For Creationists.....

[Edx]

So where is theistic evolution in this diagram?

Philosophical / Methodological Naturalism. (which again, for all practical purposes is atheistic)

You are sort of correct that theistic evolution is, practically, still Methodological Naturalism. However it makes the diagram wrong, because it would only make sence to lump in theistic evolution with Methodological Naturalism if it were a diagram showing what is anti-science or not. But thats not what it is showing, so I'd be a bit insulted if my belief in a god was represented that way as simply the same as atheism.

thaumaturgy and Aron-Ra told me many times that unless I can objectively test for God, then I cannot use Him in science.

Try to look at it this way and imagine you think pixies have something to do with global warming. Well you cant put forward any scientific theory containing a mention of pixies if you cannot give any scientific evidence for either the pixies or the mechanisms for how they manage to cause the damage. Same here. Thats why ID still isnt scientific, its simply incredulity at best.

Again, for example, in a Godless universe, why should we assume that natural laws have always been consistent in the unobserved past?

Because we have no reason to assume they were otherwise. If you assume they were different for no reason you can take it to its peak of ridiculousness with no further effort and accidently find your are just like dad talking about diamond core earths and flood water coming from mars accross space because anything could be possible and anything could be true.

The fact that they are consistent now doesn't tell us anything about the past, what if all natural laws were to change every so often in the unobserved past?

If they did you'd think they would leave some sign that they did, but thus far we have no reason to make such an improbable leap.

Ed

 

[RichardT]

If they did you'd think they would leave some sign that they did

Perfect. You proved my point.

 

[Edx]

If they did you'd think they would leave some sign that they did

Perfect. You proved my point.

Please explain. I dont see how I "proved your point"?

 

[FoeHammer]

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

God is the authority not Martin Luther.

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.

My Christian faith doesn’t require it.

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.

Originally I said:
I have seen it but am not counted among them as I believe that they are not equal.
The next sentence showed that I was referring to the inequality in the degree of faith required.
You can cite all the evolutionist interpretations of ''evidence'' you like but simple(?) life-form to human evolution, that I will, from now on, refer to as mega-evolution, has not been observed, cannot be tested and cannot be demonstrated.

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.

How is simple(?) life-form to human evolution a ''strawman''? Who are ''they''? How do they define it?

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.

It matters to me? What do you believe with regards to the origin of the universe? I am intrigued, is there an explanation that does not require faith to one degree or another?
It seems to me that you could probably have a universe without life but could you have life without a universe? I think the alleged evolution of life relates directly to any alleged origin of the universe.

Whenever a creationist realizes he is losing on every single point that's when they always call me boring…

I realized only that you are proving to be an arrogant bore.

… and pretend they haven't time for me anymore. You're so predictable.

I’m obviously not that predictable.

But I'm right on the money. First of all, science necessarily must adhere to methodological naturalism…

I don’t see why science ''necessarily must adhere to methodological naturalism''.
When one considers that this ''philosophical tenet'' is merely a human construct, the acceptance, or rejection, of it would be a matter of personal opinion and choice.

… 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?

With regards to origins I do not deny it.

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

I do not deny this either because I do not see why it must be ''another necessary aspect''. The uniformitarian assumption is both unproven and unprovable and therefore accepted by faith and if your faith is permissible so too is everyone else’s.

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?

What do you mean by ''positively indicative evidence''?

How about the requirement that all proposed explanations by potentially falsifiable?

How does one go about falsifying the truth?

Do you have any examples of that in your practice of "science"?

I don’t practice ''science''.

What would it take for you to admit you were wrong?

About what?

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?

Evolution is a religion (a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe…) and a fairytale (an interesting but highly implausible story; often told as an excuse.)
If I truly believed that I was wrong I would indeed owe you an apology and you would get it… but I don’t so you won’t.
I have no problem with science based on observation(s), repeatable experiment(s) and demonstration(s). mega-evolution is based on none of these things.

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.

I am not interested in the ''Bhagavad Gita'', your arguments from personal incredulity nor what you imagine a god would or wouldn’t do ''if he(?) really did exist in some form''.

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.

Faith = trust = faith.

The only way to improve your understanding of anything is to question your assumptions…

And the assumptions of others.

… test them to find the flaws and correct them.

Mega-evolution - Not observed, not repeatable, not testable = Flawed.

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.

Note to atheists.

I already proved that your definition is wrong.

It wasn’t my definition and it wasn’t wrong.

I can't believe anything without compelling evidence…

This is something I am trying to determine with my questions about the origin of the universe, life and, mega-evolution.

… and I certainly can't believe the unbelieveable.

I can’t believe the unbelievable either.

Because I don't have faith.

But you do, every time you take another’s explanation for something you were not there to witness.

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.

2 Thessalonians 3:1-2 (King James Version)
1Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may have free course, and be glorified, even as it is with you:
2And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith.
3But the Lord is faithful, who shall stablish you, and keep you from evil.

This is the deliberate oversight I made mention of in an earlier post.
Was Paul referring to a faith in particular or faith in general?
Verse 1 makes it plain enough with, ''the word of Lord …''
I therefore take verse 2 to mean, ‘’for all men have not faith.’’ in (the word of) the Lord. Simple really isn’t it.
Using your definition of faith What do you think Paul means by ''the Lord is faithful'' in verse 3?

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.

What rule? All you have given here is your subjective opinion. The objective reality of course is that not everyone must conform to your rule nor, necessarily, to the rule(s) of methodological naturalism.
The appeal to ''science'' and ''a court of law'' are irrelevant, in my view, unless it can be shown that either one is infallible. For me as a Christian the ''laws'' of man are no different to the ''science'' of man… if either one contradicts the Bible then it is wrong.

FoeHammer.

 

[FoeHammer]

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

IDists are creationists by definition.

What definition would that be?

4. Is intelligent design theory the same as creationism?

No. Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case. For more information read Center Director Stephen Meyer's piece "Intelligent Design is not Creationism" that appeared in The Daily Telegraph (London) or Center Associate Director's piece " Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren't the Same" in Research News & Opportunities.
http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php

(Emphasis added.)

No you don't know that.

Yes I do know that. It’s in The Bible.

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.

What do you mean by ‘’faith often amounts to’’? And why does ‘’If you can't show it, you don't know it’’ not apply to the origin of the universe, origin of life and mega-evolution?

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.

Let those of other faiths defend their faith.

You know, repeating the same lie again and again still can't make it become truth.

Yes you have demonstrated that.

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.

What do you mean by 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.

Of course I can explain it… Because someone decided to put them there.

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.

Shall I post testimonies of atheistic evolutionists who have become Christians and creationists? Would that impress 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!

As I have said I know of one now… so what?

FoeHammer.

 

[TheOutsider]

Intelligent design's main characteristics -- rejection of naturalism, denial of evolution, belief in abrupt appearance and supernatural design, emphasis on gaps in the fossil record, claims of scientific support, claims that evolution is a threat to society, and support for "teaching the controversy" -- are essentially unchanged from young-earth creationism of the 1970s (Forrest 2005).

 

[Aron-Ra]

Philosophical / Methodological Naturalism. (which again, for all practical purposes is atheistic)

You know, I really get tired of creationists ignoring all my direct questions.

Imagine that it is not "philisophical naturalism", because in fact it is not. But remember that the mission of science is to improve our understanding of the perceptible universe, and we must be able to identify the flaws in our perception and be sure that it is improving when corrections are made. How can you do that in your framework where you can bypass mythodology and ignore everything you don't wanna see because magic counts as science and "cuz I wanna believe it" counts as evidence, and where you'll never be either systematic nor accountable on any point?

 

[TheOutsider]

Naturalism: the crazy belief that we should trust what our senses tell us.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Naturalism: the crazy belief that we should trust what our senses tell us.

I dunno, I've been on some crazy trips in my time...

 

[thaumaturgy]

I don’t see why science ''necessarily must adhere to methodological naturalism''.
When one considers that this ''philosophical tenet'' is merely a human construct, the acceptance, or rejection, of it would be a matter of personal opinion and choice.

Why does that confuse you? Science necessarily must adhere to accepting only those factors for which there is reason to believe they exist for all observers.

This isn't just a "Choice" we make because we are inherently evil and just want to sin. It's the only way science works.

It says nothing about God's existence or lack thereof. IF someone could prove God existed and was able to test for God then God could be put into the sciences. Sadly, despite an entirety of humanity's existence and effort to that end, no such proof/evidence/data has been put up there.

Sorry, if you are unable to do that simple thing then it isn't science's fault that God can't be used as an hypothesis. It's YOUR fault.

No offense, but you are the one who should be doing your work before suggesting how you think science should work.

Please, more work, less talky-talky! You have a simple task. All you have to do is prove god to exist and experiential by all objective observers. Simple as that! Easy peasy!

 

[RichardT]

Please explain. I dont see how I "proved your point"?

We are to look for these signs.

 

[TheOutsider]

I dunno, I've been on some crazy trips in my time...

There is a reason I used the plural.

 

[Aron-Ra]

God is the authority not Martin Luther.

Only if God exists, which he evidently doesn't. And even if he did exist, he never says anything. He lets Pat Robertson, Jerry Fallwell, Kent Hovind, and Martin Luther do his speaking for him. Religion allows lies because those who founded religions permit lying to promote religion.

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.

My Christian faith doesn’t require it.

It must. Why else would you defend a belief system based entirely on a series of falsehoods with not one element of it that is verifiably accurate? Why do you insist on following dishonest creationist practices of denying evidence and redefining terms into strawmen fallacies?

Originally I said:
I have seen it but am not counted among them as I believe that they are not equal.
The next sentence showed that I was referring to the inequality in the degree of faith required.

And I accused you of saying they were both equal in that you assert that they both require faith. You keep proving my point.

You can cite all the evolutionist interpretations of ''evidence'' you like but simple(?) life-form to human evolution, that I will, from now on, refer to as mega-evolution, has not been observed, cannot be tested and cannot be demonstrated.

And there you go again, denying evidence, and redefining "mega-evolution" to suit your fallacy.

Faith is naught but a means of auto-deception, and I cite you as an example of why I must reject it. If you somehow my position still requires faith somehow, then do please explain how I might rid myself of what little faith you imagine is left. Because when I look at the fact that evolution is observed in real time presently and consistently evident in the fossil record as well as in taxomomy and genomics, and that it is testable in each of those cases, I have to think that it must take less faith to tentatively believe in these things which are demonstrable and testable and which we can understand with a measurable degree of accuracy -than to believe in some collection of ignorant crackpots who believe only in the most illogical magic nonsense, who can't agree even with each other, and not only can't give any reason to believe them, but are constantly destroying their own crediblity.

How is simple(?) life-form to human evolution a ''strawman''?

Because as you define it, evolution is a necessarily atheist yet faith-based religion concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, and that macroevolution has never been observed, and neither have there ever been any transitional species ever discovered. Everything you argue for is a strawman, and all your arguments are completely wrong. Evolution meets none of the criteria shared in common with all actual religions, and as a science it denies the involvement of faith, yet most Christians are evolutionists and most evolutionists are Christian, we know of hundreds of examples of transitional species even according to the strictest definition possible, and macroevolution has been observed and documented dozens of times. You really couldn't be more wrong about every point you try to make, and you've been this way since you started posting here. Why do you keep trying?

Who are ''they''? How do they define it?

"They" are the scientific communty you're trying to argue against, and the way they define it is pretty much as I have done. But I'll give you the official version:

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.​

Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance.​

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.

It matters to me? What do you believe with regards to the origin of the universe? I am intrigued, is there an explanation that does not require faith to one degree or another?

Yes. I was never a fan of Big Bang cosmology. I don't know. It just doesn't sit well with me. But I can't argue against it. At Talk.origins I tried, and I got my ass handed back to me. So I have to concede that the Big Bang is the best-supported theory of universal origins. But I'm hoping someone figures out another explanation that works better. Now how does the origin of the universe have jack to do with evolutionary development on this planet?

It seems to me that you could probably have a universe without life but could you have life without a universe? I think the alleged evolution of life relates directly to any alleged origin of the universe.

Nope. There's no relation, and you're talking like a loony.

Whenever a creationist realizes he is losing on every single point that's when they always call me boring…

I realized only that you are proving to be an arrogant bore.

See?

I’m obviously not that predictable.

Please. You may as well have been stamped out of a rabid zealot making machine. The only surprise is that you keep on trying despite having perfect failure rate to date.

 

[Aron-Ra]

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.

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?

I don’t see why science ''necessarily must adhere to methodological naturalism''.

Thank you for proving that I was correct in my assessment of creationists rejecting both the conclusions and methods of science.

When one considers that this ''philosophical tenet'' is merely a human construct, the acceptance, or rejection, of it would be a matter of personal opinion and choice.

Again you've revealed a failure to grasp even the fundamentals of science. I just explained this to RichardT. But I'll repeat it here. Remember that the mission of science is to improve our understanding of the perceptible universe, and we must be able to identify the flaws in our perception and be sure that it is improving when corrections are made. How can you do that in your framework where you can bypass mythodology and ignore everything you don't wanna see because nothing is ever testable when magic counts as science and "cuz I wanna believe it" counts as evidence, and where you'll never be either systematic nor accountable on any point?

Do you deny that you yourself are opposed to methodological naturalism?

With regards to origins I do not deny it.

You're contradicting yourself.

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

I do not deny this either because I do not see why it must be ''another necessary aspect''. The uniformitarian assumption is both unproven and unprovable and therefore accepted by faith and if your faith is permissible so too is everyone else’s.

So you're saying that it requires faith to believe that, without any indication to the contrary, that the laws of matter and physics worked in the past the way they do today? How does that qualify as faith? Does it also require faith to believe that physics were arbitrarily different and consequently incomprehensible in the past? Wouldn't such an assumption also render science completely inert? "The present is the key to the past" because otherwise, we couldn't learn anything at all. But we've discovered certain consistent patterns in nature, and they've shown that the universe is knowable. Its the reason science works.

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?

What do you mean by ''positively indicative evidence''?

Wow. OK. Here's a good example; Leprechauns. They can be silent and invisible, and they live only in the places where no one has ever looked. So you can never prove they don't exist. Its impossible to prove a universal negative. But that doesn't mean you should assume that they do exist. They might exist, sure. But you've got nothing to indicate that they do, so you'd have to base your belief in them on faith instead. If you want to claim there are leprechauns, science requires that you show evidence of them right then and there. If you can't show sufficient cause to consider your claim, then you can't make that claim.

Now should you be plowing up some newly-accuired virgin farmland in Ireland, and unearth a community of tiny fully-furnished and decorated dwellings suitable only for people less than 6" tall, then you may be onto something, especially if it includes a working plumbing and septic system too small for normal people to build. As Carl Sagan said, "posative claims require posative evidence." But he added that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". So if all your leprechauns fled when they heard the backhoe coming, then you'd better look around that diminuative community to see if you can find a pot with a bunch of gold in it.

How about the requirement that all proposed explanations by potentially falsifiable?

How does one go about falsifying the truth?

You couldn't obviously. But you have to try. Because remember, it has to be "potentially" falsifiable. So you come up with circumstances related to your hypothesis which would prove it wrong -if it was wrong, in whole or in part. Something like this; "If x is true, then y should be true also", or "If x is true, then z could not be true." Then you turn it over to your peers who will spend eternity trying to find all the flaws in whatever you propose -just like they're still trying to do with evolution. See, the truth obviously can't be falsified. But neither can creationism, because if everything happens by magic, and apologetics can always rationalize some excuse about how gods or devils can bend all reality at will to suit their preferred illusion, and there's never a process or mechanism ever given for anything, nothing that can ever be tested, then it would never be possible to falsify even the most blatant lie.

Do you have any examples of that in your practice of "science"?

I don’t practice ''science''.

Where is my "well duh" emoticon?

What would it take for you to admit you were wrong?

About what?

Anything. The only way to improve your understanding of anything is to find the flaws in your current perspective and correct them. But you won't even admit there are flaws to correct. So you're effectly saying that you personally already know everything about everything and you know it all perfectly. But you haven't been right about anything yet.

Evolution is a religion (a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe…)

I repeat; you're going to have to correct your definition because the one you're using excludes several universally-accepted religions. And your allegation has still failed because this definition doesn't apply to evolution either -since evolution, (being strictly limited to biology only) doesn't even relate to the "cause of the universe" nor its "purpose", and it allows actual religions to determine that for themselves. Repeating the same lie unchanged will not make it any truer. You're going to have to correct it.

and a fairytale (an interesting but highly implausible story; often told as an excuse.)

Again, I must repeat that creationism is the "highly-implausible excuse", and it is the one with the folklorish characters like giants, enchantments, and talking animals. Evolution, on the other hand, is objectively demonstrable myriad different ways including by direct observation in real time.

If I truly believed that I was wrong I would indeed owe you an apology and you would get it… but I don’t so you won’t.

That's why faith is auto-deceptive; its a mind-set wherein you assume what you do for no reason and will not allow yourself to reconsider that for any reason. So it offers no way to seek the real truth about anything. But its a great way to stay wrong forever and never know it.

I have no problem with science based on observation(s), repeatable experiment(s) and demonstration(s). mega-evolution is based on none of these things.

"Mega-evolution" is another strawman word you just made up. Biological evolution including the concept of common ancestry is based on all of those, and on some level, you know it is.

I was going to continue disproving your every point indefinitely. But it seems I have already done that, and all you can do now is repeat arguments you already know are hopelessly wrong. Talking to you is very much like talking to a taunting child in a playground. You are intellectually bereft and beneath me. I have way too much homework to do with tests already looming, to waste any more time on someone like you. If you ever conjure the cognizance for an honest conversation where you'll actually be accountable, then I may reconsider. But you've never shown that capacity yet, and I won't hold my breath.

 

[TheOutsider]

"Mega-evolution"? I guess the Creationists decided to give up on disproving "macro-evolution", skipped up a few taxonomy levels and made up a new word. Let me know when they get up to "ultra-super-duper evolution".

 

[Aron-Ra]

"Mega-evolution"? I guess the Creationists decided to give up on disproving "macro-evolution", skipped up a few taxonomy levels and made up a new word. Let me know when they get up to "ultra-super-duper evolution".

They have that already. Its what they think happened after "the flood".

 

[FoeHammer]

Yes, Dictionary.com lists nine definitons for that word.

I know.

….. Only the first definition deals with anything specifically religious…

It says ‘’esp.’’ Not explicitly.

… if you still want to assert that evolution is a religion, you're going to have to try again, because your first attempt failed.

It hasn’t.

Nope. Didn't even hint at it.

Are you sure?

Because it does work, and you're trying to make it sound like it can't.

I never said that it can’t work.

Its still demonstrably more reliably accurate than your *****, despite your shallow insinuation that, if it ain't infallible, then it ain't no good at all.

So, you have faith in a fallible science I have faith in the infallible God.

No, I told what the only possible indication is, and I challenged you to present any counter interpretation you could for all that I was referring to. Because there are no other option to "interpret". For example, remember that deep time, dating methods, and the geologic column were descovered by Christian scientists, and they identified index fossils indicating several successions of speciations and extinctions. Then of course, taxonomy was developed by another Christian scientist to classify all these things and common group relationships were cited even then, and all this was a century before

Darwin was even born. How do you "interpret" that?

As irrelevant; I am not persuaded simply because someone is a ''Christian''.

All of it. I've cross referenced and confirmed everything I've ever been taught, and have now dedicated more than a decade of concentrated study into this topic, six years of that before I ever even went back to school.

Let me rephrase the question since I obviously didn’t make it plain with the original... My apologies.
How much of what you claimed is based on your own discoveries of original ‘’evidence’’ in each of the fields you are studying/have studied?

Wrong. faith = stoic trust/confidence/belief ...without evidence, and stoic trust/confidence/belief without evidence = faith.

You had better drop the online etymology dictionary a line. I’m sure they’ll be only too happy to have their mistakes pointed out to them and corrected by you. When they have added that correction I'll reconsider my position.

No, because what you quoted you also deliberately snipped to edit out the important part.

I snipped the irrelevant part as the first entry was sufficient.

When necessary, I will. You, on the other hand, should learn how to admit when you're wrong. But of course if you did that, you couldn't be a creationist anymore.

When I am wrong I can, and do, admit that I am….. and I’m still a creationist.

But still, when trying to determine the definition of a word, one would have to turn to definitive sources and cross-reference those as I have done.

That would depend on how desperate you are to be right after the realization that the first definition entry does nothing to help.

I doubt very much that you could produce any equal array to counter the real definition as I have revealed it.

No need, I posted sufficient.

Well, at least you admit that the Bible is only the opinion of others.

A deliberate misunderstanding of my position in order to score a point… PATHETIC.

…..

Irrelevant ….. and every definitive verse of the Bible itself ….. irrelevant .....

Faith and trust are synonymous, you can apply your definition of faith to what you perceive to be the faith of others but it does not apply to mine (I can only speak for myself). My (absolute) faith in God is (absolute) trust in God and I see nothing in God’s word that explicitly requires it to be anything more than that.
You have failed in your attempts to show that it does but succeeded in demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of scripture. Quote mining would best describe your tactics here.

If I may be permitted to do a little quote mining from The bible myself I like this one that you chose:

Hebrews 11 (King James Version)

1Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

It can be directly applied to mega-evolution. Do I need to explain why?

FoeHammer.

 

[MoonLancer]

They have that already. Its what they think happened after "the flood".

amazing post Aron-Ra

 

[Blayz]

It can be directly applied to mega-evolution. Do I need to explain why?

FoeHammer.

All joking aside, you really are going to explain "mega-evolution", and how it differs from macro-evolution...actually, a definition of macro-evolution wouldn't hurt either.

 

[lemmings]

FoeHammer, you consider macro-evolution as evolution from molecules to man. What possible room is there for something of an even larger scale like ‘mega-evolution’?