Someone named Jon writes:
Metacrock,
The fallacy in your thinking is that because you believe that the OT and Genesis are largely unhistorical, therfore, 'creationism' is incorrect. That is a classic logical blunder called the genetic fallacy.
No it's not. If that was what I thought it would not be the Genetic fallacy. Because the issue would be the historical veracity of the source, not merely because naming the sources demonstrates the wrong nature of the argument. But I never said most of Genesis is unnistorical. I said the cration story is mythology. There's a lot more in Genesis than the creation myth. Moreover, that is not why I consider creationism to be wrong.
I consider cretaionism wrong first, because the facts do not support a six day creation. As for non Yec creationists, they work overtime to make a mythological text fit a quasi scientific theory, it's more logical and eligant to just accept the mytholgocial nature of the creation story and think in terms of evolution, which I believe is born out by the facts. Secondly, I don't see how a creationism could be sicence when the outcome of every experiment is mandated. It's like science without expierment. As though they think science is just so many authorotative prnouncments without no observation.
I have read many of your posts on CARM and its clear your knowledge of science is very weak. You lack qualifications in making the following Non-Sequitur
" Can a "true Christian" accept evolution or must one reject modern science in favor of faith? "
As if evolution is equivalent to modern science.
Creatoinists are always so embrassaged bout the position in the modern scientiific community. This is something I've noticed on ever message board. I used to have a science board for many years as part of my boards at ezb. It never failed but that every time creation squared off agasint evolutionist we woudl hear "you don't know anything about science! you are not a scisnit and I am!" blah blah. LIke I said they think science is just so many authorotative pronouncements.
NO I am not a science guy. But I enough about evolution to hold my on in an arguement with any creationist, becasue creationism cannot be science due to the mandatory nature of its conclusiojns. If a "creationist scientist" ever come to the conclusion that evolution was true he would be out of the club. Sot he forego;ne nature of the conclusion bars any real study of the evidence.
Your main argument against creationism are theological ( "God is the boss dictating a memo to a secretary") not scientific, adding further to my claim that you really are ignorant of what scientific creationism actually is.
That's a misnomer. How can there be 'scientific creationism' when the concludiosn of material is mandated? Try to get your facts stairght. My argument against creationism is not theological. My main argument agaisnt creationism is the fossil record. I never said God is the boss dictating a memo, I say that's the view of the inerrentist.
If you want your position to be taken seriously you should try to support it on a scientific level.
So you didn't read the threads where I defended evoltion? It was last summer. It was on the apologetics board. that was the begining of my down fall from Grace at CARM. If you read that thread youo would know that I argued the fossil record and did so sucessfully aginst all creationsts.
Provide scientific evidence that macroevolution is correct rather that appeal to authority as is all scientists agree with you. Besides, appeals to authority also backfire on you. The majority of astronomers to do not view the Big bang as a supernatural event.
YOu creationists are the one's who are hung up on authority. I don't have prove evoluition. that's the prevailing theory in all of science. There is no science in the world today, no scientific discipline that does not assume evolution as a fact. You show me some credibel sceitnific evidence, without folklore creationist urban legoond, that evolution hasn't happened.
5 comments:
Hello Metacrock,
Thanks for replying to me. However I would have preferred you replied to me in the entry I sent my comment. I wasn’t interested in exchanging with anybody but you. None the less I will continue here. If the tone of my reply was a bit personal I apologize. However, I was upset after reading what you wrote about CARM. ( I just found out today by the way by reading this link http://www.carm.org/slick/metacrock.htm) I interpreted this reply as not only an attack on CARM but an attack on any Christian that takes Genesis or the doctrine of creation as historical ( for instance your comment “Basically there was a board split 50-50 with most of the major apologists who actually know what they are talking about on my side, the rest (the feeble minded who can't argue and use "bible said it, I believe it, that settles it" kind of logic) taking sides with the literalist biblioloters previously discussed on this blog”). I have visited the CARM boards for several years. I don’t post there that much do the time consuming nature of message board debates. I however did enjoy reading your posts when I visited there. However, I was indecisive on whether your method of apologetics was helpful or harmful. I never questioned your sincerity however and I respect your knowledge of biblical history. My reply to you follows your reply to me in italics.
No it's not. If that was what I thought it would not be the Genetic fallacy. Because the issue would be the historical veracity of the source, not merely because naming the sources demonstrates the wrong nature of the argument. But I never said most of Genesis is unhistorical. I said the cration story is mythology. There's a lot more in Genesis than the creation myth. Moreover, that is not why I consider creationism to be wrong.
Even granting the creation story is mythology, that doesn’t mean that creationism is disproven scientifically and that evolution must be correct. That was my point. I never heard you give scientific reasons for your position. Granted I don’t visit the CARM board that much but I never once saw you on the evolution board giving scientific reasons for your position. Also, by using much of the same reasoning you can argue just about any miracle account in the Bible is a myth. There is not a shred of extra-biblical evidence that Jesus was born of a virgin or that an Angel appeared to Mary Magdalene. An atheists also point out many similarities between the NT miracles like the virgin birth of Jesus and pagan virgin birth myths.
I consider cretaionism wrong first, because the facts do not support a six day creation. As for non Yec creationists, they work overtime to make a mythological text fit a quasi scientific theory, it's more logical and eligant to just accept the mytholgocial nature of the creation story and think in terms of evolution,
I am not interested right now in discussing the merits of the young age of the earth. That can be done at a later time. But your reply confirms exactly what I always thought about you. Evolution is essential to your theology. You claim there is scientific reasons for your acceptance of evolution but you provide very little science. Sadly, most theistic evolutionists seem to be just as religiously committed to evolution as atheists. These theists seem to be unaware or undisturbed by how evolution is used to destroy people’s faith in God. Evolution is necessary to justify your war against inerrancy, as well as, support your theological understanding of the nature of God. Which is why your all too happy to join atheists in promoting Darwinism.
which I believe is born out by the facts. Secondly, I don't see how a creationism could be sicence when the outcome of every experiment is mandated. It's like science without expierment. As though they think science is just so many authorotative prnouncments without no observation.
Then neither is the Big bang or the origin of life science. What DIRECT observation is available demonstrating these claims? There may be indirect observations for what some claim supports a big bang, but that is not a direct repeatable observation.
Creatoinists are always so embrassaged bout the position in the modern scientiific community. This is something I've noticed on ever message board. I used to have a science board for many years as part of my boards at ezb. It never failed but that every time creation squared off agasint evolutionist we woudl hear "you don't know anything about science! you are not a scisnit and I am!" blah blah. LIke I said they think science is just so many authorotative pronouncements.
First, it was you who claimed evolution is equivalent to modern science. So if someone is going to make that claim I would think they would be well versed on the issues. And if you want to claim that ‘creationists’ are embarrassed about their position in the scientific community solely on message board experience, than your opinion lacks support. Visit this link if you want a view from a scientific creationist on why he doesn’t visit msg boards http://www.rae.org/darwinchat.html. Do you ever read the scientific books and articles from say CRSQ or the the Discovery Institute?
NO I am not a science guy. But I enough about evolution to hold my on in an arguement with any creationist,
If you are not a science guy than you should not call those creationists who are science guys ‘feeble minded’
becasue creationism cannot be science due to the mandatory nature of its conclusiojns. If a "creationist scientist" ever come to the conclusion that evolution was true he would be out of the club. Sot he forego;ne nature of the conclusion bars any real study of the evidence.
Is it your position that only natural processes started the Big bang? Is it your position that reason is entirely determined by chemistry? If not, why the inconsistency?
That's a misnomer. How can there be 'scientific creationism' when the concludiosn of material is mandated? Try to get your facts stairght. My argument against creationism is not theological.
But yet you just said above.
“ it's more logical and eligant to just accept the mytholgocial nature of the creation story and think in terms of evolution ‘’
Which to me sounds a lot like theology.
My main argument agaisnt creationism is the fossil record. I never said God is the boss dictating a memo, I say that's the view of the inerrentist.
There is nothing I can reply to since ‘fossil record’ is not specific enough. Is this just an argument against YEC or against all forms of creation? And I am sure you are aware that Darwin was embarrassed by the fossil record (see Chapter 9 of the Origin).
So you didn't read the threads where I defended evoltion? It was last summer. It was on the apologetics board. that was the begining of my down fall from Grace at CARM. If you read that thread youo would know that I argued the fossil record and did so sucessfully aginst all creationsts.
Well there is a board called the evolution board that people usually post to that wish to discuss evolution. I have seen you discuss evolution on the atheist board but you always evaded discussing science and merely critiqued the doctrine of creation theologically. I think it is valid to critique it theologically. But demonstrating theological problems with creation does not solve scientific problems with evolution. If you want to admit that you are a philosophical naturalist so be it. But don’t claim that evolution is science if you have philosophically dismissed any possible way it could be falsified.
YOu creationists are the one's who are hung up on authority. I don't have prove evoluition.
But if you claim that evolution is modern science that it must be able to be demonstrated with a huge body of evidence that only evolution can explain. And this evidence must be observable, repeatable, etc.
that's the prevailing theory in all of science.
And its also the prevailing view of science that dead men can’t resurrect after three days.
There is no science in the world today, no scientific discipline that does not assume evolution as a fact.
Utterly, false. That statement alone shows you no very little science. How did Newton or Maxwell get by without accepting evolution? If you were trained in science you would no that evolution is essentially never used in solving any scientific problem. Even in experimental biology evolution is worthless. Please define evolution and why every scientific discipline must use it.
You show me some credibel sceitnific evidence, without folklore creationist urban legoond, that evolution hasn't happened.
I’ll start with the origin of information discussed in what was a peer reviewed article before Darwinists forced the journal to retract it.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1026
Please explain to me why this paper is invalid.
Jon
Thanks for replying to me. However I would have preferred you replied to me in the entry I sent my comment. I wasn’t interested in exchanging with anybody but you.
>>I don't think you will be exchanging with anyone but me. I just thought the original was too obsecure. Too old hat. that's way back in the summer.
None the less I will continue here. If the tone of my reply was a bit personal I apologize.
>>No problem man.
However, I was upset after reading what you wrote about CARM. ( I just found out today by the way by reading this link http://www.carm.org/slick/metacrock.htm) I interpreted this reply as not only an attack on CARM but an attack on any Christian that takes Genesis or the doctrine of creation as historical ( for instance your comment “Basically there was a board split 50-50 with most of the major apologists who actually know what they are talking about on my side, the rest (the feeble minded who can't argue and use "bible said it, I believe it, that settles it" kind of logic) taking sides with the literalist biblioloters previously discussed on this blog”).
>>but you know. I didn't say half the things Mat says I said. Mat is notorious for distorting what his opponents say. He totally misrepresented me, misquoted, took everything out of context, nad basically lied about most of my words. He didn't reflect any of the coveots that would have qualified it so that rational Evangelicals would not be includedin the attack. Hey grew up in a fundamentalist home. My parents were fine people. They were creationists. My father was not a dummie. So I dont' just atuomtically dismiss creationsts that way. this is not about presonalities.
I have visited the CARM boards for several years. I don’t post there that much do the time consuming nature of message board debates. I however did enjoy reading your posts when I visited there. However, I was indecisive on whether your method of apologetics was helpful or harmful. I never questioned your sincerity however and I respect your knowledge of biblical history. My reply to you follows your reply to me in italics.
>>thanks
Meta:No it's not. If that was what I thought it would not be the Genetic fallacy. Because the issue would be the historical veracity of the source, not merely because naming the sources demonstrates the wrong nature of the argument. But I never said most of Genesis is unhistorical. I said the cration story is mythology. There's a lot more in Genesis than the creation myth. Moreover, that is not why I consider creationism to be wrong.
Even granting the creation story is mythology, that doesn’t mean that creationism is disproven scientifically and that evolution must be correct. That was my point.
>>Not is not my argument as to why I don't creation buy creationism. That's my explianation as to what to do with Genesis after we dismiss creationism and buy evolution.
I never heard you give scientific reasons for your position.
because you didn't see the threads about it this summer, that's what kicked off the entire controversy. On Apologetics. For several weeks several of them had been dogging evolutionists I kept saying "there is an evolution board, can'tyou dot his there? this is apolojectds." they didn't listen so I decided to rub their noses in it and I did. None of them defended the scientific arguments, they folded like a houe of cards.Instead of arguing science they began calling me the "spawn of satan."
Granted I don’t visit the CARM board that much but I never once saw you on the evolution board giving scientific reasons for your position.
>>>that's because I did not intend for that to be my crusade. As far as I'm concerned its no skin off my nose if creation is true or not. I believe in Jesus either way. So i'm not concenred with that. But that was before thse creationsts, the particular ones, who really nothing more than a band of trolls and I still doubt that some of them are even Christians, had p.o.ed me enough to get me to focuss on that issue.
Also, by using much of the same reasoning you can argue just about any miracle account in the Bible is a myth. There is not a shred of extra-biblical evidence that Jesus was born of a virgin or that an Angel appeared to Mary Magdalene.
>>no you can't. That's not the same argument. I didn't say Genesis is mythological because there's no evidence for it. I said it is ear marked with the signs of mythological writings. Why can'tyou learn to represent people's arguments fairly? I did learn a lot this summer about why atheists get pissed at Christians. So few Christians listen to what is said. They would rather make assumptions about what they think people mean than to actually listen to what is said.
An atheists also point out many similarities between the NT miracles like the virgin birth of Jesus and pagan virgin birth myths.
>>>so what? We can deal with that. Bring it on. I have yet to argue that in situation where the Jesus myther didnt' wind up either pissed because his favorite illusions where shattered, or where the oppoent didn't become glum and stuned because he actually tried to disprove my arguments and found out I"m right. So that's no biggie, I want them to argue that, bring it on!
Meta:"I consider cretaionism wrong first, because the facts do not support a six day creation. As for non Yec creationists, they work overtime to make a mythological text fit a quasi scientific theory, it's more logical and eligant to just accept the mytholgocial nature of the creation story and think in terms of evolution,"
I am not interested right now in discussing the merits of the young age of the earth. That can be done at a later time.
Let's don't and say we did.
But your reply confirms exactly what I always thought about you. Evolution is essential to your theology.
>>so what? It's the way the world works, so why not account for it theolgically? That is not my reason for being an evoltuionist, that came first, tucking itto a theological system came after.
You claim there is scientific reasons for your acceptance of evolution but you provide very little science.
I dont' have to. Stop acting this is some new controversial idea. I know it is for you, and for many in the Evangelical world, but for most people in the secular world, for science and for most of the wrold books and letters in modern world it is old old hat. This is has been around for over one hundred years. Ih fact Darwin's grandfather had a theory of evolution. Did you know that Thomas Aquinas had a theory of evolution? Did you know the Catholic chruch never had a problem with evolution? Never, they never had creationists, or if they did not many, they never worried about it. did you know many ministers in Darwin's day said he was serving God and they tried use evolution to prove Genesis?
Evolution is the accepted previaling model in all biological sciencs. It's taguht all levels of education and has been for some time. I don't have to prove evoution. Is' accepted by the scietnific community.
Sadly, most theistic evolutionists seem to be just as religiously committed to evolution as atheists.
>>so what? That's only a problem if you are a creationist.
These theists seem to be unaware or undisturbed by how evolution is used to destroy people’s faith in God.
>>because it's not. Are you going to start the conspiracy theory now? Anything can be used for anything. There are a lot of dense atheists who think all Christians are creationists. So they think that to argue for evolution is giving it to God belief big time. Its' not. It shouldn't damage one's belief in God to any degree. It doesnt' have to and i's only because creationists make such a big deal about it. If anyone loses his faith over evolution it's only become some creationist has told him that they are mutually exclusive.
Evolution is necessary to justify your war against inerrancy, as well as, support your theological understanding of the nature of God. Which is why your all too happy to join atheists in promoting Darwinism.
All of these arguments you make turn on guilt by association. "this is the kind of logic blah blah." That's just guilt by association. Evolution hs nothing to do with inerrency. It's true that if you are inerrntist and if evolution is true then you disprove the bible. That's a good reason not to be an inerrentist. But it's not my reason. I am not a process guy, or at least I haven't been. I tried to become one but still have problems with it. so evolution doesn't have that much to do with my ideas about God.
Meta: "Secondly, I don't see how a creationism could be sicence when the outcome of every experiment is mandated. It's like science without expierment. As though they think science is just so many authorotative prnouncments without no observation."
Then neither is the Big bang or the origin of life science. What DIRECT observation is available demonstrating these claims?
Microwave background radiation and doppler shift are the major evidences of the big bang. That is demonstrabel and can be produced through experiment. Life science is demonstrable too. Experiements have been done using electric charge on RNA cells to mimic the rise of life through an evolutionary process.
There may be indirect observations for what some claim supports a big bang, but that is not a direct repeatable observation.
You don't seem to get what I'm saying. you can't conduct an experment and find that evolution is true, because if you did, you would have give up being a creationist. To be loyal to creationism you have to predetermine your findings. Since you equate creationism with truth of Christianity you have to predetermine the findings or got to hell. You can't do science that way.
Meta:"Creatoinists are always so embrassaged bout the position in the modern scientiific community. This is something I've noticed on ever message board. I used to have a science board for many years as part of my boards at ezb. It never failed but that every time creation squared off agasint evolutionist we woudl hear "you don't know anything about science! you are not a scisnit and I am!" blah blah. LIke I said they think science is just so many authorotative pronouncements."
First, it was you who claimed evolution is equivalent to modern science. So if someone is going to make that claim I would think they would be well versed on the issues. And if you want to claim that ‘creationists’ are embarrassed about their position in the scientific community solely on message board experience, than your opinion lacks support.
>>It's a personal observation based upon my own viewing of message boards.
Visit this link if you want a view from a scientific creationist on why he doesn’t visit msg boards http://www.rae.org/darwinchat.html. Do you ever read the scientific books and articles from say CRSQ or the the Discovery Institute?
>>when I first got saved i took ICR's newletter. That was backin the Days of Dwaine Gish and Henry Morrison, I would hope creationism has made a lot head way sense then.they pretty pathetic.
Meta:"NO I am not a science guy. But I enough about evolution to hold my on in an arguement with any creationist,"
If you are not a science guy than you should not call those creationists who are science guys ‘feeble minded’
>>I don't think I did call them feeble minded. I think that's part of the Slick distortion effect.
Meta:"becasue creationism cannot be science due to the mandatory nature of its conclusiojns. If a "creationist scientist" ever come to the conclusion that evolution was true he would be out of the club. Sot he forego;ne nature of the conclusion bars any real study of the evidence."
Is it your position that only natural processes started the Big bang? Is it your position that reason is entirely determined by chemistry? If not, why the inconsistency?
>>those are totally different matters. Evolution is change. Any evidence of change is evoidence of evolution. There is no evdience for the cause of the big bang. tha tis beyond our scope of investigation, thus it is a metaphysical question. Reason is determined by consciousness. why do you think you have to equate any desire to take scientific evidence seriously with chemical detemrinism? That's a strange viwe for someone whose impllied that he's science guy. Isnt' that inconsistant?
Meta:"That's a misnomer. How can there be 'scientific creationism' when the concludiosn of material is mandated? Try to get your facts stairght. My argument against creationism is not theological."
But yet you just said above.
“ it's more logical and eligant to just accept the mytholgocial nature of the creation story and think in terms of evolution ‘’
Which to me sounds a lot like theology.
So? somehow you seem to be under the misaprehension that if one thinks in theological terms somehow that invalidates thinking in scientific terms. Where do you get that?
Meta:"My main argument agaisnt creationism is the fossil record. I never said God is the boss dictating a memo, I say that's the view of the inerrentist."
There is nothing I can reply to since ‘fossil record’ is not specific enough. Is this just an argument against YEC or against all forms of creation? And I am sure you are aware that Darwin was embarrassed by the fossil record (see Chapter 9 of the Origin).
>>O come now. Surely you are aware of the major aruments about the fossil record. Go read The Moneky Business" by Niles Eldrige. Fossil record proves evoltuion because we have thousands of trasitional forms whic show the evoltuionary process at work.
Meta:"So you didn't read the threads where I defended evoltion? It was last summer. It was on the apologetics board. that was the begining of my down fall from Grace at CARM. If you read that thread you would know that I argued the fossil record and did so sucessfully aginst all creationsts."
Well there is a board called the evolution board that people usually post to that wish to discuss evolution. I have seen you discuss evolution on the atheist board but you always evaded discussing science and merely critiqued the doctrine of creation theologically.
this was on the apologetics board. I've already expalined why it was there.
I think it is valid to critique it theologically. But demonstrating theological problems with creation does not solve scientific problems with evolution.
There aern't any scientific problems with evolution. There are still questioned to be answered but nothing the negates the theory.
If you want to admit that you are a philosophical naturalist so be it. But don’t claim that evolution is science if you have philosophically dismissed any possible way it could be falsified.
>> basically you are saying we are allowed one philosphical position per life time. If I support evolution then I can't believe in God, that's what you want. you want to believe that. I can have theological reasons for supporting evoltion and have scietnfiic ones and even poetic and even ssthetic, popular ones, even babbyis ones. I can have any damn reason I want for doin anything. I can be an existetnailist and a process theology guy and a physicalists and a proprety dualist all at the same time.
Meta:"YOu creationists are the one's who are hung up on authority. I don't have prove evoluition."
But if you claim that evolution is modern science that it must be able to be demonstrated with a huge body of evidence that only evolution can explain. And this evidence must be observable, repeatable, etc.
Yes. it is.
Meta:"that's the prevailing theory in all of science."
And its also the prevailing view of science that dead men can’t resurrect after three days.
that's true too. dead men dont' resurrect from the dead after three days or even three hours. Psssst, why do you think we call it "a miracle?"
Meta:"There is no science in the world today, no scientific discipline that does not assume evolution as a fact."
Utterly, false. That statement alone shows you no very little science. How did Newton or Maxwell get by without accepting evolution?
>>hey lived at a time before the theory was advanced. This is one fo the games creationists play. They want to enshrine Newtonian physics as the utter end of scientific thought. NEwton will never be out of date, and he's the establisment and always will be forever and ever and the great scientists who were Christians in the days before Darwin will always be the standards and modern science is just an upstart. that's backwards. Newton is dead. His phyics are outdated. He's old hat, and he wasn't involed in biology anyway.
If you were trained in science you would no that evolution is essentially never used in solving any scientific problem. Even in experimental biology evolution is worthless. Please define evolution and why every scientific discipline must use it.
that's bull. I know you can't be in a lot of biological fileds without assuming evolution. I know that from doctors telling me. Obvoiusly the case with Paleontology, athorompology and other such sciences. and its' irrevlivant anyway. Evolution's utility in solving certain kinds of problems is not the issue as to its truth value.
Meta:"You show me some credibel sceitnific evidence, without folklore creationist urban legoond, that evolution hasn't happened."
I’ll start with the origin of information discussed in what was a peer reviewed article before Darwinists forced the journal to retract it.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1026
Please explain to me why this paper is invalid.
Jon
I'll take a look and see what I think
I can't get that link to work
because you didn't see the threads about it this summer, that's what kicked off the entire controversy. On Apologetics.
I was away for a while and I didn’t hear what happened. If you got banned I think that is a shame. I know some Christians feel defensive when Christians take positions different than their own deeply held beliefs. Like I said before, I may not have agreed with you on many points, but I respected you and considered you a fellow brother. I think all of us need to be humble and realize we all probably have some error in our theology. The best way to perfect our theology is to listen to people that disagree with us.
no you can't. That's not the same argument. I didn't say Genesis is mythological because there's no evidence for it. I said it is ear marked with the signs of mythological writings. Why can'tyou learn to represent people's arguments fairly?
My argument was that secular writers argue that way, I didn’t say you did. Also, you can always find similarities in other religions with the biblical account. That is the nature of religious writings. They always tend to be dealing with many of the same issues. However, the Genesis account stands out with its simplicity and lack of absurdities found in say the Babylonian account.
so what? We can deal with that. Bring it on.
If the evidence is strong for the authenticity of the NT and yet biblioskeptics still take that position why would you expect them to be any different for say the creation account? What is driving these claims is the assumption of naturalism not objective scholarship. But again, my intention is not to debate JEPD but the scientific merits of evolution. You seem to argue just like evolutionists. The creation account is a myth, therefore evolution is correct.
I dont' have to. Stop acting this is some new controversial idea. I know it is for you, and for many in the Evangelical world, but for most people in the secular world, for science and for most of the wrold books and letters in modern world it is old old hat.
Evolution was born not to long after Biblical criticism (Wellhausen, Spinoza , etc) and the deism of the enlightment. It was just an extension of the assumption of uniformity. Darwin’s whole goal was not to find the best explanation for life but rather to fully explain life without needing to invoke a creator. That’s materialistic philosophy not science. And the secular world is stuck with evolution as long as they don’t believe a creator exists. They have no other option.
This is has been around for over one hundred years. Ih fact Darwin's grandfather had a theory of evolution. Did you know that Thomas Aquinas had a theory of evolution? Did you know the Catholic chruch never had a problem with evolution? Never, they never had creationists, or if they did not many, they never worried about it. did you know many ministers in Darwin's day said he was serving God and they tried use evolution to prove Genesis?
I am well aware that evolution is an ancient philosophy, dating all the way back to the Epicureans that Paul debated at Athens. And many of the church did compromise with evolution and this had disastrous consequences. It is no coincidence that Darwin’s native England is today almost totally secular. When you add God to evolution it shows your ignorance of what evolution is. Darwin clearly intended evolution to be fully naturalistic without needing any creator. There is no such thing as a first man and woman. Humans are just evolved apes. There is no evidence of any abrupt appearance of a distinct human that we can call our own compared to what died out a million years ago. And there is no basis for human equality. Some humans evolved a little higher than others. Preaching the Gospel to the world with this kind of history as its foundation is just preposterous and atheists are not dumb enough not to see through it.
Evolution is the accepted previaling model in all biological sciencs. It's taguht all levels of education and has been for some time. I don't have to prove evoution. Is' accepted by the scietnific community.
It may be taught but is not needed to do biology. It adds nothing to the field. Even some evolutionists have admitted it. Read this secular article
http://www.the-scientist.com/2005/8/29/10/1/
so what? That's only a problem if you are a creationist.
I see many problems. First, it’s a matter of authority. Building ones theology around secular ideas that are admitted very speculative and ultimately materialistic is potentially harmful. Christianity is supposed to be the source of unchanging truth. Secular ideas change all the time. Making Christianity fit with the latest fads in secular circles makes it loose credibility having it look more like New Age thinking than historical reality. If we can’t take Jesus at his word where do we go for authority? The latest winds in secular universities? Why do we need Christ at all then?
>>because it's not. Are you going to start the conspiracy theory now? Anything can be used for anything. There are a lot of dense atheists who think all Christians are creationists. So they think that to argue for evolution is giving it to God belief big time. Its' not. It shouldn't damage one's belief in God to any degree. It doesnt' have to and i's only because creationists make such a big deal about it. If anyone loses his faith over evolution it's only become some creationist has told him that they are mutually exclusive.
Never read Dawkins, Dennett, Futuyma, etc? Why do you think the leaders in evolutionary biology are almost all hostile to theistic beliefs? Many of them got in the field because they loved the implications of the field and how it could be used against religion. Read this link from Crick. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2003/03/19/ecfgod19.xml
And when you try make Christianity fit to the latest fads you no longer have anything to defend. I am not ashamed to say that if evolution could actually be shown to be true I would abandon my belief in Christianity. But evolution can’t be falsified since its just materialistic philosophy dressed up in scientific language.
I tried to become one but still have problems with it. so evolution doesn't have that much to do with my ideas about God.
Than why do you so strongly defend it?
Microwave background radiation and doppler shift are the major evidences of the big bang.
But you never saw a big bang. You interpreting these evidences based on our current limited knowledge of the universe into a purely naturalistic model of the history of the cosmos. Not all physicists accept the BB
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/
Experiements have been done using electric charge on RNA cells to mimic the rise of life through an evolutionary process.
This electric charge is nothing like what would be found in the real world. In the real world you don’t have just the right amount of charge at just the right time to aid replication. That’s called intelligent design. The real issue is getting the building blocks in the first place than lining them up correctly. There are so many problems with the origin of life any Christian should be ashamed of themselves for buying into it. This is nothing more than the faith of atheists and Christians should not give it any undeserved credibility unless their theology is so liberal that they need it to.
You don't seem to get what I'm saying. you can't conduct an experment and find that evolution is true
You should be able to demonstrate the origin of life in a test tube. This would essentially prove evolution.
Since you equate creationism with truth of Christianity you have to predetermine the findings or got to hell. You can't do science that way.
I am just talking about science not religion. You seem to just uncritically buy whatever the secularists sell than build your theology around it. In my opinion it won’t work. Its just not credible.
That was backin the Days of Dwaine Gish and Henry Morrison, I would hope creationism has made a lot head way sense then.they pretty pathetic.
Let me tell you, I have read volumes and volumes on this issue I am more than willing to let you tell me where they looked pathetic. They aren’t prefect but they make excellent arguments in many areas.
those are totally different matters. Evolution is change. Any evidence of change is evoidence of evolution.
Even leading evolutionists would disagree with that ignorant falsehood. Mendelian genetics clearly produces limited change. More is needed than just that.
There is no evdience for the cause of the big bang. tha tis beyond our scope of investigation, thus it is a metaphysical question. Reason is determined by consciousness. why do you think you have to equate any desire to take scientific evidence seriously with chemical detemrinism? That's a strange viwe for someone whose impllied that he's science guy. Isnt' that inconsistant?
I am saying that only natural explanations are science (by the secular definition). Therefore to be a consistent evolutionists (even Darwin felt this) consciousness is a purely physical process. All the anti-creationists argue that creationism isn’t science because it is not naturalistic.
So? somehow you seem to be under the misaprehension that if one thinks in theological terms somehow that invalidates thinking in scientific terms. Where do you get that?
I am saying you are disguising your evolutionary beliefs (as shown in your tirade against CARM) as a straightforward conclusion from data. I am saying that your acceptance is mostly theological in nature and you have unfairly attacked creationists for rejecting ‘modern science’ in place of faith. It was this false dilemma that drove me here.
Go read The Moneky Business" by Niles Eldrige. Fossil record proves evoltuion because we have thousands of trasitional forms whic show the evoltuionary process at work.
I haven’t read that one, but I have read many anti-creationists books. If there are thousands why was PE necessary? You do realize that the vast majority of the fossil record are plants and invertebrates (about 99%) which not a single transitional exists. Of course the problem is the definition of transitional. If you assume evolution than of course everything is a transitional. Circular reasoning. It is impossible to prove one kind of fossil gave rise to a different kind. When we look at the experimental evidence we never see anything beyond trivial change. Bacteria can go through ‘millions of years’ worth of human generations in a few decades yet not a single new species of bacteria has ever been observed.
There aern't any scientific problems with evolution. There are still questioned to be answered but nothing the negates the theory.
And that is because there is an impossible burden on competing theories. You would have to prove that all conceivable natural explanations don’t work. Mankind will never have that much knowledge.
that's true too. dead men dont' resurrect from the dead after three days or even three hours. Psssst, why do you think we call it "a miracle?"
But that’s not science. That’s subjective believe passed on when humans were primitive and less evolved. Now we understand how the world really works.
hey lived at a time before the theory was advanced. This is one fo the games creationists play. They want to enshrine Newtonian physics as the utter end of scientific thought. NEwton will never be out of date, and he's the establisment and always will be forever and ever and the great scientists who were Christians in the days before Darwin will always be the standards and modern science is just an upstart. that's backwards. Newton is dead. His phyics are outdated. He's old hat, and he wasn't involed in biology anyway.
Didn’t you just say that evolution was an ancient idea? And his physics are not old had. There just approximations but work very well for most problems. And most of the founders of modern biology were creationists or anti-evolutionists (Linneaus, Pastuer, Mendel, Von Baer, Owen, Agassiz, etc)
that's bull. I know you can't be in a lot of biological fileds without assuming evolution. I know that from doctors telling me. Obvoiusly the case with Paleontology, athorompology and other such sciences. and its' irrevlivant anyway. Evolution's utility in solving certain kinds of problems is not the issue as to its truth value.
But if it is not needed to do experimental work how is it no different than not assuming it? You might as well say the existence of Thor must be assumed to do science.
I can't get that link to work
I just tried it again and it works fine. Try this
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science
The link is part of the references.
Jon
Post a Comment