For Creationists.....

[Split Rock]

The way I understand it is that all of these new alleles come from genetic recombination because of environmental (post-flood) pressures, and that mutations are not the cause of this. But biology really isn't my thing.

No Richard. An allele is a variant of a gene. Alleles can be shifted around between chromosomes during mitosis by recombination, but they can only be created by mutation. Some genes have literally hundreds of allele variants. Only one can appear at a particular gene locus in an individual, however.

 

[FoeHammer]

There are a series of traits which apply only to religion...

As defined by who?

... and which are shared by every religion commonly recognized as such. Every religion is a doctrine of ritual traditions, ceremonies, mythology, and associated dogma of a faith-based belief system which includes the idea that some element of ‘self’ (be it a soul, consciousness, or memories, etc.) may, in some sense, continue beyond the death of the physical being.

These would be the "hallmarks" you were talking about. Evolution has none of these. Nor can you list any others that it does have. Because you and I have had this conversation before, and you knew you were wrong then just as you know you're still wrong now. But being a creationist, you will continue to use arguments you know have already been proven wrong, and you don't care about that. But if it doesn't look like a duck, doesn't walk like a duck and never quacks like a duck, then why would keep trying to call it a duck?

Before I post in response to this you need to answer the question above.

Forensic science neither requires nor desires faith, and you already know this too. Instead of faith, all scientific hypotheses must be based on evidence, and the conclusions of science must follow where the evidence leads.

Forensic science? Why would you bring up forensic science?

Whether creationists accept any amount of proof against them or not, the fact is that according to every ounce of paleontological evidence anyone has ever dug up...

Of course what should have been said here is; according to every evolutionary interpretation of the ''evidence''.

... there is every indication that the further back in time you look, the simpler and more similar living things appear to be until there are only single cells, and prior to that, there is no life of any kind at all. According to everything we know about the fossil record, there were no primates 100 million years ago, and no mammals 200 million years ago, and no land animals at all 400 million years ago. 600 million years ago, there weren’t even any fish or even bugs yet. We’ve never found any fossils for macroscopic life forms prior to 700 million years ago, but we have oodles of bacterial trace fossils covering another 2.8 billion years prior to the first multicellular anythings we’ve ever found a trace of. The only possible conclusion we can draw from all that is that life was only microscopic & microbial for the first 80% of the history of life on this planet. In addition, we also have genetic orthologues cross-confirming the morphological indications of evolution as well, and then there is the fact that we are still apes right now, and you never answered my direct question to you as to how else you could explain that. So there is profound evidence indicating our evolution and nothing but nothing to indicate any other conclusion.

So you have been led to believe. This is my point, how much of what you claim here is based on your own research? Are you a palaeontologist, a geologist, a biologist etc. etc. etc? Or is it simply the case that it is claimed by scientists so you accept it without question?

You're on. But faith is not "trust". Faith is a belief in impossible things which is assumed for no reason and defended against all reason to the contrary.

The very first entry for faith at Dictionary.com:

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

(emphasis added) Can you see that?

This assertion is senseless, and is precisely why the scientific method includes critical analysis in peer review. Science doesn't let people get away with lies and false assertions like religion does.

According to your assertions in a quote above which begins:''there is every indication that the further back in time you look...'' (and my response to it) and the dictionary definition of faith, that my assertion is senseless demonstrates poor judgement on your part.

You'll have to show me from The Bible where it allows people to lie and get away with it.

Then you are counted among them after all -because you still parrot the lie that both are equal because you wrongfully say both require faith. I can prove otherwise.

I stated; I believe that they are not equal. It couldn't have been any plainer. I also stand by the rest of what I said.
With regard to what I said about evolution (as I defined it) and faith, you can attempt to prove otherwise, of course, but I can tell you now that you will fail.

Evolution is an aspect of biology. So it doesn't matter how the universe came into being. That is an entirely different and completely unrelated subject.

Each link in a chain is related but leaving evolution out for the time being do as I have asked and take me through what you believe from the beginning?

See, I said earlier in this very thread that creationists habitually use the word "evolution" incorrectly because their real problem isn't with evolution; its against science, and not just the conclusions of science, but its methods as well. You're proving my point.

Utter nonsense and a deliberate misrepresentation of this creationists position and you're proving to be an arrogant bore.

Then you cannot be reasoned with. But we can still discuss how goddidit, and whether that was by one of many inextricably integrated natural systems he seemingly designed, or whether he simply blinked, wiggled his nose, wished upon a star and said "abra-cadabera".

Try reading Genesis. ''In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth...''. How did God create them? It doesn't say but looking at the rest of the creation account I think that He commanded it and it was so.

And what of the limit of knowledge when you believe things that can never be tested,l which you assumed without any evidence at all, and which you already admit you're unable to reconsider?

I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make here... care to elaborate?

They don't, as I have pointed out above. I myself certainly don't.

They and you most certainly do. Look again at your definition of faith above and compare it to the dictionary definition that I posted, it proves my point exactly.

Hovind is but one of myriad examples to illustrate how creationism is naught but deliberately dishonest nonsense and propaganda.

An assertion with nothing to back it up... as if your opinion alone is enough.

How about listening to the author of those textbooks revealing how the creationists were found guilty of purjury once their nonsense was put on trial?

I have but it would seem that you haven't. Miller was talking about IDists and I agree with a lot of what he had to say regarding them. Now It may suit you to lump IDists in with creationists, it may suit the IDists and maybe even some creationists, but I know that a lot of creationists would strongly disagree with you and them. We know who The Creator is and are not ashamed to say it loud and clear... THE WORD, OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST.

Evolution has survived 150 years of the most intense critical scrutiny that has ever applied to any science. The greatest minds of the modern age have pitted their wits against it and find it only gaining strength for their efforts. And, I should mention that taxonomy, deep time, heliocentricity and the geologic column were all discovered by Christian scientists more than a century before Darwin! And today, Christian pseudoscientists oppose all of those too.

Your closing statement does not impress me. That evolution happened is never questioned. The greatest minds of the modern age is a matter of opinion, and not just yours. Creationists do not oppose taxonomy as such only evolutionists use of it as ''evidence'' for evolution. They question the assumptions behind ''deep time'' and whether or not the geologic column exists anywhere other than in textbooks.
Heliocentrcity. I do not know of any creationists who oppose this... Do you?

FoeHammer.

 

[Aron-Ra]

The way I understand it is that all of these new alleles come from genetic recombination because of environmental (post-flood) pressures, and that mutations are not the cause of this. But biology really isn't my thing.

What is your "thing"? Because there are a whole bunch of sciences aligned against "the flood". I want to be completely clear about this. It is absolutely certain there was never any global flood. There are numerous different and independant ways I could list for how we can be sure that has a flat 0% probability. We know that didn't happen as certainly as we know that the earth orbits the sun rather than the other way around. But since you're a geocentrist, then I'm sure what I just said will have little or no impact on you.

Let me put it another way; we know there was no global flood, and that the earth orbits the sun, just as certainly as we know that babies aren't delivered by a stork.

You don't believe in the stork too, do you?

 

[FoeHammer]

I know you didn't directly say this, Foehammer. However, this is amazingly bizarre.

Only to those who have dificulty spotting the obvious.

So, because other things don't change, some things can't?

The obvious being that truth doesn't change.

According to that logic, the Earth is flat, the universe revolves around the Earth, and medical practices should be based upon the "humours" of the body. All because we figured out how to build a printing press in 1440.

Now that the obvious has been pointed out to you I am sure you will agree that this is both pathetic and irrelevant.

That logic is bizarre, and I'm amazed and ashamed that someone would use it.

I think that you were being deliberately obtuse in an attempt to ridicule... you should be ashamed.

FoeHammer.

 

[UnknownUsername]

Honestly, Foehammer, the belief that because some things aren't changing, others can't as well is deserving of any ridicule it gets.

And don't give me that truth doesn't change either. Because again, I can do the same thing. So, worms fall during rain, right? Flies are magically spawned from leaving meat out? There are MORE than enough instances of things that we believed to be true changing drastically to what they are now. If we came across evidence for a theory other than evolution that explains biodiversity as we see it and it held up to review, I'd drop evolution without a second thought. Nothing, in science, is seen as directly and purely true. Gravity? Yeah, we're pretty sure we've got it figured right, but if we observed evidence that baffled us, we'd really have to take a second look.

That was a silly and ridiculous argument you posted, and it should be seen as such. Yes, I was being obtuse. What's your point? So are you.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Of course what should have been said here is; according to every evolutionary interpretation of the ''evidence''.

Foe, The key point to bring out is that the history of Geology is anything BUT an "evolutionary" interpretation of the data. Geology, the field where fossils got their start, started out with a biblical literalist slant.

But then the geologists started to look at what the rocks actually showed. They looked at the rocks that contained those fossils and they saw structures just like we see forming today and so they extrapolated with significant data in support to a uniformitarian model. This is how we get an inkling of deep time. (Many many years before radiometric dating, mind you. Many many years before the word "radioactive" was even known!)

Once you see fossils preserved in a variety of rocks and in a variety of environmental conditions as reflected in those rocks you start to see, literally, THE PASSAGE OF TIME.

Then you note that animals change over time. After a certain point in any given sequence you never find trilobites for instance, or you see dramatic changes in cephalopod shells. You see the arrival of new animals that weren't there in the older rocks.

All of this, regardless of interpretation shows you:

1. The passage of significant time.
2. The change in life over time
3. The arrival of new animals over large blocks of time.
4. The loss of animals over time.

So, praytell, how else would you interpret this data?

You must know that early geologists wanted to confirm the Bible. It turned out to be impossible when it comes to origins theology from a literal stand point.

Creationism, if taken literally from the Bible, gives a picture of the earth's history that simply doesn't match up with any objective analysis of the data.

As for the origin of life (clearly NOT an evolutionary topic), the scientists can only hypothesize from factors that are reasonable.

What this means is unless and until you and your fellow believers can come up with a testable, reproducible, objectively observable "God" hypothesis, such an hypothesis cannot be used as a scientific explanation.

I'll also point out: THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GOD'S EXISTENCE OR LACK THEREOF.

God may very well exist, but NO ONE has ever provided a framework for God that would allow a scientist to accurately invoke Him in any given scientific analysis.

So, as I've said to AV1611, the fact we scientists can't use God in formulating hypotheses is YOUR FAULT, NOT OURS.

It is never incumbent upon us to disprove God's existence but for YOU to prove it.

Once you have done YOUR part of the job (provide us with a God that all objective observers can agree on) then and only then will we be able to use it in science.

So now you have your job. Go do it. Otherwise remember that science works very specifically because it has very strict rules of conduct. It isn't open to just however we would want to do it.

 

[Tomk80]

You are still doing a horrible job at ignoring me. It's really a shame because I was going to point out this sentence in your last link:

Like I said, more goalpost moving.

For RichardT, so he can respond.

Yeah, I know. I'm just too kind.

 

[RichardT]

No Richard. An allele is a variant of a gene. Alleles can be shifted around between chromosomes during mitosis by recombination, but they can only be created by mutation. Some genes have literally hundreds of allele variants. Only one can appear at a particular gene locus in an individual, however.

Oh cool, thank you for clearing that up for me. Now I understand what Creationists mean by "genetic potential".

 

[RichardT]

We know that didn't happen as certainly as we know that the earth orbits the sun rather than the other way around. But since you're a geocentrist, then I'm sure what I just said will have little or no impact on you.

First of all, why do professionals disagree with you? The modified Tycho Brahe system is both physically and mathematically tractable, and it seems to be even closer to a unified field theory. (since it looks at the universe as a whole, not in parts)

"all masses, all motion, indeed all forces are relative. There is no way to discern relative from absolute motion when we encounter them … Whenever modern writers infer an imaginary distinction between relative and absolute motion from a Newtonian framework, they do not stop to think that the Ptolemaic and Copernican are both equally true."

-- Ernst Mach

We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance.

--Hoyle (1975)

I also think I have studied this a lot more than you have for some reason, if you think Galileo's telescope falsified all Geocentric theories, chances are you don't know enough about Geocentricity to make a statement about it. (Prove me wrong though, anytime, I know that you are very knowledgeable in Paleontology though)

You don't believe in the stork too, do you?

Why even bother to ask this question?

and that the earth orbits the sun

I never said that the sun "orbited" the earth, this is a fundamental straw man that even Creationists make.

 

[RichardT]

Heliocentrcity. I do not know of any creationists who oppose this... Do you?

I do.

http://www.creationwiki.org/Bible_says_the_sun_goes_around_the_earth_(response_2)

 

[TheOutsider]

I do.

See what I mean? It's impossible to reason with someone who believes that the universe revolves around himself. The funny part is that even Answers in Genesis disagrees with Geocentrism.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/geocentrism.asp

While the intentions of the geocentrists are good, they offer a very easy target of criticism for our critics. We should establish some distance between the mainstream creation movement and the geocentrists.

 

[Split Rock]

Oh cool, thank you for clearing that up for me. Now I understand what Creationists mean by "genetic potential".

"Genetic potential" is made up of two parts.
1. Gene variants (alleles)
2. Genetic recombination.

The big problem that creationists have (and I have no seen one address this) is where did all the alleles we see today come from? If every human today is descended from two individuals, this means there was a maximum of four alleles available per gene locus from the start. This is because humans have two sets of chromosomes. Yet today we have some gene loci with 100s of alleleic variants in our population (such as the HLA group http://www.anthonynolan.com/HIG/ ). Where did all these alleles come from? They could only have originated by mutation. This is what increases the #1 category over time. With this in effect, there is no upper limit on the potential of evolution.

 

[Split Rock]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/m_oard.asp
http://www.creationresearch.org/speakers/bio_oard.htm

Thanks. Can you explain to me how a meterologist is qualified to examine the geological record?

 

[MarcusHill]

Where did all these alleles come from?

Genetic devolution, a side effect of the Fall.

 

[TheOutsider]

Genetic devolution, a side effect of the Fall.

YEC Handbook:

When all else fails, say one of the following:
1) God did it!
2) The Fall!
3) The Flood!
4) No, you're wrong!!
5) You wouldn't understand because God hasn't touched your brain yet.

 

[MarcusHill]

YEC Handbook:

When all else fails, say one of the following:
1) God did it!
2) The Fall!
3) The Flood!
4) No, you're wrong!!
5) You wouldn't understand because God hasn't touched your brain yet.

You forgot "it's in the Bible, so it must be true!"

 

[TheOutsider]

You forgot "it's in the Bible, so it must be true!"

You mean "It's in the KJV Bible, so it must be true!"

 

[Aron-Ra]

There are a series of traits which apply only to religion...

As defined by who?

Anyone. Its objectively determinable. If you don't believe me, try it yourself.

These would be the "hallmarks" you were talking about. Evolution has none of these. Nor can you list any others that it does have. Because you and I have had this conversation before, and you knew you were wrong then just as you know you're still wrong now. But being a creationist, you will continue to use arguments you know have already been proven wrong, and you don't care about that. But if it doesn't look like a duck, doesn't walk like a duck and never quacks like a duck, then why would keep trying to call it a duck?

Before I post in response to this you need to answer the question above.

Done. I took my defintion to a Theravada Buddhist temple, and even they resigned to admit it, albeit reluctantly. At first they argueed that they weren't a religion at all because they didn't believe in either a god, nor reincarnation or any notion of "self". But then one minute later, they said "After you die, you might exist as a ghost for a while before you live again" -thus proving my point. Also, their concept of Buddha as an immortal anthropomorphic being with a supernatural ability to hear and respond to prayer definitely qualifies as a god.

Forensic science? Why would you bring up forensic science?

Because that's what you're talking about when you want to pretend that it is impossible to reconstruct past events with scientific evidence in lieu of faith.

Whether creationists accept any amount of proof against them or not, the fact is that according to every ounce of paleontological evidence anyone has ever dug up...

Of course what should have been said here is; according to every evolutionary interpretation of the ''evidence''.

No, I meant 'evidence', not "interpretation of the evidence". See, "evidence" is a set of factual circumstances explicable by, or indicative of, one scenario over any other. If you think any of these things align better with your creation-by-magic-words scenario, you're welcome to explain what that evidence is. But I know there are volumes more facts against you than you could possibly suspect, and you'd have to address it all. Because the methods of interpreting evidence don't include ignoring it.

... there is every indication that the further back in time you look, the simpler and more similar living things appear to be until there are only single cells, and prior to that, there is no life of any kind at all. According to everything we know about the fossil record, there were no primates 100 million years ago, and no mammals 200 million years ago, and no land animals at all 400 million years ago. 600 million years ago, there weren’t even any fish or even bugs yet. We’ve never found any fossils for macroscopic life forms prior to 700 million years ago, but we have oodles of bacterial trace fossils covering another 2.8 billion years prior to the first multicellular anythings we’ve ever found a trace of. The only possible conclusion we can draw from all that is that life was only microscopic & microbial for the first 80% of the history of life on this planet. In addition, we also have genetic orthologues cross-confirming the morphological indications of evolution as well, and then there is the fact that we are still apes right now, and you never answered my direct question to you as to how else you could explain that. So there is profound evidence indicating our evolution and nothing but nothing to indicate any other conclusion.

So you have been led to believe. This is my point, how much of what you claim here is based on your own research? Are you a palaeontologist, a geologist, a biologist etc. etc. etc?

I think I can answer all that with a 'yes', because I am studying to be a career paleontologist, and I've already taken cellular biology, paleobiology, evolution as 4th level biology, and I've taken physical geology and historical geology, and I've been informed that my own original research in systematics was once cited as a resource in a Master's thesis in biology also.

Or is it simply the case that it is claimed by scientists so you accept it without question?

Definitely not. The scientist I most respect once said of science, that "Its only sacred truth is that there are no sacred truths. All assumptions must be critically examined. Arguments from authority are worthless. Whatever is inconsistent with the facts -- no matter how fond of it we are -- must be discarded or revised. Science is not perfect. It is often misused. It is only a tool, but it is the best tool we have -- self-correcting, ever changing, applicable to everything." And that's my perspective too.

faith is not "trust". Faith is a belief in impossible things which is assumed for no reason and defended against all reason to the contrary.

The very first entry for faith at Dictionary.com

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

emphasis added) Can you see that?

Perhaps its not clear enough, especially since you're ignoring context. Allow me to clarify:

You're also ignoring the rest of the definition from your own cited source:

"Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing, that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."
--Bartleby.com, Dictionary.com

Another dictionary says it is trust too. But it also vindicates what I said about faith being an unquestioned conviction without basis:

"complete trust or confidence. 2 strong belief in a religion. 3 a system of religious belief."
--AskOxford

And of course there are others which back me up too.

"Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting solely and implicitly on his authority and veracity; reliance on testimony."
--OneLook

"a firm belief in something for which there is no proof" --Merriam Webster Online Dictionary.

"Belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof,."
--Encarta

None of this indicates "trust".

"For quite a lot of people, faith or the lack thereof, is an important part of their identities. E.g. a person will identify him or herself as a Muslim or a skeptic. Many religious rationalists, as well as non-religious people, criticise implicit faith as being irrational. In this view, belief should be restricted to what is directly supportable by logic or evidence."
--Wikipedia

Then of course, we have the words of the clergy:

"Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees it must put out of sight, and wish to know nothing but the word of god.
Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but – more frequently than not – struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God."
--Sermons of Rev. Martin Luther, founder of Protestant Christianity

"Faith is the acceptance of the truth of a statement in spite of insufficient or contradictory evidence. …Faith is a cop-out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can’t be taken on its own merits.”
--Dan Barker, "Losing Faith in Faith; From Preacher to Atheist", 1992

Then we have other Christian sources like:

“To hear with my heart, to see with my soul, to be guided by a hand I cannot see, that's what faith must be.”
“So we follow God's own Fool For only the foolish can tell. Believe the unbelievable, And come be a fool as well”
--hymns of Michael Card

According to all these sources and even the BIble itself, faith is not synonemous with trust. It is a stoic conviction but without evidence.

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." [Hebrews 11:1] ”We look not at things seen, but at things not seen” [2 Corinthians 4:18] "for we walk by faith, not by sight." [2 Corinthians 5:7] "The faith which you have, have as your own conviction--"[Romans 14:22]”how blessed are they who have not seen but yet believe”
[John 27:29]

According to your assertions in a quote above which begins:''there is every indication that the further back in time you look...'' (and my response to it) and the dictionary definition of faith, that my assertion is senseless demonstrates poor judgement on your part.

As I have just shown in my response to both items, the poor judgement is still on your part.

 

[Aron-Ra]

This assertion is senseless, and is precisely why the scientific method includes critical analysis in peer review. Science doesn't let people get away with lies and false assertions like religion does.

You'll have to show me from The Bible where it allows people to lie and get away with it.

I said religion allows this. I can't remember whether the Bible does. But the founder of Protestant Christianity did.

"What harm would it do if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church...a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them."
--Rev. Martin Luther; in a letter in Max Lenz, ed.,

And of course we have other admissions even by Christians on this very board that if they had certain proof they were wrong, they would continue to believe anyway, because their faith requires it.

you still parrot the lie that both are equal because you wrongfully say both require faith. I can prove otherwise.

I stated; I believe that they are not equal. It couldn't have been any plainer. I also stand by the rest of what I said.

That they are equal in that they both require faith. Yes, you were very plain, and very plainly wrong, and as I said, I can prove it.

With regard to what I said about evolution (as I defined it) and faith, you can attempt to prove otherwise, of course, but I can tell you now that you will fail.

Only if I were foolish enough to allow you to argue your straw-man as you define it. If you're going to debate against the scientific position, you're going to cite scientific sources to make sure you're arguing against the same concept they promote. That means you have to argue evolution as they define it, not you.

Evolution is an aspect of biology. So it doesn't matter how the universe came into being. That is an entirely different and completely unrelated subject.

Each link in a chain is related but leaving evolution out for the time being do as I have asked and take me through what you believe from the beginning?

It doesn't matter. It could be a steady-state universe, conventional big bang, string theorists dimensional rift, or or cosmic expansion via "abra-cadabra" by your version of God, or some other method used by a more reasonable one. However the universe originated does not relate at all to how life evolved.

See, I said earlier in this very thread that creationists habitually use the word "evolution" incorrectly because their real problem isn't with evolution; its against science, and not just the conclusions of science, but its methods as well. You're proving my point.

Utter nonsense and a deliberate misrepresentation of this creationists position and you're proving to be an arrogant bore.

Whenever a creationist realizes he is losing on every single point, that's when they always call me boring and pretend they haven't time for me anymore. You're so predictable. But I'm right on the money. First of all, science necessarily must adhere to methodological naturalism, which is the thing all forms of creationism, (including intelligent design) are most against. Do you deny that you yourself are opposed to methodological naturalism?

How about uniformatarianism, another necessary aspect of scientific methodology? Do you deny that you're opposed to that as well?

What about the rule where everything you want to propose must first be based on posatively indicative evidence as opposed to faith? Do you deny that you're opposed to that as well?

How about the requirement that all proposed explanations by potentially falsifiable? Do you have any examples of that in your practice of "science"? What would it take for you to admit you were wrong?

I mean, you were wrong about evolution being either a religion or a fairy tale, and you're obviously wrong about this "deliberate misrepresentation" you accuse me of. But I doubt I'll ever hear any apology from you, will I?

Try reading Genesis. ''In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth...''. How did God create them? It doesn't say but looking at the rest of the creation account I think that He commanded it and it was so.

The Bhagavad Gita is much more specific about how God created the universe. But of course that talks about magic spells just like the Bible does. In reality, since both books were poetic parables written by primitive men pretending to speak for God, then both books are almost certainly wrong on several key points even if God really does exist in some form. In which case, God would work an orchestration of natural systems rather than mere incantations or golem spells.

And what of the limit of knowledge when you believe things that can never be tested,l which you assumed without any evidence at all, and which you already admit you're unable to reconsider?

I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make here... care to elaborate?

Sure. Faith means something supernatural, [can't be evidenced in any objective way] which you assume for subjective reasons [neither demonstrable nor testable] which isn't falsifiable. The only way to improve your understanding of anything is to question your assumptions, test them to find the flaws and correct them. But by assuming your conclusions and insisting that they're flawless from the start, you're only going to start out wrong and stay wrong forever.

They don't [have faith], as I have pointed out above. I myself certainly don't.

They and you most certainly do. Look again at your definition of faith above and compare it to the dictionary definition that I posted, it proves my point exactly.

I already proved that your definition is wrong. I can't believe anything without compelling evidence, and I certainly can't believe the unbelieveable. Because I don't have faith. You can stop trying to recite the old creationist slogan that everyone has faith, because I remind you that 2 Thessalonians 3:2 says no, we don't, and I particularly don't.

Hovind is but one of myriad examples to illustrate how creationism is naught but deliberately dishonest nonsense and propaganda.

An assertion with nothing to back it up... as if your opinion alone is enough.

Really? Let's test that, because I have said many times that there has never been a single credible proponent of evangelical creationism anywhere ever, because, (with only one notable exception) everyone who has ever published anti-evolutionary rhetoric to any medium did so only according to a prior religious agenda rather than any amount of scientific comprehension. They’ve all revealed inexcusable ignorance in the very fields where they claim expertise, and their arguments are all dependant on erroneous assumptions, prejudicial bias, logical fallacies, ridiculous parody, misdefined terms, misquoted authorities, distorted data, fraudulent figures, or out-and-out lies. Thus, there are only two types of arguments for creationism; those which can never be either vindicated or disproved, and those which have already been disproved many times over, both scientifically and in a court of law. So if you contend that this is only my opinion, then produce an exception to this rule and let me see one verifiably accurate argument in favor of creationism.

How about listening to the author of those textbooks revealing how the creationists were found guilty of purjury once their nonsense was put on trial?

I have but it would seem that you haven't.

Yes I have, and I read the transcripts and the ruling.

Miller was talking about IDists and I agree with a lot of what he had to say regarding them. Now It may suit you to lump IDists in with creationists, it may suit the IDists and maybe even some creationists, but I know that a lot of creationists would strongly disagree with you and them.

IDists are creationists by definition.

We know who The Creator is and are not ashamed to say it loud and clear...

No you don't know that. There are lots of religions each claiming to know the others are wrong. Because faith often amounts to pretending to know what you know no one even can know, but instead only believe on faith. But the difference between knowledge and mere belief is that knowledge can always be tested. If you can't show it, you don't know it.

THE WORD, OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST.

And hundreds of millions of Hindus "know" it is Krsna/Vishnu, and hundreds of millions of Muslims and Jews "know" it is El/Abba/Allah/YHWH, and not Jesus at all. But the fact is that none of you really knows what you all pretend to know.

Your closing statement does not impress me. That evolution happened is never questioned.

You know, repeating the same lie again and again still can't make it become truth. The fact that evolution has happened and still is happening has been very well established by now. But it is still questioned and its still being tested.

The greatest minds of the modern age is a matter of opinion, and not just yours. Creationists do not oppose taxonomy as such only evolutionists use of it as ''evidence'' for evolution.

Again, because you don't understand it and can't deal with it. That's why you still can't explain why humans are in the category of apes and Old World monkeys.

They question the assumptions behind ''deep time'' and whether or not the geologic column exists anywhere other than in textbooks.

Unless they do as former YEC, Glenn Morton did, and see it for themselves. Dr. Morton said every one of the YECs he hired from his old creationist school suffered a crisis of faith once they saw the reality for themselves in the day-to-day job of petrogeology.

Heliocentrcity. I do not know of any creationists who oppose this... Do you?

I wouldn't say so if it wasn't true, or if I couldn't back it up. Read RichardT's recent posts in this very thread!

 

[RichardT]

Why is it that when I read my posts, for some reason I get the impression that you read it as if I were just some kid? My voice is really deep and I'm almost an adult.