My theory on creation.

[Speedwell]

Two questions... 1) what is your definition of "Christian"? 2) Do you have verifiable data for that "close to two billion Christians" figure?

I think it is well established that there are about 2.2 billion Christians worldwide. As to Creationists, the numbers are hard to pin down, but I would be surprised if there were more than 100 million, most of those in the US. Just as an example, the largest Creationist denomination is the Southern Baptist Convention, at about 16 million.

One more, I believe there are over a billion Muslims that disagree with Christianity, does that make them correct?

It's not a popularity contest, it's a question of attitude. The subject came up because of our colleague's recent accusation that non-Creationist Christians have abandoned Christian theism, i.e., that they can't be "real" Christians. This attitude is fairly common with Creationists and is, IMO, the most objectionable thing about them. I have, for my sins, lived in the Bible Belt and have seen for myself the hostility, bullying and sometimes even violence handed out by Creationists to non-YEC Christians when they think they have the upper hand.

 

[mark kennedy]

Great response and absolute facts, sadly, some will just ignore it and go off on a tangent.

That's standard. If you have the patience you can find the real issues and it's pretty obvious after a while, they are not tracking them.

 

[mark kennedy]

Sorry, but Mark merely uses the names of logical fallacies, he does not understand them. When challenged he was not able to make his case for any ad homs, for any strawman arguments. He is like many creationists that make endless logical fallacies. He only learned the terms, he did not learn what they mean or how to apply them. Plus notice how when he is beaten he puts someone on ignore.

Putting someone on ignore when they constantly defeat you is the favorite tactic of too many creationists here.

Actually as a matter of act I know the facts, define my terms and I know the difference between a real argument and a logical fallacy. I rarely put people on ignore, the times I've done that I can count on one hand, and this time it was over the rules.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's standard. If you have the patience you can find the real issues and it's pretty obvious after a while, they are not tracking them.

Oh my. Please mark, when you are continually shown to be wrong I doubt if you could uncover anything.

Why did you run away from the debate? Is the fact that your claim about a priori assumptions so obviously wrong too much for you to handle?

 

[mark kennedy]

Nope, he was demonstrably wrong, again. He keeps making an obvious error and will not own up to it.

Yet you can't identify the error or demonstrate anything substantive.

But then you have demonstrated that the truth is the last thing that you care about.

Which is something you couldn't get to with a road map, you would never get through your own fallacious logic.

 

[mark kennedy]

Oh my. Please mark, when you are continually shown to be wrong I doubt if you could uncover anything.

Why did you run away from the debate? Is the fact that your claim about a priori assumptions so obviously wrong too much for you to handle?

You saying it don't make it true, that's called begging the question of proof.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually as a matter of act I know the facts, define my terms and I know the difference between a real argument and a logical fallacy. I rarely put people on ignore, the times I've done that I can count on one hand, and this time it was over the rules.

Nope, you are demonstrably wrong. And you do not define your terms, maybe you do internally, but that does not help. You have only claimed logical fallacies, but were never able to demonstrate one. You made obviously wrong claims about evolution and were not willing to discuss your errors.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You saying it don't make it true, that's called begging the question of proof.

Nope, wrong again. I made a statement that I was willing to support. You did not even bother to challenge it . Once again you demonstrate that you do not understand the nature of logical fallacies.

 

[mark kennedy]

Nope, you are demonstrably wrong. And you do not define your terms, maybe you do internally, but that does not help. You have only claimed logical fallacies, but were never able to demonstrate one. You made obviously wrong claims about evolution and were not willing to discuss your errors.

I did define my terms, 'evolution', 'Darwinism', 'creation' and several other terms you argued around. I know what I'm doing and you are arguing in circles.

 

[mark kennedy]

Nope, wrong again. I made a statement that I was willing to support. You did not even bother to challenge it . Once again you demonstrate that you do not understand the nature of logical fallacies.

That's crash and burn, welcome to my ignore list. If that's all you got I'm not going to waste my time chasing your arguments in circles.

 

[pitabread]

I did define my terms, 'evolution', 'Darwinism', 'creation' and several other terms you argued around. I know what I'm doing and you are arguing in circles.

They tend to be non-standard definitions though. I mean, when you say something like this:

"Darwinian evolution is the a priori assumption of exclusively naturalistic causes going all the way back to and including the Big Bang."​

That's just a confusing statement for someone to read if they aren't previously familiar with your postings.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did define my terms, 'evolution', 'Darwinism', 'creation' and several other terms you argued around. I know what I'm doing and you are arguing in circles.

You did define evolution. And your definition was wrong. You gave only a partial definition. You are not a valid source that can set definitions. And since your definition was incomplete it was wrong. The same applies to your definition of "creation". You can find sources and cite them, but no one is going to accept your definitions any more than people would accept mine.

By appealing to yourself as a source you made a "false appeal to authority". You are not an authority.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I think it is well established that there are about 2.2 billion Christians worldwide. As to Creationists, the numbers are hard to pin down, but I would be surprised if there were more than 100 million, most of those in the US. Just as an example, the largest Creationist denomination is the Southern Baptist Convention, at about 16 million.

Creationist Christians, you mean. There are a lot of creationist Hindus, etc.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's crash and burn, welcome to my ignore list. If that's all you got I'm not going to waste my time chasing your arguments in circles.

LOL!! OH my!! When I point out an obvious failing of mark's he runs away.

There was no "crash and burn" there was merely an observation of your terrible failure.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I did define my terms, 'evolution', 'Darwinism', 'creation' and several other terms you argued around. I know what I'm doing and you are arguing in circles.

If you use non-standard definitions, then what people will be debating you about won't cover actual evolution, creation from your perspective shouldn't deviate much from other creationist Christians and you are free to mention extra details as you debate, and Darwinism is a made up term creationists use to make evolution sound more like a religion than it is.

My point is, if your definitions of the first two deviates significantly from the standard, then the first will no longer refer to the actual scientific theory anymore and be rendered useless. If the second deviates, then other people that identify as creationists will be trying to destroy your position more aggressively than the evolution supporters. The third term, as per the order I put them in the preceding paragraph, is just a derogatory term for supporting evolution. There's no point to using it if you want honest debate.

 

[Speedwell]

Amen to that !! It seems to be a typical ploy when one cannot offer verifiable evidence supporting their argument.

Here is what Mark said:

"The theory of natural selection is based on naturalistic assumptions. "The doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species...being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition’" (Preface, On the Origin of Species). That is mutually exclusive with creation, design or miraculous interposition of any kind." (emphasis added)

Now he may well find that to be true with respect to his own theology. But it is not necessarily true for Christians who do not share his theology, and that he made it the basis for an accusation of apostasy is intolerable. If you require a detailed examination of the theology of various Christian groups, start a new thread for it.

 

[mark kennedy]

If you use non-standard definitions, then what people will be debating you about won't cover actual evolution, creation from your perspective shouldn't deviate much from other creationist Christians and you are free to mention extra details as you debate, and Darwinism is a made up term creationists use to make evolution sound more like a religion than it is.

Then define your terms.

My point is, if your definitions of the first two deviates significantly from the standard, then the first will no longer refer to the actual scientific theory anymore and be rendered useless. If the second deviates, then other people that identify as creationists will be trying to destroy your position more aggressively than the evolution supporters. The third term, as per the order I put them in the preceding paragraph, is just a derogatory term for supporting evolution. There's no point to using it if you want honest debate.

Then define your terms Sarah.

 

[mark kennedy]

They tend to be non-standard definitions though. I mean, when you say something like this:

"Darwinian evolution is the a priori assumption of exclusively naturalistic causes going all the way back to and including the Big Bang."​

That's just a confusing statement for someone to read if they aren't previously familiar with your postings.

Then consider Darwin's definition:

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. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)​

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then consider Darwin's definition:

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. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)​

That is not a definition. That is a quotation.

What you cannot seem to handle is the fact that the theory of evolution is a testable idea. It has been tested countless thousands of times and has been confirmed. That means that your claim of it being an "a priori assumption" is demonstrably wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here is a better example of a definition of evolution by Darwin:

"Variation is a feature of natural populations and every population produces more progeny than its environment can manage. The consequences of this overproduction is that those individuals with the best genetic fitness for the environment will produce offspring that can more successfully compete in that environment. Thus the subsequent generation will have a higher representation of these offspring and the population will have evolved."

Population and Evolutionary Genetics