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.
If creation took a big hit (such as there is evidence of man from 20,000 years ago), then the “theory” based on the Biblical account is totally bankrupt and none of it is to be taken seriously.
You can't assume that reason is valid in order to show why reason is valid.
Then it can only be valid if reason itself is valid, and therefore can't be used to support the notion that reason is valid.
Some interpretations are more reasonable than others.We all have the same “evidence” available to us. So, it’s a matter of how one interprets that evidence.
The Grand Canyon is far better explained by uniform processes than by a flood or its aftermath.Since one time events of history cannot be “proven” as a repeatable experiment, a certain amount of “faith” is involved on where that evidence leads. Like with the Grand Canyon, we all know the result of the canyons, but some may theorize is was carved by the river over millions of years, and others that it was a rapid catastrophic event soon after a global flood.
One of those is not faith.One may look at other geology and see different things depending on the lenses their looking thru. Before knowing all the facts you might tend to lean one way or the other, and in the process of uncovering certain evidences adjust your “faith” accordingly.
One might look at all the plants and animals that are on earth with all its complexity, beauty and harmony and start with the “faith’ that it was all created and part of some plan. Or, for some reason one might have “faith" that it all came about randomly.
That is in no uncertain terms NOT how the theory of evolution was developed.So I think theories start with some sort of opinion or “faith” about what the answer is, and then work backwards as to what you would expect to find if that were true. If you find things that “fit” with the theory (even thought it may not be the absolute truth) it helps bolster it. And, if things don’t “fit” then the theory is weakened.
You think wrong. And you also omit a huge swath of Christianity that does not accept your impossibly literalist interpretation of Genesis.If I may speak for other creationist, I think for various reasons we were brought to the “faith” that we were created by a supreme being, and that the creator provided us with an account of how and when it was done. So we use that as our “theory” and work into the evidences from that framework. I think “naturalist” work in a similar manner.
That is not the proper scientific definition of 'theory.'In summary, a theory (A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment) is not fact or it is no longer a theory.
Creationists also must ignore evidence. In fact, creationists ignore far more evidence than they use.The Bible outlines the theory of creationism. Why it works is based on ones faith of the evidence (and how it’s viewed) that tends to support it.
It depends on where the hit occurs. Common descent would be devastated by the discovery of a rabbit in Jurassic strata, for example.The thing about the two versions of origins is this:
- Evolution can take a big hit and the theory is adjusted and it keeps on ticking.
When was it decided that there is no way for that to happen?A naturalist has to have “faith” that life came from non-life. If there’s no way for that to happen, then it shouldn’t be taken seriously.
1. I never said the evidence base is static, and that hardly seems relevant.No, it isn't. The evidence base is not static. New data is coming in all the time, and no amount of interpretation will make a bad model give good predictions.[/font]
Creationists also must ignore evidence. In fact, creationists ignore far more evidence than they use.
1. I never said the evidence base is static, and that hardly seems relevant.
2. Your second comment sound pretty absolute. Are you sure?
Don't insult me, please. That isn't even decent rhetoric.IMO, the evidence for creation is creation itself.
You can start by showing that special creation is a better explanation for the diversity of life than is evolution.How does one produce evidence for something created ex nihilo?
If we take the creation story of Genesis literally, how do we explain the amazing complexities found inside organisms such as humans? Are you formed from clay or dirt? Just because when we decay we become like dirt does not mean that we are made of them. If God could have made creatures out of the clay of the ground, why not leave them that simple? Instead, we're complex, with nervous systems and organs and cells and DNA...
Our complexity speaks to the difficulty it takes for such an organism to exist, let alone survive.
Don't insult me, please. That isn't even decent rhetoric.
You can start by showing that special creation is a better explanation for the diversity of life than is evolution.
And Martin's point is that it is you who is trying to do just that.
In the CWV reason is valid because there is truth and knowledge and it can be known to be. In a purely naturalistic worldview how do we know reason is valid or true?
It depends. Could you create an identical pocketwatch while I observe? Could I film you creating a pocketwatch?Let's try this another way. If I create a pocketwatch ex nihilo into the palm of my hand, what evidence would exist that points to that watch being brought into existence in that fashion?
Let's try this another way. If I create a pocketwatch ex nihilo into the palm of my hand, what evidence would exist that points to that watch being brought into existence in that fashion?
You are using reason to justify reason. You can cloak it in whatever flowery theology you like, but that's still what you're doing.WE both are making that assumption and each is based on our worldview. I am claiming that reason to reason rests on the ability to do so with conviction and where that conviction is based.
No --- to both questions.It depends. Could you create an identical pocketwatch while I observe? Could I film you creating a pocketwatch?
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?