Seeing fossils without the Evolution goggles

[Caliban]

Yes.

Are you Nathan Poe?

Yes I'm Nathan Poe--an academic who studies the intersection of comedy and religious credulity.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I am personally convicted that the Bible is, in fact, the preserved communication from the Creator of the universe, and so I trust his witness of Creation and earth history much more than groups of men with obvious ideological axes to grind.

You have literally just confessed your own ideological axe.

or any convincing demonstration that their origins worldview is correct anywhere near beyond a reasonable doubt.

Honestly, you are not the best judge and jury to determine what is reasonable doubt or a convincing demonstration.

Scientists of all faiths and none are in agreement on these matters.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I somehow don't consider you an expert on synonyms.

Not from our discussion on kinds, anyway.

This post here QEDs my suspicions.

A problem that creationists have far too often is a tendency to be overly literalistic. Not just with the Bible. That means when complex reading is required they tend to fail.

 

[Speedwell]

How the Bible says it does, generally speaking. I am personally convicted that the Bible is, in fact, the preserved communication from the Creator of the universe, and so I trust his witness of Creation and earth history much more than groups of men with obvious ideological axes to grind. I also see lots of geologic and archaeological evidence that the Bible is historically accurate.

Finally, an honest response. Can we now put aside all of the nonsense about how science is metaphysical naturalism?

 

[Subduction Zone]

One riot at a time.

One cannot only focus on the negatives. The recent riots were made worse by the coronavirus. Too many people had nothing to do.

Honesty will make people optimistic when looking at history. Overall we see progress and not the opposite.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How the Bible says it does, generally speaking. I am personally convicted that the Bible is, in fact, the preserved communication from the Creator of the universe, and so I trust his witness of Creation and earth history much more than groups of men with obvious ideological axes to grind. I also see lots of geologic and archaeological evidence that the Bible is historically accurate.

What archaeological evidence is there that the Bible is historically accurate? There is some confirmation of some of the kings of the Bible, but there is no evidence for events that should be well documented. And I do not know of any geological evidence for the flood. You are aware that that will have to be scientific evidence I hope.

I see evolutionists ultimately always retreating behind an ideology of naturalism (or "methodological naturalism" applied to cosmology, i.e. Nature Did It ), rather than being able to offer any convincing demonstration that their origins worldview is correct anywhere near beyond a reasonable doubt. Assumptions on top of assumptions mixed with a general repulsion of the authority of God's Word.

Here you speak of "assumptions" and you end this paragraph with the biggest assumption of all. There are no "assumptions" that I know of in the sciences. The kind that you seem to be talking about are not allowed. Can you please clearly tell us what some of these assumptions are. Otherwise it does look as if you are breaking the Ninth Commandment. False accusations against others does fall underneath that Law, it does not matter if you believe those assumptions or not. The Ninth is a rule against false witness. Claiming that someone did something that they did not do is false witness whether one believes it or not. It is not just a Commandment against lying.

Evolution is the founding myth of the modern world, the mass acceptance of it goes very deep on a psychological (or spiritual) level. Like most founding myths, it is based more around a spiritual collective identity or great spiritual victory of good or evil, (Man using the powers of his reason and intellect to overcome evil superstition and discover and master the secrets of the universe)... As such the founding creation myth of Evolution has never been subject to serious criticism by modern institutions based on its ideology.

Nope, sorry. Not a myth. It is a concept that is supported by more scientific evidence than gravity. There are no spiritual aspects about evolution. Perhaps you have been listening to the wrong sources on what evolution is. In fact calling it a "myth" may be against the rules here. I know that one gets into trouble for calling the Adam and Eve story a "myth" even though we know that a literal interpretation of Genesis is wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

One cannot only focus on the negatives. The recent riots were made worse by the coronavirus. Too many people had nothing to do.

Honesty will make people optimistic when looking at history. Overall we see progress and not the opposite.

You want to look at history honestly?

Okay ... QED:

Some scientists say the coronavirus came from bats.

In a site I just came from, one poster pointed out that bats were considered a delicacy; and so some merchants began capturing and selling them on the food market.

It was then just a matter of time before diseased bats were eaten by people, and now we've got the virus.

But what intrigues me is one of academia's favorite targets of Biblical ridicule, namely:

Leviticus 11.19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

So while God placed the bat off-limits to human consumption, prompting academia to laugh at Him, guess Who knew what He was talking about all this time?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes I'm Nathan Poe--an academic who studies the intersection of comedy and religious credulity.

As usual, I applaud your honesty and forthrightness.

 

[lifepsyop]

Finally, an honest response. Can we now put aside all of the nonsense about how science is metaphysical naturalism?

I think you're confused. Modern "science" is admitted to be metaphysical naturalism. or "methodological naturalism", or presupposed natural causes to all things. That part isn't even controversial.

Following the implications to their necessary logical conclusions (as I have demonstrated in the OP) ... That's when the teeth start gnashing...

 

[lifepsyop]

You have literally just confessed your own ideological axe.

Was I ever hiding it? Just look at my signature. Of course I'm ideologically committed to the Bible. (It is the Word of God, after all)

You are ideologically committed to Evolution, you just can't admit it.

 

[SelfSim]

I think you're confused. Modern "science" is admitted to be metaphysical naturalism. or "methodological naturalism", or presupposed natural causes to all things. That part isn't even controversial.

Nope ... science requires no assumed '-isms'.

 

[essentialsaltes]

You are ideologically committed to Evolution, you just can't admit it.

No, evolution is a conclusion, not an ideological commitment. This is why this conclusion is shared by so many people of different faiths following the same lines of empirical evidence and argument.

 

[SelfSim]

... You are ideologically committed to Evolution, you just can't admit it.

Evolution was arrived at by scientifically thinking minds. The only dependency there, is in observing that thinking depends on how a mind works .. (which includes what I mean by how my mind works ..).

PS: Descartes, for eg, said 'I think therefore I am' (to which I ask, 'don't you mean you think therefore you think you are?')

 

[pitabread]

A problem that creationists have far too often is a tendency to be overly literalistic.

In relation to this, I've notice a lot of creationists are prone to black & white thinking in general. There seem to be underlying psychology of how certain people are wired that prevents then from seeing shades of grey. Which also I imagine may prevent people from seeing things figuratively or allowing multiple interpretations of things, etc.

There is a whole fascinating psychology behind creationism/religious fundamentalism.

 

[pitabread]

Modern "science" is admitted to be metaphysical naturalism. or "methodological naturalism", or presupposed natural causes to all things.

Methodological naturalism is the only way by which science can function. There is literally no other way to do science.

Following the implications to their necessary logical conclusions (as I have demonstrated in the OP) ...

The problem is that your "logical conclusions" isn't based on logic; it's based on conflation of ideas. That you keep conflating things is leading you to erroneous, not logical conclusions.

Even methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism are two different albeit related things, but in the above post you appear to treat them as synonymous.

Continually abusing equivocation to make an argument isn't helping you here.

 

[lifepsyop]

No, evolution is a conclusion, not an ideological commitment.

Evolution is a predetermined conclusion that necessarily follows from the ideological commitment to naturalism. I've already demonstrated this in the OP.

This is why this conclusion is shared by so many people of different faiths following the same lines of empirical evidence and argument.

This is a weak argument to hide behind, imo. The merging of belief systems is a common practice in human history. Syncretism - Wikipedia

Christians have adopted false evolutionary creation myths, the same way ancient Israel went after false gods all throughout their history. Think about how much easier it is to get along in modern society by professing belief in Evolution. Try making it in the academic or educational world if you publicly blaspheme Darwinian ideology. It's just always easier to flow with the trends of the world. None of this should surprise us.

 

[pitabread]

Evolution is a predetermined conclusion that necessarily follows from the ideological commitment to naturalism. I've already demonstrated this in the OP.

No, you haven't. Your OP is nothing more than pure supposition. You don't even know how to construct a proper argument.

 

[SelfSim]

... Think about how much easier it is to get along in modern society by professing belief in Evolution. Try making it in the academic or educational world if you publicly blaspheme Darwinian ideology.

Hardly comparable to the history of criminalization of Apostasy.
Hyperbolisation to make a feeble 'argument'!

 

[Speedwell]

Was I ever hiding it? Just look at my signature. Of course I'm ideologically committed to the Bible. (It is the Word of God, after all)

You are ideologically committed to Evolution, you just can't admit it.

You appear ideologically committed to your interpretation of it.

 

[Speedwell]

I think you're confused. Modern "science" is admitted to be metaphysical naturalism. or "methodological naturalism", or presupposed natural causes to all things. That part isn't even controversial.

Following the implications to their necessary logical conclusions (as I have demonstrated in the OP) ... That's when the teeth start gnashing...

Natural causes are not "presupposed." Science is committed to testable empirical evidence, whether t be of the natural or the supernatural. So far, it has all been of the natural.