What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

[Al Touthentop]

But they can't. The spout arguments that they have no evidence for. Again, ICR is not a valid source since one needs to swear not to follow the scientific method there. As a result their work is not scientific.

You haven't even read the article.

The problem is that you do not understand the basics of science.

LOL.

 

[Al Touthentop]

And that was not ad hominem.

Most posters that use that term do not apply it properly.

Once again, let's have a discussion about the basics of science. If you actually do understand them it will be very quick. It will make you a better debater.

I've tried that. You not only misrepresented facts, you repeated those misrepresentations after it was shown that your sources were eliminating data in order to mislead the public. And you admitted that you knew those facts were in error after you had repeated them as being authoritative. You're dishonest.

 

[MIDutch]

The easiest way is to just believe what the Bible says about it. Isn't that what Christians do?

Not all Christians.

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion." - St. Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've tried that. You not only misrepresented facts, you repeated those misrepresentations after it was shown that your sources were eliminating data in order to mislead the public. And you admitted that you knew those facts were in error after you had repeated them as being authoritative. You're dishonest.

And you complain about rudeness with this false claim. When have I ever misrepresented facts? And you never showed that data was being eliminated. please no false claims.

 

[Al Touthentop]

And that was not ad hominem.

Most posters that use that term do not apply it properly.

It literally means "against the man."

Once again, let's have a discussion about the basics of science. If you actually do understand them it will be very quick. It will make you a better debater.

The basics of science accepts Aristotle's work on logic. Start there and get yourself educated on "debate." You don't debate, you gainsay and employ a myriad of logical fallacies as if it were useful.

Attacking sources, making claims that people have to swear not to use science etc. I'd like to see your source for this claim that ICR members swear not to use science. That's funny. I did some searching and can't find it.

 

[pitabread]

The ICR article doesn't deny plate tectonics it says they might explain how the flood could have been caused.

The problem with ICR's take on using 'catastrophic plate tectonics' to explain the flood (among other things) is the sheer amount of energy release that would have boiled off the oceans.

The YEC model of flood geology requires Noah to have built a space ship, not a boat.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Not all Christians.

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion." - St. Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim

This quote does not at all seem authentic. Augustine died in 430 AD. This language is far too modern and it appears to refer to discoveries that occurred centuries after he died.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It literally means "against the man."

That is only the etymology. You do not understand the usage. The improper use of ad hominem is in an ad hominem fallacy. That is where one says something on the order of "You are ugly, therefore you are wrong". In other words one uses a personal attack against someone to claim that they are wrong in an unrelated matter. I have not done that. Identifying how someone else is wrong is valid criticism. It is not an ad hominem fallacy.

The basics of science accepts Aristotle's work on logic. Start there and get yourself educated on "debate." You don't debate, you gainsay and employ a myriad of logical fallacies as if it were useful.

Attacking sources, making claims that people have to swear not to use science etc. I'd like to see your source for this claim that ICR members swear not to use science. That's funny. I did some searching and can't find it.

No, he laid the groundwork, but we have advanced beyond that. And no, I do debate. I do provide evidence, until a person improperly rejects evidence. Then I assume that they are honest and simply do not understand the concept of evidence and how it places a burden of proof on the person that it was given to.

And yes, I can quote where ICR members are required not to use science. The problem is that you do not understand the scientific method. That is why I offer to discuss the topic with people. Anyone that tries to use ICR is pretty much guaranteed not to understand the scientific method.

Now if you did understand it you would take me up on my offer. That is what anyone that understood it would do. A person that honestly wanted to learn would do the same. Only someone that is afraid to be wrong would run away.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This quote does not at all seem authentic. Augustine died in 430 AD. This language is far too modern and it appears to refer to discoveries that occurred centuries after he died.

You do realize that Augustine did not speak English, don't you? Any proper translation will be into modern English using modern language. How did you expect them to translate it?

 

[MIDutch]

This quote does not at all seem authentic. Augustine died in 430 AD. This language is far too modern and it appears to refer to discoveries that occurred centuries after he died.

Wow, just ... wow.

 

[Al Touthentop]

The problem with ICR's take on using 'catastrophic plate tectonics' to explain the flood (among other things) is the sheer amount of energy release that would have boiled off the oceans.

The YEC model of flood geology requires Noah to have built a space ship, not a boat.

The people who contributed their theories to that article are not just random idiots with no understanding of plate tectonics. I'm not a geologist or even a scientist. But I did find the theory posited there pretty interesting especially the parts regarding magnetic polar shift as recorded in solid magma.

There is a considerable body of evidence that certain earth changes were not slow at all. Undigested grass in mammoth carcasses found in the northern hemisphere being one blatant one. Here's a mammoth happily eating green grass and is caught in a storm so massive that it covers him in snow over his shoulders and he hasn't even got time to finish chewing.

 

[Tinker Grey]

This quote does not at all seem authentic. Augustine died in 430 AD. This language is far too modern and it appears to refer to discoveries that occurred centuries after he died.

Are you suggesting that translations from Latin ought to be in stilted English?

You could always translate it for yourself: https://www.amazon.com/Sancti-Aureli-Augustini-Litteram-Duodecim/dp/1295195615

 

[Subduction Zone]

The people who contributed their theories to that article are not just random idiots with no understanding of plate tectonics. I'm not a geologist or even a scientist. But I did find the theory posited there pretty interesting especially the parts regarding magnetic polar shift as recorded in solid magma.

There is a considerable body of evidence that certain earth changes were not slow at all. Undigested grass in mammoth carcasses found in the northern hemisphere being one blatant one. Here's a mammoth happily eating green grass and is caught in a storm so massive that it covers him in snow over his shoulders and he hasn't even got time to finish chewing.

I am sorry, but they do appear to be either "random idiots" or liars. Do you know how real scientists work? They publish their work in a well respected peer reviewed professional journal.

And you need to support your mammoth claims with valid sources. Not creationist ones. I have seen those claims before and in the past I have seen them claim that the remains of vegetation stuck in their teeth was "mouths full of grass". Yes, technically it was in their mouths. But there is nothing to amazing about dying with something stuck between one's teeth.

Also if you understood the scientific method it would help you to quickly realize that they are not doing science. Yet you refuse to even discuss the topics.

 

[Al Touthentop]

You do realize that Augustine did not speak English, don't you? Any proper translation will be into modern English using modern language. How did you expect them to translate it?

God you are so predictable. You don't have any idea what I meant. Saying that the language is too modern has nothing to do with it being translated from Latin to English but the phrases and idioms used which are too modern for the time in which he existed.

For one, there wasn't a big debate at that time between science and religion. There were few, if any, atheists among scientists. Most science back then was an attempt to explain God. It was generally assumed that some god existed who created the universe. As a matter of fact, the explosion of atheist beliefs came after Darwin's book. Were you truly somebody who knew about the "basics of science" this wouldn't even be a controversy for you. By the way, Alfred Wallace, who is credited for the co-discovery with Darwin of "Natural Selection" believed in God. So did Darwin for that matter.

Second, it is only in the modern era that science has been used as a ridicule against Christians. That wasn't a thing in Augustine's time. Thus this quote seems to be a fabrication. Since people generally don't read Latin, it's easy to do something like this.

The fact that you accept this quote whole cloth without even a little bit of skepticism is more proof that you are truly unaware of the very science you claim to adhere to.

 

[MIDutch]

Which relevant because? The ICR article doesn't deny plate tectonics it says they might explain how the flood could have been caused.

Seashells ... on top of mountains? Did you forget that part?

You are the one that brought those into the conversation. Plate tectonics explains them.

Hint: Mt Everest was once the seabed of the Tethys sea (you know, where seashells might be found) and over the course of the past 65 million years has been part of the Himalayan convergent fault line. Mt Everest is still rising about a quarter of an inch every year because of this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you suggesting that translations from Latin ought to be in stilted English?

You could always translate it for yourself: https://www.amazon.com/Sancti-Aureli-Augustini-Litteram-Duodecim/dp/1295195615

And with a British accent.

 

[Al Touthentop]

I am sorry, but they do appear to be either "random idiots" or liars. .

There you go again thinking insult is a substitute for evidence. Where's your cite for the claim that they take an oath not to do science?

 

[Subduction Zone]

God you are so predictable. You don't have any idea what I meant. Saying that the language is too modern has nothing to do with it being translated from Latin to English but the phrases and idioms used which are too modern for the time in which he existed.

For one, there wasn't a big debate at that time between science and religion. There were few, if any, atheists among scientists. Most science back then was an attempt to explain God. It was generally assumed that some god existed who created the universe. As a matter of fact, the explosion of atheist beliefs came after Darwin's book. Were you truly somebody who knew about the "basics of science" this wouldn't even be a controversy for you. By the way, Alfred Wallace, who is credited for the co-discovery with Darwin of "Natural Selection" believed in God. So did Darwin for that matter.

Second, it is only in the modern era that science has been used as a ridicule against Christians. That wasn't a thing in Augustine's time. Thus this quote seems to be a fabrication. Since people generally don't read Latin, it's easy to do something like this.

The fact that you accept this quote whole cloth without even a little bit of skepticism is more proof that you are truly unaware of the very science you claim to adhere to.

There were not even any scientists at that time. What we call "science" is a relatively modern invention. Think Galileo and later. And yes, people tended to believe in deities back then. So what? Not then but earlier many believed the Earth to be Flat. How does a lack of knowledge support your claim about the translation? Where is it "too scientific"? And you missed the authors point. Believing in God does not believing the Bible literally. Such beliefs are harmful to religion.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Seashells ... on top of mountains? Did you forget that part?

You are the one that brought those into the conversation. Plate tectonics explains them.

Hint: Mt Everest was once the seabed of the Tethys sea (you know, where seashells might be found) and over the course of the past 65 million years has been part of the Himalayan convergent fault line. Mt Everest is still rising about a quarter of an inch every year because of this.

The idea that the shells remained laying undisturbed and free on the top of the mountain as it shot up from the seabed to 22k feet is quite frankly, preposterous. I doubt you could ever reproduce such a thing occurring in any sort of experiment. The basic laws of physics exclude it. Just the water draining off the new material would wash such loose debris off as it initially rose out of the ocean.

 

[GodsGrace101]

No, I don't think I'm totally opposed to a god or gods.

Rather, because the idea has such powerful philosophical implications, I hold the standard of evidence extremely high when it comes to supporting that idea.

This is one reason I'm so critical of creationism/ID. Typically arguing for creationism or ID aren't actually arguing for those ideas; rather, they are arguing against evolution and assuming design by default.

Unfortunately, it just doesn't work that way. Design is not the null hypothesis of evolution.

If people wish to argue in favor of a supernatural deity responsible for creating or shaping life on Earth, there needs to be a powerful argument and supporting evidence for that. It all goes back to what I laid out in the OP.

I like to argue FOR God,,,,
but am not willing to do this for persons that are not truly interested. It becomes a waste of time since the mind and heart are closed.

I no longer wish to be on this thread because I find some persons here rather insulting...very bad models for the science community.

I find John Lennox to be a much nicer person than Lawrence Krauss, for instance. I find the Christians that have responded to you to be much nicer persons than some of the agnostics/atheists that have contributed and have told me I'm ignorant.

I may be ignorant,,,I really don't care what anyone on here believes ---- but if you could look around you and think all this came from some source other than an intelligent source, then that's how it is for YOU.

For me and other Christians that have known God there is no need for us to prove His existence to anyone.

And being, apparently, in the field of science, you must surely know that there can be no proof for God.
God has always made Himself be known to man....even this simple statement, which is true, caused controversy....bringing about the discussion of different gods and deities. My simple statement was THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD...is that so difficult to understand? The bias is disheartening.

God is like the wind...
It cannot be seen,
but one knows it is present
because of its effects.