Jump to content


Photo

What Would It Take For A Evolutionist To Consider Creation?


  • Please log in to reply
179 replies to this topic

#161 sjl197

sjl197

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 55 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 21 October 2011 - 09:05 PM

quote]

Personally i'd need to observe creation happening, and then see a series of repeatable experiments under varying conditions to understand its intricacies.


I must pooint out that you are being inconsistent. You believe in evolution; yet you have never seen it happen?


Do i need to type the text again?
This. "Just like i see natural selection working when weaker or maladapted individuals are selected out of a population by predators or disease, and those better suited to current conditions survive and reproduce.."
This is evolution happening. Now. Infront of us all.
Such observations are the empirical observations used in its formal scientific study.

If you saw God create something from nothing, you would still not believe. This would simply prove you wrong. People do not love you when you prove them wrong. The cities in which Jesus did most of miracles totally rejected Him.


Please don't profess to tell me how i would react. Unless you are omnipotent of course.
I undertand your subsequent points. Yes, i agree that few if any of us like to be proved wrong.
Luckily for us all, proof is rather elusive from human understanding.

Just like i see natural selection working when weaker or maladapted individuals are selected out of a population by predators or disease, and those better suited to current conditions survive and reproduce...



This is not evidence for evolution. Yet you believe in evolution?


Because as above, this IS evolution. This is modification with descent working through pressures of natural selection.
I can and do observe it, i can and do experiments on it in a scientific framework.
I do not believe, instead I prefer what the current data suggests as the best available hypothesis.

#162 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 22 October 2011 - 04:39 AM


quote]

Personally i'd need to observe creation happening, and then see a series of repeatable experiments under varying conditions to understand its intricacies.


I must pooint out that you are being inconsistent. You believe in evolution; yet you have never seen it happen?


Do i need to type the text again?
This. "Just like i see natural selection working when weaker or maladapted individuals are selected out of a population by predators or disease, and those better suited to current conditions survive and reproduce.."
This is evolution happening. Now. Infront of us all.
Such observations are the empirical observations used in its formal scientific study.

Your problem here, is that you are “presupposing” evolution in this event. You have absolutely no evidence that this isn’t how the animal world has always proceeded. And if this IS how the animal world has always proceeded, than it is not evolution, because it is static. The stronger devouring the weaker doesn’t lend credence to evolution unless you are simply attempting to PROVE evolution by it. Unless you somehow have empirical scientific evidence that the animal eating cycle somehow causes one animal to “macro-evolve” into another animal? If that is the case, please provide said evidence… Otherwise, the only empirical scientific evidence we really have here is the animal eating cycle.


Just like i see natural selection working when weaker or maladapted individuals are selected out of a population by predators or disease, and those better suited to current conditions survive and reproduce...



This is not evidence for evolution. Yet you believe in evolution?

Because as above, this IS evolution. This is modification with descent working through pressures of natural selection.
I can and do observe it, i can and do experiments on it in a scientific framework.
I do not believe, instead I prefer what the current data suggests as the best available hypothesis.


Once again, unless you provide some real empirical scientific evidence of this ‘eating cycle’ somehow causing one animal to ‘macro-evolve’ into another animal, you are simply speculating (and merely ‘believing’ and having ‘faith’ in your hypothesis). Therefore, no… It is NOT evidence of evolution, but evidence that you “believe” in evolution…

#163 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 22 October 2011 - 08:48 AM

sji197
Yes, fine. . by your good logic points 1 to 5 if created by God MUST have required 6,7,and8 together, so really only extra assumption 6 stands. Fine. Agreed. To me though, still one extra assumption than my naturalistic view, where points 1 to 5 DONT require this single extra superfluous and unfounded assumption. The mechanism for each of 1 to 5 is in brackets after each number, for each is either God or naturalistic or something we havent considered. Those are the assumptions of each. Its a completely pointless discussion to me. Why is the number of assumptions any indicator of why view is correct? Occams Razor? Why would the view with less assumptions necessarily be the one to prefer?


Occams Razor was an arguing point by atheists against the creation model (believe it or not) so, I thought it proper to expose the truth of it as well.

1) You must assume that empirical erosion rates were much different in the past than present. At the current rates, the continents would completely eroded away and be redeposited in only 15 million years.

2) You must assume that Boyle's gas law doesn't apply in all instances to account for star formation.

3) You must assume that there is an escape from Muller's Ratchet.

4) You must assume that empirical mutation rates were much slower in the past to account for the paleontologists time line.

5) You must assume that the moon hasn't been receding at a constant rate. It would have been touching the earths surface 1.5 billion years ago.

6) You must assume that helium diffusivity was much different in the past from present.

7) You must assume that soft tissues, proteins, and DNA degradation was much slower in the past to account for the paleontologists time line.

8) You must assume that inflation occurred after the big bang to account for uniform cosmic microwave background.

9) You must assume that the rate of sodium being deposited into the oceans was much slower in the past.

10) You must assume that the earths magnetic field has been weakening at a much slower rate in the past and that it had no effect on carbon dating.

11) You must assume convergence when homology can't be explained by common ancestry.

12) You must assume that genetic complexity was created through natural selection.

13) You must assume that chemicals were incrementally assembled to create the first cell.


Creation doesn't have to make any wild speculations about any of these empirical facts, since they all fit in with the model already.

First i have no idea what ToE s, you'll have to explain. ?Theory of everything?


Apparently, since it attempts to explain every counter intuitive fact posted above. "ToE" is the abbreviation of "Theory of Evolution".



Enjoy.

#164 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 22 October 2011 - 09:36 AM


Under this definition evolution requires ALOT more faith than any religion.


Happy to hear that. I hope for me, it stimulates greater capacity of the respectable quality of perseverance.

James 1:3 "because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance."



So then, sjl197', you fully accept your atheistic religiosity? Or are you simply (and purposefully) being facetious, or obstinate?

#165 sjl197

sjl197

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 55 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 22 October 2011 - 01:32 PM




Under this definition evolution requires ALOT more faith than any religion.


Happy to hear that. I hope for me, it stimulates greater capacity of the respectable quality of perseverance.

James 1:3 "because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance."

So then, sjl197', you fully accept your atheistic religiosity? Or are you simply (and purposefully) being facetious, or obstinate?


We first need to have an agreement on a definition of faith.
Please give me your preferred definition so that i can respond accordingly.
[whether or not it matches my preferred definition or others]
thankyou

#166 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 22 October 2011 - 01:54 PM




Under this definition evolution requires ALOT more faith than any religion.


Happy to hear that. I hope for me, it stimulates greater capacity of the respectable quality of perseverance.

James 1:3 "because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance."

So then, sjl197', you fully accept your atheistic religiosity? Or are you simply (and purposefully) being facetious, or obstinate?


We first need to have an agreement on a definition of faith.
Please give me your preferred definition so that i can respond accordingly.
[whether or not it matches my preferred definition or others]
thankyou


Preferred definition? Is that how linguistics proceed? I think not! ANY dictionary definition is totally dependent upon contextual implications! Relativism and it’s equivocations will be exposed and dealt with (read forum rules)… So what context did you use the word “faith” in then?

note: Keep in mind that you used a Biblical reference in your post.

#167 Hawkins

Hawkins

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 159 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Hong Kong

Posted 22 October 2011 - 07:10 PM

When asked to do an experiment about how water dissolves into hydrogen and oxygen, what evolutionists' approach is that instead of doing the experiment itself, they study yesterday's laboratory status such what test tubes have been used what residues are left in those test tube and etc. Then they come up with the answer that water does dissolve into hydrogen and oxygen. Later on, it happens that they examine a unique test tube's residues they falsify their own theory to say that "new test tube residues show that the chemical reaction doesn't work that way, this is shown by the test tube residues".

Science never works that way, if you want to establish your theory, you need predictable experimentation. If you have falsified a chemical reaction of water disolution, it is because the experimentation doesn't generate only hydrogen and oxygen as predicted. However, ToE doesn't need any experimental prediction to fasify itself time after time. Without a single prediction on speciation done on humans, they can claim that their human evolution theory now is right, at the same time and without any experimental prediction, they also say that yesterday's theory is falsified.

It is a joke in the perspective of science.

You can see from here how a fossil (yesterday's residues) falsified yesterday's theory and we have yet to see how another piece of bone pile dug up tomorrow falsifies today's theory.

"But if it is, the evolution… probably didn't happen the way we thought it did."

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...nin-fossil.html

#168 sjl197

sjl197

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 55 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 22 October 2011 - 08:31 PM

Guys, im back tracking the thread a little, i cant comment on all, but this was a good reply directed at my comments.

The problem with that is this: the naturalistic mechanism that caused the big bang, if there is one, couldn't be the same as the naturalistic mechanism by which the first life developed, if there was one. Which means that you are proposing FIVE SEPARATE UNCONFIRMED causes for the universe, while creationists propose ONLY ONE UNCONFIRMED cause for the universe.

Hence, you (atheists) are multiplying causes beyond necessity, while we are not. :D

As for the sixth, it is really part of the assumption going into the five observations.

As to the seventh, if we assume that the universe is the result of a deity, it's rather necessary that He "wanted" to create us. Again, part and parcel of the first five.

As to the eighth, that he actually did so goes with attributing the five observations to supernatural causes. As with the other "additional" assumptions, it's not an additional one at all.

And the final tally is...
(drumroll, please...)
:drums:

Creationist Assumptions: 5
Atheist Assumptions: 5

Creationist Unverifiable Causes: 1
Atheist Unverifiable Causes: 5

I rest my case. B)


First, please do NOT directly equate athiests = evolutionary biologists. I've made that point before, other christians/creationists understood. If you are not doing that, i apologise for misreading.

I got your point about one God and five naturalistic causes, but reply - can you really be so secure about your preferred 'Just one God' ?
The polytheistic religions like the greeks and romans had many Gods. Maybe each for one of those 'acts of creation', why not? those polytheists-> 5 assumptions/causes.


We could also go into the biblical account of creation if you want to stick to purely monotheistic Judeo-Christian doctrine.
You have Six days of Creation already there.. Creationist Assumptions: 6 , athiest 5
(though quibbling from the athiest view i'd say universe and elements at same time, so 4 assumptions, and to me evolution and life are the same, so maybe even 3)

whilst for point 4 of "creation of life" alone, Judeo-Christian doctrine has.
"vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it"
"the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. "
?not sure if the winged are seen as another act or the same"
"Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth "
"Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,"
"Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib"

But causes? Creationists: 1, athiest 1

So if we are talking about the assumptions for life alone (assumed number of life creation events)
Creationist Assumptions 5 ?maybe 6 /athiest 1
So if we are talking about the assumptions for humans alone
Creationist Assumptions 2 / athiest 1

But causes? Creationists: 1, athiest 1
And to me and others the evolutionary views from a single common ancestor has a verifiable cause, yours not. (we can agree to disagree on this!)


You are always going to 1 ultimate cause for everything with a monotheistic omnipotent God.
Is that really less than my 1 naturalistic cause for all ?

and your words of rebuttal

The problem with that is this: the naturalistic mechanism that caused the big bang, if there is one, couldn't be the same as the naturalistic mechanism by which the first life developed, if there was one.



Yes, i accept that most of them are separate events (not the first two though -universe and elements at the same point, some may argue planets and the sun also here). But you say MECHANISM not cause. Yes, theres serval different mechanisms there, but you aim to provide elaboration on how many mechanisms God used for creation how? Im curious.

The core point i made further back that you appear to have missed was ... is using Occams razor really decisive in any way? It's a philosophical method to choose between competing hypothesis, it doesnt tell you if the result of this is correct or not. The most complex and elaborate series of events might theoretically be correct.


Glad to see you familiarize yourself at least somewhat with the Bible. I'm personally working through "Origin of the Species" and "Climbing Mount Improbable" right now. I'm really trying to get a feel for both sides of the argument. The problem is that I'm also reading Dembski's "Design of Life" at the moment, so I'm worried I'll get things confused. So if I say that Darwin was the person who coined the name "designoid," that Dembski sailed on the Beagle and observed finches, or that Dawkins came up with the argument from specified complexity, you'll know why. :P


Yes, to me the bible is just one book, and its on my bookshelf along with many others. Many of the teachings of Christ i deeply respect and try to live my life by his guide.
You should also look at "Life Ascending" by Nick Lane. I find it not too difficult reading, and even better, its cheap.
Ok, i will bear in mind if you mix aspects of content! I found "On the Origin" a difficult read as old language, but direct words also good. "Mount Improbable" is ok, i just dont like Dawkins though! But i hope you also read "Blind Watchmaker", i think its most useful before "Mount Improbable". Oh, "Red Queen" also by Matt Ridley.. but again perhaps later.

#169 sjl197

sjl197

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 55 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 22 October 2011 - 09:40 PM

@Portillo

Belief in God, belief that they are not gods themselves, belief that the Bible is true and can be trusted in everything that it says, even if you dont agree with it. Evolution is believed in not because of evidence but because of its philosophical appeal. Man doesnt want God to exist.


Please be careful throwing around the word "believed" like that. I'd say if you want to better reflect views of many evolutionary biologists, please say 'prefer' evolution. Also evolutionary theory and God/Bible are not necessarily incompatible.. ask some evolutionary theists on that. I personally dont NEED God to exist. (Many of you here do, and those are your beliefs. we dont need debate that).



gilbo12345, on 18 October 2011 - 05:50 PM, said:
Under this definition evolution requires ALOT more faith than any religion.


Happy to hear that. I hope for me, it stimulates greater capacity of the respectable quality of perseverance.

James 1:3 "because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance."


So then, sjl197', you fully accept your atheistic religiosity? Or are you simply (and purposefully) being facetious, or obstinate?



Please separate "evolution" from "atheism". My reply was about faith in evolution. Still empirical faith is different from religious faith.
Also, by my forum profile saying "atheist" it does not well reflect my personal philosophy, please dont presume.
Actually, i'd say im 50.1% atheist and 49.9% naturalistic pantheist.
Actually Einstein was a naturalistic pantheist, but i give my unknown powers less room.

So. Yes, i personally would accept my atheistic tendencies as requiring faith, but as there is no structured belief system there is no way to say religiosity as there is no structured belief system or rituals. Ergo it is obviously the antithesis of Religiosity.

Also other atheists dont seem to allow faith, however defined.


Ok now @Teejay and Ron together.




Personally i'd need to observe creation happening, and then see a series of repeatable experiments under varying conditions to understand its intricacies.


I must pooint out that you are being inconsistent. You believe in evolution; yet you have never seen it happen?


Do i need to type the text again?
This. "Just like i see natural selection working when weaker or maladapted individuals are selected out of a population by predators or disease, and those better suited to current conditions survive and reproduce.."
This is evolution happening. Now. Infront of us all.

Such observations are the empirical observations used in its formal scientific study.


Your problem here, is that you are “presupposing” evolution in this event. You have absolutely no evidence that this isn’t how the animal world has always proceeded. And if this IS how the animal world has always proceeded, than it is not evolution, because it is static. The stronger devouring the weaker doesn’t lend credence to evolution unless you are simply attempting to PROVE evolution by it. Unless you somehow have empirical scientific evidence that the animal eating cycle somehow causes one animal to “macro-evolve” into another animal? If that is the case, please provide said evidence… Otherwise, the only empirical scientific evidence we really have here is the animal eating cycle.


First, please do not modify the words "evolution" or evolutionary biology" to say 'evo' in my post. This has been done elsewhere for my posts, and it's beginning to upset me. Please respect my desire for this now. I try to always write God with a capital G because many Christians respect that (and capital C there).

I disagreed i'm being inconsistent. I now disagree about “presupposing” evolution. These days, after several years of study, i think i undertand evolutionary theory well. I got high grades in classes, and now my articles on the topic get in the top journals if they survive the terrors of peer review. Nowadays, I SEE evolution happening all around me, every day, every-time i step out for a walk and see life around me, and particularly if i see "a tangled bank" in Darwins own words. I do not "believe" in evolution. I have personally accumulated observable evidence from life all around, have conducted my own experiments on living organisms, and seen/read published results of many other people who i respect as great thinkers, and evolutionary principles have not yet been falsified. Such findings, including my own have been repeatedly verified by many independent investigators.

No, i am not attempting to PROVE evolution, but thats what the overwhelming evidence continues to suggest as the best available hypothesis.

From your statements Ron of "The stronger devouring the weaker doesn’t lend credence to evolution" and give "empirical scientific evidence that the animal eating cycle somehow causes one animal to “macro-evolve” into another animal?" shows me you have not sufficiently read about how evolutionary theory to give any realistic arguments against it. You misunderstand what evolutionary theory is saying.

Actually, you might want to know when i was a young grad student, i was personally very unconvinced by evolution (actually i was biased against it -so i really dislike reading claims that all evolutionists are similarly biased because of share preconceptions). Yet i learnt several modern techniques of evolutionary biology ... and the data + experiments convinced me this is a very good explanation for the current living worlds diversity. I tried to keep my initial bias against evolution, but i couldnt get past the brickwall that the scientific method (when done correctly) doesn't allow such investigator bias. Whichever way my biases were, the evaluated evidence led the way., i couldn't refute it. You might want to say i took a leap of faith. I prefer to say i was convinced by overwhelming evidence and logic.

My studies of the bible however convinced me this was a far less adequate explanation for life's great diversity.

I prefer the option to question everything, which i continue to do as an evolutionary biologist. I found i could not question or reason with religious dogma. I could not accept the teachings of the bible as divinely inspired, they didnt answer my questions, those words were unquestionable and inflexible. I couldn't take that leap of faith. I tried to apply different interpretations, but still the bible failed to provide me with anything to fill my desire to know more about the world around me than it could provide. I wanted to know more, but the bible wouldnt let me know more than the few limited words of fixed text and few varient interpretations that i couldn't be secure were the original or true meaning. It failed me.

So yes, all of you. i have read the bible. Its teachings alone were lacking. I perhaps chose to instead bite the allegorical apple of knowledge and leave the garden of eden.

Maybe i misquote the bible in the last part. Maybe im misinterpreting its teachings.

p.s. You all have nearly driven me away from this forum. Im tired of the same misinformed views, such as "evolution isnt scientific", "you cant prove it" and worse "you cant show one species turns into another" and the one i really find ironic "give me evidence".

The evidence is all around, im just asking you all to open your minds, or start by opening your eyes and observe. Even dare i say it, please please go try some experiments yourself. Only you can allow yourself to become convinced of something new to you. Dont just be told how it is, go experiment.

#170 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 24 October 2011 - 05:40 PM

sjl197,

No, atheism will not be separated from evolution in any sense, as long as you claim to be an atheist who espouses evolutionism. It doesn't matter if you tack the sign "biology" on the front of it, you are still espousing macroevolution, and you do so from an atheistic (or non-theistic) foundation.

If you are a pantheist than you are not an atheist, you are a pan-THEIST… You cannot be both! An attempt to claim so would be self-stultifying. And ALL world-views require “faith”, regardless whether or not they admit it. I can point out, over and over again, within your posts, all of your faith statements; which you (as we all) are dependent upon. Further, “religion” doesn’t require “structured belief system or rituals”, you may want to look up the definitions. Ergo, you can be SO enamored in (or by) something so as to be “religious” about it. For example: there is absolutely NO scientific empirical evidence for “macroevolution” and yet you may attempt to defend it “dogmatically” as a fact, in the face of contrary information. When you are doing so, you are being religious about macroevolution.

And your attempt to claim that I don’t understand evolution, simply because I don’t adhere to your view of evolution is a shallow tactic. I would suggest that you factually refute my points, instead of attempting to say to me “you don’t understand evolution as I do”. That is not stating facts, it is simply proceeding from the “saying it’s so makes it so” school of thought. If you make a claim, it is your responsibility to back it up with facts.

You may want to know that I was once a hedonistic atheistic evolutionist. But my studies have shown me that there is absolutely NO empirical evidence for macroevolution. Now what does this have to do with the context of my rebuttal of your comments? About the same as your attempt to convince men that you was once a young post grad student that didn’t believe in evolution, until the evidence s. And that would be ZIP! Why, because there is absolutely NO evidence for macroevolution… Even in evolutionary biology! So, if you attempt to argue for macroevolution sans any empirical evidence, you proceed via religious dogma! Therefore you have already taken that “take that leap of faith”!

And lastly, if you leave the forum, it won’t be because anyone forced you away; it will be because of one of two reasons:

1- You continued to violate forum rules.
2- You couldn’t provide evidence for your assertions, got called on it over and over, then got embarrassed and left.

#171 sjl197

sjl197

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 55 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 24 October 2011 - 10:03 PM

Tell you what, i will instead acknowledge your tirade of insults about my personal history and philosophy, and turn the other cheek.

#172 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 25 October 2011 - 11:57 AM

If we are going with occams razor being something useful to help us choose between competing theories then i'd say

Whether we prefer the naturalistic or theistic version, these are five observations that need explaining..the assumption of
each is in the brackets. Equal number whether you facour naturalistic or theistic.. five facts, five assumptions.

1) that the universe formed (whether naturalistic or by Gods work)
2) that all the elements formed (whether naturalistic or by Gods work)
3) that planets and suns formed (whether naturalistic or by Gods work)
4) that life formed (whether naturalistic or by Gods work)
5) that life undergoes evolution from one species to another (whether naturalistic or by Gods work)
giving 5 things i'd call observable facts (each with its own candidate assumptions in the brackets)

PLUS the all important 6th standalone assumption for theists is that there is a God,
...etc
maybe 7th assumption that 'he' is wanted to do each of these
maybe 8th assumption that 'he' actually did all of these.

So....
I prefer my naturalistic version with fewer assumptions then ... as per occams razor.


The major problem you’re having here sjl197 is that you’re trying to burn both ends of the candle against the middle; which means that you are going to eventually run out of excuses for your lack of evidences. In another thread you claim that you are an atheist AND a pantheist (pan-THIEST; get it?)… Two diametrically opposed philosophies/world-views. Then you attempt to use the “naturalistic” tunnel vision view of origins.

Unfortunately (for you) the “materialistic” naturalistic view is left wanting at the outset for a plausible logical origins explanation. So ALL eight of your lines above fail, because the very first one fails! Further, the atheist stands on far greater “faith” because he believes that everything came from NOTHING by No One! SO, when they defend their atheism dogmatically, they become de-facto theist, and totally contradicting their (A)theistic claims.

Then, you completely fail on the pantheistic explanation, because:

First - One through four are not plausible from the “naturalistic” standpoint, for the same reason the materialistic explanation fails.

Second – From the theistic standpoint God said HE did one through four! So there should be no problems! And ALL the evidence adduced shows that this universe and life itself cries out for a Creator, therefore this viewpoint has validity. Whereas the materialistic explanation lacks logical explanation AND validity.


Now, number five totally fails BOTH naturalistically AND theistically because there is absolutely NO scientifically empirical evidence FOR macroevolution! But, you CAN make it a theistic point by dogmatically defending it, and it then becomes your religion!

#173 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 25 October 2011 - 12:07 PM

Tell you what, i will instead acknowledge your tirade of insults about my personal history and philosophy, and turn the other cheek.


So, let’s see… I continually require you to provide evidence for your assertion, provide where you err, and ask you simple and succinct question in order for you to make your case; you then only render opinion, more assertions and equivocations, then you accuse me of insulting you and throwing tirades?

The upside is that this is a common tactic of those who refuse to acknowledge their errors and fallacies. So it is nothing new, as there are plenty of examples of that playing out over and over. The downside (for you) is that you were given plenty of chances to come to grips with it, but failed to do so. Further, your continual failure will be here for some time to come, as example to others.

#174 supamk3speed

supamk3speed

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 130 posts
  • Age: 24
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 25 October 2011 - 06:46 PM

Random thought brought upon by Ron's statement of creation crying out to God. I have seen men doing what they are passionate about and making millions of dollars doing it. They cry out in agony and dismay exclaiming how they want to end their own lives. They have "everything" but something is missing. Something huge is not in the picture leaving their life of luxury blande and unsavory. On the flip side, I have seen men with "nothing" exclaim they love life and that they have everything. They exude true happiness and a love for life unmatched. Why? The man with nothing has everything while the man with everything has nothing. The man with "nothing" has God, thus revealing the framework of our purpose. The TRUTH is that true happiness can only come through a relationship with our creator.

#175 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 26 October 2011 - 06:01 AM

Because as above, this IS evolution. This is modification with descent working through pressures of natural selection.
I can and do observe it, i can and do experiments on it in a scientific framework.
I do not believe, instead I prefer what the current data suggests as the best available hypothesis.


All, this is another opportunity to remind evolutionists that your stay here will be very short by equivocating on what evolution means, and it always amounts to a colossal waste of everyone's time. It is the height of intellectual dishonesty. During registration, this is posted in bold, perhaps I should use a larger font:

Warning to evolutionists: The Creation vs Evolution Forum is intended to debate the question, "Does all life originate from a common ancestor?". If you are one of those evolutionists who puts forth examples of micro-evolution (something everyone agrees occurs) and claim they prove "evolution", then this forum is not for you. Please see my article "The Evolution Definition Shell Game" that adresses this intellectually dishonest equivocation. Also see the first item in the Forum FAQ.


Fred




#176 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 26 October 2011 - 07:28 AM

All, this is another opportunity to remind evolutionists that your stay here will be very short by equivocating on what evolution means, and it always amounts to a colossal waste of everyone's time. It is the height of intellectual dishonesty. During registration, this is posted in bold, perhaps I should use a larger font:

Perhaps you've set the fonts to big and they appear one letter at a time on the screen now :rolleyes: .
rhetorical tactics, instead of facts followed by sound logic, will not convince the inquisitive.

Warning to evolutionists: The Creation vs Evolution Forum is intended to debate the question, "Does all life originate from a common ancestor?". If you are one of those evolutionists who puts forth examples of micro-evolution (something everyone agrees occurs) and claim they prove "evolution", then this forum is not for you. Please see my article "The Evolution Definition Shell Game" that adresses this intellectually dishonest equivocation. Also see the first item in the Forum FAQ.

Not all Evolutionists will hold up the thought that "All life originated from ONE common ancestor". I think even Darwin didn't proclaim this.

As for equivocation, I recently found someone having the audacity to to first accuse Creationists of this and then doing it himself just one sentence further:

Creationists are well known for equivocation. In this video creationist Kent H*vind, with no education in any science, sets up strawwmen (sic) arguments to attack evolution. You better known the definition of evolution in order to understand how the creationist lie.

In biology, evolution is defined as "the change in allele frequency in a population."

That's not only not what we are talking about here, it isn't even a general definition of Evolution, Which commonly will be: "A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evolution

#177 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 26 October 2011 - 02:41 PM

Not all Evolutionists will hold up the thought that "All life originated from ONE common ancestor". I think even Darwin didn't proclaim this.

As for equivocation, I recently found someone having the audacity to to first accuse Creationists of this and then doing it himself just one sentence further:
That's not only not what we are talking about here, it isn't even a general definition of Evolution, Which commonly will be: "A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form."
http://www.thefreedi...y.com/evolution


Yes very true, there is utter confusion as to the first ancestor. This is due to bacteria, archaea and Eukaryotes being fundamentally different to each other.

ENTER.........

Directed Pan Spermia

This "theory" was used to explain these differences, which basically refers to "Aliens did it". It is interesting to note the "evidence" of this "theory"

1. Life will be for the most part fundamentally similar to each other
2. There is no one ancestor organism, there are multiples


That is it... No uncovering ancient spaceships, etc... Just these two claims one that is observed, (ll life has DNA etc) and the other is inferred due to the impasse presented.. Which somehow "proves" that

1. the aliens exist
2. the Aliens themselves "evolved", (as to how did they come about)
3. the aliens are capable of "warp" speed, (or whatever it will be called)
4. the aliens are capable of "creating" life
5. the aliens wanted to "seed" Earth in the first place, (and then not show themselves?)


With "science" like this I find it very hard to distinguish the difference between science and pseudoscience.

#178 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 26 October 2011 - 04:38 PM

Yes very true, there is utter confusion as to the first ancestor. This is due to bacteria, archaea and Eukaryotes being fundamentally different to each other.

ENTER.........

Directed Pan Spermia

This "theory" was used to explain these differences, which basically refers to "Aliens did it". It is interesting to note the "evidence" of this "theory"

1. Life will be for the most part fundamentally similar to each other
2. There is no one ancestor organism, there are multiples


That is it... No uncovering ancient spaceships, etc... Just these two claims one that is observed, (ll life has DNA etc) and the other is inferred due to the impasse presented.. Which somehow "proves" that

1. the aliens exist
2. the Aliens themselves "evolved", (as to how did they come about)
3. the aliens are capable of "warp" speed, (or whatever it will be called)
4. the aliens are capable of "creating" life
5. the aliens wanted to "seed" Earth in the first place, (and then not show themselves?)


With "science" like this I find it very hard to distinguish the difference between science and pseudoscience.


of course as they would have to realise that theres is God of the bible. the truth is that athiest isnt often interested in reality and what it does say but rather self-deception.i have been told by an athiest who claimed that my view was in denial that he was fine with the fact that he doesnt know or even care to know the origins of the universe or where life came to be.

#179 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 26 October 2011 - 05:31 PM

As for equivocation, I recently found someone having the audacity to to first accuse Creationists of this and then doing it himself just one sentence further:

Creationists are well known for equivocation. In this video creationist Kent H*vind, with no education in any science, sets up strawwmen (sic) arguments to attack evolution. You better known the definition of evolution in order to understand how the creationist lie.

In biology, evolution is defined as "the change in allele frequency in a population."


That's not only not what we are talking about here, it isn't even a general definition of Evolution, Which commonly will be: "A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form."
http://www.thefreedi...y.com/evolution


I remember browsing a debate on another forum and they were calling the creationists source a liar. When asked for proof he linked to his website and showed him at the top of the page the term "Evolution is the belief that all life shares a common ancestor", then he said "If he lies about what evolution is, then we shouldn't believe anything he says".

What a way to refute data. :lol:



Enjoy.

#180 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 27 October 2011 - 06:48 AM

[quote] name='sjl197' timestamp='1319519033' post='76082']
Tell you what, i will instead acknowledge your tirade of insults about my personal history and philosophy, and turn the other cheek.
[/quote]

sj1197,

Why turn the other cheek? You can turn the other cheek, but when you do, you are borrowing a moral standard from the Christian God. When you do this you are being inconsistent with your worldview (atheism). And when an atheist steps out of his worldview into the Christian worldview, he unwittingly affirms that Christianity is true and atheism false. If no God exists, then no absolute morality can exist. Turning your cheek is simply a "subjective" decison on your part and can neither be morally right or morally wrong--simply a preference.

TeeJay




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Yahoo (1), Bing (1)