lucaspa
Legend
Originally posted by chris8852 I had typed up all this response to you but I just had a revelation.
I can't make you accept what you're mind is dedicated not to accept.
I can't make you change your mind no matter how much evidence and logic I try and bestow unto you.
Sure you can. Scientists change theories all the time. All you need is the data. Or are you not talking about the scientific theory of creationism and a young earth and rather the concept that Yahweh exists and created? Are you assuming (as Brown does) that all evolutionists are atheists?
Look, you said we wouldn't be able to find "evolutionist" answers to your questions. That turned out to be incorrect. Brown relies on your ignorance.
I'm trying to argue in a place and in a sense using man's logic and science which was designed for the contrary of my beliefs, designed for the focus on the world and the powers therein and not of the spiritual world.
A convenient excuse, but wide of the fact. Science developed in Western Europe precisely because of Judeo-Christianity. All the early scientists were dedicated to finding out how God created. Again, you never read the Origin, did you. If you had, you would have found this:
"To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." pg. 449.
Not exactly denying God, is it?
We could fight this thing down to the very last resource, but you know what? Every resource has its resource and so on. In the end you are left with nothing more than uncertainty.
Another attempted duck. In the end you are left with the certainty of 1) intersubjective data and 2) some ideas are wrong because they have false consequencs. Creationism and young earth are two ideas that were shown to be wrong. We are absolutely certain that they are wrong just like we are absolutely certain the earth is not flat.
What you have done, Chris, is commit the tragic logical error of the creationist: you have tied the ultimate meaning that God exists and God created to a specific mechanism of creation. You are saying that if God didn't create the way you say, then God didn't create and doesn't exist. Put this way, the does-not-follow is very clear.
All evolution says about God is that, if you believe in God for other reasons, then this is how God created the universe.
Because God's science doesn't use the basis of man's science and it exceeds normal understandings of man's logic.
Ah, but then why does Brown say that science can show a young earth creationism?
Anything I tell you from my personal experience can so easily be seen as lies and deceit. I think God designed the world in this way because if it was that easy then everyone would follow and believe, but for selfish reasons and purposes! God wants us to believe for reasons exceeding self.
Believe me, it is pretty easy for so many people to see the truth in Christ,
Believing in God and Christ is not contradictory to accepting evolution. You have personal experience that God exists. Fine. I don't dispute it. I don't share it, but I have no way to say you are wrong. But evolution simply tells you how God created.
I can find faults in every single one of your arguments, and you can in mine, the end is nearly pointless! There is so much in the world designed to take our eyes away from God and put them onto something to lead us down the wrong path. In fact, the entire basis of man's science does this!
Science is agnostic. Science cannot show you, by its legitimate methods, whether God exists or created. All science can show is how God created if He does exist.
What you did was made specific scientific claims. I refuted those specific claims. That's all.
You see, this is exactly what they want! They want Christians to take their eyes off of God and put them on evolution. They want us to debate it instead of fighting battles that you can actually win!
I agree that this is exactly what creationists want. Which is a reason they are such a danger to Christianity and theism.
The entire foundation is corrupt.
If you truly believe that God created, then the foundation of science cannot possibly be corrupt. Because science is based on the evidence God put into Creation. To say that the foundation of science is corrupt is to say that God lies. See, another danger of creationism.
Not only in the form of man's science, but in a form of the supernatural realm.
Science doesn't comment on a supernatural realm. If you want to believe that the supernatural does not exist, then you have to do so outside of science.
When researching all of these points I found that you could explain all of them in a creationist manner from the point of view of a very educated creationist,
Then show us so you can convince us that the scientific theory of creationism is correct.
By man's science! That is one of the many distinguishing differences between man's science and God's science.
Tell us about "God's science". How does it work?
I am trying to prove evolution wrong, instead of you trying to prove creationism wrong. And even if you tried to prove creationism wrong, you wouldn't be using the right type of science and logic to do it, because you are limited therein.
Oh, I can prove creationism wrong. Easily. Creationism is a specific how of creation. That how is wrong. What I can't prove wrong, and have no interest in proving wrong, is creation. Creation is the idea that God created the universe for a purpose.
Most scientists aren't looking for the evidence to prove creationism right,
Chris, before 1830 creationism was the accepted scientific theory. Scientists like Adam Sedgwick, Whewell, Richard Owen, and Charles Darwin, scientific giants of their day, did their level best to prove creationism right. They couldn't. Instead, being honest scientists and Christians, they knew they had proven creationism wrong.
I want people to know that there ARE scientific reasons to doubt evolution, because man's science in its own contradictory fashion can even contradict itself.
You are describing creationism here, with its web of ad hoc hypotheses that contradict each other. However, evolution is a consistent set of statements and hypotheses, backed by data.
They have not been taught in the fashion our ancestors had that showed many of the people on a daily basis and in everything they do the life and power of God that is in existence and how to call upon it.
Now we get down to your logical mistake. See, you are equating evolution with denying God's existence. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Therefore the entire foundation of evidence I stand on of creationism isn't accessible to evolutionists. What I am saying is one of the most truly amazing things God has shown me. I stand in awe over the truth he has brought to my attention.
Let's get specific here. Are you saying that God has shown to you that He created the earth in 6 literal days less than 10,000 years ago?
I hate to use this example, but every person on the world could believe the world is flat, that wouldn't make it true. I hate to use that because we all know the world is round, and I am talking about stuff we don't know, but on the other hand, we only know what we have been taught and seen from others in the realm of man, so, however unlikely it is, the world could really be some other shape.
This isn't a joke. It's how science works. That you thought it a joke simply shows you know nothing about science.
We have absolutely shown the earth is not flat. Nothing is going to change that. The earth can never be flat. But we haven't "proved" and never will that the earth is round. It could well be that some other shape will better describe the earth.
The same situation applies to creartionism and evolution. We know God did not create by creationism. Whatever happens to evolution, creationism is forever wrong. However, we can't, and never will, strictly "prove" that the diversity of life arose by evolution. But just like the theory that the earth is round, it is perverse beyond words to deny evolution until evidence comes about showing it is wrong.
But remember, creastionism is not the same thing as creation.
I can't make you accept what you're mind is dedicated not to accept.
I can't make you change your mind no matter how much evidence and logic I try and bestow unto you.
Sure you can. Scientists change theories all the time. All you need is the data. Or are you not talking about the scientific theory of creationism and a young earth and rather the concept that Yahweh exists and created? Are you assuming (as Brown does) that all evolutionists are atheists?
Look, you said we wouldn't be able to find "evolutionist" answers to your questions. That turned out to be incorrect. Brown relies on your ignorance.
I'm trying to argue in a place and in a sense using man's logic and science which was designed for the contrary of my beliefs, designed for the focus on the world and the powers therein and not of the spiritual world.
A convenient excuse, but wide of the fact. Science developed in Western Europe precisely because of Judeo-Christianity. All the early scientists were dedicated to finding out how God created. Again, you never read the Origin, did you. If you had, you would have found this:
"To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." pg. 449.
Not exactly denying God, is it?
We could fight this thing down to the very last resource, but you know what? Every resource has its resource and so on. In the end you are left with nothing more than uncertainty.
Another attempted duck. In the end you are left with the certainty of 1) intersubjective data and 2) some ideas are wrong because they have false consequencs. Creationism and young earth are two ideas that were shown to be wrong. We are absolutely certain that they are wrong just like we are absolutely certain the earth is not flat.
What you have done, Chris, is commit the tragic logical error of the creationist: you have tied the ultimate meaning that God exists and God created to a specific mechanism of creation. You are saying that if God didn't create the way you say, then God didn't create and doesn't exist. Put this way, the does-not-follow is very clear.
All evolution says about God is that, if you believe in God for other reasons, then this is how God created the universe.
Because God's science doesn't use the basis of man's science and it exceeds normal understandings of man's logic.
Ah, but then why does Brown say that science can show a young earth creationism?
Anything I tell you from my personal experience can so easily be seen as lies and deceit. I think God designed the world in this way because if it was that easy then everyone would follow and believe, but for selfish reasons and purposes! God wants us to believe for reasons exceeding self.
Believe me, it is pretty easy for so many people to see the truth in Christ,
Believing in God and Christ is not contradictory to accepting evolution. You have personal experience that God exists. Fine. I don't dispute it. I don't share it, but I have no way to say you are wrong. But evolution simply tells you how God created.
I can find faults in every single one of your arguments, and you can in mine, the end is nearly pointless! There is so much in the world designed to take our eyes away from God and put them onto something to lead us down the wrong path. In fact, the entire basis of man's science does this!
Science is agnostic. Science cannot show you, by its legitimate methods, whether God exists or created. All science can show is how God created if He does exist.
What you did was made specific scientific claims. I refuted those specific claims. That's all.
You see, this is exactly what they want! They want Christians to take their eyes off of God and put them on evolution. They want us to debate it instead of fighting battles that you can actually win!
I agree that this is exactly what creationists want. Which is a reason they are such a danger to Christianity and theism.
The entire foundation is corrupt.
If you truly believe that God created, then the foundation of science cannot possibly be corrupt. Because science is based on the evidence God put into Creation. To say that the foundation of science is corrupt is to say that God lies. See, another danger of creationism.
Not only in the form of man's science, but in a form of the supernatural realm.
Science doesn't comment on a supernatural realm. If you want to believe that the supernatural does not exist, then you have to do so outside of science.
When researching all of these points I found that you could explain all of them in a creationist manner from the point of view of a very educated creationist,
Then show us so you can convince us that the scientific theory of creationism is correct.
By man's science! That is one of the many distinguishing differences between man's science and God's science.
Tell us about "God's science". How does it work?
I am trying to prove evolution wrong, instead of you trying to prove creationism wrong. And even if you tried to prove creationism wrong, you wouldn't be using the right type of science and logic to do it, because you are limited therein.
Oh, I can prove creationism wrong. Easily. Creationism is a specific how of creation. That how is wrong. What I can't prove wrong, and have no interest in proving wrong, is creation. Creation is the idea that God created the universe for a purpose.
Most scientists aren't looking for the evidence to prove creationism right,
Chris, before 1830 creationism was the accepted scientific theory. Scientists like Adam Sedgwick, Whewell, Richard Owen, and Charles Darwin, scientific giants of their day, did their level best to prove creationism right. They couldn't. Instead, being honest scientists and Christians, they knew they had proven creationism wrong.
I want people to know that there ARE scientific reasons to doubt evolution, because man's science in its own contradictory fashion can even contradict itself.
You are describing creationism here, with its web of ad hoc hypotheses that contradict each other. However, evolution is a consistent set of statements and hypotheses, backed by data.
They have not been taught in the fashion our ancestors had that showed many of the people on a daily basis and in everything they do the life and power of God that is in existence and how to call upon it.
Now we get down to your logical mistake. See, you are equating evolution with denying God's existence. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Therefore the entire foundation of evidence I stand on of creationism isn't accessible to evolutionists. What I am saying is one of the most truly amazing things God has shown me. I stand in awe over the truth he has brought to my attention.
Let's get specific here. Are you saying that God has shown to you that He created the earth in 6 literal days less than 10,000 years ago?
I hate to use this example, but every person on the world could believe the world is flat, that wouldn't make it true. I hate to use that because we all know the world is round, and I am talking about stuff we don't know, but on the other hand, we only know what we have been taught and seen from others in the realm of man, so, however unlikely it is, the world could really be some other shape.
This isn't a joke. It's how science works. That you thought it a joke simply shows you know nothing about science.
We have absolutely shown the earth is not flat. Nothing is going to change that. The earth can never be flat. But we haven't "proved" and never will that the earth is round. It could well be that some other shape will better describe the earth.
The same situation applies to creartionism and evolution. We know God did not create by creationism. Whatever happens to evolution, creationism is forever wrong. However, we can't, and never will, strictly "prove" that the diversity of life arose by evolution. But just like the theory that the earth is round, it is perverse beyond words to deny evolution until evidence comes about showing it is wrong.
But remember, creastionism is not the same thing as creation.
Upvote
0
