 

[gluadys]

Creation scientists are true scientists who do real science, take Dr Werner Gitt, for example. He is a leading authority on information science and has made up several new laws and theories.

Yes, made them up with no supporting evidence whatsoever. You call that science?

 

[Praxiteles]

Welcome to the forum. I am sure tocis will answer soon. But I have to respond to some of this myself.




Do you really think an atheist can understand why creation is essential to Christian doctrine? Why not ask a Christian?


Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.



And this atheist's arguments are rubbish. Many Christians hold that Adam and Eve are typological characters in a creation myth, not historical individuals. Jesus' role as redeemer is just as much intact without historical first parents as with them. (Creationists disagree with this, of course, but they are not the only Christians in the world--not even the majority of Christians.)




Sure, but that makes sense when one understands that Adam is typological. Adam is simply a handy mythological way of saying "humanity" or "each and every human being". We all sin, we all fall from grace (i.e. out of harmony with our creator) and we all need redemption from sin. G.K. Chesterton once said that original sin is the one dogma of the Church capable of empirical verification.

And btw most Christians who accept evolution do not reject Genesis. Only a literal interpretation of Genesis.



A lot of Christians would answer "both".





It is not really fair to all the Christians who do not accept a literal interpretation of Genesis to limit "creation" to that meaning. All Christians believe in creation. Only a minority believes Genesis is a literal description of how it happened.




Wrong all through. Most fundamentalists are creationists, but not all creationists are fundamentalist. And "creation" is not a literal reading of Genesis. Christians who do not accept a literal reading of Genesis still accept that God is the creator of all.



Because creationists don't do science.




Because creationists ignore, suppress and distort evidence to make it fit their beliefs, while science constructs its theories to agree with all available evidence.

I would like to see an example of how you do this.


Yes. And your point is......?

We are animals. Or do you want to contend that we are plants or fungi? We belong to the phylum of animals known as Chordata, to the sub-phylum Vertebrata, to the class Mammalia, to the order Primates and to the family Hominidae (apes). This classification of humans was set out by pre-Darwinian Christian taxonomists like Linnaeus. Only modern creationists have taken the odd step of trying to deny that humans are animals. Pre-Darwinian Christians did not dispute the obvious.

What does being created in the image of God have to do with humans being animals? What does it mean other than that among all animals, we are the animals created in the image of God?

Actually it is a natural conclusion from observation and was made by people of many cultures, including the ancient Hebrews, long before Darwin came on the scene. God even revealed this fact to the writer of Ecclesiates. See 3:18.

True. Similarly European settlers in South America debated whether Native peoples had souls or were "just" animals.

Note also that in both cases the perpetrators of these atrocities (and many others) were Christians.

However, this irrelevant to evolution and creation.


Probably the best evidence of this is the way these organizations handle so-called "evidence" for the flood. The attacks on dating methods are also a good example of misrepresentation and obfuscation.

If you want a more detailed answer, just ask.

It will be great conversation if you hold to this. I have indeed come across creationists who are sincere and honest and I do respect them, though I disagree with them.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to gluadys again.

Bleh.

 

[Randall McNally]

Am I a prophet or what?! Didn't I say that I would get such unfounded remarks? All of these are baseless accusations to which Mechanical Bliss has not provided evidence.

He just 100% ignored what I wrote and continued saying the usual anit-creationist rhetoric. Creation scientists are true scientists who do real science, take Dr Werner Gitt, for example. He is a leading authority on information science and has made up several new laws and theories. As you can see, your argument is dubunked easy and holds no water. So long as we both live in the same universe, we can only use the same evidence or facts, e.g. fossils, stars, sun, planet, rocks, etc.. Your argument denies logical thinking as well.

He's saying exactly what I said he would say. Evolutionists just work from a different framework than creationist. Thus, what Mechanical Bliss is essentially saying is that because creationists use different underlying assumptions and come to different conclusions about the origin of the evidence, then they must be liars and therefore dishonest. The whole debate is a philosophical one - not science vs creation - rather philosophy vs philosophy. It is a battle of interpretations! As proven above in previous post.

Tocis, and you were saying that creationists are wilfully ignorant and arrogant? A prime example is Mechanical Bliss (an evolutionist). Ignores what I said without providing any evidence what so ever and continues to say the usual unfounded rhetoric.

I'm not trying to be mean to you Mechanical Bliss, you just so happened to be the first person to do what I predicted and knew many evolutionists would do, and as such I am using you as an example to illustrate the point I was making in my previous post.

Perhaps you can post some examples of reputable creationist scientists and organizations doing what you accuse them of doing?

You know, just because you're new around here doesn't mean everyone else is too. Bliss has been at this for a while. You are welcome to do a forum search for his older posts, wherein you will discover the very information you claim he is omitting.

In fact, I strongly suggest it. At least if you plan on mouthing off again without educating yourself on forum history.

 

[gluadys]

Evolutionists, of all people, should be the last ones to make such accusing comments. Need I bring up all of the frauds that has been committed in the name of evolution to prove it? Ernst Haeckal, various so-called ape men, peppered moths, .........

First evidence that you really know nothing about evolution.

* Clark and Caswell:

Clark and Caswell pondered upon the question Why have the large number of expected remnants not been detected?

Second evidence that you know nothing about evolution. What do super-novae have to do with biology?

I also wonder what is so heinous about changing mathematical parameters which do not agree with observation to ones that do? Are you seriously proposing that scientists ought to continue using math which they know gives wrong results?

* Radiometric Dating Dates:
In general, dates in the "correct ball park" are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are discrepancies fully explained.

Dr Richard L. Mauger in "K-Ar ages of biotites from tuffs in Eocene rocks of the Green River, Washakie, and Uinta Basins, Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado", Contributions to Geology, University of Wyoming, vol. 15(1), 1997, p. 37.

Basically what Dr Mauger is saying is that dates that aren't initally considered to be right are just ignored and not fully explained.

And finally evidence that you need to learn a lot more about radiometry.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

I suppose no frauds have even been perpetrated in the name of Jeus (or religion in general).

 

[Upsilon]

First evidence that you really know nothing about evolution.

How on Earth did you come to this conclusion?

Second evidence that you know nothing about evolution. What do super-novae have to do with biology?

Evolution is a theory designed to for all practical purposes detail and explain the origin of the evidence of the present. For example, where did the first life come from? Lifeless chemicals on Earth. Where did the planet Earth come from? And if we keep on asking where, you'll get to the big bang inflation of singularity in 4D. You only look at a small part of the picture, while I stand back and look at the grand scheme of things.

I also wonder what is so heinous about changing mathematical parameters which do not agree with observation to ones that do? Are you seriously proposing that scientists ought to continue using math which they know gives wrong results?

They assumed factors that would make the evidence conform to their belief in evolutionism (i.e. big bang and it's timescale). I'll let you decide whether or not that is wrong, but I personally think it's a little embarrassing.

And finally evidence that you need to learn a lot more about radiometry.

And once again, I ask you how do you come to that conclusion? If you're referring to the quote, that wasn't mine as I made clear, it was a quote from Dr Richard L. Mauger who has his Ph.D in geology; at the time he was the Associate Professor of Geology, East Carolina University. For some reason, I've got that sneaking suspicion that he knows a hell of a lot more than you on the topic. Either way, you're not ridiculing me, it's your evolutionary brother who is copping it...

I'll deal with your other post shortly. By the way, your last post in particular is quite weak...

 

[Upsilon]

You seem confused between Creationism and Creationists. Creationists can be scientists and can contribute to science. Netwon was a Creationist and he did a lot for science. However, Creationism contributes nothing to science and is anti-science.

Prove me wrong by showing a scientific theory that includes God.

Dr Russell Humphreys' white hole cosmology as outlined in Starlight and Time for one.

By the second part you're referring to philosophical beliefs. Evolution is also a philosophical belief and has NOT contributed anything of real value to operations science. Evolution and creation are BOTH philosophical INTERPRETATIONS about the origin of the SAME evidence. Why do you think you get so hyped up whenever it gets challenged? Because it is at the core of your very beliefs.

 

[Praxiteles]

Dr Russell Humphreys' white hole cosmology as outlined in Starlight and Time for one.

OK. And what predictions are made by this theory? What are the tests? How can it be falsified?

By the second part you're referring to philosophical beliefs. Evolution is also a philosophical belief and has NOT contributed anything of real value to operations science. Evolution and creation are BOTH philosophical INTERPRETATIONS about the origin of the SAME evidence. Why do you think you get so hyped up whenever it gets challenged? Because it is at the core of your very beliefs.

If a group of people wanted your children to be taught in school that rain is caused by airborne elves with buckets, you'd get pretty hyped up too, I'll bet.

The theory of evolution is the framework that explains the observations made of biological systems. Ergo, it is not a philosophy. It is a science.

Creationism doesn't explain any evidence. How does creationism explain endogenous retroviral insertions? It doesn't, and it can't. To propagate the untruth that it is on the same level as science is dishonest.

As I understand it, God has some fairly curt things to say about that.

 

[Upsilon]

Welcome to the forum.

Well at least one person is nice, thanks.

Do you really think an atheist can understand why creation is essential to Christian doctrine? Why not ask a Christian?

Atheists aren't stupid. In fact, IMO, quite the opposite. If they wanted to destroy Christianity, why don't they attack Jesus? Because they can't - it's impossible to disprove His existence. But they know why He came to Earth. Ah huh! They can now move in to destroy that reason; and this is what Bozarth was commenting on. He realises that Adam and the Fall are the direct reasons why Jesus came and that evolution destroys this. A building won't keep standing for long without a firm or any foundation. The same is true with the Christian faith - wipe out it's foundation (i.e. Genesis) then the whole tower of Christianity will also fall. It's only a matter of time.

Many Christians hold that Adam and Eve are typological characters in a creation myth, not historical individuals. Jesus' role as redeemer is just as much intact without historical first parents as with them. Adam is simply a handy mythological way of saying "humanity" or "each and every human being". We all sin, we all fall from grace (i.e. out of harmony with our creator) and we all need redemption from sin.

Okay, why are we sinners? When Adam rebelled against God, in effect he was saying that he wanted life without God. He wanted to decide truth for himself, independent of God. Now the Bible tells us that Adam was the head of the human race, representing each one of us, who are his descendants. Paul says in Romans 5:12–19 that we sin ‘in Adam,’ after the likeness of Adam. In other words, we have the same problem Adam had. When Adam rebelled against God, all human beings, represented by Adam, effectively said that they wanted life without God. This is the reason why we sin. Therefore, take away Adam and his sin, then no one is sinners and who needs to be redeemed?

If you say that Adam is merely figurative and not a real character, then all human beings (i.e. we are Adam's descendants) sin in the likeness of someone who never existed. That makes absolutely no sense! Surely, just surely you have to start seeing how illogical your position is...

And btw most Christians who accept evolution do not reject Genesis. Only a literal interpretation of Genesis. All Christians believe in creation. Only a minority believes Genesis is a literal description of how it happened.

Most people, except for Noah's family, scoffed at Noah for building the Ark. We all know what happened to them - they were carried away by the rising waters. Also, most people will not see the Kingdom of God, does that make the majority "right"? Your appeal to majority or consensus is fallicious and very weak. There have been many times all throughout the Bible where the majority are proven wrong or are destroyed while the minority who do God's will survive.

It is not really fair to all the Christians who do not accept a literal interpretation of Genesis to limit "creation" to that meaning.

On a forum such as this it is. Evolution is the banner under which compromising Christians stand, while "literalists" stand under the creation banner. Unless of course, you're willing to jump ships?

Wrong all through. Most fundamentalists are creationists, but not all creationists are fundamentalist. And "creation" is not a literal reading of Genesis. Christians who do not accept a literal reading of Genesis still accept that God is the creator of all.

Hmm, how strange you missed the words "in the case of Genesis". Go back and read it again. I am only talking about and made it very clear that I was only talking about with reference to Genesis. Thus, your argument is still illogical and false.

Because creationists don't do science.

So you're trying to make me believe that Newton didn't actually do any science? Are you trying to make be believe that James Joule, Thompson, Kelvin, Keepler, Galileo, among many, many others, and more recently Dr Gitt, Dr Austin, Dr Batten, Dr Humphreys, Dr Jeremy Walter, Dr John Kramer, among many, many others don't do any "science"? Perhaps you should check up on their profiles and then reassess your point-of-view. This argument is one based in nothing more than ignorance. For example, Dr Jeremy Walter is a mechanical engineer who was in 1975 a recipient of a prestigious National Science Foundation Fellowship, funding graduate study at the institution of his choice. At ARL, Dr Walter has been the leader for a number of undersea propulsion development projects for the US Navy. His research involves multi-disciplinary development and testing of advanced air-indepdent engines and thermal power systems for various autonomous undersea vehicles.

Because creationists ignore, suppress and distort evidence to make it fit their beliefs, while science constructs its theories to agree with all available evidence.

Models of science are subject to change for BOTH creationists and evolutionists. But, the BELIEFS that these models are built on are NOT. The problem is that most scientists do not realize that it is the belief (or religion) of evolution that is the basis for the scientific models (the interpretations, or stories) used to attempt an explanation of the present. Evolutionists are NOT prepared to change their actual BELIEF that all life can be explained by natural processes and that no God is involved (or even needed). Evolution is the religion to which they are committed. The Clark and Caswell example I provided before is evidence for this: they are committed to their theory over the evidence.

Once again, you include no examples. All what I want is just the statement then supported by one example, like what I do.

I would like to see an example of how you do this.

The example of the no third stage SNRs in our galaxy is one, this proves that the universe is a lot younger than the billions of years evolutionists give it. For if it were really that old, we should expect to observe many second and third stage SNRs, the fact is, well, we don't.

The fact that there is no enough helium in the atmosphere for Earth to be the billions of years old it is given by evolutionists. Let me explain, helium is formed during radioactive alpha-decay in rock minerals. It rapidly escapes and enters the atmosphere much faster than it can escape Earth's gravity. Even if God had created the world with no helium to begin with, the small amount in the atmosphere would have taken at most around two million years to accumulate. That is, there is not even enough time for biological evolution to happen.

Yes. And your point is......?

If you read tocis' original post you'd know what the point is; unless I misread it which may be a possibility.

What does being created in the image of God have to do with humans being animals? What does it mean other than that among all animals, we are the animals created in the image of God?

As a result of being created in the image of God, humans are a truine being. You being a Christian, I shouldn't have to explain the concept of "triune" to you. As such, humans are made up of three parts: body, spirit and soul. My question to you and any other TEs out there is how can a spirit evolve and when did it first start happening? What are the transitional forms of a "spirit in evolution".

Also, the phrase "image" means that we resemble something. In all three ways we resemble Jesus/God/Holy Spirit. However, according to evolutionism we should continue to evolve and thus, Jesus/God/Holy Spirit can't have a set image. If this is the case, then the Bible contradicts itself by saying that Jesus is the same today as always. TE more puts that God is created in man's image than man being created in God's image.

True. Similarly European settlers in South America debated whether Native peoples had souls or were "just" animals.

I think you mean "spirit" as opposed to "soul". Man became, according to Genesis, a living "soul" when God's Spirit filled man's body and the man started to live. Two different things.

Note also that in both cases the perpetrators of these atrocities (and many others) were Christians.

Some were indeed Christians, but they were Christians who rejected what the Bible said and instead put man's words above God's infallible Word, i.e. if they took God's Word seriously, then they would have known that these Indigenous peoples were indeed equal humans important in God's sight.

For the following, the unbelieving evolutionists are called "evolutionists".
It is more than relevant to evolution because these animalistic acts and others (including the Holocaust) happened because they thought that evolution was FACT and TRUTH. All this was done in the name of evolution and the acts were completely consistent with the evolutionary faiths. When others, however, point to Christians doing the animalistic acts, it should be noted that they are not being consistent with their faith. But all evolutionists are being consistent with their faith when they do evil acts as "good" becomes as meaningless as "evil'.

Probably the best evidence of this is the way these organizations handle so-called "evidence" for the flood. The attacks on dating methods are also a good example of misrepresentation and obfuscation. If you want a more detailed answer, just ask.

If you would like to elaborate on that I'd be most greatful.

It will be great conversation if you hold to this. I have indeed come across creationists who are sincere and honest and I do respect them, though I disagree with them.

As will it be if you don't keep repeating the usual rehtoric that you have in your previous arguments.

Praxiteles,
gluadys' argument wasn't that good...

 

[Praxiteles]

Praxiteles,
gluadys' argument wasn't that good...

I rather think it was, though. Your response to it is largely made up of PRATTs, so it can't have been that bad.

Although it forms part of your response to gluadys, and not part of a conversation with me, I would like to address your comments on minority/majority opinion.

You're absolutely right in that whether a majority or a minority believe in something it has no bearing on its validity. When reading your Noah metaphor, I couldn't help but think of David Koresh. The majority thought he was a fruitcake. A minority thought that he was saviour. Which was right? Why were the majority right in this case?

What is important is to examine the reason why a minority or a majority might believe in something. In the case of modern science, the reasons why a majority of scientists accept evolution, or an old earth, or an old universe, are there for everyone to see. You can check it all out for yourself if you wish to. It is the physical evidence.

The reasons why some scientist reject an old universe, or evolution are, in every single case, religious. That is to say, there is no evidentiary reason to reject modern scientific theories - not yet, any. There are only religious reasons. That should be setting off klaxons in your head as to the validity of creation science.

 

[dad]

You can check it all out for yourself if you wish to. It is the physical evidence.

The reasons why some scientist reject an old universe, or evolution are, in every single case, religious. That is to say, there is no evidentiary reason to reject modern scientific theories

What you so far do not understand is that it is an embrace of only physical evidence that is religious! It is believing that the physical is all there is, contrary to evidence. (Not evidence in a physical only sense, but evidence of multitudious interventions of the supernatural on the physical realm.
To say there is no physical only based evidence to reject physical only based science, is to restrict oneself to only in box evidence. To refuse all other evidences on this basis is nothing more than a statement of faith that there is nothing more than the physical. A faith based on nothing, because there is no physical evidence against a spiritual either.

 

[Upsilon]

Praxiteles:

OK. And what predictions are made by this theory? What are the tests? How can it be falsified?

It's designed to explain the origin of the evidence, just like the many inflation models in astronomy are thought up to explain how the big bang started.

The Bible itself predicts that because of the Great Flood that there should be many, many fossils burried in sedimentary rock all over the Earth - and that is what we find.

If a group of people wanted your children to be taught in school that rain is caused by airborne elves with buckets, you'd get pretty hyped up too, I'll bet.

There's on a BIG difference between a different interpretation of the origin of the same evidence using the same science and something which we can test by observation...

I believe that learning evolution helps children who are well informed see just how wrong it is and are able to debunk it more effectively. Unfortunately, I never did high school biology - I've always prefered physics myself. You two examples are of no relation and quite a poor choice - one exists in the present while the other is an event in the distant unobservable and unrepeatable past. Note the difference.

The theory of evolution is the framework that explains the observations made of biological systems. Ergo, it is not a philosophy. It is a science.

Micro-evolution deals with observation from the present, but macro-evolution in the sense that Darwin talked about deals with the origin of the evidence in the present. Here on the Creation/evolution forum we are talking about the origin of the evidence, hence an unobservable and untestable as well as an unrepeatable event. Please stick to the origin of evidence definition as the micro-evolution is not being debated here.

Hmm, what do scientists themselves say about this?

In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to "bend" their observations to fit in with it.

H.S. Lipson, FRS (Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK), "A physicist looks at evolution". Physics Bulletin, vol. 31, 1980, p. 138.

Can evolution be tested?

Evolution, a least in the sense that Darwin speaks of it, cannot be detected within the lifetime of a single observer.

David B. Kitts, Ph. D (zoology) (School of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma). "Paleontology and evolutionary theory". Evolution, vol. 28, Sept. 1974, p. 466.

Surely it can be tested, right?

It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why teh stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are noot part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test."

Personal letter (written 10 April 1979) from Dr Colin Patterson, Senior Palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to Luther D. Sunderland; as quoted in Darwin's Enigma by Luther D. Sunderland, Master Books, San Diego, 1984, p. 89.

What then is evolution? Fact or faith?

With the failure of these many efforts science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.

Loren Eiseley, Ph.D. (anthropology), "The secret of life" in The Immense Journey, Random House, New York, 1957, p. 199.

Creationism doesn't explain any evidence.

My example of Russell Humphreys' theory is just one that debunks this silly "argument".

How does creationism explain endogenous retroviral insertions?

I've never heard of it before and would have to go out and research and get back to you. Can you put it in more "layman" terms, please?

Reference:
* The Revised Quote Book

 

[Upsilon]

Praxiteles:

I rather think it was, though. Your response to it is largely made up of PRATTs, so it can't have been that bad.

I know that I'd rather have my post be classified as "can't have been that bad" than "wasn't that good". Once again, you list no points that were what you call "PRATTs". Please give me a few examples from what I said that classify as this "PRATT".

Although it forms part of your response to gluadys, and not part of a conversation with me, I would like to address your comments on minority/majority opinion.

Yeah, sure that's cool.

What is important is to examine the reason why a minority or a majority might believe in something. In the case of modern science, the reasons why a majority of scientists accept evolution, or an old earth, or an old universe, are there for everyone to see. You can check it all out for yourself if you wish to. It is the physical evidence.

Actually, the physical evidence is what you said minus the old-age interpretation as the "facts don't speak for themselves". For example the physical evidence of 3rd stage SNRs is that there is none in our galaxy. The interpretation is that since there is none, then the big bang time scale is false.

The reasons why some scientist reject an old universe, or evolution are, in every single case, religious. That is to say, there is no evidentiary reason to reject modern scientific theories - not yet, any. There are only religious reasons. That should be setting off klaxons in your head as to the validity of creation science.

Scientists use assumptions based on faith in their radiometric dating methods as well. These assumptions (e.g. constant decay rate, how much daughter element was initally there and how much of the elements have been subtracted or added to the system) are based on their underlying beliefs. That must be setting off some alarm bells in your head as to their validity. Radiometric dating methods are a classic example of the good old circular reasoning, i.e. using old age assumptions to prove that the Earth is billions of years old.