quote:
God, in the book of Romans, declares that His wrath is unleashed upon persons who deliberately exclude Him from the creation table. Contrary to the claim of contained in rational enquiry - that says no position is taken concerning the Divine - Dr. Scott interprets Romans to say you are taking a position concerning Him and God rats you off as to your true motive. Any person that claims this Divine neutrality under the disguise of the claim of rational enquiry is arbitrarily excluding God because they do not want to deal with a Creator. In response to this rejection God punishes these persons by removing their ability to see and deduce His fingerprints in creation.
This argument is perfectly circular, and thus invalid. It can be summarised in two parts:
Why do people believe in evolution? Because their God-sense has been removed.
How do we know that their God-sense has been removed? Because they believe in evolution.
Not that these statement pairs can be read, and have the same meaning in either order - the test of circularity.
quote:
Whereas the removal of "God sense" is final and irrevocable. Simply stated, God wants nothing to do with you ever again. He will allow you to live out your natural life but you are essentially a walking dead man rejected by God for rejecting Him.
Thus negating the Biblical doctrine of a just and merciful God.
quote:
Then in response to this argument someone would always mention evolutionists who do credit God ultimately, then I would respond by saying that I am obviously addressing those who do not as I am now.
Thus negating your argument, for we now have
two classes of believers in evolution, one of whom
has the God-sense, but
still rejects creationism.
quote:
These arguments were the unique thing that my theism brought to the debate. Occasionally, when I have the opportunity to influence an impressionable agnostic, I will state the the "God sense" argument and watch their face light up when they finally ascertain the reason why so many brilliant people fail to see God in creation.
Or perhaps they "fail to see God in creation" because of the evidence.
quote:
I submitted a lot of posts covering the preceding philosophical arguments, which said arguments (if true) automatically make defective all scientific evidence that anyone wants to offer as proof against a Creator/Intelligent Designer. The preceding arguments also explains the defect : which is the ineligibility of a Designer being involved. Other than this the evidence is legit and brilliant.
But philosophical debate is irrelevant to science. You mentioned some philosophers, I think. Here's another two:
Immanual Kant, in his "Critique of Pure Reason" demonstrated that metaphysics is incapable of solving real-world problems, since for an set of data it is possible to construct (at least) two explanations: the thesis and the antithesis, and that it is impossible to distinguish which one is correct.
Fred Ayer in his "Language, Truth and Logic" further strengthened this doctrine by demonstrating that all statements can be divided into three, and only three categories, based on the Principle of Verification: "A statement is meaningful if and only if it is verifiable"
Logical truths, where the truth or falsity can be deduced from the a priori assumptions.
Empirical observations, where the truth is validated by observation (or is potentially capable of verification).
All other statements, including those from theology and metaphyisics, are empty of meaning.
quote:
I reject theistic evolution because they fail to differentiate how exactly their theism affects the claims of evolution and its terminology. Since when does theism seek a lower seat and become subordinate to any entity and ideology ? When the pseudo-peacemakers of TE misrepresent the God of the Bible by seeking the acceptance of the atheists of neo-Darwinism through their despicable brown-nosing at the expense of genuine theism which is not compatible with the philosophy that under girds evolution.
There can be no peaceful co-existence between the God sense of theism and the God senseless evolutionary claims when the origin of species is at stake.
These statements fall into category 3.
quote:
Also contained in the previous arguments was my accusation that evolution intentionally uses logidemic language to impress ordinary persons for the purpose of gaining trust and credibilty. One poster misunderstood this argument by offering to decode any "opaque jargon" that I didn't understand. My point was : What you don't know can and will be used against you. Unless evolution can be explained practidemically ordinary people will be forced to trust the veracity of the sources and their mouthpieces. Exceed an ordinary persons ability to understand - you are "logidemicizing". However, in science discussions I acknowledge that the level of intelligent communication can only go so low before error is risked.
Please explain the terms logidemic and practidemically. A Google search
only turned up refrences to this fourm.
quote:
I am biased towards evidence that is consistent with my worldview (everyone is whether they admit it or not). This is why Richard Milton and his work carries an enormous weight of credibility in my eyes. He is not a creationist by his own vehement admission which makes the evidence he offers independant corroboration of my starting assumption : Evolution is not true.
Only to those already biased. Everyone else who has studied it sees it as the rubbish it is.
quote:
Previously I posted some evidence from his book "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism", evidence that excited me like :
quote:
"How can a mouselike creature have evolved into two identical wolflike creatures (and two identical moles, etc.) on two different continents ? Doesn't this coincidence demand not merely highly improbable random mutations but miraculous ones ? "
But as has already been pointed out by many others, the differences are significant, and observable even by non-experts. They are
not identical, or even virtually identical, even at the gross morphological level, and are grossly different at the molecular level.
quote:
Then there was the evidence of Milton's claim that Darwinists cannot demonstrate to a non-Darwinist conclusive scientific evidence to substantiate the theory the same way the National Physical Laboratory can demonstrate physical constants, the College of Surgeons can demonstrate the circulation of the blood, or the Greenwich Observatory can demonstrate the expanding universe.
They managed fine with me. On hearing the theory explained, my reaction was similar to Huxleys: "How stupid of me not to have thought of it". Indeed, fior the theory to have become the dominatnt paradgrim, it must, by definition, have convinced non-Darwinists.
There is none so blind as those who do not want to see.
quote:
I simply do not understand RM&NS enough to post evidence against it.
Then read a primer on evolution. The best ones are those written for intelligent 12-15 year-olds: they make fewer assumptions.
The Argument from Ignorance is not acceptable here.
Really it is quite simple:
All individuals are mutants (IIRC 5-10 per human generation).
Most are neutral, some are harmful, a few confer a benefit. Mutations are random.
If a mutation is beneficial, the owner of that gene will have a reproductive advantage.
Computer studies have been done that show even a quite small advantage can become dominant very quickly.
Edited to correct some screwed up ubb marks, a capitalisation error and some spelling mistakes caused by sending too soon.
[This message has been edited by MarkAustin, 01-29-2004]
™ Version 4.2