Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You may commence at your convenience.
Not only is it broad in scope, it's deep in volume too: every type of evidence has enourmous quantities of physical fossils and genomes and species and so on and so forth that support it.1. The overwhelming breadth of physical evidence supporting the theory of evolution as an accurate description of how all life came to be as it is today.
Are you implying that these supernatural assertions are compelling reasons?2. Aside from supernatural assertions put forth by ancient fractured theisms written down by men of antiquity, there is no compelling reason to believe that life forms were created magically from dust, clay, ribs, thought, etc.
The track record of genuine scientific beliefs is just as poor, wouldn't you say?3. The track record of these belief systems to be incorrect when making assertions about the natural world.
If it were, would it be any more valid? Does the method of education affect the veracity of what is taught?4. The pattern and process by which the proponents "teach" and argue for biblical creation as an accurate description of how all life came to be as it is today. It is an inherently flawed, inconsistent, and incapable of self correction.
That is absurd. The theory offers an explaination for the evidence. The evidence itself offers nothing in the way of support as to how accurate the theory is. That is simply an opinion in regards to how good the theory explains the evidence.
1. You've got nothing in the way of macroevolution. Your 'overwhelming physical evidence' supports only microevolution, and macroevolution is assumed to be the next step. In fact, existing evidence today supports limited evolution only. Bacteria, which create a new species every twenty minutes to twenty-four hours, has never produced anything other than more bacteria, despite doing so since the beginning of time. The fruit fly, which goes from egg to adult in nine days, and is one of scientists' favorite insects to study, has been tested under every conceivable condition on the face of the earth, and still yields a fruit fly. Try to force a species to become something other than its own kind yields only death and sterility.
2. I don't believe they were created 'magically' either. I believe they were created 'miraculously', which puts a whole new dimension on your point that even Internet scientist here won't acknowledge. They prefer to stick with 'magically', even when corrected; because 'magically' is a much weaker term and can be contested more easily.
3. Speaking of track records being inconsistent. Since the dawn of time, anyone appealing to science to explain something has had that 'something' eventually changed. The periodic table of the elements is always being changed, theories are always being falsified, and even our moon has six different theories to choose from. The only thing consistent with your track record is the fact that it changes with the weather. One person here even told me he can't wait until the next discovery changes the way we view things.
4. Only when they factor uniformitarianism and same-state past into the equation of how everything came to be, does it break down and segment into all different explanations -- as it should. Those of us who believe in catastrophism with a different-state past disagree with each other only in minor details that really aren't worth discussing.
No. Not "just as poor". The simple fact that scientific beliefs dependent on evidence tends to ground them substantially more. I'm not about to claim that there exists a perfect system for seeking knowledge but I will assert that science is far more accurate and honest.The track record of genuine scientific beliefs is just as poor, wouldn't you say?
I think it would. If a belief system wasn't steeped in inculcation then independent thought would eventually help stamp out false beliefs. Some systems are simply more honest and reliable in the pursuit of knowledge.If it were, would it be any more valid? Does the method of education affect the veracity of what is taught?
Still, you said that, because "[t]he track record of these belief systems to be incorrect when making assertions about the natural world", you therefore don't believe in Biblical Creationism. Shouldn't a claim be judged on its own merits? That you failed before doesn't mean you'll fail again.No. Not "just as poor". The simple fact that scientific beliefs dependent on evidence tends to ground them substantially more. I'm not about to claim that there exists a perfect system for seeking knowledge but I will assert that science is far more accurate and honest.
3. Speaking of track records being inconsistent. Since the dawn of time, anyone appealing to science to explain something has had that 'something' eventually changed.
Creationism has been wrong for 300 years and hasn't changed. What does that tell you? Are you saying that you would accept evolution if it still clung to Lamarckian mechanisms even though they have been shown to be false?
Interesting.The track record of genuine scientific beliefs is just as poor, wouldn't you say?
No. Not "just as poor". The simple fact that scientific beliefs dependent on evidence tends to ground them substantially more.
If a child and a professor both ask a 20yo university undergraduate, "Why is the sky blue?", you'll get two different answers. Not because of any inherent dissonance, but because the answers are tailored to the asker.Interesting.
Two people making the same point, but getting two different answers.
This is one reason (not the reason). Since biblical creationism doesn't allow for changing based on new evidence the accuracy of other assertions within the same immutable framework are an important indicator when determining it's reliability as a whole. It becomes untrustworthy as a source of knowledge.Still, you said that, because "[t]he track record of these belief systems to be incorrect when making assertions about the natural world", you therefore don't believe in Biblical Creationism.
Claims should be judged based on a preponderance of evidence. Incorrect assertions made within a framework that doesn't allow for question is a far bigger problem than incorrect assertions made within a framework designed to challenge assertions.Shouldn't a claim be judged on its own merits? That you failed before doesn't mean you'll fail again.
Don't get excited. We are just quibbling over the shade of blueIf a child and a professor both ask a 20yo university undergraduate, "Why is the sky blue?", you'll get two different answers. Not because of any inherent dissonance, but because the answers are tailored to the asker.Interesting.
Two people making the same point, but getting two different answers.
He gave us nothing at all in writing. All because you repeat this over and over here, does not make it true. Even if He did write scripture, you are still interpreting it wrong anyway.And yet again, I have to ask: Who is being deceived?
When God gives us in Writing what He did, when He did it, how He did it, where He did it, what order He did it in, how long it took Him to do it, why it took Him that long to do it, and who the eyewitness were, I would not call that 'deception'.
No, you are being deceived by an erroneous interpretation of scripture based on incorrect assumptions about who wrote it and why.In fact, if it wasn't for Genesis 1, we would be deceived by science.
A family tree is a family tree. Go ahead and try putting automobiles into a family tree and see how you do. Diagram it all you want. Use supercomputers. A square peg does not fit into a round hole.Either that, or you educatees look at nature and diagram it in such a way as to make it fit into a puzzle that doesn't exist, then claim the One Who gave us the pieces is being deceptive.
Computers are useful tools, but they only make calculations faster.. they do not change the results.In short, your paradigms have seams that stick out like a sore thumb; and require a LOT of work -- often with computers -- to make things even come close to fitting.
Easy. You give the creatures all genetic sequences that make it look like they are related as in a family tree.No, He didn't.
And think about what you just said.
How do you create a 'false family tree' in a six-day literal creation week?
You don't share my distain for Hovind, because you don't see being wrong constantly as a bad thing. He is a brother-in-Christ who supports creationism, and that is all that counts. Being wrong for you is irrelevant to "the Truth." This is one of the reasons you are deceived by creationism, btw.I'm aware of that, and believe me, it doesn't deter me one bit.
I don't share your disdain for him, so that's a burden I don't have to carry around.
That would lead to a "The Bible is either true or false" kind of dichotomy, when the Bible is, in and of itself, made up of many claims. It claims there was a Global Flood and Pharaohs. The falsehood of the former shouldn't be used as an indicator, as that would imply the latter is also false - yet, obviously Pharaohs did exist.This is one reason (not the reason). Since biblical creationism doesn't allow for changing based on new evidence the accuracy of other assertions within the same immutable framework are an important indicator when determining it's reliability as a whole. It becomes untrustworthy as a source of knowledge.
Agreed.Claims should be judged based on a preponderance of evidence. Incorrect assertions made within a framework that doesn't allow for question is a far bigger problem than incorrect assertions made within a framework designed to challenge assertions.
I think the biggest and most powerful thing is to simply point out that, at the end of the day, science works. Like it or not, it's not religion that built MRI machines and smallpox vaccines.No system is going to be perfect. What I think gets lost here is the the bigger picture. When you step back and really compare the two systems from which these competing ideas were born it becomes obvious that science is a far superior system for seeking knowledge. It has been used time and again to dispel long held religious beliefs like the geocentric universe. Evolution is just the modern incarnation of this age old cycle. This pattern must be taken into account when looking at the big picture.
I am only speaking in reference to instances akin to the creation vs. evolution debate. In matters where these two systems become at odds I will weigh the history as one of my deciding factors.That would lead to a "The Bible is either true or false" kind of dichotomy,
Mark Twain said:History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme.
Yet people still pray for healing and give to mega-churches instead of medical researchI think the biggest and most powerful thing is to simply point out that, at the end of the day, science works. Like it or not, it's not religion that built MRI machines and smallpox vaccines.
That's a good quote, I may steal it for myself!I am only speaking in reference to instances akin to the creation vs. evolution debate. In matters where these two systems become at odds I will weigh the history as one of my deciding factors.Mark Twain said:History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme.
What an ironic typo, considering the methods by which televangelists operateYet people still prey for healing and give to mega-churches instead of medical research
I'm still amazed by how far we haven't come.
Is that where you get your theology?Weird, when I look at synonyms of "magical" in the thesaurus, I find "miraculous".
Noted as the moment the thread officially jumped the shark.Is that where you get your theology?Weird, when I look at synonyms of "magical" in the thesaurus, I find "miraculous".
No argument there.
But that aside, I can assure you that if God wanted to deceive you, you would be deceived.
In fact, if He wanted to deceive you, He would not have given us Genesis 1; He would have just had to remain silent.
And for the record, what is an atheist doing telling anyone what God is or isn't doing, or what God has or hasn't done?
Yes, you are being deceived -- but not by God.Are you trying to argue that we are not deceived AV?
For me a fossil is just like writting. Clearly God wanted to show us what He did and left us a fossil record so we could see for ourselves. Even if you deny the Bible, all of creation gives witness and testimony for God. Perhaps a few egg heads at the university say creation created itself. But the vast majority of people see that creation needed a Creator. That is why sometimes people believe the college of hard knocks trumps the universities. Because people tend to lose their common sense and the ability to think for themselves when they get to much education.He gave us nothing at all in writing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?