If you don't accept common descent...

[marktheblake]

Are you saying that the Church has never killed scientific inquiry?

Nothing of the sort. I am saying that if you are going to stand on your high horse and preach the righteousness/integrity of science, and the need to protect it from the evil church and creationists, then you should support claims such as the myth below, with evidence, peer reviewed of course.

The most famous example is Galileo, and many would say creationism in general kills scientific inquiry.

Many would say that people like you are killing scientific enquiry because you are denying the creationist the right to carry out their research.

 

[Biblewriter]

NO...you are the one that is incorrect. Science deals exclusively with the natural. If we find a situation that known natural phenomena cannot explain, scientists accept that it must be an unknown natural phenomenon that is causing the effect. That is, we say we dont know.

"We don't know" is the default position, not "Godidit" or "Fairies at the bottom of the garden did it". This is the false dichotomy that you guys get into. God is not the only alternative. He's not even the most likely alternative.

I have to seriously doubt your biography if you fail on this simple but fundamental point.[/quote]

In saying that "scientists accept that it must be an unknown natural phenomenon that is causing the effect," your logic completely breaks down.

To say such a thing would be to assume that everything has a natural cause. This would be unscientific in the extreme.

It is obvious that every effect has a cause. This is simply an observation of science. But when you add the word "natural" to the word "cause," you have strayed off the reservation.

When science cannot find the cause, it can only say, "we do not know the cause." It cannot say, "there was some unknown natural cause." Science cannot rule out the supernatural. It can only say that it cannot rule on the supernatural.

It is fully as unscientific to insist that an unknown cause was not supernatural as to assume that it was supernatural.

There are indeed scientists that attempt to document the supernatural in ghostly events, etc. To dismiss these men as unscientific would be nonsense. They obviously cannot explain what they think they find (unless they happen to prove that an event is a hoax) but they work to prove that something indeed happened. This is science, even though it deals with the supernatural.

(And by the way, I do not approve of such investigations, for I fear that they will lead to Demonic influence.)

 

[Biblewriter]

Are you saying that the Church has never killed scientific inquiry? The most famous example is Galileo, and many would say creationism in general kills scientific inquiry.

And many others would say, and truthfully so, that a slavish devotion to evolution also kills scientific inquiry.

Why else would "scientists" seek to abolish debate on the subject of evolution? The attempt to abolish debate on this issue has been thoroughly documented countless times. But attempting to squelch debate is as unscientific as it is possible to be.

 

[Biblewriter]

So what do you say when scientific inquiry tells us that the Earth and universe is billions of years old, and that things evolve?

Scientific inquiry tells us things that many assume to indicate that things evolve.

The entire scientific debate is as to whether or not the observed facts do indeed tell us that things evolve. The only reason many evolutionists desire to squelch this debate is that they simply cannot answer many of the objections offered. For others, it is an emotional issue. They are so personally invested in the accuracy of their assumptions that they are unable to handle any challenge to their accuracy.

We remain willing to debate this issue on a purely scientific level or on a scriptural level at any time.

 

[metherion]

In saying that "scientists accept that it must be an unknown natural phenomenon that is causing the effect," your logic completely breaks down.

To say such a thing would be to assume that everything has a natural cause. This would be unscientific in the extreme.


No. It is NOT unscientific. Do you know what declaring something to have a supernatural cause would do to science?

First, it would mean giving up. Nope, nothing we know now, nothing we could possibly ever develop, nothing we don’t even don’t know we don’t know yet could EVER POSSIBLY explain it. The EXACT OPPOSITE of science.

Oh, and of course we can’t test for the supernatural so we’d be asserting a conclusion completely unsupported by any evidence save ‘we don’t know right now’.

Third, which supernatural cause? The FSM? Thor? Zeus? The IPU? Christianity’s God? Oriental ancestor spirits? Well, none can be differentiated, tested for, or anything, so that is another evidenceless assertion.

And don’t forgot, finally, that anything that relies on the supposedly supernaturally caused event must also share said supernatural cause, and halt scientific progress on those fields.

So, yeah, invoking the supernatural in science involves:
One. Saying we know all right now, so since we don’t know it it is naturally unknowable or impossible. (unscientific in two ways)
Two. Declaring an explanation that we can by definition have no evidence for (unscientific).
Three. Call a halt to all scientific progress in that area (unscientific).
Four. Declare an undifferentiatable (sp?) cause (unscientific).

Versus:

One. Saying we don’t know (perfectly allowed).
Two. Saying that just because we don’t know it doesn’t mean there isn’t a reason we can know.
Three. Looking on. (science)

Yeah, declaring a supernatural cause is TOTALLY scientific.

It is obvious that every effect has a cause. This is simply an observation of science. But when you add the word "natural" to the word "cause," you have strayed off the reservation.

Nope.
Science goes after knowable causes. Science can only know the natural. Therefore science goes after natural causes.

When science cannot find the cause, it can only say, "we do not know the cause." It cannot say, "there was some unknown natural cause." Science cannot rule out the supernatural. It can only say that it cannot rule on the supernatural.

But it keeps looking for an unknown natural cause. It cannot say ‘the cause was not supernatural’, but if there is an unknown cause, and you can only look for natural causes, what do you say?

It is fully as unscientific to insist that an unknown cause was not supernatural as to assume that it was supernatural.

No. This is flat out wrong.

There are indeed scientists that attempt to document the supernatural in ghostly events, etc. To dismiss these men as unscientific would be nonsense. They obviously cannot explain what they think they find (unless they happen to prove that an event is a hoax) but they work to prove that something indeed happened. This is science, even though it deals with the supernatural.


But if they can document and find empirical evidence of what they find, it becomes something that science can test on.

And many others would say, and truthfully so, that a slavish devotion to evolution also kills scientific inquiry.


What ‘slavish devotion to evolution’? The evidence supports it, that’s all there is to it. Unless there is slavish devotion to gravity, slavish devotion to cell theory, slavish devotion to relativity... and if so why don’t THEY diminish scientific inquiry?

Why else would "scientists" seek to abolish debate on the subject of evolution?

Because the evidence is so overwhelmingly in favor of evolution that there is no scientific debate? Because there are more historians that claim the Holocaust didn’t happen than scientists in relevant fields who deny evolution? Because attempting to debate with the current crop of anti-evolutionists doesn’t come down to the science but to rhetoric, as the anti-evolutionists have none? Because engaging in debate with said anti-evolutionists lends legitimacy to their position when it has none?

I will make a disclaimer: I do not remember whether the historians against the Holocaust versus scientists in relevant fields against evolution is an absolute number or a relative number.

The attempt to abolish debate on this issue has been thoroughly documented countless times. But attempting to squelch debate is as unscientific as it is possible to be.

A qualified no. Attempting to squelch debate when there is real evidence and the debate will be made on scientific points is extremely unscientific. Attempting to squelch debate when one side has no science, just religion and rhetoric, and judges victory by being able to fling out more false accusations then the other side can hope to thoroughly counter in the alloted time is not.

Scientific inquiry tells us things that many assume to indicate that things evolve.

There doesn’t need to be assumptions made, that’s what the evidence shows.

The entire scientific debate is as to whether or not the observed facts do indeed tell us that things evolve.

And there IS NO SCIENTIFIC DEBATE!

The only reason many evolutionists desire to squelch this debate is that they simply cannot answer many of the objections offered.

Because they are either about a different field of science or because they are about religion! NOT EVOLUTIONARY SCIENCE! The cases that ARE about evolutionary science have already either been answered or are being currently researched as “currently unknown”.

For others, it is an emotional issue. They are so personally invested in the accuracy of their assumptions that they are unable to handle any challenge to their accuracy.

This is FAR more applicable to the anti-evolution side of the debate, as the position is almost universally based off of either misunderstanding or religion.

We remain willing to debate this issue on a purely scientific level or on a scriptural level at any time.

Well, since any “science” has been shown to either be junk science or psuedo science a long time ago, and scripture ISN”T SCIENCE, there isn’t any point, and any victory on the anti-evolution side will generally only be due to rhetoric or gross misunderstandings that won’t or can’t be resolved in the time limits... there is no point.

Metherion

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm amazed- the lack of evolution
I'm amazed- at the lack of faith
I'm amazed- at the love we rejecting
I'm amazed- what we accept in its place

like the rhythm of the earth
and the rhythm of the ages
like the rhythm- i get disrupted

My Morning Jacket​

*facepalm* Aristotle was considered the pinnacle of philosophical thought in most of the Middle Ages, not the founder of one of the most well founded scientific theories of the modern era.

Which indicates to me you don't realize that I am talking about Aristolelian mechanics. How the would be apologists for scientific thought know nothing of the history of modern science is a mystery to me:

Born at Pisa in 1564, Galileo studied medicine and mathematics and became a professor at Pisa in the late 1580s. But because the largely Aristotelian faculty was hostile to him, Galileo decided to move on to Florence. Eventually he settled at Padua and between 1592 and 1610 his mathematics lectures at the university attracted students from across the Continent...

...He showed that an object thrown into the air falls to the earth along a parabola. What he ended up doing was casting doubt on Aristotelian mechanics -- he challenged the monopoly on scientific education enjoyed by university clerics who had, so he thought, learned nothing since their earliest encounter with Aristotle. The Scientific Revolution, 1600-1642​

I would just love it if TEs would just ask when they don't know what I'm talking about without correcting me without knowing what they're talking about.

Well, alternate timelines isn’t my point of strength, but I would definitely hesitate to throw that ‘never’ out there.

Further, it is currently a certain sect of Protestantism which attempts to retard.. let’s see here... astronomy, geology, paleontology, biology, chemistry, physics, that I can name off the top of my head on religious grounds.

I mean never and it's not religion that is 'retarding' (cleaver way of calling us stupid btw) it's secular philosophy, various dogmas and perverted rules of demonstration creating fictitious and theatrical worlds. What really fascinates me about you is without the slightest interest in the scientific aspects of the topic before us you come off like one of it's apologists, very curious, very curious indeed.

"...there are idol which have crept into men's minds from the various dogmas of peculiar systems of philosophy, and also from the perverted rules of demonstration...for we regard all the systems of philosophy hitherto received or imagined, as so many plays brought out and performed, creating fictitious and theatrical worlds." (Francis Bacon, Novum Organum)​

The biggest problem for me is secular humanism, it is the more grotesque of the masks they wear in the Darwinian theater of the mind.

*facepalm* Nope. It is the religious attempting to spew the rhetoric and make the science into a worldview that it is not. After all, you need a religion to oppose a religion, and since it is science opposing the religion, gotta warp and twist it and then lie to convince people about the warping. But it’s okay, it’s for GAWD.

No, the onslaught was not from barbaric religious zealots storming the gates of science. Modern science like democracy was a child of the Reformation. That parabola Galileo was describing could not be measured until Principia and the introduction of calculus. As many times as it happens it never ceases to amaze me how TEs and evolutionists always assume creationists to be retarded and uninformed.

Darwinian evolution is one aspect of one field that combines with all the ones I listed above to show evidence against one particular religious interpretation that is a stretch almost certainly against how said holy book was intended to be used in which religion has overstepped its bounds and now wages a propaganda war because it has nothing else to stand on.

Darwinian evolution is a false assumption of universal common decent that rejects the supernatural a priori (without prior), that is before empirical evidence is considered. Darwin was the most popular but certainly not the first to us atheistic materialism as the very definition of science.

Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly-celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801; he much enlarged them in 1809 in his "Philosophie Zoologique,' and subsequently, in 1815, in the Introduction to his "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertébres.' In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Preface, On the Origin of Species)​

This was a philosophy long before it became a science, falsely so called. There was spontaneous generation:

Hence without parent by Spontaneous birth
Rise the first specks of animated earth;
From nature’s womb the plant or insect swims,
And buds or breathes with microscopic limbs...​

Atheistic materialism

...Immortal matter braves the transient storm,
Mounts from the wreck, unchanging but in form...​

And the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life, aka pseudo-scientific racism

The clime unkind, or noxious food instils
To embryon nerves hereditary ills;
The feeble births acquired diseases chase
Till death extinguish the degenerate race.
(Erasmus Darwin, The Temple of Nature)​

No. Science is about using tools, some physical and some mental, to increase the knowledge of mankind about the universe around us. Certainly, most forms have real world applications. Certainly most forms are directly observed. But just as in criminal forensics, directly observed events are not always available and may certainly be validly extrapolated. Unless you plan to call foul on forensics, of course.

Like I said, paraphrasing Francis Bacon, Science is about tools both mental and physical. I don't know what that little tangent you went off on means to you but it meant absolutely nothing to me.

Then how can He be studied even indirectly?

If you were an ancient Hebrew it was the Law of Moses, during the United Kingdom in Israel it was the Levites. Later it would be the proclamations of the prophets and with Christ and the Apostles it was the Gospel and the Apostle's doctrine. Now it's Holy Scripture that dovetails with the natural revelation of God's glory being reflected in His creation:

since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools (Romans 1:19-22)​




Which is not rhetoric but is true.

It is the dogma of atheistic materialism masking itself in pseudo-objectivity.

*facepalm* If it can’t say anything about Him then it can’t say He isn’t the cause. If also can’t say He IS the cause. It could certainly say ‘we don’t know the cause’ or some other phrase communicating that idea, certainly. Heck, I can provide examples of where it does that off the top of my head. What causes gravity? “We dunno.” How can we stop (insert currently uncurable disease or cancer)? “We dunno”.

It's one thing to say you don't know, it's another to act condescending when someone believes it to be God. All evolutionists do this, especially TEs, because if you don't make the a priori assumption of universal common ancestry and decent with modification by purely naturalistic causes you are presumed ignorant without remedy. You have clearly assumed both.

So if it were “Why does the earth look like it just came into being 6,000 years ago suddenly?” “We sure as heck don’t know”. But that ISN”T the case. Unless you’re resorting to the evil atheist conspiracy card which somehow manages to never include any members that later convert to a religion, manages to never include any theists, and see thru any theists that might convert to and from atheism, or any agnostics, etc etc etc.

It's not a conspiracy exactly, it's more like a naturalistic metaphysics without miracles or God. That's all it is, a substantive principle that transcends all reality. This is the metaphysical principle you are defending so zealously, it's not science, it's an a priori assumption that materialism and natural laws is all that exists in reality. Not God, not miracles, just physical objects and the laws of nature. You have jumped on an atheistic materialism bandwagon thinking it's a come to Jesus revival, you are sorely and soundly deceived.

In a few cases, yes. I would agree with you. Case in point people like Richard Dawkins.

BUT.

Most evolutionists have a social agenda that excludes religion and God. They do devise theologies that reduce God to an abstraction, people like Spinoza, Hegal and Tilich. It's called Liberal Theology and they have went so far as to put their philosophy into theological terminology. You see, they believe that they can do everything better then theists, even religion.

Overall mostly it consists of dishonest people like CSE and AIG handwaving away science, slandering science and scientists, bearing false witness right and left, trying to destroy science and substitute their religion in its place and stunt the growth on mankind’s knowledge based on falsehoods. In other words, an invasion of science by religion on willfully false pretenses.

Metherion

Great fellowship post there, calling leading creationist ministries liars. Darwinism is based on an a priori assumption of universal common decent, if you choose to make that assumption then go for it. What I reject, distrust and have come to dispise is this mythology wearing a Christian mask while it tramples anything remotely theistic under it's feet. Let's look at some of the lies of Darwinism:

Possibly one of the most famous scandals in all of science, the Piltdown Hoax illustrates the dangerous effects a preconceived notion of what "should" be true can have on the scientific pursuit of the truth.
The Piltdown Hoax
Haeckel's embryological drawings

Then there is my favorite example of blatant error or an outright lie, I affirm the latter. In September of 2005 Nature published the 'Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome', that found that about 95% of the chimpanzee and human genomes had the same DNA. In the announcement in their Web Focus article they say that 98% of the DNA is that same contradicting the actual paper. I've never seen an evolutionist honestly admit to the error, I have therefor concluded that they are inherently disengenious.

I don't really have a problem with secular clerics pushing their intellectual wares on here, it is their constant insults, belittling and most of all their proselytizing of professing Christians. When converted all that is asked of them is that they first of all, accept evolution categorically, and then, insult creationists incessantly. TEs are among their top producers.

Your post, at the heart of the emphasis, is nothing more then baseless slander and deep animosity seated in overt prejudice. Not one empirical proof for your categorical condemnation of leading creationists as liars. Pardon me if I choose not to burn incense at the shrine of modernist Temple of Nature. I still worship God as Creator even if it's not popular with the secular clerics who pontificate their dogmas and wrong laws of demonstration as gospel.

 

[metherion]

Which indicates to me you don't realize that I am talking about Aristolelian mechanics.


This is true, I did not. However,

I would just love it if TEs would just ask when they don't know what I'm talking about without correcting me without knowing what they're talking about.

If I do not speak my piece on what I DO know about the topic and get corrected, how am I supposed to learn or realize whatever you are talking about? Have an extra post asking you the meaning of everything you say before my actual response? Or can it be that sometimes mistakes happen as we were human?

I mean never and it's not religion that is 'retarding' (cleaver way of calling us stupid btw) it's secular philosophy, various dogmas and perverted rules of demonstration creating fictitious and theatrical worlds.

I know you mean never. I remain skeptical of that claim.
Using the word ‘retard’ as a verb very accurately describes what is being done. Call all the fields of science I list collectively X.

Religious fundamentalists (not all of them Christian) are:
Spreading misinformation about X.
Attempting to keep X out of the schools.
Lying about what X is.

I’d say that is definitely retarding the growth of all those fields of science I mentioned, now, wouldn’t you? Keeping young people from learning it and attempting to mislead the public about what it is?

Also, just because I use an accurate verb does not mean an insult was implied, it wasn’t. Perhaps if you dropped the idea that everyone on ‘the other side’ must be constantly insulting you’d see it was a proper grammatical choice and leave it at that.

The biggest problem for me is secular humanism, it is the more grotesque of the masks they wear in the Darwinian theater of the mind.

What grotesque masks? What theater of the mind? Those are the fictitious worlds.

No, the onslaught was not from barbaric religious zealots storming the gates of science. Modern science like democracy was a child of the Reformation


Really? I certainly thought democracy was a child of the Classical Greek civilization, and republics a child of mostly the Romans. And currently, that is the onslaught, though I would remove ‘barbaric’ and ‘zealots’. Well, the ‘zealots’ in most cases. And zealot is not always an insult, either.

Perhaps if your placement of insulting words around references you assume ‘the other side’ to your own side tones down a little you might realize insults are not as prevalent as you would like to believe and broadcast.

As many times as it happens it never ceases to amaze me how TEs and evolutionists always assume creationists to be retarded and uninformed.

I see what you did there, taking the verb I used in one term and using it as an adjective with a different base meaning.

Perhaps, also, if people stopped using the word ‘evolutionists’, as it stems from a base misunderstanding, things would even out a little bit.

Darwinian evolution is a false assumption of universal common decent that rejects the supernatural a priori (without prior), that is before empirical evidence is considered.

Wrong on several accounts.

One, it assumes common ancestry to a degree, i.c. Darwin’s finches. UNIVERSAL common ancestry comes from the evidence.

Secondly, the supernatural is not rejected a priori (I do know what that means, thankyouverymuch). The supernatural is not observable via empirical evidence and cannot be used by science. You are saying that the hammer is worthless because it cannot tell if the shelf is level or not. EVEN IF all science indicated the world was created 6k years ago, that ‘kinds’ were unrelated and actually DEFINED, etc etc etc, science WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SAY God did it according to a literal interpretation of the Bible. Science would look for a natural explanation because that is what it is designed for. It would probably never find one, but it would keep looking for one.

Of course, even noting that, since all the evidence is against such a situation ever having transpired without Omphalos, the point is moot.

Empirical evidence cannot point to the supernatural by its very nature.

Like I said, paraphrasing Francis Bacon, Science is about tools both mental and physical. I don't know what that little tangent you went off on means to you but it meant absolutely nothing to me.


Then I will certainly explain. You said ‘directly observed’ and ‘with real world applications’. Those are what I took issue with. Nothing in forensics is generally ‘directly observed’, that is the entire point. Rebuilding something that wasn’t observed objectively, from the evidence. Likewise, much of things like astronomy and black holes and such do not currently have ‘real world applications’. Does this make them any less science? Of course not, UNLESS, it goes against a creationist view of the universe.

If you were an ancient Hebrew it was the Law of Moses, during the United Kingdom in Israel it was the Levites. Later it would be the proclamations of the prophets and with Christ and the Apostles it was the Gospel and the Apostle's doctrine. Now it's Holy Scripture that dovetails with the natural revelation of God's glory being reflected in His creation:

And of course, what God said in the Bible is totally and completely distinguishable from what men wrote in other mythologies about their gods without a priori assumption the Bible is about the One True God how...?

It is the dogma of atheistic materialism masking itself in pseudo-objectivity.

No, it is not. Saying “I cannot say anything about God or gods, positively or negatively” is not atheism. That’s agnostic as the term is colloquially used. Furthermore, science itself is by definition materialistic because it deals solely with the material! But saying that science is a philosophy or the foundation for a philosophy or anti-God is nothing but rhetoric.

It's one thing to say you don't know, it's another to act condescending when someone believes it to be God.

Perhaps you should stop looking so hard for persecution everywhere, you seem to be making yourself see it when there is none.

All evolutionists do this, especially TEs, because if you don't make the a priori assumption of universal common ancestry and decent with modification by purely naturalistic causes you are presumed ignorant without remedy.

Again, false rhetoric with a severe dose of insult, condemnation, and persecution attached. I like the ‘especially TEs’ part.
One, it isn’t a priori, two the T in TE would tend to indicate we don’t believe in ‘purely naturalistic’, and the presumed ignorant without remedy... well, I mean... that’s not right. That’s not even wrong. That’s just... out there.

You have clearly assumed both.

As I said, the T clearly refutes one, and the evidence the other.

It's not a conspiracy exactly, it's more like a naturalistic metaphysics without miracles or God.


Easy remedy then... stop assuming science is metaphysics! It isn’t! If your problem is the people who accept said metaphysics and actively preach against religion, go for it. If it is with the people who attempt to use science for the wrong ends on the atheist side of the fence, go for it! But saying that because science can’t use God as an explanation, it must be anti-God metaphysics, you are making that same mistake yourself. By assuming the science is meant to inspire said metaphysics, you are completely misunderstanding the nature and purpose of science.

Most evolutionists have a social agenda that excludes religion and God.

Great. Conspiracy, anti-God conspiracy, unfounded generalization, conclusion that TEs are anti-God... all in one sentence. Great. Let’s see where we go from THIS starting point.

They do devise theologies that reduce God to an abstraction, people like Spinoza, Hegal and Tilich. It's called Liberal Theology and they have went so far as to put their philosophy into theological terminology. You see, they believe that they can do everything better then theists, even religion.

Well, we went somewhere I don’t have any clue about, or recognize any names or terms. Forgive me if I don’t pursue this line of the discussion. But a GREAT starting point you had there.

Great fellowship post there, calling leading creationist ministries liars. 

As opposed to your constantly characterization of TEs as the enemy, conspirators, liars, being anti-God, dishonest, condescending, insulting (and finding insults that never existed to ‘show’ your point), on an intellectual high horse, etc is REALLY fellowship laden and strengthens our bond in Christ. Especially with how much of it is true.

*take knife, cut sarcasm*

Darwinism is based on an a priori assumption of universal common decent,

Wrong again, and repeating a lie doesn’t make it true, no matter how many times you say it.

What I reject, distrust and have come to dispise is this mythology wearing a Christian mask while it tramples anything remotely theistic under it's feet.

*facepalm* I’m sorry, this is so ridiculous there is nothing to say about it.

Forgive me if I drop the quotes for a sec about your ‘lies of darwinism’.

Piltdown man: AGAIN! FOR THE LOVE OF PETE! Science found out it was a fraud, science discovered and rejected it as a fraud, and the only people who hang on to it are creationists with nothing current to use.

Haeckel’s embryos were found out to be inexact. Yes. They are still used in some books. Yes. You have yet to prove intention and knowledge of the entire scientific community, the fact that they are also widely NOT used. Also, what about things like embryologic photography have shown just what IS correct about them?

Oh, and of course, I forgot, the fact that one thing was incorrect and still used invalidates the entire field of not just embryology recapitulates phylogeny (I believe that’s what it’s called), but also embryology, biology, physics, geology, etc etc etc.

And then you move on to your Nature discrepancy. You affirm it is an outright lie with what evidence? I do not know about it, but I have seen the thread down in the generally open board and look there. While I have not posted in it I do read it. And of course, 95% vs 98% also invalidates the whole of biology, geology, physics, etc etc etc.

I don't really have a problem with secular clerics pushing their intellectual wares on here, it is their constant insults, belittling and most of all their proselytizing of professing Christians.

Oh really? I could swear I see just as much or more from you, to be perfectly honest. Most of it untrue.

When converted all that is asked of them is that they first off all accept evolution categorically and insult creationists incessantly.

And this is of course, false, insulting to imply, flat out WRONG, implies the existence of something that doesn’t... and geez.

TEs are among their top producers.

And you talk about constant insults and lie! Well, this one takes the case. Pot, meet kettle.

Your post, at the heart of the emphasis, is nothing more then baseless slander and deep animosity seated in overt prejudice.

And, wrong again. Perhaps if you didn’t make up insults that didn’t even exist and exhibit your extreme sense of constant persecution real or imagined you might see what it was.

Not one empirical proof for your categorical condemnation of leading creationists as liars.

Would you like me to list several? Put up or shut up, either ask me for proof or ask why I didn’t put any. Don’t just assume I have nothing and said it for no reason.

And how about your constant demonization of TEs, hm? Any empirical proof of that? Nope, you pull out three things, one of them in the process of being phased out, one of them I do not know enough to say anything about, and the classic piltdown man “I conveniently forgot science found out the error, science corrected the error, science labelled it as a fraud, and it hasn’t been used since” canard. At least, I think canard is the word I’m looking for.

Also, I would like you to please address what I said here:

No. It is NOT unscientific. Do you know what declaring something to have a supernatural cause would do to science?

First, it would mean giving up. Nope, nothing we know now, nothing we could possibly ever develop, nothing we don’t even don’t know we don’t know yet could EVER POSSIBLY explain it. The EXACT OPPOSITE of science.

Oh, and of course we can’t test for the supernatural so we’d be asserting a conclusion completely unsupported by any evidence save ‘we don’t know right now’.

Third, which supernatural cause? The FSM? Thor? Zeus? The IPU? Christianity’s God? Oriental ancestor spirits? Well, none can be differentiated, tested for, or anything, so that is another evidenceless assertion.

And don’t forgot, finally, that anything that relies on the supposedly supernaturally caused event must also share said supernatural cause, and halt scientific progress on those fields.

So, yeah, invoking the supernatural in science involves:
One. Saying we know all right now, so since we don’t know it it is naturally unknowable or impossible. (unscientific in two ways)
Two. Declaring an explanation that we can by definition have no evidence for (unscientific).
Three. Call a halt to all scientific progress in that area (unscientific).
Four. Declare an undifferentiatable (sp?) cause (unscientific).

Versus:

One. Saying we don’t know (perfectly allowed).
Two. Saying that just because we don’t know it doesn’t mean there isn’t a reason we can know.
Three. Looking on. (science)

Yeah, declaring a supernatural cause is TOTALLY scientific.

And tell me what about that is ‘baseless slander’, ‘deep animosity’, or ‘overt prejudice’? And you’ve also not shown anything about baseless slander I’ve done towards you except for the equivocal misinterpretation of a valid verb or anything you constantly and baselessly accuse TEs of. I’d say you’re doing an awful lot of projecting... but... I’m no psychologist. Psychiatrist, whichever deals in that, I don’t remember.

And honestly, if the mods let YOUR posts stand, mine should be no problem.

Metherion

(wow, 9 pages of size 13 type. I wish the book I was writing on could get this much written this fast)

 

[metherion]

You know, I’m just going to make a list.
I’ll see your three, and up you a few. And none of mine will be bogus like Piltdown man.

One.

Kent Hovind’s 250,000$ for evolution. Not only does misdefine evolution, he introduces several things, requires a universal negative proven (impossible), and use scientific evidence to disprove God (also impossible). Dishonest, the money is impossible to win.

Two.

“there are no transitional forms”.
This oft repeated lie is just that... a lie. After all, creatures such as Tiktaalik, Ambelocetus Natons (sp?), microraptor... nothing if not transitional forms.

Three.

Crocoduck. The very idea that this not existing is somehow against evolution and its use as evidence of such is a sheer, outright lie.

Four.

The movie Expelled included such things as lying to the scientists about the movie they were being interviewed for, quote mining, not disclosing relevant information, things such as ‘Darwinism doesn’t explain gravity’, etc.

Five.

The whole “Hitler believed in evolution” shenanigans.

Six.

“A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism” has many misrepresentations, irrelevancies, and such in its listing.

Seven.

The recent DMCA filings against videos on Youtube.

Eight.

The constant claims that evolution is responsible for such societal ills as : homosexuality, divorce, premarital sex and abortions, racism, etc etc etc despite them existing long before Darwin himself was even born, much less came up with the idea.

Nine.

The old baloney of the full title of the Origin of Species indicating Darwin was a racist and Darwinian evolution is inherently racist.


These things have all been repeated, constantly, ad infinitum, no matter how many times they are corrected, shown to be baloney, etc etc etc. Not phased out by any of the organizations, or even shown to be discredited. If one of the major groups has since officially retracted these I will of course admit my mistake on that particular lie for that particular organization, as I do not keep up with every nuance of every of the varied groups’ stances. For examples, if AiG has put up a “do not use this” website and Hitler is retracted on it I will admit my mistake as far as AiG is concerned but not overall, as seen from the movie Expelled and other groups.


Need I go on?

Metherion

 

[marktheblake]


Need I go on?

there is so much subjectiveness there it's not funny

 

[mark kennedy]


Using the word ‘retard’ as a verb very accurately describes what is being done. Call all the fields of science I list collectively X.

Ok, retard describes who exactly?

Religious fundamentalists

Let me say that about you and see where it gets me with the moderators.

(not all of them Christian) are:
Spreading misinformation about X

That's the difference between you and me, I go to primary sources.

Attempting to keep X out of the schools.
Lying about what X is

.

How appropriate that you would refer to science as X since it remains an unknown quotient for you.


Also, just because I use an accurate verb does not mean an insult was implied, it wasn’t.

Right, it shouldn't be considered insulting to call someone a liar and a retard for their religious convictions, I must have took that wrong.

Perhaps if you dropped the idea that everyone on ‘the other side’ must be constantly insulting you’d see it was a proper grammatical choice and leave it at that.

You must be constantly insulting creationists to keep up your credibility with evolutionists. This isn't my first rodeo my dear. It's the perfect dramatic rhetoric when you desire applause in the Darwinian theater of the mind.

What grotesque masks? What theater of the mind? Those are the fictitious worlds.

Secular humanism and liberal theology were the pretenses I referred to as masks. The theater of the mind is one of Francis Bacon's idols of the mind, the fourth one to me precise. What I am using is emotive prose and satire to confront what I consider theological poison, namely, Darwinism in Christian clothing. There are no fictional worlds in my satirical rant, the fictional world is the primordial single celled universal common ancestor and the ice age stone tool making ape man.


Really? I certainly thought democracy was a child of the Classical Greek civilization, and republics a child of mostly the Romans.

The renaissance is a word that means 'rebirth' and what was reborn was the classical Greek art, science and literature. It culminated in the Protestant Reformation that was more then a religious protest against Catholicism. The Protestant whigs like Sir Issac Newton, John Lock and Benjamin Franklin envisioned a Republic where freedom of religion was the cornerstone.

Plato's Republic was written long before the Romans tried and failed their Republic. The only functional Republic Rome ever managed to establish was based on Christian theism and it lasted about a thousand years as Plato predicted. In the 16th century the Republic was burned to ashes and up from the ashes came the new republic just like a phoenix from the ashes. Sounds like you don't know your political history either.

And currently, that is the onslaught, though I would remove ‘barbaric’ and ‘zealots’. Well, the ‘zealots’ in most cases. And zealot is not always an insult, either.

I think your a zealot, one of the minions the evolutionists are so adept at proselytizing.

Wrong on several accounts.

One, it assumes common ancestry to a degree, i.c. Darwin’s finches. UNIVERSAL common ancestry comes from the evidence.

The logic of Darwinian evolution assumes universal common ancestry in all times, places and every living system in the universe:

Darwinian Evolution is a logic which is applicable to all life forms and all biosystems that may exist in the universe, even the ones we have not discovered. MIT Intro to Biology Prof. Robert A. Weinberg​

Darwinian logic comes before the empirical proof.

The supernatural is not observable via empirical evidence and cannot be used by science.

Tell that to Moses and Joshua, tell the to Elijah and Elisha, tell that to Christ and the Apostles.

Empirical evidence cannot point to the supernatural by its very nature

.

Theology is a science, you are making an assumption with regards to science and your assumption is naturalistic. You have let the atheistic materialism of modernists to pervert the laws of demonstration we call science.


Then I will certainly explain... Does this make them any less science? Of course not, UNLESS, it goes against a creationist view of the universe.

A creationist view of the universe is that God created it. A creationist simply affirms that the book of Genesis is an historical narrative laying the foundation for the Gospel progressively revealed in the 65 books that follow. I know my theology dear and I know a lot more about the scientific aspect of this topic then you will ever realize. You have become a cheerleader for a philosophy that is opposed to Christian theism whether you know it or not, whether you like it or not, whether you want to admit it or not.

And of course, what God said in the Bible is totally and completely distinguishable from what men wrote in other mythologies about their gods without a priori assumption the Bible is about the One True God how...?

God is an a priori assumption, God's divine nature and eternal attributes are evident and obvious in nature and revealed in the things that are made. The Bible is a progressive revelation based on historical narratives related from faith to faith by people who witnessed God's miracles, manifestations and mighty deeds first hand.

Again, false rhetoric with a severe dose of insult, condemnation, and persecution attached. I like the ‘especially TEs’ part.
One, it isn’t a priori, two the T in TE would tend to indicate we don’t believe in ‘purely naturalistic’, and the presumed ignorant without remedy... well, I mean... that’s not right. That’s not even wrong. That’s just... out there.

They have actually convinced you that all you have to do is contradict creationists to win arguments. My criticism of TE was richly earned at the cost of endless insult, belittling and their constant embattling of creationist Christian without provocation. You, like most of the TEs on here never relent and I choose my words carefully when expressing my disapproval of your philosophy because I realize that some of you are Christians.


Easy remedy then... stop assuming science is metaphysics!

I said Darwinism is, your the one who wants to equivocate evolution's naturalistic assumptions with science.

It isn’t! If your problem is the people who accept said metaphysics and actively preach against religion, go for it. If it is with the people who attempt to use science for the wrong ends on the atheist side of the fence, go for it! But saying that because science can’t use God as an explanation, it must be anti-God metaphysics, you are making that same mistake yourself. By assuming the science is meant to inspire said metaphysics, you are completely misunderstanding the nature and purpose of science.

Did I say science? No I did not, you equivocate the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinian evolution with science. The metaphysics is atheistic materialism and you have become a religious zealot preaching for their cause whether you know it or not.

As opposed to your constantly characterization of TEs as the enemy, conspirators, liars, being anti-God, dishonest, condescending, insulting (and finding insults that never existed to ‘show’ your point), on an intellectual high horse, etc is REALLY fellowship laden and strengthens our bond in Christ. Especially with how much of it is true.

Nice attempt at satire but you are really going to have to work on your persona if you want to perform in the Darwinian theater of the mind. I like it though, the melodrama was a little off balanced and lacked a substantive point but I'm sure your target audience cheered....or laughed.

Wrong again, and repeating a lie doesn’t make it true, no matter how many times you say it.

I know of which I speak and I have no reason to lie to anyone. I can support every accusation I make and prove it conclusively unlike these stereotypical generalization you are making constantly, shamelessly and without a single substantive or scientific fact to support it. I can make my arguments from exclusively scientific, philosophical or academic sources switching between them as I go. More importantly, I know my theology and my Bible a lot better then TEs would ever guess, that is if they cared.

Piltdown man: AGAIN! FOR THE LOVE OF PETE! Science found out it was a fraud, science discovered and rejected it as a fraud, and the only people who hang on to it are creationists with nothing current to use.

Piltdown was not even a cleaver fraud and it was replace with the Taung Child, Homo habilis stone age ape man myth. Ever notice that there are hundreds of hominid fossils (our ancestors) and no chimpanzee ancestors in natural history museums, want to know why? Every time an ape fossil is uncovered in Africa it is automatically one of our ancestors.

BTW, there you go again equivocating the atheistic materialism of Darwinian evolution with science. My but you are consistently fallacious in your arguments. With secular evolutionists it's always ad hominem attacks that take center stage in their melodramas, the TEs it's equivocation. I have no idea why but it's one of those distinctions that continue to emerge. You may think I'm here to learn about evolution but I do that while I research away from here. I come on here to study you guys.

Haeckel’s embryos were found out to be inexact. Yes.

They were and are bogus frauds.

They are still used in some books. Yes. You have yet to prove intention and knowledge of the entire scientific community, the fact that they are also widely NOT used. Also, what about things like embryologic photography have shown just what IS correct about them?

Recapitulation like homology arguments are not scientific, they are rhetorical. When you learn the difference you will find that you have been duped.

Oh, and of course, I forgot, the fact that one thing was incorrect and still used invalidates the entire field of not just embryology recapitulates phylogeny (I believe that’s what it’s called), but also embryology, biology, physics, geology, etc etc etc.

While you stumble over this fine esoteric sounding verbage bear this in mind . Biology, genetics and embryology are about living systems not dead ancestors. Still not a single substantive, scientific or remotely theological point to be had but your dramatic oration in defense of Darwinian evolution continues unabated. The Darwinians are probably clapping furiously for you while mocking you under their breath.

And then you move on to your Nature discrepancy. You affirm it is an outright lie with what evidence? I do not know about it, but I have seen the thread down in the generally open board and look there. While I have not posted in it I do read it. And of course, 95% vs 98% also invalidates the whole of biology, geology, physics, etc etc etc.

No, it proves that evolutionists habitually lie when it comes to homology and recapitulation. Not a single one of them ever admits that it's a lie that is being broadcast shamelessly the way all Darwinian evolution is. I am no more trying to invalidate biology by pointing out a lie in Darwinian evolution then I am trying to invalidate the Bible when correcting a Jehovah's Witness who is taking a text out of it's proper context.

Oh really? I could swear I see just as much or more from you, to be perfectly honest. Most of it untrue.

The difference being I can substantiate what I am saying.

And this is of course, false, insulting to imply, flat out WRONG, implies the existence of something that doesn’t... and geez.

Dear, you are getting frustrated and starting to ramble. Perhaps you should take a deep breath, a short break, collect your thoughts and write something coherent.

And you talk about constant insults and lie! Well, this one takes the case. Pot, meet kettle.

I have dealt with TEs in depth both on scientific and theological issues and they are weak as day old kittens on science and devoid of theological support. I do not take any pleasure in confronting you with these things but remember you are the one who came into the creationist forum calling leading creationists liars. I never invaded the TE subforum with anything of the kind and they are shameless when it comes to flaming creationists in here.

And how about your constant demonization of TEs, hm? Any empirical proof of that?

Check the General Theology, formal debate forum, I proved what I have to say about them conclusively.

Nope, you pull out three things, one of them in the process of being phased out, one of them I do not know enough to say anything about, and the classic piltdown man “I conveniently forgot science found out the error, science corrected the error, science labelled it as a fraud, and it hasn’t been used since” canard. At least, I think canard is the word I’m looking for.

You forgot that it was replaced with chimpanzee fossils masked as our ancestors.

Also, I would like you to please address what I said here:

I'll be happy to when you post it without quoting it.

And tell me what about that is ‘baseless slander’, ‘deep animosity’, or ‘overt prejudice’?

You come in here flaming people at will calling them liars and retards, what kind of a reaction do you expect. Am I going to extend the right hand of fellowship or am I going to reach for my sword? You are the one who wants friendship with the world and attack fundamentalist Christians as the enemy and embrace the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinian evolution as truth.

And honestly, if the mods let YOUR posts stand, mine should be no problem.

TEs are rarely censored for their constant barrage of insults. The only time I get into trouble is when I question whether or not TEs are Christians and it hasn't been a question for me for a long time. I don't know how many of them actually posses saving faith but one thing is for sure, the philosophy they defend so zealously is intrinsically atheistic whether they are Christians or not.

(wow, 9 pages of size 13 type. I wish the book I was writing on could get this much written this fast)

You probably have to think about what you write when writing a book, something you don't have to do when invading the creationist subforum.

 

[metherion]

Ok, retard describes who exactly?

Not a who, a what. It’s a verb. To stunt, repress, arrest development of. Attempting to halt education of, spread misinformation about, etc something is RETARDing the growth of that thing. Like flame RETARDant foam RETARDs the spread of fire. Honestly, this is ridiculous.

Let me say that about you and see where it gets me with the moderators.

I’m not one. Roman Catholics are generally not fundamentalists. It’s not a good thing or a bad thing. It’s a specific type of belief. Not one I follow. I’d call it a categorical error. A simple mistake of category.

That's the difference between you and me, I go to primary sources.

I’m not sure what you mean.

How appropriate that you would refer to science as X since it remains an unknown quotient for you.

No, it’s not. I just didn’t want to type out ‘biology, paleontology, physics, chemistry, geology’ and a few more three times over.



Right, it shouldn't be considered insulting to call someone a liar and a retard for their religious convictions, I must have took that wrong.

I didn’t call anyone a retard, GET OVER YOURSELF. And I didn’t call YOU a liar at all, nor any PERSON, but the official stance of an organization, and not for religious convictions but for actions taken.

You must be constantly insulting creationists to keep up your credibility with evolutionists. This isn't my first rodeo my dear. It's the perfect dramatic rhetoric when you desire applause in the Darwinian theater of the mind.

I don’t desire applause, I haven’t been put up to this by anyone, the only insult you’ve heard is one you made up thru equivocation. Get over yourself.

Secular humanism and liberal theology were the pretenses I referred to as masks. The theater of the mind is one of Francis Bacon's idols of the mind, the fourth one to me precise. What I am using is emotive prose and satire to confront what I consider theological poison, namely, Darwinism in Christian clothing. There are no fictional worlds in my satirical rant, the fictional world is the primordial single celled universal common ancestor and the ice age stone tool making ape man.

Except there is no ‘darwinism’. If you want to go after secular humanism, do it. Leave things that have no place in the discussion after it. Hell, I’ll join you. I think secular humanism is bad theology, and needs the Truth of Christ stuck in it.





Plato's Republic was written long before the Romans tried and failed their Republic. The only functional Republic Rome ever managed to establish was based on Christian theism and it lasted about a thousand years as Plato predicted. In the 16th century the Republic was burned to ashes and up from the ashes came the new republic just like a phoenix from the ashes. Sounds like you don't know your political history either.

Their republic was successful until someone declared himself Caeser. Several hundred years, roughly 450 is a pretty good length, far longer than the US of A has currently. I’m not sure what you mean by based on Christian theism and 16th century as the Byzantine Empire ended in the 15th century (1453 or 1461 depending on the city you count as capitol, Constantinople or Trebizond) and was, well, an EMPIRE with emperors. Furthermore, the “Ashes” turned into the Ottoman empire, so I really have no clue what you are talking about.

I think your a zealot, one of the minions the evolutionists are so adept at proselytizing.

Yes, I just hate seeing misinformation spread, lies spread, being accused of being a pawn of some faceless malevolent anti-Christian evil. Which is all you seem to do. The accusation, I mean.

The logic of Darwinian evolution assumes universal common ancestry in all times, places and every living system in the universe:
Darwinian Evolution is a logic which is applicable to all life forms and all biosystems that may exist in the universe, even the ones we have not discovered. MIT Intro to Biology Prof. Robert A. Weinberg
Darwinian logic comes before the empirical proof.

Yes, because goodness knows if we discover a new system of life of a different planet, we must immediately FAIL to apply everything we’ve learned about life to it, and then look for more evidence to confirm or deny it working. Just like we have to completely redo our understanding of gravity when we visited the moon... oh... wait.

Let’s try again. Just like we had to reconsider our understanding of atoms when we went to the moon... oh... wait.

Just like we had to worry about our understanding of chemistry so our astronauts wouldn’t under spontaneous reactions we don’t know about and can’t predict that would cause them to chemically explode... oh... wait.

Just like we have to worry that the electronics in the shuttles won’t work because electricity will be different... no, that doesn’t work either.

Oh but LIFE! Life elsewhere can’t be assumed to be ANYTHING like what we know here on earth or follow ANY of the same rules... after all, nothing else does, right?

No, things learned about imperfect replicators here on Earth couldn’t POSSIBLY apply to anything else anywhere ever, just like gravity, and electricity, and atomic theory and so on.
Oh wait.

Tell that to Moses and Joshua, tell the to Elijah and Elisha, tell that to Christ and the Apostles.

Because the physical world left over after the miracles would have some sort of God particle that would let us know something supernatural happened when we looked for evidence? Just because it happened doesn’t make it empirically observable, repeatable, testable... scientific.

Theology is a science, you are making an assumption with regards to science and your assumption is naturalistic. You have let the atheistic materialism of modernists to pervert the laws of demonstration we call science.

If it is a science it is a social science, not a physical science like evolutionary theory. And how do you propose we apply the rules of science like the scientific method to God?




A creationist view of the universe is that God created it.

Then I’m a creationist. How do you do.

A creationist simply affirms that the book of Genesis is an historical narrative laying the foundation for the Gospel progressively revealed in the 65 books that follow.

Then believe that, but leave the science that intrudes alone instead of discrediting it, vilifying it and those who use and accept it. Or do you plan to call me a minion again?

I know my theology dear and I know a lot more about the scientific aspect of this topic then you will ever realize.

I have no doubt you do. How you display it, on the other hand, you come off as not.

You have become a cheerleader for a philosophy that is opposed to Christian theism whether you know it or not, whether you like it or not, whether you want to admit it or not.


I love how you get to be so arrogant, so condescending, so high up on your horse that you know what I believe better than I. That you know what I accept and follow better than I. Do you know me better than I know myself? How can you claim to know what is it my heart?

And why is it anti-Christian? Because it goes against YOUR interpretation of theology? Are you God that you can decide what is and is not Christian?

God is an a priori assumption, God's divine nature and eternal attributes are evident and obvious in nature and revealed in the things that are made.

If you have a priori belief He did it of course. (I do).

The Bible is a progressive revelation based on historical narratives related from faith to faith by people who witnessed God's miracles, manifestations and mighty deeds first hand.

Well, some of them. Some of them nobody was around for. And they don’t necessarily have to be historical.

They have actually convinced you that all you have to do is contradict creationists to win arguments.

No, they haven’t. Winning arguments requires such things as knowledge, logic, evidence. Not just saying ‘No you’re wrong” and calling them spawn of the oppressor for it.

My criticism of TE was richly earned at the cost of endless insult, belittling and their constant embattling of creationist Christian without provocation.

With such rich insults as my use of a verb above, I assume.

You, like most of the TEs on here never relent and I choose my words carefully when expressing my disapproval of your philosophy because I realize that some of you are Christians.

Do you know why I never relent? I never relent because of all the Christians I have seen lose their faith over authority figures spewing the rhetoric you do. Unable to reconcile their false dichotomy when they learn what things actually say, they leave, not knowing what other course to take. Not knowing they don’t have to deny either what is in front of their eyes OR their relation to God. It is for THEM I do not relent.





I said Darwinism is, your the one who wants to equivocate evolution's naturalistic assumptions with science.

And gravity’s natural assumptions, and cell theory’s natural assumptions, and atomic theory’s natural assumptions, and so on. What makes evolutionary ones so different? They contradict your theology, that’s the ONLY reason.

Did I say science? No I did not, you equivocate the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinian evolution with science. The metaphysics is atheistic materialism and you have become a religious zealot preaching for their cause whether you know it or not.

Reverse special pleading. Evolution is the only thing that isn’t specifically because it disagrees with your theology.

And stop telling me what I believe in. I do not ‘preach’ for atheistic materialism. I ‘preach’ for the existence of God. I ‘preach’ for the proper understanding of His Work. I ‘preach’ so that people don’t get driven away by judgmental high-horsery that thinks it can tell me what I believe in with impunity and gets it completely wrong.

Nice attempt at satire but you are really going to have to work on your persona if you want to perform in the Darwinian theater of the mind. I like it though, the melodrama was a little off balanced and lacked a substantive point but I'm sure your target audience cheered....or laughed.

It wasn’t satire. It was sarcasm. And I don’t have a target audience, except for you. Maybe if you stopped spewing all the venom you do you might see less of it permeating your surroundings... like my verb choice earlier.

I know of which I speak and I have no reason to lie to anyone.

Except to promote or preserve your theological viewpoint against reality. I would call that a reason. Of course, I haven’t accused you of lying, have I?

I can support every accusation I make and prove it conclusively unlike these stereotypical generalization you are making constantly, shamelessly and without a single substantive or scientific fact to support it.

Then prove your drivel about me being Anti-Christian. Prove your drivel about me being an atheistic materialism puppet. Prove your drivel about knowing what I believe well enough to tell me what I believe.

And of course, if you self-proclaim evolution to be not science, then you would just hand wave anything from it away and still make the same claim, no? After all, I wouldn’t have presented “science”.

I can make my arguments from exclusively scientific, philosophical or academic sources switching between them as I go. More importantly, I know my theology and my Bible a lot better then TEs would ever guess, that is if they cared.

Then try making them from CORRECT ones.

Piltdown was not even a cleaver fraud and it was replace with the Taung Child, Homo habilis stone age ape man myth. Ever notice that there are hundreds of hominid fossils (our ancestors) and no chimpanzee ancestors in natural history museums, want to know why? Every time an ape fossil is uncovered in Africa it is automatically one of our ancestors.

Ooooh, I like the conspiracy theory there. Very classic.
And it didn’t need to be clever, it was the 1910s. People didn’t have the technology at uncovering things to make clever hoaxes needed. And you STILL didn’t say ANYTHING about that it was SCIENCE that uncovered it, SCIENCE that realized it was a fraud, and SCIENCE that corrected ITSELF.

Also, perhaps its that people are looking for human ancestors not chimp ones? Given how well they predicted and found Tiktaalik, think they might be doing the same for humanity?

BTW, there you go again equivocating the atheistic materialism of Darwinian evolution with science.

Because goodness knows when you tell a lie often enough it becomes true. Simply insist that it COULND”T be science and treat it like it isn’t actually science when you talk about it and reality simply alters itself.

Too bad you aren’t Neo in the Matrix.

My but you are consistently fallacious in your arguments. With secular evolutionists it's always ad hominem attacks that take center stage in their melodramas, the TEs it's equivocation. I have no idea why but it's one of those distinctions that continue to emerge. You may think I'm here to learn about evolution but I do that while I research away from here. I come on here to study you guys.

No, you are actually the consistently fallacious one, with your argument ad infinitum that evolution isn’t actually science. So declaring that anything I say about evolution is equivocation is easy. But not correct.

Recapitulation like homology arguments are not scientific, they are rhetorical. When you learn the difference you will find that you have been duped.

They have also AFAIK been falsified. So their scientific worth has been zeroed regardless.

While you stumble over this fine esoteric sounding verbage bear this in mind .

I don’t need to stumble over anything. You are saying that because Haeckel had a fraud all science relating to evolution must be wrong. And by evolution, you mean what you call darwinian thought which is everything related to an old earth. You see how ridiculous that is?

Biology, genetics and embryology are about living systems not dead ancestors.

Wrong. Biology is just as much about past generations to learn and try to figure out how future generation will go.




More to come.

Metherion

 

[metherion]

Still not a single substantive, scientific or remotely theological point to be had but your dramatic oration in defense of Darwinian evolution continues unabated. The Darwinians are probably clapping furiously for you while mocking you under their breath.

The POINT was how ridiculous your claim that Haeckel’s embryos being false was some sort of a death knell for all of evolution. Which you still don’t seem to understand. And cut the crap about some sort of Darwinian oration... it’s crap, I know it’s crap, I suspect you know it’s crap, and it does nothing but waste space and time.

No, it proves that evolutionists habitually lie when it comes to homology and recapitulation.

Ummmm... no. First, you have yet to provide proof that it was a lie. Secondly, recapitulation has been FALSIFIED. The whole
thing has been REJECTED. Way to back up what you say with proof there.

Not a single one of them ever admits that it's a lie that is being broadcast shamelessly the way all Darwinian evolution is.

And no proof all Darwinian evolution is a lie either. Tsk tsk.

I am no more trying to invalidate biology by pointing out a lie in Darwinian evolution then I am trying to invalidate the Bible when correcting a Jehovah's Witness who is taking a text out of it's proper context.

Oh really? Then why all the stabs at evolution being false, wrong, dead, trash etc because of such things? Oh, right, you’ve defined science to be biology MINUS evolution without telling anyone, without being right, and thus get away on a technicality of inappropriate redefinition. Except it is STILL inappropriate redefinition, and when we talk about ACTUAL biology which INCLUDES evolution what you say fails utterly.

The difference being I can substantiate what I am saying.


Then do so.

Dear, you are getting frustrated and starting to ramble. Perhaps you should take a deep breath, a short break, collect your thoughts and write something coherent.

No, I’m not ramblin. I’m just flabbergasted someone claiming the moral high ground resorts to such drivel.

I have dealt with TEs in depth both on scientific and theological issues and they are weak as day old kittens on science and devoid of theological support.

Then perhaps you should show some proper understanding of it yourself. Denying something is even science isn’t doing so.

I do not take any pleasure in confronting you with these things but remember you are the one who came into the creationist forum calling leading creationists liars.

It is now an open forum, I specifically directed what I said at specific creationist ORGANIZATIONS, not the creationists themselves. And I am prepared to back up what I say every step of the way. With ACTUAL evidence, unlike anything you’ve claimed to have delivered.

I never invaded the TE subforum with anything of the kind and they are shameless when it comes to flaming creationists in here.

Yes, probably because you view as (as you have said thru a slight paraphrase) as pawns of the oppressor, and post in the general theology forum instead. After all, you’ve said we have the exact same methods, anti-Christian beliefs, and are their tools. And I have never called anyone unChristian because of their beliefs either.

Check the General Theology, formal debate forum, I proved what I have to say about them conclusively.

Link to thread?

You forgot that it was replaced with chimpanzee fossils masked as our ancestors.

Proof?

I'll be happy to when you post it without quoting it.

I did earlier. It was the one main thing in my post that wasn’t addressed.

You come in here flaming people at will calling them liars and retards, what kind of a reaction do you expect.

I have never called anyone a retard. I used it AS A VERB to refer to AN ACTION in its proper context. Get over yourself.

You are the one who wants friendship with the world and attack fundamentalist Christians as the enemy and embrace the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinian evolution as truth.

You are the one denying our Christianity, assuming attacks that do not exist, and constantly lying and telling us what we believe.

TEs are rarely censored for their constant barrage of insults.

The only “insult” you unearthed in the last post was pulled out of nothing.

The only time I get into trouble is when I question whether or not TEs are Christians and it hasn't been a question for me for a long time.

Perhaps that is because it is both against forum rules and the Bible itself. Judge not lest ye be judged and all that. And the idea of adding a requirement for a literal Genesis onto someone’s faith, well... don’t you think it would have been explicitly mentioned? I mean, there were 613 commandments spelling out every little bit of Jewish life for millennia, don’t you think something important as a major belief necessary for eternal salvation would be spelled out?

I don't know how many of them actually posses saving faith but one thing is for sure, the philosophy they defend so zealously is intrinsically atheistic whether they are Christians or not.

The philosophy we defend is that of God being real and creating the universe. The science we defend is inherently non-interacting with the supernatural or metaphysical. Not atheistic.

You probably have to think about what you write when writing a book, something you don't have to do when invading the creationist subforum

No, I think carefully about every word I write. I take a long time to think about every word I put in there. It doesn’t take a whole lot of effort into assuming the person one is talking with is some sort of idiotic pawn who knows nothing about anything and is wrong about it all, especially when you often don’t provide the evidence you claim to.

there is so much subjectiveness there it's not funny

Please, do tell. I would be happy to talk about what in it is subjective and not.

Metherion

 

[Embalmer]

Many would say that people like you are killing scientific enquiry because you are denying the creationist the right to carry out their research.

Laughable.

Organisations like AiG, ICR and CMI draw in millions of dollars every year, and yet how much do they spend on actual positive research? Virtually none. No-one is stopping the research, the problem is that research requires a basic level of scientific underpinning to start with. Creationism has none.

The money is spent on indoctrination, propaganda and lies, on building crazy "museums" and publishing rubbish. Research should be positive with the aim of proving a hypothesis or a prediction based on creation theory. Unfortunately there are none. Any "research" is entirely negative with the aim of disproving evolution...highly unlikely, and even if it happened, it wouldn't strengthen the argument for creation one iota.

Over here in Europe, the conservative christians and the YECs are making your great country a laughing stock.

 

[mark kennedy]

Laughable.

Organisations like AiG, ICR and CMI draw in millions of dollars every year, and yet how much do they spend on actual positive research? Virtually none. No-one is stopping the research, the problem is that research requires a basic level of scientific underpinning to start with. Creationism has none.

That money comes from free will donations meant to build Bible believing Christians up in their faith. Evolution's propaganda is funded through public tax dollars that has enshrined it as the religion of the state. What Christian ministries spend their money on is seeking and saving the lost not selling their souls to the spirit of the age.

The money is spent on indoctrination, propaganda and lies, on building crazy "museums" and publishing rubbish. Research should be positive with the aim of proving a hypothesis or a prediction based on creation theory. Unfortunately there are none. Any "research" is entirely negative with the aim of disproving evolution...highly unlikely, and even if it happened, it wouldn't strengthen the argument for creation one iota.

Over here in Europe, the conservative christians and the YECs are making your great country a laughing stock.

Over here in the United States your religion is considered your personal buisness, at least for now. We don't have the European tradition here of dictating religion to the masses, we let people decide for themselves what they want to believe, what they spend their money on and what religious ministries they choose to support. That's why Christianity flourishes in the United States and in Europe it is indistiguishable from state run media.

 

[mark kennedy]

Not a who, a what. It’s a verb. To stunt, repress, arrest development of. Attempting to halt education of, spread misinformation about, etc something is RETARDing the growth of that thing. Like flame RETARDant foam RETARDs the spread of fire. Honestly, this is ridiculous.

You mean retarded?

I’m not one. Roman Catholics are generally not fundamentalists. It’s not a good thing or a bad thing. It’s a specific type of belief. Not one I follow. I’d call it a categorical error. A simple mistake of category.

Fundamentalism is from the revivalist era in North America and England. It is a belief that revivals in church history were sparked by an emphasis of the fundamentals of the faith, usually it comes down to five or so, inerrancy of Scripture, the virgin birth, repentance from sin, receiving Christ and final judgment. The thing is, I do know what fundamentalism is and you obviously don't. You cast aspirations about things you know very little about and could care less. You seem self satisfied in you constant corrections while pontificating errors. You are a fairly typical TE, devoid of theological insight or scientific acumen but busting at the seams with ridicule for a religious persuasion you treat with the same disdain I would use on a dangerous cult.

BTW, with all my experiences with the cults I have never seen one as dangerous to basic Christian conviction as these Darwinian zealots on here.

No, it’s not. I just didn’t want to type out ‘biology, paleontology, physics, chemistry, geology’ and a few more three times over.

The studies are too much for you and now it's too much trouble to even write the words.



I didn’t call anyone a retard, GET OVER YOURSELF. And I didn’t call YOU a liar at all, nor any PERSON, but the official stance of an organization, and not for religious convictions but for actions taken.

AIG is remarkable accurate and civil in their treatment of TOE, unlike the TEs on here that slander them mercilessly. You should be ashamed of yourself and retard was not a term you selected at random.


I don’t desire applause, I haven’t been put up to this by anyone, the only insult you’ve heard is one you made up thru equivocation. Get over yourself.

Except there is no ‘darwinism’. If you want to go after secular humanism, do it. Leave things that have no place in the discussion after it. Hell, I’ll join you. I think secular humanism is bad theology, and needs the Truth of Christ stuck in it.

Secular humanism, scientific objectivism, Darwinism and liberal theology is all the same thing. They are unbelief in Christian clothing. The average Christian would never sink to such depths, this brand of Christianity is found mostly in seminaries where unbelievers like to poison the well for ministers who will in turn ruin the message from the pulpit.

Their republic was successful until someone declared himself Caeser. Several hundred years, roughly 450 is a pretty good length, far longer than the US of A has currently. I’m not sure what you mean by based on Christian theism and 16th century as the Byzantine Empire ended in the 15th century (1453 or 1461 depending on the city you count as capitol, Constantinople or Trebizond) and was, well, an EMPIRE with emperors. Furthermore, the “Ashes” turned into the Ottoman empire, so I really have no clue what you are talking about.

I have no real interest in pursuing this with you any further. About the fifth century Rome was over run with barbarians who even sacked the city of Rome itself (Alreck the Great comes to mind). From that time for roughly a thousand years Christianity kept the Roman empire united because it made converts of the Barbarians, you may remember that our message is to whosoever will. The Roman Catholic church was modeled after Plato's Republic and it's political and education infrastructure was a synthesis of Classical Grecian philosophy and culture blended with Christian theology.

You don't seem to have the slightest regard for the Christian influence on western civilization and I find it vulgar and distasteful to cast my years of study before your constant barrage of condescending corrections.

Yes, I just hate seeing misinformation spread, lies spread, being accused of being a pawn of some faceless malevolent anti-Christian evil. Which is all you seem to do. The accusation, I mean.

What you are calling science is Darwinism, any attack on universal common descent you immediately defend against as an attack on science at large. You have been taken in by a fallacious pagan mythology that disguises itself as so many things, even Christian theology. They have mastered the fine art of deception, deceiving even the elect when they are weak enough intellectually.

Yes, because goodness knows if we discover a new system of life of a different planet, we must immediately FAIL to apply everything we’ve learned about life to it, and then look for more evidence to confirm or deny it working. Just like we have to completely redo our understanding of gravity when we visited the moon... oh... wait.

Yes we must make sweeping generalities about life on other planets because Darwinian logic applies to every living thing before the evidence is in. That's what I mean by a priori, without prior, well before the evidence is considered. The quote you probably didn't even bother to read is a classic example of how it is applied universally.

Because the physical world left over after the miracles would have some sort of God particle that would let us know something supernatural happened when we looked for evidence? Just because it happened doesn’t make it empirically observable, repeatable, testable... scientific.

Darwinian logic is subject to none of those things.

If it is a science it is a social science, not a physical science like evolutionary theory. And how do you propose we apply the rules of science like the scientific method to God?


It's called theology, known as the queen of the sciences until about 150 years ago.

Then believe that, but leave the science that intrudes alone instead of discrediting it, vilifying it and those who use and accept it. Or do you plan to call me a minion again?

You are a minion and I don't attack the genuine article of science, I have never seen a creationist attack Mendelian genetics and never will. I attack Darwinism because it's a fallacious, flawed and failed philosophy of science that will be tossed on the scrape heap of useless pagan mythologies disguising themselves as science. It will also be tossed on the scrape heap of apostate heresies passing themselves of as Christian like gnosticism.

I have no doubt you do. How you display it, on the other hand, you come off as not.

You assume I don't because I'm a creationist, you assume far too many things.


I love how you get to be so arrogant, so condescending, so high up on your horse that you know what I believe better than I. That you know what I accept and follow better than I. Do you know me better than I know myself? How can you claim to know what is it my heart?

Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks and you have done nothing but heap insults on creationism since you first came to visit the subforum set aside for them. I know you, I know what you do and what you believe because you never argue anything scientific, substantive or theologically based. Everything with evolutionists is either an ad hominem attack on a persons credulity or an equivocation of science and Darwinian atheistic materialism.

You never change your pattern, that's how I know.




And why is it anti-Christian? Because it goes against YOUR interpretation of theology? Are you God that you can decide what is and is not Christian?

No, because whatever is contrary to sound doctrine is unchristian and an a priori assumption against God as Creator and miracles as actual events is unchristian. Those who argue for such things are defending heresy, error or something worse.

If you have a priori belief He did it of course. (I do).

A priori applies only to God in the sense that he is unseen.

Well, some of them. Some of them nobody was around for. And they don’t necessarily have to be historical.

The Bible is a book of historical narratives and the Gospel is a story of miracles. You evolutionist friends no more believe that Christ was raised from the dead the God made the world in six days. The New Testament makes it clear that the same power that created the world out of nothing and life from a dead planet raised Christ from the dead

What you don't understand is that Creationism is based on the New Testament, not some interpretation of Genesis.

No, they haven’t. Winning arguments requires such things as knowledge, logic, evidence. Not just saying ‘No you’re wrong” and calling them spawn of the oppressor for it.

I have no problem winning arguments, it's all too easy. The hard part is getting to the point were I finally get to talk to creationists without evolutionists turning the discussion into a no man's land.

Do you know why I never relent? I never relent because of all the Christians I have seen lose their faith over authority figures spewing the rhetoric you do. Unable to reconcile their false dichotomy when they learn what things actually say, they leave, not knowing what other course to take. Not knowing they don’t have to deny either what is in front of their eyes OR their relation to God. It is for THEM I do not relent.

I have read their literature, their textbooks, listened to their lectures and studied their various disciplines and found their logic fallacious and their evidence faulty. I have considered the arguments of theistic evolutionists and found their arguments, at one and the same time to be as devoid of theology as it is science.

You are a performer in the Darwinian theater of the mind and you are making converts to your cause. You are poisoning the minds of observers against creationism with as much dramatic zeal as you can muster. I find you devotion to that pagan mythology disturbing. What is more I find your animosity towards Bible believing Christians and your friendship with worldly secular clerics an unacceptable compromise, if not a sell out, to the spirit of the age.

And gravity’s natural assumptions, and cell theory’s natural assumptions, and atomic theory’s natural assumptions, and so on. What makes evolutionary ones so different? They contradict your theology, that’s the ONLY reason.

Let you in on a little secret dear, one of the reasons I love these debates is because it confirms what I have always believed. If God does not give you the basic insight into the Gospel and you are exposed to it, it is the savor or death unto death. Evolution, if I accepted it without skepticism would not affect my core convictions one iota. I am a creationist because the actual evidence is not there for the only real lineage that means anything to me doctrinally. All this time and you don't realize that my only issue is human lineage and my only issue with that is the human brain.

Reverse special pleading. Evolution is the only thing that isn’t specifically because it disagrees with your theology.

Again, evolution is not what you think it is or you pretend that it is. It is scientifically defined as the change of alleles in populations over time. That makes creationists the most radical of evolutionists since we affirm that life in all it's vast array and diversity descended with modification from parent types that lived about 4 thousand years ago. You don't know where my theology comes from or where it is going and that is yet another presumption TEs make, they consider themselves superior theologically.


And stop telling me what I believe in. I do not ‘preach’ for atheistic materialism. I ‘preach’ for the existence of God. I ‘preach’ for the proper understanding of His Work. I ‘preach’ so that people don’t get driven away by judgmental high-horsery that thinks it can tell me what I believe in with impunity and gets it completely wrong.

Darwinian evolution is atheistic materialism and when you zealously defend it as science itself you are defending atheistic materialism whether you like it or not, whether you believe it or not, whether you want to admit it or not.

It wasn’t satire. It was sarcasm. And I don’t have a target audience, except for you. Maybe if you stopped spewing all the venom you do you might see less of it permeating your surroundings... like my verb choice earlier.

You just said you do this for the audiance you think I am misleading, now you say it's for me. So who is the target audience, me or the lurkers?

Except to promote or preserve your theological viewpoint against reality. I would call that a reason. Of course, I haven’t accused you of lying, have I?

You can accuse me of lies all you like, you just can't prove it any more then you can prove AIG is deceiving people.

Then prove your drivel about me being Anti-Christian. Prove your drivel about me being an atheistic materialism puppet. Prove your drivel about knowing what I believe well enough to tell me what I believe.

I have you just don't know enough about the issue involved to realize it.

And of course, if you self-proclaim evolution to be not science, then you would just hand wave anything from it away and still make the same claim, no? After all, I wouldn’t have presented “science”

.

Evolution is the change of alleles in population over time, not universal common descent and certainly not science itself. Use the term scientifically and define it as such and quite talking in generalities about it because science does not do that.

Wrong. Biology is just as much about past generations to learn and try to figure out how future generation will go

.

Wrong, biology is the study of living systems and any literal rendering of the word will bear that out. Why don't you give some thought to what the words you are using mean and get back to me with something vaguely substantive.

I have to get back to the secular clerics that discipled you in the ways of Darwinian equivocation and ad hominem attack. I promised them a debate, I would hate to keep them waiting while I chase you around the Mulberry Bush.

More to come.

Metherion

I'll bet.

 

[metherion]

You mean retarded?

You are obviously ignoring everything I try to say about it and seem intent on believing I attacked you no matter what. Color me unsurprised.

Fundamentalism is from the revivalist era in North America and England. It is a belief that revivals in church history were sparked by an emphasis of the fundamentals of the faith, usually it comes down to five or so, inerrancy of Scripture, the virgin birth, repentance from sin, receiving Christ and final judgment. The thing is, I do know what fundamentalism is and you obviously don't. You cast aspirations about things you know very little about and could care less. You seem self satisfied in you constant corrections while pontificating errors. You are a fairly typical TE, devoid of theological insight or scientific acumen but busting at the seams with ridicule for a religious persuasion you treat with the same disdain I would use on a dangerous cult.

So it’s a type of belief about the fundamentals of the faith. One that most Roman Catholics aren’t, and that I don’t follow. Hrm, that seems to be exactly what I said. Maybe if you weren’t invested in finding me wrong and stupid you’d’ve gotten that, but of COURSE I MUST be wrong and persecuting you somehow.

BTW, with all my experiences with the cults I have never seen one as dangerous to basic Christian conviction as these Darwinian zealots on here

Which is funny because people don’t leave the faith over it people leave the faith because of the false impressions of things they’ve been given by their faith leaders.

The studies are too much for you and now it's too much trouble to even write the words.

*facepalm* Assumptions attacking my knowledge of science eh? Hrm... I wonder if someone is projecting here, calling foul about it being done to him when it’s not and feeling free to call it on others.
I was trying to save space in case the post got close to the length limit.

AIG is remarkable accurate and civil in their treatment of TOE, unlike the TEs on here that slander them mercilessly.

Oh REALLY?
With things like these two
http://www.answersingenesis.org/CreationWise/Cartoons/July98CW2.gif
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/overheads/archive/oh20010316_6_scrn.jpg
I call your lie.

You should be ashamed of yourself

I’ve done nothing to be ashamed of.

and retard was not a term you selected at random.

No, it was an appropriate verb. Your willful blindness on this point speak volumes.

Secular humanism, scientific objectivism, Darwinism and liberal theology is all the same thing. They are unbelief in Christian clothing.

No, they are not. “Darwinism” isn’t a world view, and is no more unbelief than gravity is. The others, well, i’ve already said I got nothing about liberal theology, so I’ll back off the other three.

I have no real interest in pursuing this with you any further.

Then we’ll drop it.

You don't seem to have the slightest regard for the Christian influence on western civilization and I find it vulgar and distasteful to cast my years of study before your constant barrage of condescending corrections.

Oh, no, I do. Without Christianity the West would be nothing. It united us to repel the Muslim invasions through Spain and the Byzantine empire, it held together Europe for more than a millennium, it did countless more things. And it wasn’t just Christianity, it was specifically Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Well, after the Schism, before then they were one. So don’t give me crap like that.

What you are calling science is Darwinism, any attack on universal common descent you immediately defend against as an attack on science at large.

Well, hrm, it’s a conclusion leading FROM science THRU the scientific method BACKED UP by evidence. Attacking it IS attacking science itself. But I’m going to wait for the rhetoric about it being unfounded, a special case, not actually science, because that’s all there is. Rhetoric.

You have been taken in by a fallacious pagan mythology that disguises itself as so many things, even Christian theology.

Yep. Oh, and it’s not a mythology, it’s not pagan. It’s science. Just because you don’t like the conclusions it doesn’t mean you get to viciously slander it and call it not science.

They have mastered the fine art of deception, deceiving even the elect when they are weak enough intellectually.

Which is why everything is out there for the public to see with the methods disclosed. The deceiving ones are people like you, who take your soap boxes to try and break of one piece of science at a time through lies, special pleading, and misinformation that you have amply demonstrated here.

Yes we must make sweeping generalities about life on other planets because Darwinian logic applies to every living thing before the evidence is in.

Because Darwinian evolution describes imperfect replicators, which is one of the myriad definitions of what life is, just like atomic theory describes atoms, and chemistry defines chemical reactions, and so on. No sweeping generalities are made beyond those on the rest of science.

That's what I mean by a priori, without prior, well before the evidence is considered.

No, it isn’t. Unless the EXACT SAME a priori assumptions are called against gravity, electricity, chemistry, and so on. No special pleading for you.

The quote you probably didn't even bother to read is a classic example of how it is applied universally.

OH, I read it. And because I don’t have an agenda of anti-intellectualism, I actually got what it meant.

Darwinian logic is subject to none of those things.

Yes it is. The evidence is mountainous... phylogney, DNA, fossils, ERVs, all sorts of stuff you just hand wave away. But it’s okay, it’s for GAWD.


It's called theology, known as the queen of the sciences until about 150 years ago.

That was then. How about now, hrm?

Metherion

 

[metherion]

You are a minion

Color me unsurprised. The rest of your post will now contain: special pleading AGAINST evolution, accusations of not knowing what I am talking about, some vague hint at a conspiracy, and more comparisons of Darwinian evolution to religion that it doesn’t fulfill.

and I don't attack the genuine article of science,

1/4

I have never seen a creationist attack Mendelian genetics and never will.

But then again, that doesn’t contradict your theology so it’s actual science.

I attack Darwinism because it's a fallacious, flawed and failed philosophy of science that will be tossed on the scrape heap of useless pagan mythologies disguising themselves as science.

Well, that’s 4/4, now I just need two and 3.
Darwinian evolution is not fallacious, is no more flawed than any other scientific theory and in fact far less than some, is not pagan, is not a mythology, and is not ‘disguised’ as science because it is. Despite your special pleading.

It will also be tossed on the scrape heap of apostate heresies passing themselves of as Christian like gnosticism.

Except it doesn’t. It passes itself off as science because it is. And rather than deny and blaspheme the work of the Almighty God, some of us would rather understand it, not deny it, and mold our understanding of the Word God gave us around the World God gave us instead of denying Him and trying to tell Him what He did and did not do.

You assume I don't because I'm a creationist, you assume far too many things.

No, I see that you don’t from what you post, with your fallacies and your special pleading and your insistence that things are what they aren’t.

Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks and you have done nothing but heap insults on creationism since you first came to visit the subforum set aside for them.

Oh really? Care to back that up?

I know you, I know what you do and what you believe because you never argue anything scientific, substantive or theologically based.

Ah, but only because YOU get to define what is and is not any of those things when I talk to you so you can categorically deny any of them.

Everything with evolutionists is either an ad hominem attack on a persons credulity or an equivocation of science and Darwinian atheistic materialism.

Nope. There’s been quite a lot of logic, calling ‘foul’ when false claims are presented, science, and so on. And there is no equivocation there is just a lie ad infinitum that it isn’t coming from you for no other reason than it contradicts your theology.

You never change your pattern, that's how I know.

More projection. I’ve seen your posts in other threads here and outside.
Claim you’re insulted, claim ‘darwinism’ isn’t actually science, blow other people’s points off by saying they’re not about real science coz anything they talk about is ‘darwinism’, tell them they know nothing, claim you’re insulted some more, fail to back up with proof anything, yeah.

No, because whatever is contrary to sound doctrine is unchristian and an a priori assumption against God as Creator and miracles as actual events is unchristian.

Except there IS no a priori assumption about God as Creator. What there is is a saying of ‘Darwinian evolution can’t deal with the supernatural. Here is the evidence, here is what’s observed, here is what it tells us.”

Gravity, and cell theory, and big bang theory, and relativity, and atomic theory, etc. all deny God as Creator EXACTLY as much as evolution does (that is, they don’t), deny miracles as explanations EXACTLY as much as evolution does, but they just don’t conflict with your theology so you leave them alone.

Those who argue for such things are defending heresy, error or something worse

Of course! Tell me I work for Satan, THAT”S a surprise.

A priori applies only to God in the sense that he is unseen.

What are you trying to get at here?

The Bible is a book of historical narratives and the Gospel is a story of miracles.

The Bible is a book of narratives but nowhere in the Bible or in the world God created does it say that it must be taken literally or the message is lost. And yes, the Gospel is a story of miracles.

You evolutionist friends no more believe that Christ was raised from the dead the God made the world in six days

Oh, some do. The TEs. And the ones that don’t don’t disbelieve because of evolution, they disbelieve because they’re atheists, buddhists, Hindi, Muslim, agnostic, Wiccan, druids, or another RELIGION. Not because they accept the scientific theory of evolution, which has nothing to say on the matter.

The New Testament makes it clear that the same power that created the world out of nothing and life from a dead planet raised Christ from the dead

And I believe it did. Just in a different manner than you insist on and vilify me for. And the reason the ‘evolutionist friends’ of mine don’t accept that is because they don’t accept the Bible, not because they accept evolution. The two are UNRELATED.

What you don't understand is that Creationism is based on the New Testament, not some interpretation of Genesis.

That’s fine. One of the titles TEs prefer is ‘evolutionary creationist’. However, the YE part of YEC IS based on Genesis being literal and the entire Bible being literally true to the exclusion of everything else.

I have no problem winning arguments, it's all too easy.

Except you don’t win them, you stubbornly and ad infinitum declare anything the opponent brings to the table is either equivocated, not actually what the topic is about, or wrong with no reason, or due to some conspiracy, and then say you won because nothing valid was brought to the table. Hint, just because you say it isn’t valid doesn’t mean it isn’t.

I have read their literature, their textbooks, listened to their lectures and studied their various disciplines and found their logic fallacious and their evidence faulty.

You mean old frauds that are known to be frauds, conclusions that go against your theology and so on get rejected after you unilaterally decide that what is being talked about isn’t even science? Gee, I wonder why.

I have considered the arguments of theistic evolutionists and found their arguments, at one and the same time to be as devoid of theology as it is science.

Only due to your earlier a priori rejection of science because it conflicts with your theological beliefs.

You are a performer in the Darwinian theater of the mind and you are making converts to your cause.

Here we go again. *eyeroll*

You are poisoning the minds of observers against creationism with as much dramatic zeal as you can muster.

There is no dramatic zeal, which you might see if you didn’t already assume you knew why I was here. And you are the one poisoning any observers with your constant insistence that Darwinian evolution isn’t science, is flawed, etc etc etc with no backing up of it.

I find you devotion to that pagan mythology disturbing

I find the fact that you are unable (perhaps willfully) to tell the difference between Darwinian evolution and pagan mythology severely disturbing.

What is more I find your animosity towards Bible believing Christians

Says the man who calls me a minion of the oppressor, pulls insults out of thin air when they weren’t even intended, has the gall to tell me what I believe, and has told me I am advocating Satan’s agenda.

and your friendship with worldly secular clerics an unacceptable compromise, if not a sell out, to the spirit of the age.

And more rhetoric.

Let you in on a little secret dear, one of the reasons I love these debates is because it confirms what I have always believed. If God does not give you the basic insight into the Gospel and you are exposed to it, it is the savor or death unto death.

And you’re so right and let in on the secret you can condemn others for their beliefs with a clean conscience, huh.

Evolution, if I accepted it without skepticism would not affect my core convictions one iota.

It certainly doesn’t change mine. After all, if it did, I wouldn’t still be a Christian. Not that you think I am, you’ve made that abundantly clear.

I am a creationist because the actual evidence is not there for the only real lineage that means anything to me doctrinally.

And of course adding the material into your doctrine poses a problem for everyone but you. And of course, we know what happens when evidence for something you don’t like comes along, it gets special pleaded as ‘not actual science’ and hand-waved away.

All this time and you don't realize that my only issue is human lineage and my only issue with that is the human brain.

Funny, you’ve been telling me it’s “Darwinism” from your own mouth the whole time.

Again, evolution is not what you think it is or you pretend that it is

Do tell.

t is scientifically defined as the change of alleles in populations over time.

Yes.

That makes creationists the most radical of evolutionists since we affirm that life in all it's vast array and diversity descended with modification from parent types that lived about 4 thousand years ago.

Yes,you have your never defined ‘kinds’ that turned into all species on earth 4 thousand years ago with no evidence, no genetic bottlenecks, no way for the sheer number of alleles in ‘unclean’ animals to even have been there in the first place, requiring a mutation rate dozens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of times faster than it does today with no evidence.

You don't know where my theology comes from or where it is going and that is yet another presumption TEs make, they consider themselves superior theologically.

Says the man on his high horse who believes he can tell others what they believe better than they themselves can. Ha.

Darwinian evolution is atheistic materialism

No, it isn’t, and no matter how many times you may say it it isn’t true.

and when you zealously defend it as science itself you are defending atheistic materialism whether you like it or not, whether you believe it or not, whether you want to admit it or not.

Oh yes, I’m wrong, and no matter what I think, know, believe, have evidence for I’m still wrong based on a false claim you made. Forgive me if I’m unimpressed.

You just said you do this for the audiance you think I am misleading, now you say it's for me. So who is the target audience, me or the lurkers?

I do it for their sake, not directly to them. If they were my audience, I would be speaking to them. I am speaking to you because you are one of the people who is peddling the poison of the false dichotomy, the misdefinition of science, the notion that anything against your theology is of Satan, and so on. And too many people who fall for those traps fall from the faith entirely.

You can accuse me of lies all you like, you just can't prove it any more then you can prove AIG is deceiving people.

I see you ignored my post with the 9 examples. Try also ignoring the two pix I link earlier in this post.

I have you just don't know enough about the issue involved to realize it.

HA! Another classic! “No I’ve won you’re just too stupid to see it”.

Evolution is the change of alleles in population over time

Yes...

not universal common descent and certainly not science itself.

The evidence for evolution LEADS to universal common descent and IS science no matter how many times you repeat the falsehood that it isn’t.

Why don't you give some thought to what the words you are using mean and get back to me with something vaguely substantive.

Yeah... like your definition of darwinian evolution as atheistic materialism. Get back to me when you figure those two out.

I have to get back to the secular clerics that discipled you in the ways of Darwinian equivocation and ad hominem attack.

Except they don’t exist, you’re the one making the equivocations, and the ad hominem I see come from you.

I promised them a debate, I would hate to keep them waiting while I chase you around the Mulberry Bush.

Yeah, too bad you tend to skip over the things I say that might actually prove my point, like my list of 9 things and my reason why the supernatural isn’t scientific. But then again, then you might have to concede I have a point which would crush the rest of your rhetoric.

And the rest was posted immediately after. I wait for your reply on it.

Metherion

 

[marktheblake]

Organisations like AiG, ICR and CMI draw in millions of dollars every year, and yet how much do they spend on actual positive research? Virtually none.

And you have proof of this - of course not, so that is just subjective and prejudiced opinion.

Over here in Europe, the conservative christians and the YECs are making your great country a laughing stock.

Making unfounding assumptions (accusations actually) without carefully examining the data that is readily available to him is typical of the 'evolutionist' in such discussions.

My country is not known for its conservative christianity or YEC at all - quite the opposite actually.

 

[Mick116]

My country is not known for its conservative christianity or YEC at all - quite the opposite actually.

I don't know, YECism has made significant inroads into the Australian evangelical community... I'd probably say most Presbyterian, Baptist, Brethren and Pentecostal churches would be majority YECist; still, I guess this is not well-known in the wider community.

As far as conservative Christianity goes, the Sydney Anglicans are quite well-known, as is Hillsong Christian Church. The primate (senior bishop) of the Traditional Anglican Communion (the largest fellowship of "Continuing Anglican" churches worldwide) resides in Australia. Australian Catholicism seems to be fairly conservative, notably amongst the younger generations, and Australian Lutheranism has embraced relatively conservative evangelicalism rather than the liberalism found elsewhere in the world.

 

[marktheblake]

I don't know, YECism has made significant inroads into the Australian evangelical community... I'd probably say most Presbyterian, Baptist, Brethren and Pentecostal churches would be majority YECist; still, I guess this is not well-known in the wider community.

possibly, but I have not heard such a thing 'preached'. My pastor has mentioned it in passing, like no more than a sentence, which makes it clear he supports the YEC view, but not preached, taught, indoctrinated or any of these other favourite words that get thrown around.

YECism seems more like something that individual will seek out and research on his own.