Reply to one I missed...
absolutetruth wrote:tedlusk wrote:
And you would be surprised at how little import the silly rants of the people at AiG have in the real world. Inferrence is fine in science. Creationists do it all the time. Their inferrences are trivially wrong, but inferrences nonetheless. Funny how these double standards rise up so often.
so these "ages"
are inferred? and are not absolute?
I'm not convinced you know what "infer" means:
in·fer ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-fûr)
v. in·ferred, in·fer·ring, in·fers
v. tr.
To conclude from evidence or premises.
To reason from circumstance; surmise: We can infer that his motive in publishing the diary was less than honorable.
To lead to as a consequence or conclusion: “Socrates argued that a statue inferred the existence of a sculptor” (Academy).
To hint; imply.
Yes, really.
no. NOT really. dinosaurs have not been
observed evolving into birds or anything else. this is a
faithful position on your part, not helped by the fossil record.
See the definition of infer above.
I find your naive use of 'observe' most informative, and it diminishes your claim of 'agreeing' with Sarfati on issues scientific.
More naive gibberish. Did you not know that even PE advocates did not claim there there are no gradual changes? Gould, in fact, has documented such changes.
that's not even the point. the point is that PE was a good explanation to explain the LACK of fossil evidence.
FOR SOME LINEAGES. YOU do not seem to get the point.
whether they agree with gradual theory or not, they STILL admit a fossil record lacking what they need, or had expected.
FOR SOME LINEAGES.
I cannot believe how little of this you actually understand. Actually, I can.
The two 'camps' are not mutually exclusive. Please do not insist that evolutionary theory be constrained by your underinformed view of it.
your idea of accidental mutations and additions of accidental new information accounting for the enormous complexity and diversity of life is probably the silliest thing i've ever heard in my life.
You keep tossing arounf the "I" word as if it has some meaning. You cannot define it or measure it, yet you insist that it is a major issue. How utterly illogical.
to say all these organisms arose accidentally by some undirected process is pure absurdity.
To say that some magical skyman created all from nothing 6000 years ago is...???
Let me guess - more AiG propaganda? Are you unable to formulate your own opinions on anything?
as much as you are.
It does nto appear that way. I have linked to primary source material. You have linked to second or third hand propaganda and let these lie-filled essays serve AS your opinions. I don't think you understand most of what is written in those liks, you just link to them because they are written forcefully by fellow creationists so you believe them to be absolutely true. Right?
Whoever said I reject your god? Evolution need not rely on abiogenesis, so your point is irrelevant.
well, you've clearly shown that you believe the idea of God is silly (unless you're just talking about the God of the Bible), so why
wouldn't you reject Him?
Reject is an active word. I do not actively reject the notion of a supernatural being, I simply see no reason to "believe" in one at this point, and I find ALL depictions of deities in holy books to be offensive to our sensibilities and absurd on their face.
Not at all. I take it that you do not bother to find out if your AiG heros are actually competent in the areas they write about? That their claims have not beef refuted?
they are.
How do you know? Sarfati is a chemist by training, yet he writes about geology, biology, genetics, astronomy, etc. How on earth is he competent to discsuss those issues?
and many are former evolutionists.
Really? Which ones? Steve Austin?
And yet you provided that link as a place to find EVIDENCE FOR a 6-10,000 year old earth! It did nothing of the sort.
some of it did, like i mentioned the earth's magnetic field. and no doubt the Bible. you choose not to see these things.
How do YOU know that the AiG spiel on the magnetic field has merit? Are you aware of the research showing that the earth's magnetic field has undergone multiple reversals?
I simply cannot understand why you are having so hard a time realizing that not all things are linked the way you want them to be.
simple. if everything is naturalistic, then so must evolution's beginning be.
Non sequitur. Illogical. Refuted.
How nice. And grotesque...
1 Corinthians 1:18
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
Oh, well, a BIBLE verse! I am TOTALLY convinced now! :roll:
What facts and evidence? Just writing that does not make it so.
good science, logical thinking, correct philosphy and common sense. like i said before, it's not really the evidence that's the problem, but the axioms of the one attempting to interpret the evidence. so you can try and make your "evidence" as absolute as you want, but most of it will remain nothing more than your subjective
interpretation of the evidence.
There are valid interpretations of evidence, then there are invalid ones. When, for example, you have to compress many dozen/hundreds of multiple extinction and speciation events into a period of a few dozen years to
accommodate a creationist timeline, a rational person would dismiss such an 'explanation' or 'interpretation' as invalid.
Please actually answer the question or admit that you can't:
What ‘science’ is in the bible?
i gave you a couple of examples, and you dismissed them with foolish reasoning. i'll ask again, "Does an elephant have a tail like a cedar?"
SO, a vague allusion of an animal that nobody else seems to have taken note of is "science"?
Well, let's take a look:
17He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
Stones? What are stones? Why a colon between cedar and the sinews?
Well, that is the KJV.
What about another version:
17He bendeth his tail like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are woven together.
Bendeth? How do cedars bend, do tell!
Or this one:
17 He stiffens his tail like a cedar tree;
the tendons of his thighs are woven firmly together.
Stiffens his tail? Oh dear....
Or this one:
He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his male organs are wrapped together.
Hmmm.... I think I see a trend here...
and since you quickly dismissed the idea of the sphericity of the earth, saying that the Greeks had already discovered that, then show me exactly where and how the passage i gave to you was influenced by the Greeks.
Why on earth would I want to prop up your strawman caricature of my statement?
Especially since I have already refuted the notion that the passage you referred to supports the notion of the knowledge of a spherical earth and by extension, 'science' in the bible.
and also, why do so many evolutionists liken creationism to a flat earth belief?
Because it stems from same source and is equally implausible.
e shown you that the idea of a round earth is already in the Bible from centuries ago, why is this canard always used to attack us? why do you guys constantly set up straw-men?
Identifying irony is not your strong suit, is it?
Only if this god is THE god as portrayed in the Hebrew tradition as re-written and distorterd by men throughout ther ages.
another philosophical statement given as undisputed fact.
Are you claiming that the bible of today was NOT re-written and such? How much about the history of your belief system do you really know?
Really? Who disproved it and when? Or is this just the usual hyperbole?
well the fact that it hasn't been able to be duplicated even by
intelligence seems to cry out against the idea.
This is regarding this claim by AT:
"naturally ['creation' if life] has been disproven, except by some grand miracle. "
I don't think we have re-created a star in a lab yet, so I guess they must not exist...
the unbelievable odds against such a thing seems to close the case for most scientists who aren't completely driven by their evolutionary faith.
What are those odds, and how were they determined?
Projecting again?
I reject special creation because there is no actual supporting evidence for it.
so why then don't you reject abiogenesis as well since there is no supporting evidence for that either?
It is irrelevant to evolution. That is why. Besides, unlike creation, there are many plausible and even evidence-supported scenarios for abiogenesis.
Ummm... Mr.'absolute'? That article has absolutely nothing to do with the Kimura paper I was referring to. What a shame that you could not do an AiG search and find some pat "refutation." Just because Kimura's name is in it, does not mean it was relevant. Not to mention the fact that 1. Spetner has admitted that informationincreasing mutations occur and 2. Gitt is a peddlar of nonsense. Funny that no creationists ever seem to mention the paper I referred to...
no, but it does explain that the idea of the appearance of functional new genetic "information" isn't reality.
No, it simply blows it off with irrelevant nonsense. In fact, all it does is
assert it:
"Evolution needs swags of new information, if a microbe really did change into a man over several billion years. The additional new information would take nearly a thousand books of 500 pages each to print the sequence. Random changes cannot account for a page, or even a sentence, of this, let alone accounting for all of it. The evolutionist has an incredible faith!"
Assertions are not evidence.
and i couldn't find the article or paper anyway. why don't you show it to me.
Would it do any good? I am not convinced you have sufficient background knowledge to understand it.
Baloney. Your pwerverted version of the 'belief systems' that are not identical to yours is as ridiculous and skewed as your naive and laughable grasp of science.
so tell me then how your belief system, without a transcendent moral standard, could not have this as its logical outworking? what is it that would legitimately allow these things to be fully rejected under your belief system? please tell me.
Quite simply - I try not to act towards people in a manner that I would not want them to act toward me.
I need no fear of eternal damnation to be a good neighbor, and I find it pathetic that apparently so many people do.
You should talk...
yeah, thanks. i was able to see the foolishness of that argument and you weren't, and
you're inferring that
i'm not intelligent? hmmmm....
Yes, I am.
Again, why only these cryptic 'if you interpret it the way I do, it is a dinosaur!' references? These are big, impressive animals. I find it bizarre that nobody would seem to write about them at length.
and i find it bizarre that you're not sitting here writing pages and pages about the amazing contraption sitting in front of you called a computer.
Are you claiming that there has NOT been a tremendous amount of material written about computers? Do you REALLY think that, in some distant future in which computers are unknown, that historicans would only be able to find cryptic, vague, ambiguous allusions to computers in one or two obscure passages in a book or two?
things become common place, and therefore suffer the fate of commonality and can be easily overlooked.
See above.
Talk about those 'commonplace' dinosaurs...
I went to an online searchable bible and types in the names for some actual commonplace creatures. And lo and behold, such commonplace creatures like horses get 43 mentions... Cow, 6 times; goat, 35 times; bird, 28 times; fish, 35 times, etc...
But dinosaurs? Well, they get one vague, ambiguous, probably misinterpreted allusion in one passage and THAT is supposed to be 'science'?
the very fact that he was writing in a time when this creature was alive is enough to dismiss your silly idea for good. it would be like me writing to you now and telling you about a lion or a zebra or even a massive blue whale. since you're already familiar with these things, there's no need for me to go into great detail with them (or even any detail at all).
Blue whales are not chasing my kids home from school with their daggar like teeth, 100-foot sauropods are not lumbering across highways and smaching homes with their massive bulk, etc. Your excuse-making is getting more and more fantasy-driven as you go on.
you need to think about CONTEXT and TIME when these things were written.
One of us already is.
That is why I attribute 'miracles' to an ignorance of the natural world, and you attribute them to magic deities.
that's why it's so funny to see someone who knows nothing about the Bible or hermeneutics attempt to argue against the Bible or interpretations or meanings from it.[/quote]