What makes a creationist a creationist?

[Darkness27]

I don't have a lot of time so I'll only address this for now.

This is not only a requirement of a belief in creation, although it is, it is also required by basic evolutionary theory. If the root stock of mammalian life were lactose intolerant, mammals would never have developed mammary glands, for they would have conferred no reproductive advantage. (Did you forget natural selection? )

Whether you have lactose tolerance or intolerance you will have about the same amount of lactase until you are around 7, if you have intolerance you will start to loose the overall amount of lactase in your system. That is why even if a person is lactose intolerant they will still be able to drink milk when they are kids, and most likely throughout most of their teen years as well. My cousin in law has lactose intolerance, but didn't show symptoms until he was in his 20's. (Did you forget...... something? )

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

There is no way light can travel at different speeds, it is a constant represented by Einsteins equation E=MC^2. While I suppose you could argue that light from distant stars or galaxies were there before the Earth formed, and indeed we do find those light sources, it does say definitively that the universe is at least as old as the farthest light source, which happens to be 13Ga(billion) light years away.



While the questions are valid your conclusions are not. In science theories are designed to explain a specific set of facts. For example the theory of gravity explains why things fall to Earth, and why moons orbit planets and planets orbit stars and so on. The theory of gravity doesn't explain how stars, planets or moons got there, only how they interact with each other due to their masses. Just because gravity doesn't explain the origins of such objects, it doesn't make the theory in less valid. Similarly just because evolution can't explain how the Earth got here, or how the first organisms came to be, it doesn't invalidate the explanations for the diversity of life evolutionary theory was meant to explain.



Abiogenesis has certain elements of evolution, like natural selection, but no matter how abiogenesis unfolds it doesn't do anything to the theory of evolution. Although the two are somewhat connected, the two fields of study focus on different facts, and in the end the two stand on their own.



Darwin and Mendel were brilliant people, but they did not discover the whole truth, and many of Darwin's ideas are just plain wrong! It has been over a hundred years since those two, and science has gone a long way since then. I do not choose man over God, I'm just not a fundamentalist and don't adhere to a literalist, inherent, or infallible interpretation to the Bible. My position isn't recent in theological history, St. Augustine was very outspoken against a literal interpretation of the Bible, and this is hundreds of years before Darwin. In actuality the fundamentalist movement, from where modern creationism originates from, was originally invented to combat Darwin's theory and theologically has only been around for about a hundred years.



I have not studied dating methods in any depth, but I have a general idea of how most of them work. I know you don't learn hardly anything about them in high school.



You assume that the Bible is literally true on every point and can be used in a myriad of fields. Because YEC's cannot question the Bible under any circumstances, they cannot do true science.



Let us start off with what foundation is evolution built upon in your opinion? And what does evolution fail to explain that creationism, or a literal interpretation of the Bible, can?



lol indeed. It is not a contradiction because I never suggested anything other than what I said. Your opinion may be that I am wrong, but I in no way contradicted myself in that sentence. One could be wrong on a thousand points, but it doesn't mean that they contradicted themselves, only that they are wrong on a thousand points.



Science does have very rigorous standards, I'm sure even Biblewriter would agree with me there.



As before, the heliocentric model destroyed some theological ideals back in its day, but Christianity survived. Religion and science for the most part have been at odds, but it is because people hold on to their dogma too much, they can't differentiate between dogma and God. Over time Christianity accepted the heliocentric model and now only a select few still hold on to the geocentric model, and even older is the flat Earth idea. Christianity will survive the transition to accepting evolution, because Christianity isn't about making claims about science, it is about God, and through His grace Christianity will persevere.


There have been scoffers for ever, not just in the end of days will there be those who mock Christianity. I think this passage was written to second generation Christians where disciples were starting to revert back to Judaism, and he was trying to keep them in the Christian faith.

How is this a prophesy? If anything it is talking about past or present events to when it was written, not future events. I myself see this passage as more timeless than anything, and can be applied to past, present and future.

I don't know how you got a prophesy out of this. In basic terms all it says is that everyone falls short the glory of God, and if you read a little further, only through God's grace can we be saved. It then goes on to make other statements of faith and theological implications.

I only saw one prophesy about the end of times, verse 18. And it is a quote from 2 Peter mentioned above.

I don't see 2 Peter 2 as a prophesy, more of a warning from his own experiences in preaching. He probably saw how false prophets gathered members and logically assumed that there will be false prophets for the next generation. Even if this is a prophecy, there have been false preachers since Christianities existence, why do you say they are just now being fulfilled?

Never once did I say "light" itself can travel faster. It may have the same amount of speed but has many different ways to reach the earth faster. Same speed but different ways to reach the earth than what you claim.

No my questions and conclusions are valid. If the Big Bang did not happen how did the universe come about? Without a universe there is no evolution. how did it come about if there wasn't a Big bang? Abigenesis, If this did not happen then Where did we first start from? To have abiogenesis you had to have the Big bang happen. If abiogenesis did not happen the what organisms were the first to evolve and from what did that that organism evolve from if abiogenesis did not happen?

No I do not "assume" the Bible is true, I know it is true for a fact. If you believe in morality it is from the Bible. If you are married, and believe in love it is from the Bible. Because evolution cannot account for morality, marriage, or love. There is no justification for such things because they cannot be tested. Also, you said YEC cannot do true science this is illogical fallacy you just made because Creationists assume the preconditions of intelligibility while being rational and consistent to do science that is correct. Evolutionists "assume" the preconditions of intelligibility without having a logical explanation as to why they do and be rational and consistent. For them to do any science they have to take Biblical principles, do actually Evolutionists do the pernicious science which can lead to perplexity. And it is perplexity. Thus, makes evolutionists inconsistent within their worldview.

You ask me what foundation evolution is based upon but this automatically shows me that you did not understand logical reasoning that I stated. Re-read it.

This is a contradiction you just cannot see it. Which is actually really sad for a fallen christian.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------


""" There have been scoffers for ever, not just in the end of days will there be those who mock Christianity. I think this passage was written to second generation Christians where disciples were starting to revert back to Judaism, and he was trying to keep them in the Christian faith.

How is this a prophesy? If anything it is talking about past or present events to when it was written, not future events. I myself see this passage as more timeless than anything, and can be applied to past, present and future.

I don't know how you got a prophesy out of this. In basic terms all it says is that everyone falls short the glory of God, and if you read a little further, only through God's grace can we be saved. It then goes on to make other statements of faith and theological implications.

I only saw one prophesy about the end of times, verse 18. And it is a quote from 2 Peter mentioned above.

I don't see 2 Peter 2 as a prophesy, more of a warning from his own experiences in preaching. He probably saw how false prophets gathered members and logically assumed that there will be false prophets for the next generation. Even if this is a prophecy, there have been false preachers since Christianities existence, why do you say they are just now being fulfilled? """

------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. You do not understand any of this scripture whatsoever, you missed the point totally by a mile.

2. How is Romans 1 a prophesy? I can see that you are willingly ignorant of what the Bible says.

3. See you do not even know how Romans 3 is a prophesy. lol. It is a shame that people do not comprehend things. Because of the way they look at through Evolutionary glasses. Shame.

Man you do not understand the Bible at all, You totally used 2 Peter 3:3-9 out of context and the same for all the others. Not being mean, just saying you cannot see due to your lack of knowledge.

 

[Darkness27]

My computer was acting weird, so it was a repeat.

 

[howlingwolf]

A favorite of mine is the homonoid footprints that occur in carboniferous strata over a wide area of eastern United States. I have read articles about them in scientific journals. But one such stands out in my memory, from the journal of Geology in the 1950's or early 1960's. it said (approximately, this is from memory- I have lost my notes n this one.) "If man, or man's early ape ancestor, or that early ape ancestor's early mamalian ancestor lived as far back as in the carboniferous period, the whole science of geology is so wrong all the geologists will resign their jobs and take up truck driving. Hence, science rejects the attracrive notion that man made these footprints in the mud of the carboniferous period with his feet."

I found your quote. It is not from the Journal of Geology, but from an article published in Scientific American in 1940 (unfortunately not available on line), and is quoted on this site, "paleo.cc/paluxy/berea-ky.htm", third paragraph in the Introduction. Most of these tracks appear to have been debunked and rejected even by the creationists themselves.

Howlingwolf

 

[Biblewriter]

I found your quote. It is not from the Journal of Geology, but from an article published in Scientific American in 1940 (unfortunately not available on line), and is quoted on this site, "paleo.cc/paluxy/berea-ky.htm", third paragraph in the Introduction. Most of these tracks appear to have been debunked and rejected even by the creationists themselves.

Howlingwolf

Thank you for the source reference. The thing that impressed me about this article was that it was in a legitimate and widely recognized scientific journal.

I was aware that the alleged footprints in the paulaxy bed were eventually debunked. As to whether or not any, or even all, of the others were eventually debunked, that has no bearing on the subject I referred to. For my argument was not as to whether or not these footprints were real, but that their homonoid origin was rejected purely on the basis that this would not fit the theories that were currently accepted by the scientific community at large.

 

[Darkness27]

Never once did I say "light" itself can travel faster. It may have the same amount of speed but has many different ways to reach the earth faster. Same speed but different ways to reach the earth than what you claim.

Expand on this.

No my questions and conclusions are valid. If the Big Bang did not happen how did the universe come about? Without a universe there is no evolution. how did it come about if there wasn't a Big bang? Abigenesis, If this did not happen then Where did we first start from? To have abiogenesis you had to have the Big bang happen. If abiogenesis did not happen the what organisms were the first to evolve and from what did that that organism evolve from if abiogenesis did not happen?

Even if God created the universe as a steady state less than ten thousand years ago, and created life as depicted in Genesis, none of it will invalidate evolution per-say. We would still see genetic drift, mutations and natural selection taking place as we see it today in populations alive today.

Theories in science only explain a certain set of facts. Evolution doesn't touch how life first arose, or how the universe began, only the diversity of life after it was already here.

No I do not "assume" the Bible is true, I know it is true for a fact.

That is the foundation of knowledge for YEC's, and they refuse to even consider that the Bible isn't infallible. That is why they can't do science, because they refuse to entertain the idea that the ideas in the Bible aren't scientifically sound. In order to do real science you must be able to question everything you know as truth when it comes to the physical world, YECism refuses to question Genesis as the inherent word of God as literal truth in areas associated with science.

If you believe in morality it is from the Bible. If you are married, and believe in love it is from the Bible.

So there was no morality, marriage, or love before the Bible? You seem to be confusing doctrine with deity, which is a form of idolatry. Praise the creator not the creation.

Because evolution cannot account for morality, marriage, or love. There is no justification for such things because they cannot be tested.

Evolution cannot account for rain, does that mean evolution is wrong?

Also, you said YEC cannot do true science this is illogical fallacy you just made because Creationists assume the preconditions of intelligibility while being rational and consistent to do science that is correct.

A person who is a YEC can do science, but as soon as they implement their doctrine as unquestionable and scientific they no longer are doing science. And I've only heard of one person who is a YEC and doesn't implement their doctrine into science. He still believes that the world is 6K years old, but also admits that if it wasn't for his religious beliefs he would accept evolution and big bang and all that jazz.

Evolutionists "assume" the preconditions of intelligibility without having a logical explanation as to why they do and be rational and consistent. For them to do any science they have to take Biblical principles, do actually Evolutionists do the pernicious science which can lead to perplexity. And it is perplexity. Thus, makes evolutionists inconsistent within their worldview.

I myself am very perplexed on what you are trying to say. Please rephrase, make it longer if you have to.

You ask me what foundation evolution is based upon but this automatically shows me that you did not understand logical reasoning that I stated. Re-read it.

I seem to have fallen too far from grace, for I cannot understand thou's tongue or impervious logic. Wherefore canst thou reiterate what thou hast already voiced in that I, a vacuous, shall come to apprehend thou; so thy lowliest of emulators may one gloam advance towards the ne'er dimming luminescence of our Lord and Savior?

This is a contradiction you just cannot see it. Which is actually really sad for a fallen christian.

Enlighten me.

1. You do not understand any of this scripture whatsoever, you missed the point totally by a mile.

Correct me.

2. How is Romans 1 a prophesy? I can see that you are willingly ignorant of what the Bible says.

Show me.

3. See you do not even know how Romans 3 is a prophesy. lol. It is a shame that people do not comprehend things. Because of the way they look at through Evolutionary glasses. Shame.

Rebuke me.

Man you do not understand the Bible at all, You totally used 2 Peter 3:3-9 out of context and the same for all the others. Not being mean, just saying you cannot see due to your lack of knowledge.

Teach me.

BTW, I looked up 'end of times', turns out the end of times started when Jesus ascended into heaven, ha, you learn something new every day. So I can see where it says 'end of times' how that could be a prophesy. But historically prophesies were designed in the OT to distinguish true prophets from false prophets, and saying that there will be false prophets/teachings and Bible scoffers in the end of times (to me) isn't very convincing as a prophesy given the Judaism foundation and the time period. Of course if you can prove me wrong... I await your reply.

 

[Darkness27]

Thank you for the source reference. The thing that impressed me about this article was that it was in a legitimate and widely recognized scientific journal.

Um, Scientific America, although a great source for information, is not a scientific journal. It is journal for laymen to keep up with scientific advances and new discoveries.

I was aware that the alleged footprints in the paulaxy bed were eventually debunked. As to whether or not any, or even all, of the others were eventually debunked, that has no bearing on the subject I referred to. For my argument was not as to whether or not these footprints were real, but that their homonoid origin was rejected purely on the basis that this would not fit the theories that were currently accepted by the scientific community at large.

It is my guess that all such findings were eventually debunked. Although you didn't specifically state that these were real or not, you certainly implied that such findings are evidence for creation. I find it awful strange that you can recite such things from memory without knowing where it came from or the decade in which it was written. I find it shady behavior.

And I would say you don't tell the whole story when you say that they rejected hominid origins purely on the basis that it didn't fit the theory. While it may be true, and it probably is, we have never found a fossil not in the strata dated to when that species was alive (i.e. we never found bunnies in the Cambrian). Given the accuracy of the theory thus far, why shouldn't we exhaust all other options before we humor the idea that humans are much older than what we originally thought, or even further by saying that the theory of evolution is wrong?

 

[marktheblake]

Um, Scientific America, although a great source for information, is not a scientific journal.

Well that explains why the article i was reading today in Scientific American seemed more like entertainment and sensationalism. One Neanderthal found with a wound made by a human spear and they postulate now that it was humans that wiped them out.

While it may be true, and it probably is, we have never found a fossil not in the strata dated to when that species was alive (i.e. we never found bunnies in the Cambrian).

Isnt that because the dating of when a species was alive was ascertained by the age of the strata they were found in.

 

[Biblewriter]

Um, Scientific America, although a great source for information, is not a scientific journal. It is journal for laymen to keep up with scientific advances and new discoveries.



It is my guess that all such findings were eventually debunked. Although you didn't specifically state that these were real or not, you certainly implied that such findings are evidence for creation. I find it awful strange that you can recite such things from memory without knowing where it came from or the decade in which it was written. I find it shady behavior.

Some things stick out in your memory, and some do not. I clearly remembered the words, and got them almost exactly right, even though it was over 40 years ago that I first quoted them in a research paper. I know that I was completely wrong about where they came from.

And I would say you don't tell the whole story when you say that they rejected hominid origins purely on the basis that it didn't fit the theory.

My point was that this was the STATED reason for rejecting homonoid origins. The context of my original statement, in case you do not remember, was the accusation that I was not being objective. And I answered, Is this objectivity?

While it may be true, and it probably is, we have never found a fossil not in the strata dated to when that species was alive (i.e. we never found bunnies in the Cambrian). Given the accuracy of the theory thus far, why shouldn't we exhaust all other options before we humor the idea that humans are much older than what we originally thought, or even further by saying that the theory of evolution is wrong?

I completely reject the statement, "given the accuracy of the theory thus far." Gross inaccuracies have been repeatedly pointed out, but the voices that do so are systematically ignored.

I do not even begin to imagine that this is some kind of a conspiracy. It is rather the product of a prejudice so entrenched that it incapacitates its victims from even being able to realize that they are not being objective. (And by victims I mean the ones who are incapacitated by the prejudice, not those against whom they express their prejudice.) I see you as one of these victims.

 

[Darkness27]

Well that explains why the article i was reading today in Scientific American seemed more like entertainment and sensationalism. One Neanderthal found with a wound made by a human spear and they postulate now that it was humans that wiped them out.

That idea has been floating around for a while. In Europe Neanderthal's and Cro-Magnon's had overlapping territory, and Neanderthal wounds have been seen that must have been made by a Cro-Magnon weapon. I would say it is a leap from a few wounded skeletons to genocide, I would say it could have been a contributing factor to the ultimate extinction to Neanderthals.

Scientific America is a good source for laymen, and because it is a layman's journal they don't present the evidence the same way as they would in a real peer-reviewed scientific journal. It is a lot less technical and their conclusions are usually presented as more sound that what they actually are.

Isnt that because the dating of when a species was alive was ascertained by the age of the strata they were found in.

There are many different dating methods depending on a lot of variables and I am not versed in any of them. But if God created all the organisms at the same time we should see a hodgepodge of organisms with no order in the strata, but we do see a clear order that isn't violated and predicted quite well by the theory of evolution.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

Expand on this.



Even if God created the universe as a steady state less than ten thousand years ago, and created life as depicted in Genesis, none of it will invalidate evolution per-say. We would still see genetic drift, mutations and natural selection taking place as we see it today in populations alive today.

Theories in science only explain a certain set of facts. Evolution doesn't touch how life first arose, or how the universe began, only the diversity of life after it was already here.



That is the foundation of knowledge for YEC's, and they refuse to even consider that the Bible isn't infallible. That is why they can't do science, because they refuse to entertain the idea that the ideas in the Bible aren't scientifically sound. In order to do real science you must be able to question everything you know as truth when it comes to the physical world, YECism refuses to question Genesis as the inherent word of God as literal truth in areas associated with science.



So there was no morality, marriage, or love before the Bible? You seem to be confusing doctrine with deity, which is a form of idolatry. Praise the creator not the creation.



Evolution cannot account for rain, does that mean evolution is wrong?



A person who is a YEC can do science, but as soon as they implement their doctrine as unquestionable and scientific they no longer are doing science. And I've only heard of one person who is a YEC and doesn't implement their doctrine into science. He still believes that the world is 6K years old, but also admits that if it wasn't for his religious beliefs he would accept evolution and big bang and all that jazz.



I myself am very perplexed on what you are trying to say. Please rephrase, make it longer if you have to.



I seem to have fallen too far from grace, for I cannot understand thou's tongue or impervious logic. Wherefore canst thou reiterate what thou hast already voiced in that I, a vacuous, shall come to apprehend thou; so thy lowliest of emulators may one gloam advance towards the ne'er dimming luminescence of our Lord and Savior?



Enlighten me.



Correct me.



Show me.



Rebuke me.



Teach me.

BTW, I looked up 'end of times', turns out the end of times started when Jesus ascended into heaven, ha, you learn something new every day. So I can see where it says 'end of times' how that could be a prophesy. But historically prophesies were designed in the OT to distinguish true prophets from false prophets, and saying that there will be false prophets/teachings and Bible scoffers in the end of times (to me) isn't very convincing as a prophesy given the Judaism foundation and the time period. Of course if you can prove me wrong... I await your reply.

You tell me to expand on this. You have committed a prejudicial conjecture. If you just do your homework and study up with these things you will see that it is possible for light to travel faster in different methods. I will post some links if I 'have' to. I have them saved already. This would invalidate evolution why? You committed the fallacy of equivocation. Using the word 'evolution' in two different senses in the very same structure of events.

1 Evolution - change over time (millions of years) Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

2 Evolution - you see evolution happening through natural selection, etc.. In todays world as in you see the "formation, or growth" of an organism.

You see there are two definitions that you used. Without millions of years. Evolution is impossible. Because we would not be humans right now. Therefore we can conclude your assertion that the world even if it was young evolution could happen is illogical.

If evolution cannot account for how life began what is the point in believing they know what happened after life? They were not there to witness it. How do they know we evolved from water creatures to mammals then to primates then humans? Seems "arbitrary."

///////////That is the foundation of knowledge for YEC's, and they refuse to even consider that the Bible isn't infallible. That is why they can't do science, because they refuse to entertain the idea that the ideas in the Bible aren't scientifically sound. In order to do real science you must be able to question everything you know as truth when it comes to the physical world, YECism refuses to question Genesis as the inherent word of God as literal truth in areas associated with science.////////////////

For actual Christians who are children of God to deny the Word of God as being fallible is putting you on very dangerous ground. This would be asking the Christian to try to fight for their worldview without the Bible by standing on the fallacy of neutrality. This would be like asking scientists to leave their equipment and documentations at home and try to defend their beliefs.

You claim Christians cannot do science because we are not tolerant to open beliefs? How gullible is that? Also, tell me these things for me.
Where did the 'Preconditions of Intelligibility' come from? How can evolutionists account for each one?

Preconditions of Intelligibility
a. Laws of Logic
b. Uniformity of Nature
c. Absolute morality
d. reliability of senses
e. reliability of memory
f. freedom and dignity
g. and many more.

Tell me how evolution can give a logical explanation of why they assume these preconditions that they have no basis for while being rational and internally consistent.

In a Biblical Creation standpoint, these preconditions must be assumed before any knowledge or facts can be known. And these preconditions only make sense in a Biblical Creation worldview. not evolution.

First you deny the account of creation by evolution. Then you try to use the Bible against me because you are ignorant of knowledge?

Also, marriage and stuff before the Bible. Notice whenever JESUS was around. They probably did not have Bible's for copy for everyone. But JESUS addresses marriage. He says, At the beginning from creation, Man and woman. Or something like that in the Book of John. So you can see that whenever God created the beginning of the mankind Adam and Eve that he meant marriage to be between a man and a woman. So therefore I ask the "evolutionist" what purpose does he/she have to be married? If any evolutionist is married he is inconsistent with his worldview because he has no basis for marriage within his worldview.

How about you quit committing prejudicial conjectures and consult a local library? I have done my homework. I know it is a prophesy all you have to do is read it and understand. You read an do not understand. Why because to you it is fallible. Therefore we could safely assume you are not of God. Because you deny the truth of God, and if you claim to be a Christian who is saved. How do you know your saved? It is a fallible book.

 

[Mankin]

I think that most creationalists do not believe that the Bible is a science book. For example, the Bible writers never gave names to complex scientific concepts and they were not aware of the rotation of the earth as is evidenced by the book of Joshua.

Creationalists believe that God created the world but that does not mean they believe the Bible is a science book.

 

[Darkness27]

I think that most creationalists do not believe that the Bible is a science book. For example, the Bible writers never gave names to complex scientific concepts and they were not aware of the rotation of the earth as is evidenced by the book of Joshua.

Creationalists believe that God created the world but that does not mean they believe the Bible is a science book.

Creationism is a branch off of the fundamentalist movement concentrating on the premise that the Bible is the infallible word of God and is correct on all aspects of the universe including science.

A creationist is more than just believing God created the world, if it was creationist and Christian would be synonymous with each other, which they are not.

 

[Darkness27]

You tell me to expand on this. You have committed a prejudicial conjecture. If you just do your homework and study up with these things you will see that it is possible for light to travel faster in different methods. I will post some links if I 'have' to. I have them saved already. This would invalidate evolution why? You committed the fallacy of equivocation. Using the word 'evolution' in two different senses in the very same structure of events.

The speed of light is a constant, through the theories presented by Einstein we see how the speed of light is a constant. There is no way light can travel at different speeds. In your last post you said that light doesn't change speeds, but here you say that it is possible for light to travel faster. You are inconsistent in what you say, so why don't you clarify what you are talking about and post those links you have on stand by.

1 Evolution - change over time (millions of years) Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

2 Evolution - you see evolution happening through natural selection, etc.. In todays world as in you see the "formation, or growth" of an organism.

You see there are two definitions that you used. Without millions of years. Evolution is impossible. Because we would not be humans right now. Therefore we can conclude your assertion that the world even if it was young evolution could happen is illogical.

There is only one Evolution, but it is broken down into two categories; micro and macro. Because we see mutations, natural selection and speciation happening today, the age of the Earth doesn't effect the basic principles of the theory, only the implications of such a theory. If it was confirmed that the Earth was only 10K years old the idea that all organisms had a common ancestor would be off the table because of time.

If evolution cannot account for how life began what is the point in believing they know what happened after life?

Because we observe evolution today.

They were not there to witness it. How do they know we evolved from water creatures to mammals then to primates then humans? Seems "arbitrary."

Fossils.

For actual Christians who are children of God to deny the Word of God as being fallible is putting you on very dangerous ground.

You equate deity with doctrine. Your view of God is too small.

You claim Christians cannot do science because we are not tolerant to open beliefs?

Christians can do science, YEC's can do science. The problem begins when you assert scientific claims because of what the Bible says and refuse to say that the evidence disagrees with these claims. Unfortunately almost all YEC's have this mindset making it impossible for them to be scientific where scripture and evidence collides.

Preconditions of Intelligibility
a. Laws of Logic
b. Uniformity of Nature
c. Absolute morality
d. reliability of senses
e. reliability of memory
f. freedom and dignity
g. and many more.

a. Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the laws of logic.
b. Science has assumed that the laws of nature are the same everywhere in the universe, but unless shown otherwise why would you assume anything else?
c. There is no absolute morality in science, but evolution can explain how morality developed as an inherent part of us and other animals as well.
d. Everything we experience we must filter through our senses and how we interpret those senses; I fail to see how this has to do with anything were talking about. And it has been shown that our senses can be way wrong.
e. Similarly our memory is anything but reliable. Memory is one of the worst things to call reliable.
f. What does this have to do with science? Science doesn't say anything about freedom or dignity.

Tell me how evolution can give a logical explanation of why they assume these preconditions that they have no basis for while being rational and internally consistent.

They don't assume any of those preconditions except b and perhaps that the universe is real and we are real.

In a Biblical Creation standpoint, these preconditions must be assumed before any knowledge or facts can be known. And these preconditions only make sense in a Biblical Creation worldview. not evolution.

But the ones about reliability of senses and memory are false. And many of the others have nothing to do with science, and are other fields of study.

First you deny the account of creation by evolution. Then you try to use the Bible against me because you are ignorant of knowledge?

Is that really a question or just a statement? When have I ever used the Bible against you?

Also, marriage and stuff before the Bible. Notice whenever JESUS was around. They probably did not have Bible's for copy for everyone.

That's a good start as the Bible as we know it wasn't around back then. All they had was the Torah, which I doubt Jesus had enough spares to pass out to everyone he met.

But JESUS addresses marriage.

Okay, but what about marriage before Jesus?

So therefore I ask the "evolutionist" what purpose does he/she have to be married? If any evolutionist is married he is inconsistent with his worldview because he has no basis for marriage within his worldview.

Evolution has nothing to say about marriage the same way germ theory has nothing to say about marriage. I accept germ theory, does that mean I can't get married because it would be inconsistent with my world view?

How about you quit committing prejudicial conjectures and consult a local library? I have done my homework. I know it is a prophesy all you have to do is read it and understand. You read an do not understand. Why because to you it is fallible. Therefore we could safely assume you are not of God. Because you deny the truth of God, and if you claim to be a Christian who is saved. How do you know your saved? It is a fallible book.

How is Romans 1 and 3 a prophesy? Instead of just saying I'm ignorant why don't you defend your position. If you've done your homework on the issue than it shouldn't be that hard to show me I'm wrong.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

The speed of light is a constant, through the theories presented by Einstein we see how the speed of light is a constant. There is no way light can travel at different speeds. In your last post you said that light doesn't change speeds, but here you say that it is possible for light to travel faster. You are inconsistent in what you say, so why don't you clarify what you are talking about and post those links you have on stand by.



There is only one Evolution, but it is broken down into two categories; micro and macro. Because we see mutations, natural selection and speciation happening today, the age of the Earth doesn't effect the basic principles of the theory, only the implications of such a theory. If it was confirmed that the Earth was only 10K years old the idea that all organisms had a common ancestor would be off the table because of time.



Because we observe evolution today.



Fossils.



You equate deity with doctrine. Your view of God is too small.



Christians can do science, YEC's can do science. The problem begins when you assert scientific claims because of what the Bible says and refuse to say that the evidence disagrees with these claims. Unfortunately almost all YEC's have this mindset making it impossible for them to be scientific where scripture and evidence collides.



a. Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the laws of logic.
b. Science has assumed that the laws of nature are the same everywhere in the universe, but unless shown otherwise why would you assume anything else?
c. There is no absolute morality in science, but evolution can explain how morality developed as an inherent part of us and other animals as well.
d. Everything we experience we must filter through our senses and how we interpret those senses; I fail to see how this has to do with anything were talking about. And it has been shown that our senses can be way wrong.
e. Similarly our memory is anything but reliable. Memory is one of the worst things to call reliable.
f. What does this have to do with science? Science doesn't say anything about freedom or dignity.



They don't assume any of those preconditions except b and perhaps that the universe is real and we are real.



But the ones about reliability of senses and memory are false. And many of the others have nothing to do with science, and are other fields of study.



Is that really a question or just a statement? When have I ever used the Bible against you?



That's a good start as the Bible as we know it wasn't around back then. All they had was the Torah, which I doubt Jesus had enough spares to pass out to everyone he met.



Okay, but what about marriage before Jesus?



Evolution has nothing to say about marriage the same way germ theory has nothing to say about marriage. I accept germ theory, does that mean I can't get married because it would be inconsistent with my world view?



How is Romans 1 and 3 a prophesy? Instead of just saying I'm ignorant why don't you defend your position. If you've done your homework on the issue than it shouldn't be that hard to show me I'm wrong.

Man you just love those prejudicial conjectures. LOL.

Im not talking about categories here, I was talking about the two different ways you used the word, "evolution." Go to your local library and get a dictionary. Or got to Dictionary.com and look up the word since you seem to believe there is one whenever there isn't.

You cannot observe evolution happening. It has to take the course of millions of years. If the earth was not billions of years (according to evolution) we would still be around the fish/mammal part of the process. We not be humans. You take what you said, If the earth was young say (10,000 years). Then you take the evolution model of the earth is billions of years old. Place that time (10,000y) whenever the first living organism was available. Add ten thousands years, where are we? Were still in the water, but were on land today how can this be? Evolution occurs over the course of millions of years. You cannot observe evolution. This is again the fallacy of equivocation you are committing whenever you say this.

You deny the Genesis Creation account. You say we came from 'fossils' God says we come from him by the dust of the ground. How absurd. To put your faith in the assumptions of scientists that say were from fossils. Ill put a statement about this later.

My view of God is not to small. Can you say fallacy of ad hominem: abusive. Just because you lack the knowledge of Creation does not mean my view of God is small.

This is where you are wrong about your logical reasonings. Creationists have there "foundation" set on GOD sets the truth. They take the Bible and plce it on the evidence and it is still consistent with what they get. For example; The fossil record goes correctly with the Bible. How? The Flood of Noah. How about the Grand Canyon formed? How? The Flood of Noah. If you do not how this is possible, don't comit another prejudicial conjecture go to Creation : A Creation and Science History Project and find some answers or just do your homework before you post something. (This is a post to search Creationist wise not look at evidences that the flood didn't happen by evolution.) This is where 2 Peter 3:3-9 is a prophesy. In this book chapter and verses. It says in the last days there will be "scoffers" (Isaiah 5:19-22 -- I think). Then it says people will be willingly ignorant of the word of God.

3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.


You see, Evolutionists do exactly this. They believe that the earth will continue to go on just like the time from Creation til now and for millions of more years. Then it says they are willingly ignorant of word of God. How?



1. They deny creation. (V.5)
2. They deny the flood. (V.6)
3. They deny the coming judgment.(V.7)

Evolutionists do exactly what this says. They are and you are you are willingly ignorant of the word of God.

a. If evolution had nothing to do with laws of logic, then how are you right now here making 'weak' arguments against Creation? How could evolution be explained with the laws of logic? How could evolution tell me anything logically if the laws of logic did not exist? If these laws of logic did not exist then the Law of Non-contradiction (Law of Logic) does not prove anything of evolution wrong even if it contradicts itself because this has nothing to do with evolution. Oh, but it does GrassHoppa. LOL.

b. Evolution cannot give a logical explanation for why they use this precondition while being rational and internally consistent. They have no basis to use this principle. I mean I can explain this for you since you comit so many prejudicial conjectures.

c. Animals have morality? Why does an animal kill animals? Also, evolution teaches subjective morality. You say no they don't well yes they do. What teach by evolution has the effect of subjective morality. Like saying that no 'afterlife' exists. That we also derived from animals, animals have no morality. Evolution teaches that people should a choice of what they believe. This is subjective(relative) morality. I can on to show you how evolution has caused many things we see today; abortion, homosexuality. Why can't I kill your mom? Because you'd say it is wrong. Well, how come it is wrong? Because it is not right. How come it is not right? You would say cause it is murder. What basis do you on judging right or wrong? How do you know killing a person is wrong whenever you have no basis for it? After all we are just the aftermath of evolved animals over time, therefore on what basis do you have to say killing someone is wrong whenever in the evolutionary worldview, "Man decides" truth?

d. This has everything with what we are talking about. Without the reliability of our senses how would we be able to do any science? If our eyes were not reliable, then how could we say the fossil record is what caused us to evolve? If our sense were not reliable tell me how cuold we do science since we cannot trust them. You even said that they 'could' be wrong. But in your eyes you have already assumed that evolution is correct just because of the beliefs of scientists. So really this is kind of like the fallacy of begging the question.

e. So if you went bike riding for 10 miles one day, then you came to me and said yeah I went bike riding yesterday for ten miles. Well, How do I know your telling the truth. You would say because I remember doing it. That is showing me that you 'assume' your memory is 'reliable.' Just because you remember it does not mean I know it is true, or to everyone else. Yet again quit committing prejudicial conjectures. You have done your homework for evolution and evolution only. No creation. Memory has a lot to do with science and if you do not know this, then idk how you even know the difference between science and evolution.

f. LOL, You know evolutionists have freedom and dignity. But what for?? They do not have justification for this. Why do they hold funeral services for their loved ones? They are just "animals." Why do they hold a funeral service for that loved one? They just went back to be fertilizer for plants. They had no meaning of purpose in this life. Evolution has no basis of accountability for having this. I also find it amusing that this country of nothing but relative morality holds a MOMENT OF SILENCE and a MEMORIAL SERVICE for MICHAEL JACKSON'S DEATH AND MILLIONS OF PEOPLE ARE WEEPING AND CRYING JUST OVER ONE GUY BUT OUT TROOPS ARE FIGHTING FOR THEIR LIVES OVER IN IRAQ, THEY PUT THEIR LIFE ON THE LINE AND SOME DIE SERVING OUR COUNTRY BUT NOTHING IN THIS COUNTRY HAPPENS. (Oh there goes another soldier.) Thanks "Evolution" ...Families suffer because of evolution and I do not care if you Darkness see how this is possible. If you do not see it then you have very little knowledge of JUST WHAT EVOLUTION teaches other than EVOLUTION OF SPECIES.

man you have your knowledge mixed up. You claim they only assume one and that is (b) well how can this be if our eyes are not reliable? One cannot view the world logically if there is no reliability for sense.

 

[Dark_Lite]

You cannot observe evolution happening.

Gene mutations are evolution. That happens all the time and is directly observable. Also see Speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Evolution is perfectly observable. Maybe not in the grand way you'd like it to be, but it is fully and completely observable.

It has to take the course of millions of years. If the earth was not billions of years (according to evolution) we would still be around the fish/mammal part of the process. We not be humans. You take what you said, If the earth was young say (10,000 years). Then you take the evolution model of the earth is billions of years old. Place that time (10,000y) whenever the first living organism was available. Add ten thousands years, where are we? Were still in the water, but were on land today how can this be? Evolution occurs over the course of millions of years. You cannot observe evolution. This is again the fallacy of equivocation you are committing whenever you say this.

I'm not quite sure I follow this, but the Earth has plenty of evidence pointing to it being far older than 10,000 years old. As shown above, evolution can be observed. It all fits together.

You deny the Genesis Creation account. You say we came from 'fossils' God says we come from him by the dust of the ground. How absurd. To put your faith in the assumptions of scientists that say were from fossils. Ill put a statement about this later.

Compare the chemical properties of dust and compare the chemical properties of the human body. You will likely find that they are quite different. Science uses methodological naturalism. Everything is based off the available evidence. There is no naturally available evidence that the human body was formed "from dust." We have recycled elements from space and likely Earth making up our bodies, but there is no possible way we could just be straight up formed from the ground of the Earth according to the available physical evidence.

You are the one that has to make the leap of faith regarding this. The available evidence we have points towards a far different kind of formation of the body compared to what is described in a literal reading of Genesis. Literalists are forced to make use of direct divine intervention when it comes to this as only divine intervention would be able to account for such a massive paradigm shift. The problem is, of course, we know God is not a liar. The only possibilities remaining are either: Science is completely off-base, or Genesis is not entirely literal. And unless you feel like dismantling the entirety of scientific knowledge (it all fits together, you know), the only thing left is a non-literal Genesis reading.

This is where you are wrong about your logical reasonings. Creationists have there "foundation" set on GOD sets the truth. They take the Bible and plce it on the evidence and it is still consistent with what they get. For example; The fossil record goes correctly with the Bible. How? The Flood of Noah. How about the Grand Canyon formed? How? The Flood of Noah. If you do not how this is possible, don't comit another prejudicial conjecture go to Creation : A Creation and Science History Project and find some answers or just do your homework before you post something. (This is a post to search Creationist wise not look at evidences that the flood didn't happen by evolution.) This is where 2 Peter 3:3-9 is a prophesy. In this book chapter and verses. It says in the last days there will be "scoffers" (Isaiah 5:19-22 -- I think). Then it says people will be willingly ignorant of the word of God.

A global flood cannot produce what we see in rock strata today. Why are the strata uniformly layered across the world? Would a global flood not unevenly disperse things? After all, stuff can just float everywhere without limit. Why is there independent agreement between radiometric dating and the strata? Also keep in mind that the strata were laid out by people who believed in divine creation before Darwin ever came along.

You see, Evolutionists do exactly this. They believe that the earth will continue to go on just like the time from Creation til now and for millions of more years. Then it says they are willingly ignorant of word of God. How?

1. They deny creation. (V.5)
2. They deny the flood. (V.6)
3. They deny the coming judgment.(V.7)

Evolutionists do exactly what this says. They are and you are you are willingly ignorant of the word of God.

No one is denying creation. Obviously everyone agrees that we are here. Christian theistic evolution, furthermore, does not deny any last judgment. It is an integral part of Christian theology. How the world got here, though, is not. The best way to answer that question is through science, and science has done a good job at it.

a. If evolution had nothing to do with laws of logic, then how are you right now here making 'weak' arguments against Creation? How could evolution be explained with the laws of logic? How could evolution tell me anything logically if the laws of logic did not exist? If these laws of logic did not exist then the Law of Non-contradiction (Law of Logic) does not prove anything of evolution wrong even if it contradicts itself because this has nothing to do with evolution. Oh, but it does GrassHoppa. LOL.

The law of non-contradiction is a foundational law of thought. It is ontologically separate from anything physical, especially science. The law of non-contradiction guides all thought that we know of. The only relation that evolution has to the law of non-contradiction is that the law guides the thought of it just like it guides everything else. I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here, but whatever you are trying to say--I don't think it's right.

b. Evolution cannot give a logical explanation for why they use this precondition while being rational and internally consistent. They have no basis to use this principle. I mean I can explain this for you since you comit so many prejudicial conjectures.

If you're still talking about the law of non-contradiction then this is a moot point as all human thought is founded upon the law.

c. Animals have morality? Why does an animal kill animals? Also, evolution teaches subjective morality. You say no they don't well yes they do. What teach by evolution has the effect of subjective morality. Like saying that no 'afterlife' exists. That we also derived from animals, animals have no morality. Evolution teaches that people should a choice of what they believe. This is subjective(relative) morality. I can on to show you how evolution has caused many things we see today; abortion, homosexuality. Why can't I kill your mom? Because you'd say it is wrong. Well, how come it is wrong? Because it is not right. How come it is not right? You would say cause it is murder. What basis do you on judging right or wrong? How do you know killing a person is wrong whenever you have no basis for it? After all we are just the aftermath of evolved animals over time, therefore on what basis do you have to say killing someone is wrong whenever in the evolutionary worldview, "Man decides" truth?

Evolution makes no statement in regards to morality. There have been certain people in history who have come up with false ideas derived superficially from evolutionary theory in order to fuel their own hatred. Evolution has nothing to do with that, though--if that theory wasn't around then they would've found something else to base their racism and hatred off of. You, like them, are deriving false ideas from a theory whose only purpose is to describe our genetic history. To demonstrate, the same thing can be applied to Christianity. One only need look at the massively violent history of the religion (on both the Protestant and non-Protestant sides) and conclude that Christianity is a terrible thing. In fact, many extremist atheists do just that. Does that mean Christianity is wrong? No. It means that sinful humans took certain concepts from Christianity and used them for their own twisted, evil purposes.

d. This has everything with what we are talking about. Without the reliability of our senses how would we be able to do any science? If our eyes were not reliable, then how could we say the fossil record is what caused us to evolve? If our sense were not reliable tell me how cuold we do science since we cannot trust them. You even said that they 'could' be wrong. But in your eyes you have already assumed that evolution is correct just because of the beliefs of scientists. So really this is kind of like the fallacy of begging the question.

The reliability of the senses is a large question in philosophy when it comes to rationalism and empiricism. It has led to positions such as extreme rationalism (idealism) and extreme empiricism. It has been shown that the senses are unreliable in some ways. Simple example: Take a pencil and stick it into a glass of water diagionally. Watch how the pencil appears to bend. Of course, it's not actually bending; its just the way light refracts.

In the end, we must accept that our senses are somewhat reliable if we do not want to adopt idealist worldviews where there is no physical world and everything happens in the mind or extreme empiricism where all knowledge comes from sense and experience. In our world of space and time we have reasonable belief to trust in our senses. And indeed, science helps us get around those times when our senses do not do the job fully. Ultimately, everything gets filtered back through them. But with the use of technology, we can "transform" certain aspects of our world into knowledge our senses can trust.

Science (and evolution in particular) makes no assumptions outside of what we can test empirically. The testing and experimentation produces results that can again be tested and verified. An empirical basis for a given hypothesis is then established. It is now a theory. Those theories can then be used to build up other hypotheses and theories.

If anything, creationism is what makes initial assumptions. It tries to fit the existing data into a literal, young Earth Biblical framework. Evolution arose the opposite way: creating a framework from the existing data.

e. So if you went bike riding for 10 miles one day, then you came to me and said yeah I went bike riding yesterday for ten miles. Well, How do I know your telling the truth. You would say because I remember doing it. That is showing me that you 'assume' your memory is 'reliable.' Just because you remember it does not mean I know it is true, or to everyone else. Yet again quit committing prejudicial conjectures. You have done your homework for evolution and evolution only. No creation. Memory has a lot to do with science and if you do not know this, then idk how you even know the difference between science and evolution.

Memory, in general, is reliable. Do you have a reason not to generally trust memory (perhaps when it disagrees with your own convictions?)? It is faulty to a point, but memory is good at storing information. You almost sound like you are sliding into solipsism here by rejecting the ideas of other people's memory. You obviously don't know about it until they tell you about it. But are you going to reject that knowledge because it's not your own memory?

f. LOL, You know evolutionists have freedom and dignity. But what for?? They do not have justification for this. Why do they hold funeral services for their loved ones? They are just "animals." Why do they hold a funeral service for that loved one? They just went back to be fertilizer for plants. They had no meaning of purpose in this life. Evolution has no basis of accountability for having this. I also find it amusing that this country of nothing but relative morality holds a MOMENT OF SILENCE and a MEMORIAL SERVICE for MICHAEL JACKSON'S DEATH AND MILLIONS OF PEOPLE ARE WEEPING AND CRYING JUST OVER ONE GUY BUT OUT TROOPS ARE FIGHTING FOR THEIR LIVES OVER IN IRAQ, THEY PUT THEIR LIFE ON THE LINE AND SOME DIE SERVING OUR COUNTRY BUT NOTHING IN THIS COUNTRY HAPPENS. (Oh there goes another soldier.) Thanks "Evolution" ...Families suffer because of evolution and I do not care if you Darkness see how this is possible. If you do not see it then you have very little knowledge of JUST WHAT EVOLUTION teaches other than EVOLUTION OF SPECIES.

Evolution does not "teach" anything other than evolution of species. You are applying outside ideas to theory whose only purpose IS to describe the evolution of species. There is no morality in evolution. There is no atheism. There is no religion. There is only the data and the conclusions from the data. Anything philosophy (not scientific theory) arising from it is a philosophical application of the theory. That philosophical application can be either good or bad.

Why do "evolutionists" bury their dead and have funerals? They are no less human than you are. Humans are obviously quite different from other animals. Worldviews do not change the base nature of what a human is or what a person is capable of. It is in our nature, for some reason or another, to do respect the dead. Philosophy, religion, and sometimes even science has tried to answer the question. There's many answers out there. I tend to think that Christianity and its philosophies are the best answer.

man you have your knowledge mixed up. You claim they only assume one and that is (b) well how can this be if our eyes are not reliable? One cannot view the world logically if there is no reliability for sense.

Of course it can be argued that one is able to view the world logically with unreliable senses. The entire point of rationalism is that knowledge comes through reason. Extreme versions of rationalism have led to an outright rejection of the material world, leaving the senses as a sort of byproduct.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

Dark_Lite, There are so many fallacies in your post, so many prejudicial conjectures, and a lot of fallacious logic statements. That it would take me forever to re-post to you. You faith = Catholic. You believe in God but not the Genesis account of Creation. You have been deceived and are deceiving. Just the fact that a "christian" would accept the evolutionary worldview into the christian realm makes me sick. A true christian is one that will interpret the evidence based on the Bible. Those strata rock layers do not mean anything. Empiricism is a self-refuting strategy. Also many "arbitrary" claims you have made. I am not saying this because I do not know what to say to your post. Many people mistake this kind of message when someone says this, I mean if you want I will take whenever I have 3-4 hours and I will completely utilize your post by all the fallacious weak arguments posed to Creation. Also by saying that evolution does not teach subjective morality and other stuff shows me that you know nothing more about evolution than what you have learned. Whenever you step it up a notch logically then post a true non-arbitrary claim(s).

 

[Dark_Lite]

Dark_Lite, There are so many fallacies in your post, so many prejudicial conjectures, and a lot of fallacious logic statements. That it would take me forever to re-post to you.

Then show me where they are wrong. You seem to hold logic in high regard, but from what I have seen thus far, your arguments are not that strong. They are the same mistakes that creationists make, over and over.

You faith = Catholic. You believe in God but not the Genesis account of Creation. You have been deceived and are deceiving. Just the fact that a "christian" would accept the evolutionary worldview into the christian realm makes me sick. A true christian is one that will interpret the evidence based on the Bible.

Really? And since when do you get to define who is a "true Christian?" Your insistence that "true Christianity" relies entirely on the foundation of a literal Genesis creates a false coupling that ties your faith to something it does not need to be tied to. What happens if, someday, you come to accept what science says? Will it destroy your belief in Christianity because the equivalency between a literal reading of Genesis and "true Christianity" that you have established? I have seen it happen before.

I don't believe in the literal Genesis account of creation because the creation disagrees. You can try to fit reality into the small box of Young Earth Creationism if you want, but doing so causes many complications and a necessity of denying the foundations of all scientific knowledge.

Finally, I would ask that you cease any accusations of deceiving, lack of faith, and segregation of "true Christians" into a small group who believe in a literal Genesis. It is unbecoming and unnecessary for this discussion.

Those strata rock layers do not mean anything. Empiricism is a self-refuting strategy.

What I see here is a dismissal of evidence contrary to your beliefs. Show me why "rock layers do not mean anything." Also tell me why empiricism is a self-defeating strategy. Certainly extreme empiricism where all knowledge comes from experience and the senses is wrong, as is extreme rationalism. But clearly, some of our knowledge comes from experience and observations, and some of it comes from reason. Humans do have an empirical knowledge base.

Also many "arbitrary" claims you have made. I am not saying this because I do not know what to say to your post. Many people mistake this kind of message when someone says this, I mean if you want I will take whenever I have 3-4 hours and I will completely utilize your post by all the fallacious weak arguments posed to Creation.

By all means, take 3 - 4 hours and respond to it. Address the points. Provide reasoning--philosophical, theological, or scientific. I want to see what you actually have to say against my supposedly "weak" arguments, instead of you just blowing off an entire post and dismissing all of it.

Also by saying that evolution does not teach subjective morality and other stuff shows me that you know nothing more about evolution than what you have learned. Whenever you step it up a notch logically then post a true non-arbitrary claim(s).

You apparently hold logic in high regard, but I'm not entirely sure you are aware as to what it is or how it works. I have told you what evolution is and what evolution is not. It is only a theory that deals with how humans came to be as they are today. Anything else is a philosophical application of the theory, which may be good or bad. People using evolutionary theory to "justify" racist beliefs is obviously bad.

Your entire argument, nay, your entire belief system in regards to origins theology, is founded on erroneous assumptions of what science is and what it is not. You constantly hold fast to "evolution teaches subjective morality," yet when confronted an argument in the contrary, you merely dismiss it. You need to show why it teaches subjective morality, otherwise your point is just as irrelevant as the dismissal you seem to give to anyone who disagrees. Examples of "X guy promoted X evil idea based on evolution" won't cut it. Show how evolution's scientific conclusions specifically and utterly are subjective morality.

Remember, though, that you can't go beyond the conclusions that evolution already has. Things like "Evolution says we're all animals, therefore evolutionists should just go kill everyone and everything" won't work either. The conclusion of the theory of evolution stops at the first comma in that sentence. Everything after it is something derived from that conclusion.

The catch of this whole exercise is, of course, that you won't be able to do it. That's because all of what you think evolution "teaches" is merely another philosophical application of a scientific theory. You are making the same mistake that people who supported Social Darwinism made. You need to separate your science from bad philosophy. Everything will become much clearer then.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Hmm, it would seem I'm posting all of this in the creationist forum. This might be a problem. If necessary, it can be moved to the main origins theology forum though I guess.

 

[marktheblake]

You cant move it, you used the word 'evolutionist' and they dont like it there.