The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Scientific Answers From A Creationist Perspective Options
Dreamy
Posted: Saturday, March 18, 2017 6:43:21 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/11/2009
Posts: 1,505
Neurons: 7,713
Location: Hamilton, Waikato, New Zealand
Scientific Answers From A Creationist Perspective

You may already be aware of Creationism and the material presented by numerous scientists who refute the claims of Evolutionists, but if not this site is a good place for an interested person with a smattering of scientific knowledge to find out what it is all about.

There has already been much discussion and debate on our forums as those with opposing worldviews have made their points and clashed over their different interpretations, and while feelings can run high when research is rejected and evidence is questioned it should be possible to remain civil while disagreeing.

When it is impossible to prove something scientifically then scientists hypothesise, they submit theories, and while these are available for study, discussion, and comment, - they are not proof. That is why they are called theories.

I have for a long time followed and associated with Creationists more able and qualified than I to speak on the science of Creationism, and this they do with lectures and presentations that are available on their websites, Youtube, DVD's, and various TV stations.

This is a quote from the Answers In Genesis website where I am mainly occupied with the "Answers" section:

Quote:
Presuppositions vastly affect our interpretation of evidence. The problem (for the secular scientist) is that science itself is based on Christian presuppositions. Science is possible because God upholds the universe in a logical, orderly way and because God made our minds able to think and reason logically.

Some of the material does get technical but the summaries are helpful if a general picture is all that is sought.

I particularly enjoy the explanations of distant starlight and how both evolutionists and creationists have problems that lead them to theorise about time and space inflation, and isotropic and anisotropic speeds of light with regard to speculations on the age of the universe.

Job 33:15 "In a dream, in a vision of the night, When deep sleep falls upon men, In slumberings upon the bed;" Theology 101 "If He doesn't know everything then He isn't God."
whatson
Posted: Saturday, March 18, 2017 7:50:10 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/19/2016
Posts: 152
Neurons: 1,656
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
You Butterfly People are pretty, but have small brains.
Ashwin Joshi
Posted: Sunday, March 19, 2017 2:59:41 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/3/2016
Posts: 957
Neurons: 61,641
Location: Jandiāla Guru, Punjab, India
Theistic evolution, or evolutionary creation, is a belief that "the personal God of the Bible created the universe and life through evolutionary processes." According to the American Scientific Affiliation:

A theory of theistic evolution (TE) – also called evolutionary creation – proposes that God's method of creation was to cleverly design a universe in which everything would naturally evolve. Usually the "evolution" in "theistic evolution" means Total Evolution – astronomical evolution (to form galaxies, solar systems,...) and geological evolution (to form the earth's geology) plus chemical evolution (to form the first life) and biological evolution (for the development of life) – but it can refer only to biological evolution.


Me Gathering Pebbles at The Seashore.-Aj
Romany
Posted: Sunday, March 19, 2017 8:34:50 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 11,789
Neurons: 35,640
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom

The idea that the word "Theory" is analogous to some vague sort of idea, is a necessary one to support Creationism. If, however, one has even done High School science, one knows that the use of the word doesn't mean that at all in a Scientific context.

The Theory of Relativity
The Theory of Gravity
Music Theory
The Theory of Equations

these are not vague, unproved ideas. 'Theory' in Science and Mathematics, refers to "A collection of propositions to illustrate the principles of a subject." Thus a theory consists of a series of proven, repeatable, constants, which are then built upon by other proven, repeatable constants until a reason for a particular action or reaction is proved.

Evolution is not merely an idea, and most definitely not simply an "opinion". It is a provable fact, built up by layers of other proofs from disciplines as diverse as geology, biology, geography, technology, physics, chemistry, history,language and more.

In order to try to 'disprove' evolution, one needs to be able to argue technically, that each step from each discipline has been wrong - which, considering all the work done in each of those areas, would need years and years of research and repeating all the experiments which have led to the final proof of Evolution. Even more difficult than trying to disprove the theory of relativity!!

So as creationism depends upon all branches of Science being wrong, it would have to follow that one would then never trust a computer, or an aeroplane, or a doctor doing heart surgery, or every other area in life in which our dependence on science makes our lives possible!

will
Posted: Sunday, March 19, 2017 2:00:14 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 975
Neurons: 3,841
Dreamy. In another thread you cited the human eye as evidence of an intelligent designer, and summarised your position with this quote:

Dreamy initially wrote:
Until Dawkins or someone else can actually make something as good or better than the human eye, I would invite them to consider the silliness of their efforts in trying to make value judgments [sic] on such things such things [sic] that are obviously among most beautiful and beyond the most astounding works of human genius and art in existence.

I pointed out that humans have, in fact, designed and made countless things – many far more complex than the eye – to experience reality far beyond the limited ‘design’ deficiencies of the eye. Humans have designed tools that enable us to see in any level of light, at extreme magnification, right across the electromagnetic spectrum and far beyond the narrow band of visible light; humans have designed tools to correct many defects and degeneration that are common due to the poor ‘design’ of the eye; humans have designed tools that enable us to see in virtually any environment, including under water and even through solid objects. Many of these ‘tools’ occur naturally in other species, enabling them to survive in other ecological niches… exactly as predicted by the theory of evolution by natural selection.

I predicted in that other thread that you would abandon your intelligently designed eye argument and move the goalposts to claim that intelligence and ingenuity indicate design.

I honestly hadn’t expected you to do it so abruptly, so conspicuously and exactly as I said you would Applause

Moving the goalpost, Dreamy wrote:
Presuppositions vastly affect our interpretation of evidence. The problem (for the secular scientist) is that science itself is based on Christian presuppositions. Science is possible because God upholds the universe in a logical, orderly way and because God made our minds able to think and reason logically.

Romany has eloquently explained your very, very, basic misunderstanding of what a scientific theory means. You’ll need to address this issue first, before anyone is obliged to give a detailed explanation of why 99.9% of scientists accept evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity, and why many international scientific societies have taken the unusual step of explicitly rejecting intelligent design as a valid alternative to evolutionary theory.

I can understand the appeal of wanting to attach the credibility of science to your religious beliefs, but science is a discipline that follows specific rules and procedures. If you want the credibility of the scientific method – you have posted in the science forum – you’ll be expected to follow those rules.

But, being the charitable chap that I am, even ignoring for now, once again, your fallacious conflation of objective and subjective claims and taking your erroneous definition of equally valid competing theories as a given, can you provide any scientific evidence that the biblical creation ‘theory’ carries more weight or is more valid than any of the other competing theistic creation ‘theories’?

You say that ‘science itself is based on Christian presuppositions’ because ‘God made our minds able to think and reason logically.’
We could equally presuppose that science is based on Mayan presuppositions and Quetzalcoatl made our minds able to think and reason logically; or that science is based on San presuppositions and Cagn made our minds able to think and reason logically; or that science is based on Mongolian religious presuppositions and Esege Malan made our minds able to think and reason logically; or that science is based on ancient Greek religious presuppositions and Chaos made our minds able to think and reason logically… you get my point.

In science we don’t include the conclusion to be proven within the premise of the argument or experiment – this is a form of circular reasoning known as ‘begging the question’.

I also predicted that you would, in line with standard Creationist modus operandi, ignore anything that challenges your religious beliefs, give it some time, maybe slightly adapt the wording, and return with exactly the same pseudo-science at some point in the future. Would you like to resurrect the 'variable speed of light' thread? Do you have some new supporting evidence... or are you just repeating the same pseudo-science, and remaining unmoved, as a way of reaffirming you Faith? Pray


.
Kunstniete
Posted: Monday, March 20, 2017 2:22:20 AM

Rank: Member

Joined: 1/25/2017
Posts: 481
Neurons: 45,505
Location: Berlin, Berlin, Germany
This topic is so hilarious that I wonder why it was not originally posted in the "Games" Forum.
It's way to easy to think that God is responsible for everything. That way you'll never do something wrong, because God wants you to do it exactly that way, e.g. to learn something. I'm not an atheist. If there would be any scientific proof for the existence of God or Gods, I might believe in Him / Her / Them. But, alas there it gets complicated with these higher deities. So to sum up, if we look at evidence, it counts 1:0 for evolution.
I also dislike the implied constraint: If you believe either in God or Creationism, you automatically believe in the other. It's a different story with evolution: The fact that I don't believe in God doesn't mean that I have to believe in evolution. But since it's a logical and well evidenced concept, I do.
That mean in ways of logic 1:0 for evolution.
Dreamy
Posted: Monday, March 20, 2017 3:50:10 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/11/2009
Posts: 1,505
Neurons: 7,713
Location: Hamilton, Waikato, New Zealand
Ashwin Joshi wrote:
Theistic evolution, or evolutionary creation, is a belief that "the personal God of the Bible created the universe and life through evolutionary processes." According to the American Scientific Affiliation:

A theory of theistic evolution (TE) – also called evolutionary creation – proposes that God's method of creation was to cleverly design a universe in which everything would naturally evolve. Usually the "evolution" in "theistic evolution" means Total Evolution – astronomical evolution (to form galaxies, solar systems,...) and geological evolution (to form the earth's geology) plus chemical evolution (to form the first life) and biological evolution (for the development of life) – but it can refer only to biological evolution.

Hi Ashwin & others,
Aside from the theological arguments against TE which mean its adherents cannot also claim to be Bible-believers,(see 1 Corinthians 15 & Romans 5), it is the scientific defence of Creationism with which I am here concerned.

There is no neutral ground for the Bible-believing Christian who cannot accept a chance event created the Universe and accidently began a chaotic, random, and meaningless circus of millions of years of mutations and death before the "man kind" was eventually acheived without this being purposed.

Information Science is the study of coded messages that contain expected actions and intended purposes. In this respect DNA qualifies under the definition of information whereby the base pair triplets represent amino acids in an encoded message, the formation of proteins is the expected action, and life is the intended purpose.

Currently there is no known law of nature or process or sequence of events by which information can cause itself to originate in matter.

The origin of information can be traced back along the lines of its transmission to a sender who is the mental source of it, or in other words the creative mind.

These two theorems of Information Science are evidenced in Observational Science and tell us firstly that matter does not spontaneously generate information, and secondly that only a mental source can generate new creative information and be responsible for copies of that information.

The words written here are not the result of typos that randomly accummulated over time.

Any theory is only a theory until it is proved in practice. We can have all there is of the theory of music, but until musical sounds are made there is no evidence that the theory is proven.

Without the eye would there be telescopes, microscopes, cameras, or any other inventions which enhance the capacity to see?

I must rest now...

Job 33:15 "In a dream, in a vision of the night, When deep sleep falls upon men, In slumberings upon the bed;" Theology 101 "If He doesn't know everything then He isn't God."
will
Posted: Monday, March 20, 2017 1:22:10 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 975
Neurons: 3,841
Dreamy. What is the purpose of this abstract nonsense about ‘Information Science’?

Evolutionary theory is a relatively simple concept, the basics are easily within the grasp of the average secondary school pupil (at least in the UK and most developed nations (I’m not so sure about the USA)), there is absolutely no reason to tie yourself in knots with tangential pseudo-science – although I suspect this is actually a cynical diversion to avoid addressing the challenges made against your misrepresentation of the basics.

You’ve simply ignored, again, Romany’s clear explanation of why your understanding how a scientific theory differs from ‘anyone’s best guess until proven as fact’. You’ve even repeated yourself, with an additional bullshit distinction of ‘Observational Science'... the fact that creationist have to redefine so many standard accepted definitions speaks volumes. Shame on you

You need to address this issue first, before anyone is obliged to take you seriously.


.
Epiphileon
Posted: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 12:14:55 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 3,896
Neurons: 51,326
Hi Dreamy, I was once a creationist as well, and I fully agree that people have a right to believe what they wish, as long as it does not interfere with the adaptive functioning of the race in general. I have a good deal of respect for people who actually live a Biblical Christian lifestyle; however, I do object when people conflate belief with evidential knowledge.

I am well aware of creationists attempts at equating their explanation as science equivalent to the science of secular cosmology and evolution, but they do not hold up, but are rather a prime example of,
Quote:
Presuppositions vastly affect our interpretation of evidence.
the problem for supposed creation science is that it does proceed from a belief presupposition, while science proceeds from evidential suppositions. The fact that the universe is orderly and exhibits certain characteristics does not at all rely on it having been created by a supreme, interactive, entity. Further, that we are capable of logical thinking is clearly an adaptive evolutionary development, and the development of formal logic and the scientific method can both be seen as developmental processes most of which we have historical evidence for.

Creation "science" begins with the presupposition that God created the universe and therefore the evidence must support that belief. Cosmology began with observations of the sky, and attempted to provide explanations for what was observed, as our ability to observe became greater, our explanations became more accurate. If cosmology proceeded on the same basis as creationism, we would still be using astrology for astronomy.

Dreamy wrote:
When it is impossible to prove something scientifically then scientists hypothesize, they submit theories, and while these are available for study, discussion, and comment, - they are not proof. That is why they are called theories.


It baffles me how this interpretation of the nature of scientific theories persists. There are many theories that consist of a great many proven facts; however, we understand that we may not have all the facts that account for the phenomenon being described and therefore the "theory" is open to modification. That is why they are called theories, not because they do not describe evidential knowledge.

Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
tunaafi
Posted: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 1:01:35 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/3/2014
Posts: 3,880
Neurons: 50,934
Location: Karlín, Praha, Czech Republic
will wrote:
Dreamy.

You’ve simply ignored, again, Romany’s clear explanation of why your understanding how a scientific theory differs from ‘anyone’s best guess until proven as fact’.


Epiphileon wrote:
It baffles me how this interpretation of the nature of scientific theories persists. There are many theories that consist of a great many proven facts; however, we understand that we may not have all the facts that account for the phenomenon being described and therefore the "theory" is open to modification. That is why they are called theories, not because they do not describe evidential knowledge.


Quite.

Unfortunately, no matter how many times evolutionists explain what scientists mean by 'theory', creationists cling desperately to the idea that a scientific theory is 'only a theory' (best guess), and that any other guess deserves to be considered equally valid.


Far away is close at hand in images of elsewhere – The Master of Paddington.
will
Posted: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 8:45:56 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 975
Neurons: 3,841
tunaafi wrote:
Unfortunately, no matter how many times evolutionists...


Speak to the hand You gotta watch that term ‘evolutionists’ around creationist proselytising, it’s right up there with ‘secular scientists’.

Creationist love to try and paint the fact and theory of evolution as a narrow dogma adhered to by a particular sect, collectively know as evolutionist. As I know you know, the fact and theory of evolution crosses all scientific fields to some degree, from cosmology to physic... or geo-centrists and gravitionalists as I call them. Whistle


.
Dreamy
Posted: Saturday, March 25, 2017 7:23:14 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/11/2009
Posts: 1,505
Neurons: 7,713
Location: Hamilton, Waikato, New Zealand
Over the years, having studied objections to Creationism, I find them to be mere opinions which carry no weight, relativistic arguments that have no consistency, and prejudicial conjectures that amount to guesses containing unargued philosophical bias.

Theories can be proven or unproven depending on what one accepts as proof. The interpretation of scientific evidence by an evolutionist assumes there are laws of logic, which is inconsistent with the naturalistic worldview that only energy and matter exist.

Evolutionists do science because they are inconsistent. While they claim the universe is not designed they do science as if the universe is designed and upheld by God in uniformity, but this belief they supress.

The preconditions of science are that the universe is understandable, that things in it are quantifiable, and that minds are sufficiently reliable to comprehend what is observed, and that logical, orderly, consistent laws determine its regularity.

The search for intelligent life in outer space relies on picking up transmissions, and since stars and other inanimate objects emit transmissions it is logical to focus on searching for transmissions that contain intelligent information, that show evidence of design in a coded message originating from a creator, so the rationale behind SETI goes.

By way of analogy DNA contains intelligent information showing evidence of design in a coded message which the laws of logic dictate must originate from a Creator.

The naturalist who insists that empirical observation provides all that can be known cannot explain how they know that. INCONSISTENT.



Job 33:15 "In a dream, in a vision of the night, When deep sleep falls upon men, In slumberings upon the bed;" Theology 101 "If He doesn't know everything then He isn't God."
Epiphileon
Posted: Sunday, March 26, 2017 8:27:41 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 3,896
Neurons: 51,326
Hello Dreamy, I'm assuming that as you continue to post on this issue that you are inviting discussion of the points you raise. I also respect the fact that you have your beliefs and that is entirely your right. I do not involve myself in these discussions in an attempt to change your mind concerning your beliefs.

I involve myself in these discussions because Creationism concerns me for a number of reasons, primarily for the attempts to present it as a valid, scientific theory, rather than a belief based on faith, and its proponents' attempts to invalidate a natural view of reality. I believe it puts Bible believing Christians in a paradoxical position, on the one hand they are to believe the Gospel on the basis of faith, and not on any type of works, which in my opinion the entire effort of creationism is, a work of man. On the other hand if they allow evolution to stand unchallenged it invalidates their belief, for as we agree, from any sound exegetical examination of the Bible, evolution can not have happened.

I also object to the fact that a primary strategy of Creationists involves the misrepresentation, or outright fallacious claims concerning my world view. I do not at all mind critiques of my views, in fact I seek them out, that was my primary motivation in my dogged pursuit of the issue of freewill in the numerous threads I started in the philosophy forum. However, if my view is to be critiqued, I do insist that it is actually my view that is examined, not what someone else thinks my view is, that does me no good at all, and leads to no refinement of my views in the manner that the freewill threads enabled. I am all for critical dialogue of issues, it is in fact the only safeguard against the incredible obstacle to understanding we call subjectivity.

This brings us to the specific issues I have with your last post...
Quote:
Theories can be proven or unproven depending on what one accepts as proof. The interpretation of scientific evidence by an evolutionist assumes there are laws of logic, which is inconsistent with the naturalistic worldview that only energy and matter exist.

The validity of any theory is subject to a rigorous set of requirements that has nothing to do with what anyone accepts as proof. The nature of scientific theories is not open to subjective evaluation.
Logic exists in the same manner that culture exists, it is a characteristic of the operation of a complex system, in this case the interaction of multiple complex systems, the mind, the evolution of mind, and culture. Logic is a creation of humans, it is a useful and accurate tool in the understanding of many aspects of reality, but not all. Laws of logic do not exist in the same manner that laws of motion exist.
To say that a naturalist's worldview only allows for matter and energy is erroneous, culture, love, personality, intelligence, etc. all exist, but have no direct constitutive matter or energy.

Quote:
Evolutionists do science because they are inconsistent. While they claim the universe is not designed they do science as if the universe is designed and upheld by God in uniformity, but this belief they suppress.

Here you are basing this statement on your preconception that a designer god exists, and projecting that onto naturalists. That is not correct, I do not suppress a belief that God exists, I accept the universe as it is, and with our current understanding of how it is. Six thousand years ago none of modern science existed and any explanation of reality required leaps of imagination, and there were numerous and varied explanations. The explanations naturalists have today, nearly entirely explain the universe and see no evidence of the intervention of a godlike entity. The universe is as it is, because that is the way it is as a result of entirely naturally explainable phenomenon.

Quote:
The preconditions of science are that the universe is understandable, that things in it are quantifiable, and that minds are sufficiently reliable to comprehend what is observed, and that logical, orderly, consistent laws determine its regularity.


These are not preconditions as in things made up in order to construct an explanation, they are what has been observed. That we can comprehend what has been observed is patently obvious in our ability to predict the behavior of systems that we have observed. That minds are capable of comprehension is exactly what you would expect if minds evolved within a system that required they be adaptive or perish. Oh and once again quantum mechanics is not logical. If science proceeded with preconceived notions as you've described quantum mechanics would be dismissed as illusory. Science forces naturalists to accept explanations they may entirely object to, quantum mechanics is a prime example of this, a personal example would be my view on freewill.

Quote:
By way of analogy DNA contains intelligent information showing evidence of design in a coded message which the laws of logic dictate must originate from a Creator.


What you are calling the laws of logic dictate no such thing, besides if our DNA is a result of intelligent design, why is so much of it junk? Evolution explains all of this with no reliance on a preconceived deity.

Quote:
The naturalist who insists that empirical observation provides all that can be known cannot explain how they know that. INCONSISTENT.


Find me a naturalist that insists on this and I would agree with you; however, if you want to know how a naturalist knows that empirical evidence, through the lens of rigorous scientific method, reliably explains what it does, I can readily provide you with an explanation for that. Review the entirety of the development of the scientific method from its infancy with the ancient Greeks to its modern practice.

Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
Dreamy
Posted: Monday, March 27, 2017 8:33:46 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/11/2009
Posts: 1,505
Neurons: 7,713
Location: Hamilton, Waikato, New Zealand
Hi Epiphileon.
Leading question: Why is there a moral obligation to follow laws of logic?

If we can agree that in the scientific method there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts, then our discussion is about how the Creationist scientist views these facts and makes sense of them. That the Creationist scientist has faith in God and believes the Bible to be true is a given so there is nothing to be gained from labouring the point about this.

Many who profess creationism cannot articulate their belief in scientific terms and run into difficulty with evolutionists who challenge their reasoning. Likewise many evolutionists cannot say much more than the theory of evolution is true because it is a widely accepted fact. As an arbitrary statement this carries no weight so must be dismissed as irrelevant.

It is with scientific evidence and the logical interpretation of it that the Creationist scientist is concerned, and before such interpretations can take place there are preconditions that must be met.

Without these preconditions the beliefs that arise may be based on nothing more than random choice or personal whim rather than reason or system. The claim that laws of logic are man-made has no basis in fact because it relies on the premise that the origins, diversity, and reality of life are explained solely by the laws of chemistry and physics. In this event logic is just a chain of chemical reactions taking place after billions of years of accidental mutations. Why should such "logic" be considered reliable let alone give rise to any moral obligation for its "laws" to be followed?

 

Job 33:15 "In a dream, in a vision of the night, When deep sleep falls upon men, In slumberings upon the bed;" Theology 101 "If He doesn't know everything then He isn't God."
Lotje1000
Posted: Thursday, March 30, 2017 2:56:09 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 742
Neurons: 325,342
Location: Gent, Flanders, Belgium
Dreamy wrote:
Hi Epiphileon.
Leading question: Why is there a moral obligation to follow laws of logic?


If you believe the laws of logic as you describe them to be inefficient, why are you trying to use logic to convince others to your point of view? Why bother with debate in such an apparently unreliable manner?
Dreamy
Posted: Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:50:51 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/11/2009
Posts: 1,505
Neurons: 7,713
Location: Hamilton, Waikato, New Zealand
Lotje1000 wrote:
Dreamy wrote:
Hi Epiphileon.
Leading question: Why is there a moral obligation to follow laws of logic?


If you believe the laws of logic as you describe them to be inefficient, why are you trying to use logic to convince others to your point of view? Why bother with debate in such an apparently unreliable manner?

Hi Lotje, Thanks for using your God-given logic and supplying precisely an answer that was anticipated and which the question was intended to elicit.

It is a worthy debate between minds that have different worldviews. There is a moral obligation to follow laws of logic if you believe in doing what is right. But who determines what is right and how do they justify their standard?

I understand why the Theory of Evolution exists but from my worldview I reason it is an unproven theory, and agree with an evolutionist by the name of Professor G.A. Kerkurt who concluded in his book "Implications Of Evolution", that the theory was no more than a working hypothesis.

As someone who believes the Bible is true and that science supports its account of God's method of creation as well as his maintenance of it, I find that to argue their case evolutionists must borrow or steal from biblical principles which point to the Laws of Science, Nature, and Logic existing by originally intended design rather than chaotic meaningless accident.

Job 33:15 "In a dream, in a vision of the night, When deep sleep falls upon men, In slumberings upon the bed;" Theology 101 "If He doesn't know everything then He isn't God."
Lotje1000
Posted: Friday, March 31, 2017 2:46:31 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 742
Neurons: 325,342
Location: Gent, Flanders, Belgium
Dreamy wrote:
Lotje1000 wrote:
Dreamy wrote:
Hi Epiphileon.
Leading question: Why is there a moral obligation to follow laws of logic?


If you believe the laws of logic as you describe them to be inefficient, why are you trying to use logic to convince others to your point of view? Why bother with debate in such an apparently unreliable manner?

Hi Lotje, Thanks for using your God-given logic and supplying precisely an answer that was anticipated and which the question was intended to elicit.

It is a worthy debate between minds that have different worldviews. There is a moral obligation to follow laws of logic if you believe in doing what is right. But who determines what is right and how do they justify their standard?


You drag so much more into this debate than has any place in it. Moral obligations? God-given? Doing what is right? You're belaboring the point by piling on distractions, rather than getting to the core of the matter.

Dreamy wrote:
I understand why the Theory of Evolution exists but from my worldview I reason it is an unproven theory, and agree with an evolutionist by the name of Professor G.A. Kerkurt who concluded in his book "Implications Of Evolution", that the theory was no more than a working hypothesis.


How do you reason it's an unproven theory? With what reason are you un-proving it? Your reason sounds awfully similar to the logic you claim is unreliable and about as whimsical as you think scientists' theories are.

As always with science, if you believe the theory of evolution is inaccurate, go out and find proof to the contrary. We welcome it. I'm not sure by what method you are going to find and test said proof, however.


Dreamy wrote:
As someone who believes the Bible is true and that science supports its account of God's method of creation as well as his maintenance of it, I find that to argue their case evolutionists must borrow or steal from biblical principles which point to the Laws of Science, Nature, and Logic existing by originally intended design rather than chaotic meaningless accident.


If your only proof, then, is the bible's word rather than repeatable, peer-reviewed experiments and theories, I'm afraid this debate is going to amount to nothing more than a "your word vs their word" scenario where you're drawing on an authority because you have no other leg to stand on.
will
Posted: Friday, March 31, 2017 6:25:20 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 975
Neurons: 3,841
Lotje1000 wrote:
If you believe the laws of logic as you describe them to be inefficient, why are you trying to use logic to convince others to your point of view? Why bother with debate in such an apparently unreliable manner?

I’ve seen years of this and the ‘why’ always boils down to the same thing. It’s all about periodically stepping outside of the bubble of dogma (whichever variety they happened to have been born into) and sitting at the big table, exposing oneself to heretical ideas and evil thoughts in order – solely – to endure with their immoveable Faith intact. Reason, logic and discovery are irrelevant; regardless of how it’s achieved, the sole purpose is to leave with exactly the same certitude in one’s exalted place in the universe. It’s really quite pathetic.

I predict that my ‘rudeness’ will be used to avoid the issue raised and perhaps use as the excuse to leave said table with immoveable Faith intact and exalted position in the universe restored.

There is no intention of open-minded debate – Dreamy made this clear from the start when he wrote “There is no neutral ground for the Bible-believing Christian”; this attitude is anathema to science, at the very least Dreamy has posted in the wrong forum.

Dreamy wrote:
I understand why the Theory of Evolution exists but from my worldview I reason it is an unproven theory, and agree with an evolutionist by the name of Professor G.A. Kerkurt who concluded in his book "Implications Of Evolution", that the theory was no more than a working hypothesis.

Brick wall Evolutionary theory consists of many working hypotheses, this in no way casts doubt on the existing paradigm; the fact that you’ve cherry-picked and presented this as some sort of smoking gun only highlights again your ignorance of how science works. You need to address this before anyone is obliged to take you seriously. Speak to the hand

Until recently the much of genetics was largely ‘no more than a working hypothesis’. Through the scientific method, with advances in experimental tools, new data, new knowledge from testable results and the confirmation of falsifiable predictions, genetics (fact, theory and hypothesis) is one of the latests fields, in a very long and very broad range, to confirm evolution, completely and unequivocally.

The fact of genetics is so compelling that it’s also had to become one of the latests fields, in a very long and very broad range, to be absorbed into creationist apologetics, albeit in a tortured and twisted form…

Through science the facts and theories of genetics and evolution are being used to save billions of lives, ease suffering, transform agriculture, conserve the natural world and generally advance human existence.

Through creationism the same facts and theories are perverted and denigrated for absolutely no good practical purpose other than a selfish delusional comfort in the face of death. The reality of our existence, observed and explained by science is completely incompatible with the myth of a creative being – apparently able to circumvent the first cause argument at the centre of it’s own existence – that ‘breathed’ the complexity of DNA ‘information’ into the ‘dust from the ground’.

Science, logic and reason, by definition, can’t begin to weigh one cultural creation myth against another, or even explain which one of the contradictory Biblical creation stories is ‘most accurate’. Your personal delusions have nothing to do with science (except perhaps the fields of psychology and mental health). Evolution is a particular bugbear for creationists, but there is no field of science from geology to quantum physics that doesn’t dismiss the argument completely, for example:

The simultaneous creation of the heaven – never observed – and the Earth, despite observations of that the Earth is 10billion years younger than other observed features in the universe.

The creation of light, and the evening and the morning, before the creation of the Sun.

The creation of the moon with the ability to produced it’s own light.

The creation of plants before photosynthesis.

The creation of 400 sextillion stars – as an apparent after-thought at the end of a day making our one Sun – to ‘give light upon the Earth’, despite 99.9% not being visible to our ‘intelligently designed’ eyes.

The creation and dominion of every living thing, despite a great many being harmful or instantly fatal to mankind.

To name a few, from Genesis 1 alone, without moving onto the contradictory second creation account in Genesis 2… or Adam and Eve, or Noah’s Ark, or virgin births etc. etc.

Either step up to the scientific standards demanded in this forum, or move your apologetics to the religion forum.



.

Dreamy
Posted: Friday, March 31, 2017 10:43:06 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/11/2009
Posts: 1,505
Neurons: 7,713
Location: Hamilton, Waikato, New Zealand
To continue I reiterate this from my OP:

Quote:
Presuppositions vastly affect our interpretation of evidence. The problem (for the secular scientist) is that science itself is based on Christian presuppositions. Science is possible because God upholds the universe in a logical, orderly way and because God made our minds able to think and reason logically.


Not all Creationists are Christians, or even Bible-believers. Some of them are scientists who have been evolutionists but in the course of their careers have come to the realisation that the "science" that evolutionists rely on is defective, and in some cases downright dishonest. We have discussed the fake discoveries and hoaxes before on TFD.

There are three main problems with Evolutionary Theory.

1. Arbitrariness:
2. Inconsistency:
3. Preconditions:

The idea that the Theory of Evolution has been proved is arbitary. It exists as opinion for example in claims that such things as the fossil record and distant starlight are evidence against creationism, all the while ignoring the scientific findings that discredit the evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record and relying on Uniformitarianism to dismiss research into the speed of light that doesn't hold to its conventions.

The idea that the Theory of Evolution has been proved is inconsistent. It exists in spite of the fact that evolutionary theory violates two fundamental laws of nature, these being the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. Evolution requires a general increase in order extending through geological time, but these two laws state firstly that
"no matter what changes take place, nuclear, chemical, or physical, the sum total of energy and matter remains constant; so that nothing is created or destroyed in transformations";
and secondly that
"every change that takes place naturally and spontaneously tends to go from a state of order to one of disorder, from the complex to the simple, from a higher energy state to a lower energy state; so that the total amount of randomness or disorder in the universe, with entropy being the measure of this randomness, is constantly and inevitably increasing."

This being the case, there is inconsistency in evolutionary claims of "a progressive creative continuumn" from cosmos to microbe to man; there is inconsistency with random mutations being degenerative rather than progressive, with loss of information being a disordering of the ordered; and there is inconsistency with natural selection being a "force of conservation" rather than a creative one, merely eliminating the unfit and adapting to the environment without creating anything new.

In this respect, to accept the unobservable billions of years required for their "unexplained origins and unplanned increase" model to work, evolutionists ignore the observable laws of thermodynamics which point to quantitative conservation and qualitative degeneration in harmony with biblical truth that the universe is running down not up.

The third main problem with evolutionary theory, after arbitrariness and inconsistency, is that it fails to provide the preconditions for intelligibility. Here are some of the preconditions for intelligibility that must be accepted before we can know anything about the universe:

a. laws of logic
b. uniformity of nature
c. morality
e. basic reliability of senses
f. basic reliability of memory
g. personal dignity and freedom

Unable to provide for these preconditions of intelligibility within their own worldview, evolutionists must borrow or steal them from the Christian Creationist whose very worldview then comes under attack from them as they attempt to scientifically explain laws of logic, uniformity of nature, morality, basic reliability of the senses, basic reliability of memory, personal dignity and freedom, etc., while insisting nothing has been designed to account for these.

I'm sticking with Christianity and Creationism thanks all the same.

Job 33:15 "In a dream, in a vision of the night, When deep sleep falls upon men, In slumberings upon the bed;" Theology 101 "If He doesn't know everything then He isn't God."
leonAzul
Posted: Friday, March 31, 2017 11:35:16 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 7,858
Neurons: 24,606
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
Dreamy wrote:

There are three main problems with Evolutionary Theory.

1. Arbitrariness:
2. Inconsistency:
3. Preconditions:



There are three main problems with your critique of Evolutionary Theory:

1. Arbitrariness:
2. Inconsistency:
3. Preconditions:

1. Arbitrariness:
As you have articulated it, your notion of some vaguely gaseous entity doing something arbitrarily spooky because it was written down without corroboration some thousands of years ago by some unknown story-teller is patently pants. It's an entertaining story, and one which I enjoy from time to time, yet no more, no less.

2. Inconsistency:
Are you fucking joking? The bibulous *hic* is an amazing cultural specimen. Consistent it is not!

3. Preconditions:
Just wow. Like you would never understand what the "begging the question" fallacy means.

I am completely perplexed how someone so totally separated from reality could continue to survive.

Think


"Make it go away, Mrs Whatsit," he whispered. "Make it go away. It's evil."
Lotje1000
Posted: Saturday, April 01, 2017 5:05:38 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 742
Neurons: 325,342
Location: Gent, Flanders, Belgium
Dreamy wrote:
To continue I reiterate this from my OP:

Quote:
Presuppositions vastly affect our interpretation of evidence. The problem (for the secular scientist) is that science itself is based on Christian presuppositions. Science is possible because God upholds the universe in a logical, orderly way and because God made our minds able to think and reason logically.



Seeing as you are keen to go back to the presuppositions, I suppose we must address your presupposition that science is based on Christian presuppositions. And your presupposition that science is possible because God upholds the universe.

Maybe when you can move on from your unfounded presuppositions to provide some actual evidence, we can discuss this matter.
Epiphileon
Posted: Saturday, April 01, 2017 6:44:26 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 3,896
Neurons: 51,326
Hi Dreamy, sorry I didn't respond sooner, but weekend mornings have become the only time I can devote any time to discussions these days.
I would like to request that we attempt to maintain more of a direct dialog, at least for the most part, only bringing up new lines of argument once specific issues of the other's argument have been addressed. The issues I raised in my last post, although some are vaguely alluded to in your quoted post below, it would be helpful to understand your specific refutations of the points I raised.
Dreamy wrote:
Hi Epiphileon.
Leading question: Why is there a moral obligation to follow laws of logic?
First of all it is not always morally acceptable to follow the dictates of pure logic, this should be obvious.
But more to the point the reason we are compelled to follow logic where it is applicable is because it has proven to be adaptive, purely a result of selection pressures.

Dreamy wrote:
If we can agree that in the scientific method there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts,

But here is the problem, we do not agree on this, not at all. I assert that this is a misrepresentation of the nature of a scientific theory. A theory is a dynamic tool of science that is always open to modification, there is indeed an aspect of it that offers an explanation for the facts that are observed, but that explanation is either modified or confirmed by the further investigation of the facts and predictions that would validate the explanation, not on the basis of the scientists personal beliefs about the facts.

Dreamy wrote:
then our discussion is about how the Creationist scientist views these facts and makes sense of them. That the Creationist scientist has faith in God and believes the Bible to be true is a given so there is nothing to be gained from labouring the point about this.

I do not understand how you can say this as it is a blatant statement of coming to an interpretation based on a preconceived notion.
There is indeed a reason to belabor this point as it is the primary thrust of my argument, creationism is a belief, it is not science. As I have said I understand why some Christians desperately want to qualify their worldview with science, but that desire is Biblically speaking, heretical.

Dreamy wrote:
Many who profess creationism cannot articulate their belief in scientific terms and run into difficulty with evolutionists who challenge their reasoning. Likewise many evolutionists cannot say much more than the theory of evolution is true because it is a widely accepted fact. As an arbitrary statement this carries no weight so must be dismissed as irrelevant.


I would agree that underlined statement is entirely irrelevant, but I am baffled as to why you included it here, as it is irrelevant to why I accept evolutionary theory as the most accurate explanation of the diversity of life on this planet, or to why it is so widely accepted in the scientific community, any members of which could supply you with very detailed reasons for its acceptance.

Dreamy wrote:
It is with scientific evidence and the logical interpretation of it that the Creationist scientist is concerned, and before such interpretations can take place there are preconditions that must be met.

Without these preconditions the beliefs that arise may be based on nothing more than random choice or personal whim rather than reason or system. The claim that laws of logic are man-made has no basis in fact because it relies on the premise that the origins, diversity, and reality of life are explained solely by the laws of chemistry and physics. In this event logic is just a chain of chemical reactions taking place after billions of years of accidental mutations. Why should such "logic" be considered reliable let alone give rise to any moral obligation for its "laws" to be followed?


Again the reason we are compelled to follow logic is because it has proven to be an adaptive tool.
Let me also clear something up concerning what I meant about logic being man made. Logic is an invention of man only in as far as it is expressed in the languages of man, that expression is based on observed facts about the universe. The laws of logic:
The law of identity: P is P.
The law of noncontradiction: P is not non-P.
The law of the excluded middle: Either P or non-P
These are observations of the fundamental nature of things.
To proceed from there to say that this proves the universe was designed only makes sense if you believe in a designer in the first place.

Dreamy wrote:
In this event logic is just a chain of chemical reactions taking place after billions of years of accidental mutations.

Dreamy I'm sorry but this statement is ridiculous, it is patently untrue, and represents nothing any one who accepts evolutionary theory believes. What it does do, is show a complete lack of understanding of what evolutionary theory claims about the development of any phenomenon within a selectionist system. Logic is a cultural development, a result of the coevolution of mind and culture, it is in sociobiological terms a mentifact*, and by no means "just a chain of chemical reactions", of any sort.

Creationists tend to excessively demand that evolution is an accidental process, that is patently untrue and a complete misrepresentation, or ignorance of what the theory actually posits.

I would find it most useful, and considerably easier to continue if we attempt to maintain more of a dialog structure. Some of what I have said above was inherent in some of my earlier responses that were not directly addressed, I believe we can proceed from here though.


*Mentifact is a term coined by Sir Julian Sorell Huxley, used together with the related terms "sociofact" and "artifact" to describe how cultural traits, such as "beliefs, values, ideas," take on a life of their own spanning over generations, and are conceivable as objects in themselves.(from TFD)
The term is also prevalent in "Genes, Mind, and Culture: The Coevolutionary Process"

Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
leonAzul
Posted: Saturday, April 01, 2017 1:46:46 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 7,858
Neurons: 24,606
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
Lotje1000 wrote:
Dreamy wrote:
To continue I reiterate this from my OP:

Quote:
Presuppositions vastly affect our interpretation of evidence. The problem (for the secular scientist) is that science itself is based on Christian presuppositions. Science is possible because God upholds the universe in a logical, orderly way and because God made our minds able to think and reason logically.



Seeing as you are keen to go back to the presuppositions, I suppose we must address your presupposition that science is based on Christian presuppositions. And your presupposition that science is possible because God upholds the universe.

Maybe when you can move on from your unfounded presuppositions to provide some actual evidence, we can discuss this matter.


Sir Isaac Newton addressed this nonsense. Inertia is an inherent property of matter that does not require some Devine intervention in order to work.

It happens.

If the details of how it happens overwhelm your comprehension, then a Divine Operator might be useful in your life.

I prefer reality.

This is not to say that faith is not important; of course it is! Yet one needs to be careful about where and in which one places one's faith.

Think

Sorry, I misquoted; my response was intended @Dreamy 8^/

"Make it go away, Mrs Whatsit," he whispered. "Make it go away. It's evil."
almo 1
Posted: Sunday, April 02, 2017 12:47:59 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/16/2016
Posts: 382
Neurons: 1,640
Location: Fussa, Tokyo, Japan
jacobusmaximus
Posted: Sunday, April 02, 2017 3:42:48 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/17/2009
Posts: 10,438
Neurons: 294,760
Location: Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
The breadth and depth of knowledge here is impressive and commands respect from all, whatever their view. Yet knowledge changes with learning and what we knew yesterday is shown to be wrong by what we understand today. Yet yesterday's mistaken beliefs are regarded by science as trustworthy stepping stones to a fuller knowledge of the truth (about such things as evolution v. creation). In time, today's knowledge will be supplanted by new theories. It has always been that way because knowledge is horizontal; wisdom, on the other hand, is vertical and points us to God in Christ, who's resurrection proves the Creation story.

A clear conscience is the sign of a fuzzy memory.
tunaafi
Posted: Sunday, April 02, 2017 5:09:22 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/3/2014
Posts: 3,880
Neurons: 50,934
Location: Karlín, Praha, Czech Republic
jacobusmaximus wrote:
God in Christ, who's resurrection proves the Creation story.


The problem with that is that there is not the slightest evidence for the resurrection of JC.


Far away is close at hand in images of elsewhere – The Master of Paddington.
Lotje1000
Posted: Sunday, April 02, 2017 5:58:34 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 742
Neurons: 325,342
Location: Gent, Flanders, Belgium
jacobusmaximus wrote:
Yet yesterday's mistaken beliefs are regarded by science as trustworthy stepping stones to a fuller knowledge of the truth (about such things as evolution v. creation).


True. You can't trust when you're right if you don't acknowledge when you've been wrong.
will
Posted: Sunday, April 02, 2017 12:45:50 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 975
Neurons: 3,841
Epiphileon wrote:
I would like to request that we attempt to maintain more of a direct dialog,

Been there; done that. I admire your optimism. Good luck. Eh?

In this thread, just a few weeks ago, I wrote:

Creationist have one modus operandi: you'll ignore anything that challenges your religious beliefs, give it some time, maybe slightly adapt the wording, and return with exactly the same pseudo-science at some point in the future. I’m reminded of the time you posited – complete with scientific sounding jargon – a variable speed of light, along with ‘adaptations’ to just about every other observed physical law, to support a more biblically acceptable age of the universe... I think it was you that butchered, at least once, the second law of thermodynamics as well.


Now, in this thread Dreamy wrote:
The idea that the Theory of Evolution has been proved is inconsistent. It exists in spite of the fact that evolutionary theory violates two fundamental laws of nature, these being the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. Evolution requires a general increase in order extending through geological time, but these two laws state firstly that "no matter what changes take place, nuclear, chemical, or physical, the sum total of energy and matter remains constant; so that nothing is created or destroyed in transformations";
and secondly that "every change that takes place naturally and spontaneously tends to go from a state of order to one of disorder, from the complex to the simple, from a higher energy state to a lower energy state; so that the total amount of randomness or disorder in the universe, with entropy being the measure of this randomness, is constantly and inevitably increasing."

For a start you are still ignoring and repeating a distorted description of how science works… which is why no one is taking you seriously (that and the fact that your position is absurd). Speak to the hand

Secondly your acceptance, and use as evidence, of these particular fundamental laws of nature contradicts your central argument (based on your misrepresentation of how science works) that science is unreliable due to personal interpretation of the facts. Again, you are apparently happy to hijack the credibility of science when you think it can be twisted to fit your supernatural beliefs, but inevitably need to butcher the specifics because the science, in reality, clearly doesn’t fit. Shame on you

And thirdly, as has been explained to you before, your ignorance of thermodynamics is on a par with your ignorance of evolutionary theory. *

The Earth is NOT a closed system. Your selective quoting even makes this point clear, where it says “in the universe”. The Earth is bombarded with a constant input of energy from the Sun – something like 1.5kWh,per hour per square meter – which is more than enough to fuel the process of evolution and a great many other processes that we experience on a daily basis.

I know your mythology states that plants were magically wished into existence before the Sun, but are you seriously claiming that photosynthesis is not an empirically supported process?

If your AiG version of Thermodynamics is accurate then every aspect of the food chain (every chemical and biological process) is wrong; every ‘ordered’ man-made thing and task – every building, every spaceship, every religious book, every field of wheat and every humanitarian effort – would have to have been fuelled and constructed not with energy derived from the food we consume but from some other unexplained magical process.

If your AiG version of Thermodynamics is accurate then every aspect of meteorology is wrong; weather systems, wind, rain, the entire atmosphere, simply couldn’t exist or must be fuelled and driven by some other unexplained magical process

If your AiG version of Thermodynamics is accurate then the energy we extract from coal, oil and gas was not in fact converted and locked into matter over millions of years, but rather exists by some other unexplained magical process.

If your AiG version of Thermodynamics is accurate then all of Physics and all of Chemistry, and everything in between is wrong… on the plus side for you, your fantasy would be correct, biology and evolution would also be wrong. Unfortunately, even that would still not automatically validate your preferred supernatural creation myth.

Put a saucer of salt water on a sunny window sill and the resulting crystals will prove that your ‘AiG Thermodynamics hypothesis’ is fatally flawed. The ‘interpretation of facts’ that are central to your argument boil down to a simple choice: you can believe that the ordered state of the salt crystals in your experiment have meaning and have provided a less ignorant insight into reality, or you can choose to believe they are a result of some unexplained magical process.

Being ignorant of something is nothing to be ashamed of, it is something we all live with in certain areas, to varying degrees.

Repeating something from a source, that you must at least suspect may be biased, without taking any measures to check for yourself, is at best gullible or lazy

Choosing to simply repeat from a source that you must at least suspect may be biased, having also chosen to ignore evidence that refutes that claim, is intellectually dishonest. Liar


* I’ve noticed lately that even AiG and associated pedlars of Woo have begun to distance themselves from this bastardised argument of thermodynamics; it seems even your apologetics is out of date.


.
will
Posted: Sunday, April 02, 2017 12:51:11 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 975
Neurons: 3,841
jacobusmaximus wrote:
The breadth and depth of knowledge here is impressive and commands respect from all, whatever their view.

Dreamy’s ‘thermodynamics refutes evolution’ argument is so demonstrably absurd that ignoring or denying it’s refutation is dishonest. If Dreamy has the integrity to address his patently false claim, then he may command some respect… let’s see what happens. Think

jacobusmaximus wrote:
Yet knowledge changes with learning and what we knew yesterday is shown to be wrong by what we understand today. Yet yesterday's mistaken beliefs are regarded by science as trustworthy stepping stones to a fuller knowledge of the truth (about such things as evolution v. creation). In time, today's knowledge will be supplanted by new theories.

So far, so good...

jacobusmaximus wrote:
It has always been that way because knowledge is horizontal; wisdom, on the other hand, is vertical and points us to God in Christ, who's resurrection proves the Creation story.

But no cigar. d'oh!

Theist sure do rely heavily on assertion and supposition without reason, don't they. How is knowledge is horizontal? Why is wisdom vertical? How does knowledge differ from wisdom? Which interpretation of God in Christ? Why the Christian God god at all? Resurrection on what evidence? How does an anecdotal resurrection prove a creation story? Which creation story… etc. etc. ad nauseam.


.
jacobusmaximus
Posted: Sunday, April 02, 2017 12:53:39 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/17/2009
Posts: 10,438
Neurons: 294,760
Location: Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
tunaafi wrote:
jacobusmaximus wrote:
God in Christ, who's resurrection proves the Creation story.


The problem with that is that there is not the slightest evidence for the resurrection of JC.


What some people call evidence is what they want to believe - what suits their values - and prejudices. In World War One over 300 British and Commonwealth soldiers were executed by firing squad for Desertion. They were seen to be running in the wrong direction or hiding in places they should not have been in. The evidence was indisputable. So they were stood up against a wall and shot by their comrades and then an Officer put a bullet in their brains just to be sure. Only now it is understood that the 'Deserters' were most likely not cowards, but young men in their teens and twenties who were suffering from Shell Shock. Now they are being 'Pardoned' and their names added to War Memorials. It is of little comfort to anyone that the decision to execute these men was not taken lightly. Execution was taken at the highest level, by the best brains available to military jurisprudence based on evidence which left no room for even a shadow of a doubt. But that was then - and this is now and we know better now.

You may depend upon your evidence, but I will trust my faith.


A clear conscience is the sign of a fuzzy memory.
will
Posted: Sunday, April 02, 2017 1:04:48 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 975
Neurons: 3,841
Well, if that doesn't disprove the reliability of science in favour of wishful thinking, I don't know what does... Eh?


.
Lotje1000
Posted: Monday, April 03, 2017 2:25:54 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 742
Neurons: 325,342
Location: Gent, Flanders, Belgium
jacobusmaximus wrote:
You may depend upon your evidence, but I will trust my faith.


Evidence can be checked, as you showed with your anecdote. Faith cannot. If the decision that came from on high to shoot those men was made in faith, nothing could disprove it and they would still not be pardoned.
Kunstniete
Posted: Monday, April 03, 2017 3:28:57 AM

Rank: Member

Joined: 1/25/2017
Posts: 481
Neurons: 45,505
Location: Berlin, Berlin, Germany
jacobusmaximus wrote:
You may depend upon your evidence, but I will trust my faith.


And that's why there'll always be senseless slaughter, terrorism and war, thank you very much.
will
Posted: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 11:21:58 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 975
Neurons: 3,841
I do hope the delay here is due to Dreamy being distracted by a saucer of salt water... Pray



.
leonAzul
Posted: Thursday, April 06, 2017 4:38:31 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 7,858
Neurons: 24,606
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
Dreamy wrote:

There is no neutral ground for the Bible-believing Christian who cannot accept a chance event created the Universe and accidently began a chaotic, random, and meaningless circus of millions of years of mutations and death before the "man kind" was eventually acheived without this being purposed.


Are you really that ignorant about the *hic* Bibulous *hic* ?

Do you not understand why that entire first book was called "Genesis", as in origins, as in the superstitious roots of the more sophisticated and intelligent people who subsequently self-identified as Israelites? Have you not read this book?

Because it appears that you are completely ignorant of what is in it and how it came to be written!

"Make it go away, Mrs Whatsit," he whispered. "Make it go away. It's evil."
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines. Copyright © 2008-2017 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.