"I'm not an expert, BUT......."

[Nathan Poe]

That is the reason I try to bridge the gap with one argument: if evolution is wrong, then creation is right by default.

And since your arguement is complete nonsense, your attempts to 'bridge gaps" with it are laughable failures.

Creation Myths - A Large and Diverse Collection of Links to Creation Myths from Around the World - creation myth,creation myths,creation mythology,creation myths from around the world,creation myths from different cultures,creation story,creation sto

 

[mzungu]

They are the people who study, learn and carry out real experiments, only to have the next generation who study, learn and carry out real experiments correct them, only to have the next generation who study, learn and carry out real experiments correct them...

Tombaugh's Folly, eh?

There was a time when an official "FOOT" (measurement) was the foot of the 12th person to exit a church on sunday and for one week his foot was the official "foot".

You are being unfair to the very essence of what makes for progress. Once upon a time people used shouting to convey a message over distance not more than a few hundred metres. Now we are separated by thousands of kilometres and yet we converse easily. This is called progress.

Pray tell me AV. When you were born; Did you know how to walk? Or fend for yourself? Did you not have to learn to walk by trial and error?

 

[juvenissun]

Of course, except the creation myths of literally hundreds of cultures throughout history.

Creation Myths - A Large and Diverse Collection of Links to Creation Myths from Around the World - creation myth,creation myths,creation mythology,creation myths from around the world,creation myths from different cultures,creation story,creation sto

Turtles all the way down, baby.



Perhaps if you focused more on making a point, and less on telling people when they lose, you'd be more knowledgeable on the subjects you debate about.

In the first step, I don't really care which version of creation. As long as it is a literal creation. I could even tolerate a hypothesis of creation/evolution mixture. But I will absolutely try to defeat the traditional evolution theory. I will be happy if I can get an atheist even start to consider creation.

I don't care who lost in a debate (even it were me), as long as I can learn something new. If I lost a debate, the first thing I will do is to admit it and to thank the one who pinned me.

 

[Nathan Poe]

In the first step, I don't really care which version of creation. As long as it is a literal creation.

On the back of a giant turtle.

And to think you try to pass it off as scientific!

 

[Skavau]

In the first step, I don't really care which version of creation. As long as it is a literal creation. I could even tolerate a hypothesis of creation/evolution mixture. But I will absolutely try to defeat the traditional evolution theory/b]. I will be happy if I can get an atheist even start to consider creation.

Why will you try to "defeat" it? Isn't it more important to research and determine what seems to be most accurate to what is? The fact that you desire to defeat it suggests to me you desire it to be untrue, which would effectively confirm my suspicions that it is the prime motivator of creationism.

They think evolution is evil and/or undesirable and thus argue against it and adopt creationism. It is a battle between good vs. evil.

I don't care who lost in a debate (even it were me), as long as I can learn something new. If I lost a debate, the first thing I will do is to admit it and to thank the one who pinned me.

This is an astonishingly hypocritical statement given your overall contempt for professions and scientific disciplines that take refuge in learning through failure. You adopt (at least on paper and in this sentence) the same mentality that scientists adopt that you so scorn. Scientists learn things from having their ideas falsified. We all do. We learn through the sweat and toil of others, even if it was just to learn what isn't.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Why will you try to "defeat" it? Isn't it more important to research and determine what seems to be most accurate to what is? The fact that you desire to defeat it suggests to me you desire it to be untrue, which would effectively confirm my suspicions that it is the prime motivator of creationism.

Which leads to the other motivator of creationism -- truth and accuracy are irrelevant; only winning matters.

 

[Skavau]

Which leads to the other motivator of creationism -- truth and accuracy are irrelevant; only winning matters.

It is an extension of a literal interpretation of scripture that implicitly and sometimes explicitly preaches against the utility of any knowledge or observation outside of the Bible (or Qu'ran in the case of some Muslims) and argues that anything that denies any 'knowledge' from the Bible is inherently evil.

This can be seen in people like Jazer, AV and many others that are effectively pragmatic solipsists.

 

[Split Rock]

The essential one: the Gospel, is not subjected to interpretation. You either accept it or does not.

If you accept the Gospel, then the rest are, indeed, subjected to interpretation. The important thing is: the interpretation which make sense to you IS the correct one. Other interpretations are subjected to debate. However, the one sounds right to you at the very moment is the most important.

If you do not accept the Gospel, then the rest are certainly meaningless to you.

I suppose its all well and good for the interpretation that seems right to you to be the "correct" one... as long as you stick to theology and stay out of the physical world. But that's not what you guys do... now is it? And that's the problem. In the real physical world, there is only one correct answer... and the best way to find it is with science, not with creationism. Certainly not with non-experts sitting on a couch and musing over lines from scripture.

Almost.

Except that if I argue with your logic, then the best I can do is to argue that your criticism to creation is not necessary right, or is wrong. Since I am not arguing within my logic system, I would certainly have harder time to prove that I am right.

That is the reason I try to bridge the gap with one argument: if evolution is wrong, then creation is right by default.

This is the fallacy of the false dichotomy, as has already been pointed out ot you numerous times. In any case, you have yet to show us that evolution is wrong. So, where does that leave you?

 

[Split Rock]

Here is an ancillary question for the creationists here. If you cannot tell if you are wrong, how can you possibly know if you are right?

 

[AV1611VET]

It is an extension of a literal interpretation of scripture that implicitly and sometimes explicitly preaches against the utility of any knowledge or observation outside of the Bible (or Qu'ran in the case of some Muslims) and argues that anything that denies any 'knowledge' from the Bible is inherently evil.

This sentence doesn't make sense.

What does 'inherently evil' mean?

We are 'inherently sinful', and 'denying any knowledge from the Bible' would be a display of this.

It looks like you've got the cart before the horse.

People aren't evil because they deny knowledge, they deny knowledge because they are evil [sic].*

* Sinful, actually.

 

[Naraoia]

Ya know what they say, one man's trash,...!

Fair enough

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

This sentence doesn't make sense.

What does 'inherently evil' mean?

We are 'inherently sinful', and 'denying any knowledge from the Bible' would be a display of this.

It looks like you've got the cart before the horse.

People aren't evil because they deny knowledge, they deny knowledge because they are evil [sic].*

* Sinful, actually.

Do you have evidence for this?

 

[Skavau]

This sentence doesn't make sense.

What does 'inherently evil' mean?

We are 'inherently sinful', and 'denying any knowledge from the Bible' would be a display of this.

It looks like you've got the cart before the horse.

People aren't evil because they deny knowledge, they deny knowledge because they are evil [sic].*

* Sinful, actually.

You quibble over semantics, but my point still stands. Inside Creationism there is a almost universal belief that knowledge obtained outside of the Bible is useless and evil when it contradicts the Bible.

But I'll ask you since you made the point: Why is denying 'knowledge' from the Bible a demonstration of our sinfulness?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you have evidence for this?

Of course I do.

In fact, I have so much evidence, I decided to make it clear in my profile that I am evidence-free, and have even asked -- in my profile -- not to ask for any.

But who reads profiles, eh?

But just to give you something to deny, the doctrinal term for this is: Sin Nature.

We aren't sinners because we sin; we sin because we're sinners.

 

[AV1611VET]

Inside Creationism there is a almost universal belief that knowledge obtained outside of the Bible is useless and evil when it contradicts the Bible.

Okay -- now I understand what you're saying.

Sorry about that; I was under the impression you were saying that people are made inherently evil because they 'deny any knowledge from the Bible'.

In any event, to address this point, I would like to change one word, so I can agree: Knowledge obtained outside of the Bible is useless and wrong when it contradicts the Bible.

 

[Skavau]

Of course I do.

In fact, I have so much evidence, I decided to make it clear in my profile that I am evidence-free, and have even asked -- in my profile -- not to ask for any.

But who reads profiles, eh?

But just to give you something to deny, the doctrinal term for this is: Sin Nature.

We aren't sinners because we sin; we sin because we're sinners.

So do you live in Guam then?

 

[AV1611VET]

So do you live in Guam then?

No -- my wife and I used to though.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Of course I do.

In fact, I have so much evidence, I decided to make it clear in my profile that I am evidence-free, and have even asked -- in my profile -- not to ask for any.

But who reads profiles, eh?

Who, indeed. But I never asked for scientific evidence. Any decent evidence at all will do. Maybe you should start with logic. That seems to work with most philosophers.

But just to give you something to deny, the doctrinal term for this is: Sin Nature.

We aren't sinners because we sin; we sin because we're sinners.

To make my position clear, I'm not denying anything. I just need compelling evidence before I'm willing to accept your claim.

 

[AV1611VET]

Who, indeed. But I never asked for scientific evidence. Any decent evidence at all will do. Maybe you should start with logic. That seems to work with most philosophers.


To make my position clear, I'm not denying anything. I just need compelling evidence before I'm willing to accept your claim.

Sorry -- no dance tonight; I misunderstood what Skavau was saying.

 

[juvenissun]

Why will you try to "defeat" it? Isn't it more important to research and determine what seems to be most accurate to what is? The fact that you desire to defeat it suggests to me you desire it to be untrue, which would effectively confirm my suspicions that it is the prime motivator of creationism.

They think evolution is evil and/or undesirable and thus argue against it and adopt creationism. It is a battle between good vs. evil.

The science of evolution model is fine.
The implication of evolution model is evil. That is why I want to defeat it.