Jump to content


Photo

The Superclass Of Four Limbs


  • Please log in to reply
108 replies to this topic

#101 TempestTossed

TempestTossed

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 303 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, WA

Posted 07 July 2007 - 11:27 AM

Assuming you're using the evolutionist's definition of "evidence" to be synonymous with "proof," then that is pretty weak evidence indeed. Like evolution, classifications are a construct of man subject to the whims of the times.

Maybe if I paraphrase, you'll see how circular your statement is: "Scientists classify living things according to a classification system based on the belief that all living things are descended from a common ancestor. Evolution predicts that all living things will fall into a classification based on common descent. Therefore evolution is true."

Your examples are either the byproduct of the false evolutionary presuppostions, or can be equally applied to creation as well.
OK. Take me back down the branching tree to the point where a reasonable, rational person would conclude, without doubt, that a fish became a lungfish became an amphibian.

If you can't do that, I'll have to believe that at some point you "assume" it, or it "could be," or it "probably" happened, or you "believe" it happened. Which, in itself, for you personally, wouldn't be such a tragic thing. It becomes tragic, however, when a whole branch of science gets corrupted by that kind of thinking, and it becomes the dominant kind of thinking in schools, government, the media and even in churches today.

Dave

View Post

"If you can't do that, I'll have to believe..."

Dave, maybe I misunderstood, but you have to believe what you already believe regardless of anything I can possibly say or do. You already said that no possible conceivable evidence could possibly persuade you of my point of view, that if scientists give you a "fact" that contradicts the Bible, then scientists would need to find a new fact. So why should I spend my time going from here to there with you? Is it all about me changing my own mind, and there is no need for you to change yours? Sure, I will change my mind if I see sufficient evidence for special creation. Evidences for special creation are not those minute gaps in our knowledge that evolutionary biologists don't know because they happened 300 million years ago. That is just an ad hoc reason that you come up with so you don't have to be convinced of the theory of evolution, and you will always have those ad hoc reasons. Yeah, I can't give you the day, month and year when we can all be certain that the first lungfish was born. Sorry.

#102 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 807 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 66
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 07 July 2007 - 04:51 PM

"If you can't do that, I'll have to believe..." Is it all about me changing my own mind, and there is no need for you to change yours?


The big-picture answer? Yes.

Jesus said: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

Tempest, there is a connection between a person's willful disbelief of the Lord's word and the fate that awaits them "on the other side." It's not to say that one cannot be saved if he still holds onto a belief in evolution, but it's a dead certainty that someone who is an unrepentent, professed atheist, agnostic, ideaist, or whatever, who refuses to let go of the lie of evolution has no chance to "cometh unto the Father" once it's too late.

Sure, I will change my mind if I see sufficient evidence for special creation.


The "seeing" comes with the release of your materialistic, naturalistic presuppositions. Until that happens, a piano could fall on your head, and you still won't get it.

Evidences for special creation are not those minute gaps in our knowledge that evolutionary biologists don't know because they happened 300 million years ago.


Right. That's talkorigins propoganda. A straw man. Proof of creation is God's word. Evidence of creation is the same as your evidence of evolution. It's the difference in our worldviews that shows one the truth, and shows the other the lie.

Ask yourself, just what do evolutionary biologists know for a fact that happened 300 mya (in evolution-time years)? Is there just even one thing?

That is just an ad hoc reason that you come up with so you don't have to be convinced of the theory of evolution, and you will always have those ad hoc reasons.


Don't know what you mean, exactly. Are you saying I became a born-again, Bible-believing Christian in order to avoid believing in evolution?

Dave

#103 TempestTossed

TempestTossed

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 303 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, WA

Posted 07 July 2007 - 05:15 PM

Dave, I think maybe this line of conversation is worth next to nothing. To you, it isn't about the evidence. It is about saving a soul or whatever. So I will abandon it and talk about something else. What do you think is going to cause me to give up my materialistic, naturalistic presuppositions? Do you think talking the way you are is going to do that? I think the best thing you can do is understand who I am and where I am coming from, to make a personal connection. To start with, I have no materialistic, naturalistic presuppositions. I don't call myself a materialist or a naturalist because such descriptors depend on vague ideas of what is natural and what is supernatural. All I have are conclusions that resemble what you would expect from a normal materialist/naturalist. My presupposition is that my observations reflect what really exists. I will believe in ghosts, fairies, vampires, zombies, unicorns, pixies, golems, werewolves, gods, wizards, demons, angels, jabberwockies, dragons and elementals when I observe them. I do not have the presupposition that such things don't exist as any more than ideas. That is merely my conclusion from a life of not seeing such things except as ideas. Such ideas seem to come from religions, superstitions, myths and stories that are products of imagination, culturally selected to exist in our minds for their persuasive value.

#104 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 07 July 2007 - 07:22 PM

I will believe in ghosts, fairies, vampires, zombies, unicorns, pixies, golems, werewolves, gods, wizards, demons, angels, jabberwockies, dragons and elementals when I observe them.


You never saw macro-evolution but you believe it.

#105 TempestTossed

TempestTossed

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 303 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, WA

Posted 07 July 2007 - 07:36 PM

You never saw macro-evolution but you believe it.

View Post

Yeah, good point, just like I never saw the molten core of the Earth. I believe propositions when I see very good indications in their favor. See the OP.

#106 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 07 July 2007 - 08:08 PM

Yeah, good point, just like I never saw the molten core of the Earth.  I believe propositions when I see very good indications in their favor.  See the OP.

View Post


Oops ! now you are changing your position. ;)

You said you only believe in what you see, Thomas. Now you accept indirect evidences.

Perhaps you may be saved. :D

#107 TempestTossed

TempestTossed

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 303 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, WA

Posted 07 July 2007 - 10:00 PM

Oops ! now you are changing your position. :)

You said you only believe in what you see, Thomas. Now you accept indirect evidences.

Perhaps you may be saved. :)

View Post

Hold on there, Pharisee. I said, "I will believe in ghosts [etcetera] when I observe them." Not quite the same as, "I only believe things when I see them." I can explain the difference if needed.

#108 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 08 July 2007 - 04:49 AM

Hold on there, Pharisee. I said, "I will believe in ghosts [etcetera] when I observe them."  Not quite the same as, "I only believe things when I see them."  I can explain the difference if needed.

View Post


Go on.I´m curious

#109 TempestTossed

TempestTossed

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 303 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, WA

Posted 08 July 2007 - 10:26 AM

Go on.I´m curious

View Post

For one, the word, "only," was used by you, not by me, and that makes a difference. I will believe in things when I see them, and that does not exclude other modes of evidence. Secondly, I was speaking of supernatural entities like ghosts, which also makes a big difference. Per David Hume, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and extraordinary evidence for supernatural objects would most likely be direct personal observation rather than indirect modes of evidence.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users