Originally posted by whobdamandog
Semantics. You've been given much substantive proof.
Not semantics; logic. None of the “evidence” you have provided is authoritative.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
So in your "opinion"..the Dalai Lama's "opinion" is more authoratative than the Tibetan & US Governments?
The Dalai Lama is a greater authority on Buddhism than the governments of Tibet and the United States, not simply because it is my opinion, but because it is a function of his role as Dalai Lama to be an authority on Buddhism.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
The same question should be asked of speciation, in the "Darwinian" sense..it has not been observed, experimentally induced, and there is no scientific evidence supporting it. In addition..there is no link relating Adaptation to Micro evolution.
First, Modern Evolutionary Theory is not synonymous with Darwinism.
Second, I take it you cannot explain how Creationism qualifies as a scientific theory, particularly in regards to being testable?
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Explain to me how science is able to "scientifically prove" it's own existence. When you are able to do that, than you can justify what should and shouldn't be classified as a science...
[list=1][*]Science only seeks to explain natural phenomena, therefore it would not be appropriate to use science to “justify” itself.
[*]Scientifically proving the existence of the scientific method using the scientific method is illogical.[/list]
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Faith is the only thing that justifies the concept known as science...
Not faith; logical inference.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
How can you identify an argument is invalid..what is invalid to you..may be deemed valid to another person..being a practicing Buddhist..you should understand this simple theological concept..
^ This statement demonstrates a poor understanding of logical argumentation. An argument is invalid when the inferential claim being made is false.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
The real difference is that you have a different "faith" than myself..and you are unaware of the fact that your"faith" is the only thing that enables you to determine what is true..and what is not...
Not faith; logical inference.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Prove to me that the concept of science exists..and then you can prove to me that Darwinism is not a religion...
Once again, Modern Evolutionary Theory is not synonymous with Darwinism.
Furthermore, if you believe that scientific knowledge is impossible, why do you attempt to prove creation with science?
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Not semantics; logic. None of the “evidence” you have provided is authoritative.
Your belief system does not represent an "authority" to anyone other than yourself...
The Dalai Lama is a greater authority on Buddhism than the governments of Tibet and the United States, not simply because it is my opinion, but because it is a function of his role as Dalai Lama to be an authority on Buddhism.
Myself and the Tibetan/US/British governments are not subject to Dalai Lama's authority. His authority only applies to those who submit themselves to it.
First, Modern Evolutionary Theory is not synonymous with Darwinism.
Yes it is. It's based on the same principles..which have not been substantiated by valid scientific evidence.
Second, I take it you cannot explain how Creationism qualifies as a scientific theory, particularly in regards to being testable?
We're already testing Creationism my friend..by preforming scientific experiments to assist us in exploring/understanding the world around us, and how to apply what we've learned to better assist humanity. That's what Creationism Science is all about.
Now please explain to me how you can scientifically validate/test that...
a single cell..gained some form of sentience and ability to adapt itself with no prior ability/knowledge to do so. Please explain to me how on earth this little cell was created...how it managed to acquire the abilities/knowledge to replicate itself, and how on earth one is able to justify this theory as a science through testing, scientific models, or any valid scientific evidence?
Man and ape share a common ancestor?
Darwinian speciation can be induced through experimentation?
Science only seeks to explain natural phenomena, therefore it would not be appropriate to use science to “justify” itself.
So by your own definition of science, Creationism would qualify as a scientific theory. Seeing as how it seeks to explain "natural phenomena."
Scientifically proving the existence of the scientific method using the scientific method is illogical.
Then by your reasoning..Darwinism should be deemed an illogical theory..for it attempts to prove the existence of scientific method..using the scientific method/theories....
Creationism on the other hand..attempts to "justify" the scientific method without using scientific method/theories to "justify" itself. Therefore it is a logical theory....
Not faith; logical inference.
You've just proven your theory to be illogical..therefore you have no basis to come to a logical conclusion based on the inferences yourself/others have made. The only thing you have substantiating what you believe in now is faith.
This statement demonstrates a poor understanding of logical argumentation. An argument is invalid when the inferential claim being made is false.
Based on your own reasoning..your theory is a false one. You have used scientific method to "justify"/define the creation of the scientific method. Your argument is clearly invalid based on this logic fallacy of circular definition.
Furthermore, if you believe that scientific knowledge is impossible, why do you attempt to prove creation with science?
Justifying the scientific method is impossible to do using the scientific method...therefore your question is an illogical one. Science must be defined by something other than itself...which is something that Creationist theories are able to do.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Your belief system does not represent an "authority" to anyone other than yourself...Myself and the Tibetan/US/British governments are not subject to Dalai Lama's authority. His authority only applies to those who submit themselves to it.
The Dalai Lama is an authority on Buddhism, just as the Pope is an authority on Catholicism, and a U.S. Supreme Court Judge is an authority on interpreting the Constitution of the United States.
I forgot that it is your belief that the Pope is not an authority on Catholicism outside of a Catholic audience. 😆
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Yes it is. It's based on the same principles..which have not been substantiated by valid scientific evidence.
First, even if we presume that both theories are based on the same principles, it does not follow from this that they are the same.
Second, if Modern Evolutionary Theory was not substantiated by valid scientific evidence, it would have long ago been discarded in favor of another theory.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
We're already testing Creationism my friend..by preforming scientific experiments to assist us in exploring/understanding the world around us, and how to apply what we've learned to better assist humanity. That's what Creationism Science is all about.
Creationism is an explanation for the existence of life based on a belief in a Creator and a literal interpretation of the book of “Genesis.”
The argument for Creationism is reverse engineered; The conclusion, e.g. that life is created, is determined first, and the premises, e.g. the evidence for Creationism, is derived from that conclusion.
The argument for Creationism is also circular; the conclusion, e.g. a Creator exists, is assumed by the premises, e.g. the evidence for Creationism. In other words, the existence of a Creator proves that life is created, and the evidence that life is created proves that a Creator exists. Aside from being illogical, this is a theological argument, not a scientific one.
Moreover, before one can evaluate the truth or falsity of the evidence in question, he must first determine whether or not a Creator exists. And while the evidence for Creationism is testable, the foundation of the argument is not. And if a theory is not testable, it is not science.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Now please explain to me how you can scientifically validate/test that...a single cell..gained some form of sentience and ability to adapt itself with no prior ability/knowledge to do so. Please explain to me how on earth this little cell was created...how it managed to acquire the abilities/knowledge to replicate itself, and how on earth one is able to justify this theory as a science through testing, scientific models, or any valid scientific evidence?
Man and ape share a common ancestor?
Darwinian speciation can be induced through experimentation?
[list][*]You presume that the cell must have been created, and that the cell must have sentience.
[*]"Missing link" refers to something intermediate between apes and humans: either apes with some human features, or humans with primitive features. These could be either direct human ancestors, or just more closely related to us than to modern apes. If evolution occurred, there would have been many "missing links" fitting this definition, and, sure enough, many of them have been found. Many fossils have been classified as ape-men. Most of the fossils that have been classified as hominid by scientists are still classified that way, e.g. Australopithecus africanus, Homo habilis, and Homo erectus.
[*]Darwinian speciation is not a part of Modern Evolutionary Theory.[/list]
Originally posted by whobdamandog
So by your own definition of science, Creationism would qualify as a scientific theory. Seeing as how it seeks to explain "natural phenomena."
Creationism would qualify as a scientific theory IF:
[list=1][*]The argument for Creationism was not invalid.
[*]The theory of Creationism was testable.[/list]
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Then by your reasoning..Darwinism should be deemed an illogical theory..for it attempts to prove the existence of scientific method..using the scientific method/theories....Creationism on the other hand..attempts to "justify" the scientific method without using scientific method/theories to "justify" itself. Therefore it is a logical theory....
[list][*]Darwinism does not seek to prove the existence of the scientific method; it seeks to explain the existence of life.
[*]Darwinism is irrelevant to Modern Evolutionary Theory.
[*]Creationism does not seek to “justify” the scientific method; it seeks to justify a belief in the literal interpretation of the book of “Genesis.”[/list]
Originally posted by whobdamandog
You've just proven your theory to be illogical..therefore you have no basis to come to a logical conclusion based on the inferences yourself/others have made. The only thing you have substantiating what you believe in now is faith.
Not so. Inferences derived from the scientific method are reliable because they are reproducible. One could replicate the experiments performed and get the same results.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Based on your own reasoning..your theory is a false one. You have used scientific method to "justify"/define the creation of the scientific method. Your argument is clearly invalid based on this logic fallacy of circular definition.Justifying the scientific method is impossible to do using the scientific method...therefore your question is an illogical one. Science must be defined by something other than itself...which is something that Creationist theories are able to do.
Nowhere have I used the scientific method to “justify” the scientific method. In fact, it is I, who indicated to you, that doing so is illogical. You are the one who believes that scientific knowledge is impossible because the scientific method cannot prove the scientific method. 🙄
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The Dalai Lama is an authority on Buddhism, just as the Pope is an authority on Catholicism, and a U.S. Supreme Court Judge is an authority on interpreting the Constitution of the United States.I forgot that it is your belief that the Pope is not an authority on Catholicism outside of a Catholic audience. 😆
Who gives the Dalai Lama/Buddhists/Pope the right to practice their religions?
Answer: The Government.
What "authority" would any of these practitioners have, if the Government did not allow them to practice their religions?
Answer: None.
An individual does not have more "authority" to classify what his "belief system" is...than the one who allows him to pratice it.
First, even if we presume that both theories are based on the same principles, it does not follow from this that they are the same.
"Macro - Evolution" is a basic principle behind all "Darwinian" theories..
This is what we've been debating about the entire thread...
Second, if Modern Evolutionary Theory was not substantiated by valid scientific evidence, it would have long ago been discarded in favor of another theory.
Their is NO scientific evidence that validates the concept of "Macro Evolution."
Their is scientific evidence supporting "Adaptation."
There is NO scientific evidence the proves a link between the two concepts "Macro Evolution" and "Adaptation"...
Thus..Modern Evolutionary theory has NO scientific evidence supporting it...
Creationism is an explanation for the existence of life based on a belief in a Creator and a literal interpretation of the book of “Genesis.”
The Bible does support the theory of Creationism, however, Creationist theory does not dictate that scripture must be taught in order to accept it. "Common sense" dictates that the intricate designs and complex interworkings which make up the universe, are a sign of its "intelligent design"
By the way..what "historical" evidence do you have supporting Macro Evolution?
The argument for Creationism is reverse engineered; The conclusion, e.g. that life is created, is determined first, and the premises, e.g. the evidence for Creationism, is derived from that conclusion.
The argument for Creationism is also circular; the conclusion, e.g. a Creator exists, is assumed by the premises, e.g. the evidence for Creationism. In other words, the existence of a Creator proves that life is created, and the evidence that life is created proves that a Creator exists. Aside from being illogical, this is a theological argument, not a scientific one.
Science is an abstract term that can not be used to define itself. For example one can not define what an apple is...by describing it to be an apple.
You tell me..which statement below commits a logic fallacy?
1. Darwinian theories use science to define how science came to be.
2. Creationist thoeries use an intelligent creator to define how science came to be.
Both statements above are theological..seeing as how there is no tangible evidence supporting them. However only one statement is illogical, which would lead one to believe that it is invalid.
Moreover, before one can evaluate the truth or falsity of the evidence in question, he must first determine whether or not a Creator exists. And while the evidence for Creationism is testable, the foundation of the argument is not. And if a theory is not testable, it is not science.
Earth and natural sciences support Creationist concepts, and are indeed testable. The evidence that these tests give supporting Creationism is that the intricate designs found in nature and throughout the universe, would lead one to the logical conclusion of an intelligent creator existing.
You presume that the cell must have been created, and that the cell must have sentience.Missing link" refers to something intermediate between apes and humans: either apes with some human features, or humans with primitive features. These could be either direct human ancestors, or just more closely related to us than to modern apes. If evolution occurred, there would have been many "missing links" fitting this definition, and, sure enough, many of them have been found. Many fossils have been classified as ape-men. Most of the fossils that have been classified as hominid by scientists are still classified that way, e.g. Australopithecus africanus, Homo habilis, and Homo erectus.
Darwinian speciation is not a part of Modern Evolutionary Theory.
How can you scientifically test/prove the cells existence?
How can you scientifically test/prove "Macro Evolution" = Darwinian Speciation?
Their are currently no fossils that have been identified as valid intermediates between man and ape. You know this. If this were the case, this debate would have been over a long time ago.
Creationism would qualify as a scientific theory IF:[list=1][*]The argument for Creationism was not invalid.
[*]The theory of Creationism was testable.[/list]
Refer to the above responses. Creationist's arguments do not create logic fallacies, while Darwinist's arguments do.
Darwinism does not seek to prove the existence of the scientific method; it seeks to explain the existence of life.
Another contradiction..the scientific method's existence is dependant upon the logical inference that life exists. Without life, their could be no scientific method...
Darwinism is irrelevant to Modern Evolutionary Theory.
Again..they are both based on the same essential principle..that principle being Macro Evolution, which again has no scientific evidence supporting it..
Creationism does not seek to “justify” the scientific method; it seeks to justify a belief in the literal interpretation of the book of “Genesis.”[/list]
Creationism justifies the scientific method, and supports the logical inference that the scientific method and all things that make up the universe were created by an intelligent being. The Christian Bible can be used to support the theory, however, it is not mandatory.
Not so. Inferences derived from the scientific method are reliable because they are reproducible. One could replicate the experiments performed and get the same results.
Can you experimentally induce/reproduce "Macro evolution"?
Can you experimentally create/reproduce intermediate offspring between a man and an ape?
Nowhere have I used the scientific method to “justify” the scientific method. In fact, it is I, who indicated to you, that doing so is illogical. You are the one who believes that scientific knowledge is impossible because the scientific method cannot prove the scientific method. 🙄
🙄..refer to below...
Originally posted by Adam_Poe
Darwinism does not seek to prove the existence of the scientific method; it seeks to explain the existence of life.
note* The scientific method would not exist without "life"...again it can not be used to define its own existence...
So in summary we have learned that..
1. Darwinism/Modern Evolutionary Theory uses "science" to define how "science" came to existence. This is argument is illogical, seeing as how a word or concept can not be used to define itself.
2. Creationist theory uses an "intelligent creator" to define how "science" came to existence. This argument is logical, seeing as how it defines "science" without using the concept of "science" to define its own existence.
3. No valid scientific evidence has been found supporting the concept known as "Macro Evolution." This theological concept can not be tested or demonstrated using science.
4. Creationism can be tested using the scientific method, by evaluating data produced from experiments involving natural sciences. Through experimentation, one can conclude that their is an intricate and precise design that everything in the universe consists of. This leads one to the logical conclusion that an intelligent creator was involved in the universe's creation.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Who gives the Dalai Lama/Buddhists/Pope the right to practice their religions?Answer: The Government.
What "authority" would any of these practitioners have, if the Government did not allow them to practice their religions?
Answer: None.
An individual does not have more "authority" to classify what his "belief system" is...than the one who allows him to pratice it.
^ This argument commits the logic fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion. Even if we presume that the premises are correct, e.g. a government is an authority on who may practice Buddhism, they do not prove the conclusion, e.g. a government is an authority on Buddhism.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
"Macro - Evolution" is a basic principle behind all "Darwinian" theories..
This is what we've been debating about the entire thread...
Let us presume that you have succeeded in disproving macroevolution. Creationism would not then be true by default. So instead of trying to disprove Modern Evolutionary Theory, perhaps you should try to prove Creationism. 🙄
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Their is NO scientific evidence that validates the concept of "Macro Evolution."Their is scientific evidence supporting "Adaptation."
There is NO scientific evidence the proves a link between the two concepts "Macro Evolution" and "Adaptation"...
Thus..Modern Evolutionary theory has NO scientific evidence supporting it...
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
The Bible does support the theory of Creationism, however, Creationist theory does not dictate that scripture must be taught in order to accept it. "Common sense" dictates that the intricate designs and complex interworkings which make up the universe, are a sign of its "intelligent design"By the way..what "historical" evidence do you have supporting Macro Evolution?
Of course The Bible supports Creationism. Creationism is based on a literal interpretation of the book of “Genesis.”
Macroevolution is a scientific theory. A scientific theory is supported by scientific, not historical evidence.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Science is an abstract term that can not be used to define itself. For example one can not define what an apple is...by describing it to be an apple.You tell me..which statement below commits a logic fallacy?
1. Darwinian theories use science to define how science came to be.
2. Creationist thoeries use an intelligent creator to define how science came to be.
Both statements above are theological..seeing as how there is no tangible evidence supporting them. However only one statement is illogical, which would lead one to believe that it is invalid.
You cannot defend the argument for Creationism so instead you attack science? That is quite an interesting tactic considering that Creationism tries to use science to prove Creation. 🙄
Allow me to clarify your misconceptions about science, Darwinism, and Creationism:
[list][*]Science only seeks to explain natural phenomena; the scientific method does not seek to explain the scientific method.
[*]Darwinism seeks to explain the origin of life, not the origin of the scientific method.
[*]Creationism also seeks to explain the origin of life, not the origin of the scientific method.[/list]
Are you even certain what it is you are arguing anymore? 😕
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Earth and natural sciences support Creationist concepts, and are indeed testable. The evidence that these tests give supporting Creationism is that the intricate designs found in nature and throughout the universe, would lead one to the logical conclusion of an intelligent creator existing.
As I previously stated, the argument for Creationism is reverse engineered; The conclusion, e.g. that life is created, is determined first, and the premises, e.g. the evidence for Creationism, is derived from that conclusion.
The argument for Creationism is also circular; the conclusion, e.g. a Creator exists, is assumed by the premises, e.g. the evidence for Creationism. In other words, the existence of a Creator proves that life is created, and the evidence that life is created proves that a Creator exists. Aside from being illogical, this is a theological argument, not a scientific one.
Also, while the evidence for Creationism is testable, the foundation of the argument is not. Please explain how the existence of a Creator is testable. Even if we presume that the evidence for Creationism is correct, if a Creator does not exist, the evidence does not logically support this conclusion.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
How can you scientifically test/prove the cells existence?How can you scientifically test/prove "Macro Evolution" = Darwinian Speciation?
Their are currently no fossils that have been identified as valid intermediates between man and ape. You know this. If this were the case, this debate would have been over a long time ago.
Then how do you explain Australopithecus africanus, Homo habilis, and Homo erectus?
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Refer to the above responses. Creationist's arguments do not create logic fallacies, while Darwinist's arguments do.
It is fortunate then that we are not arguing Darwinism but Modern Evolutionary Theory.
Refer yourself to the above responses; you still have not proven:
[list=1][*]The argument for Creationism is valid.
[*]Creationism is testable.[/list]
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Another contradiction..the scientific method's existence is dependant upon the logical inference that life exists. Without life, their could be no scientific method...
^ Once again, this argument commits the logic fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion. Even if we presume that the existence of the scientific method is dependent upon the existence of life, it does not follow from this that the scientific method seeks to explain itself.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Again..they are both based on the same essential principle..that principle being Macro Evolution, which again has no scientific evidence supporting it..
Once again, even if we presume that both theories are based on the same principles, it does not follow from this that they are the same.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Creationism justifies the scientific method, and supports the logical inference that the scientific method and all things that make up the universe were created by an intelligent being. The Christian Bible can be used to support the theory, however, it is not mandatory.
You need to do your homework.
According to Henry M. Morris, the founder of modern Creationism and president emeritus of the Institute for Creation Research:
The Institute for Creation ResearchAll things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the creation week described in Genesis 1:1-2:3, and confirmed in Exodus 20:8-11. The creation record is factual, historical and perspicuous; thus all theories of origins or development which involve evolution in any form are false. All things which now exist are sustained and ordered by God's providential care. However, a part of the spiritual creation, Satan and his angels, rebelled against God after the creation and are attempting to thwart His divine purposes in creation.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Can you experimentally induce/reproduce "Macro evolution"?Can you experimentally create/reproduce intermediate offspring between a man and an ape?
Just because humans and apes share a common ancestor, it does not follow from this that they can reproduce together resulting in viable offspring; they are now separate species.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
..refer to below...
note* The scientific method would not exist without "life"...again it can not be used to define its own existence...
Refer yourself to my previous response: Even if we presume that the existence of the scientific method is dependent upon the existence of life, it does not follow from this that the scientific method seeks to explain itself.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
This argument commits the logic fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion. Even if we presume that the premises are correct, e.g. a government is an authority on who may practice Buddhism, they do not prove the conclusion, e.g. a government is an authority on Buddhism.
You disappoint me with your response. Rather than rebut my position with a valid counter argument, you respond with non-sensical wordplay and contradictions. All you have demonstrated is your ability to manipulate/misuse debate logic, in a vain attempt to convince yourself/others that your false assumptions have credibility.
The fact remains Mr. Poe..that Buddhism is clearly classified and recognized as a religion by...
[list]
[*]The "authority" that allows said "religion" to be practiced. (ie the Gorvernment)
[*]The lexicographers who write English language dictionaries..
[*]The individual whose "authority" you submit yourself to..the “Dalai Lama...”
[/list]
Let us presume that you have succeeded in disproving macroevolution. Creationism would not then be true by default. So instead of trying to disprove Modern Evolutionary Theory, perhaps you should try to prove Creationism. 🙄
Myself/others have provided much valid evidence throughout this thread, which would lead one to the logical conclusion of an Intelligent Creator's existence. These include but are not limited to..
[list]
[*] The comparison of the Evolution and Creation Scientific Models.
[*] Hybridization among species of animals within families.
[*]Mathemetical probabilities of life's existence without some form of intelligence guiding it.
[*]Historical references taken from various cultures.
[*]Law of Thermodynamics.
[/list]
All of this information has been extensively explained. If you want more in depth detail, your welcome to re-read the thread.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.
Evidence against the 29+ "evidences" for Macroevolution
Of course The Bible supports Creationism. Creationism is based on a literal interpretation of the book of “Genesis.”
Creationist theories about the earths age.
Some believe in a "literal" interpretation of Genesis. Others believe in a more "metaphorical" interpretation. Personally my belief system falls somewhere in between. No one will ever truly know the exact age of the earth, seeing as how there are currently no accurate dating methods available to date fossils over a few thousand years.
Macroevolution is a scientific theory. A scientific theory is supported by scientific, not historical evidence.
Evidence of any kind can be used to support any type of fact/idea, whether it be scientific, historical, etc.
History does not testify to anything reminiscent of the process of Macroevolution being observed.
History does testify to the existence of an Intelligent Creator.
You cannot defend the argument for Creationism so instead you attack science? That is quite an interesting tactic considering that Creationism tries to use science to prove Creation. 🙄
Attacking science has never been my intention. Science supports the existence of an Intelligent Creator. My objective in this debate has been to show that “science” cannot be used to explain all the “natural phenomena” life consists of. Believing that it can “deifies” the concept of science, essentially making it into a religion.
Science only seeks to explain natural phenomena; the scientific method does not seek to explain the scientific method.
Macroevolution is a theistic concept that uses science to explain life’s creation. The problem with the theory is that it fails to recognize “science” as a by-product of the creation of life. This “circular definition” essentially invalidates the theory, since it would be illogical to define the origin of any word/concept using that same word/concept.
Darwinism seeks to explain the origin of life, not the origin of the scientific method.
Darwinism is a by product of the “scientific method”
The “scientific method” is a by product of “science”
“Science” is a concept that is the by product of “life”
The statements above are all true…unless you believe “science” to be eternal. If this is the case, then you have essentially validated my point about science being “theistic” concept.
Creationism also seeks to explain the origin of life, not the origin of the scientific method.
Are you even certain what it is you are arguing anymore?
Creationism teaches that ALL things are the by-product of “life”, and that “life” is the by-product of an intelligent creator. It does not seek to explain the origin of itself as Darwinism/Macro Evolutionary theories cleary do. Instead it uses science to support the logical conclusion of life being created by an intelligent being.
As I previously stated, the argument for Creationism is reverse engineered; The conclusion, e.g. that life is created, is determined first, and the premises, e.g. the evidence for Creationism, is derived from that conclusion.The argument for Creationism is also circular; the conclusion, e.g. a Creator exists, is assumed by the premises, e.g. the evidence for Creationism. In other words, the existence of a Creator proves that life is created, and the evidence that life is created proves that a Creator exists. Aside from being illogical, this is a theological argument, not a scientific one.
Creationist and Macro Evolutionary/Darwinian theories are ALL theological. Creationism, however, is not illogical. It uses scientific evidence to support the logical inference of the “conclusion” existing, much like the theory of gravity, relativity, thermodynamics, and countless other scientific theories. Like most there is an “assumption” of the “conclusion existing”(ie the existence of an intelligent creator), before actually implementing scientific testing to prove the conclusion.
Also, while the evidence for Creationism is testable, the foundation of the argument is not. Please explain how the existence of a Creator is testable. Even if we presume that the evidence for Creationism is correct, if a Creator does not exist, the evidence does not logically support this conclusion.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Creationism can be tested using the scientific method, by evaluating data produced from experiments involving natural sciences. Through experimentation, one can conclude that their is an intricate and precise design that everything in the universe consists of. This leads one to the logical conclusion that an intelligent creator was involved in the universe's creation.
Then how do you explain Australopithecus africanus, Homo habilis, and Homo erectus?
Mis-classifications and frauds..don’t believe me…try this link..
Missing links found…I don’t think so
It is fortunate then that we are not arguing Darwinism but Modern Evolutionary Theory.
Modern Evolutionary theory is the by-product of “Darwinism.” We’ve been arguing the principle of “Macroevolution”, which is the defining principle behind all Darwinian theories. You can refer to it as Darwinism/Modern Evolutionary theory/Evolution/Mega-evolution, whatever. The fact remains that you/others have done little to prove that any “Darwinian theory” is nothing more than another theological concept.
[*]The argument for Creationism is valid.[*]Creationism is testable.[/list]
Refer to above responses.
Once again, this argument commits the logic fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion. Even if we presume that the existence of the scientific method is dependent upon the existence of life, it does not follow from this that the scientific method seeks to explain itself.
Refer to above responses..
Once again, even if we presume that both theories are based on the same principles, it does not follow from this that they are the same.
Again..refer to above responses…
You need to do your homework.
According to Henry M. Morris, the founder of modern Creationism and president emeritus of the Institute for Creation Research:
Again….there are many different “Creationist” views of Genesis. Not all Creationists are in agreement about the “literal” 7 day figure. As I have stated before..”time” is an abstract concept, which is only applicable to man. However, I’m open to believing that anything is possible to an Intelligent Creator, so I’m not discounting the possibility of earth being created in 7 “literal” days.
Final Post..continued..
Just because humans and apes share a common ancestor, it does not follow from this that they can reproduce together resulting in viable offspring; they are now separate species.
There is no proof supporting man and ape share a common ancestor. Currently they are classified as being in the same “family”, however, the current animal classification system used is very outdated, and deeply imbedded in “Evolutionist” theories. Most closely related “species” within “families” are able to produce fertile “hybrids” (ie Lions/Tigers, Sheep/Goats, Donkeys/Horses..etc) Humans/Apes are not able to do this. Thus leading one to the logical conclusion, that they should not be classified as being in the same family.
Refer yourself to my previous response: Even if we presume that the existence of the scientific method is dependent upon the existence of life, it does not follow from this that the scientific method seeks to explain itself.
Refer to above.
It has been interesting debating with you. But for the past several pages it seems as if we have just been repeating the same things, so I will let this be my final post on the topic. You have the right to your opinion, however, I do believe you need to re-evaluate the things you believe to be true.
Many of the ideas behind Darwinism/Macro Evolutionary theory/Mega Evolution, are derived from the non-secular religion known as “humanism”, which essentially erases all moral code from humanity.
This makes it easy for people to “justify” any immoral/deviant behavior, seeing as how if we are all “animals”, we have no control over our actions, and do not have to answer to a “Creator” or suffer the consequences of inhumane actions. Again you have the right to your faith, however, I guarantee you..it leads to a very gloomy “conclusion.”
Fin.
The government does not authorize religion (except in a fascist state). In the US, the freedom to practice religion is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. The constitution was adopted and ratified by the early independent states and ESTABLISHES the federal government. The constitution is known as "the supreme law" and is ratified by the legislature, which is elected to represent the people. Thus it is the people from whom authority ultimately derives, NOT the government.
That is the political theory anyway. But of course, Creationists don't believe in theories because they're not "provable fact."
Scientific theory poses hypotheses that can be tested which explain the relationships between observed phenomena.
Creationism (and it is NOT a theory because it has no testable hypothesis) ASSUMES God exists without any observable evidence in support. Creationists then use God to explain anything that they are unable to explain because they don't have the intellectual discipline needed to grasp complex issues and they're just too lazy to read and research and think and develop the brain power to do so.
The need for Creationism is born out of infantile insecurity: the need for everything in the world to be simple, explainable, and safe. Anything that is complex, mysterious, or undefined HAS to have an explanation. This need cannot be put off, it must be satisfied immediately. The Creationist cannot imagine spending the time and effort to systematically investigate and logically infer. Instead, he takes the easiest and laziest way out: God is responsible.
Evolutionary theory provides many benefits. It encourages us to examine the world around us. It subscribes to scientific methodology which encourages discipline in thought. It leads us to be aware that we are linked to the world around us, and that there are similarities between species, even if there can be no definitive proof of common ancestry.
Creationism, on the other hand, offers NO benefits to modern society (except maybe to coddle infantile minds). But in fact exacts an incredible toll on the level of education. It discourages independent thought, explaining the existence of everything by reference to some higher power. I promotes extreme intellectual laziness and myopia. It separates man from his environment, making him believe that he is somehow above it and does not need to understand it.
Whether Creationism should be taught in schools depends on HOW it is presented. If it is presented as the Church would have it: as dogmatic doctrine, then it DEFINITELY SHOULD NOT BE TAUGHT.
If it is presented in context: as a metaphorical explanation for existence adopted by religion to give little children a sense of security before their minds can grasp the more complex theory of evolution, then fine.
Originally posted by qubit
The government does not authorize religion (except in a fascist state). In the US, the freedom to practice religion is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. The constitution was adopted and ratified by the early independent states and ESTABLISHES the federal government. The constitution is known as "the supreme law" and is ratified by the legislature, which is elected to represent the people. Thus it is the people from whom authority ultimately derives, NOT the government.
The Constitution is essentially the "corner stone" of the building blocks that make up the US government. The "freedoms" listed in the Constitution/Bill of Rights are actually loosely interpreted "regulations." Individuals are only "free" to do things that do not go against these regulations.
To simply put it...the only "freedoms" an individual has are the ones given to them by the "authority" they are governed by. Thus making the concept of "freedom" just an illusion.
Government is the highest "authority" on what can be "classified" as a religion..
Scientific theory poses hypotheses that can be tested which explain the relationships between observed phenomena.
Macro - Evolution/Darwinian speciation has never been observed, and can not be induced or tested. So by your own logic/reasoning, Modern Evolutionary theory should be classified as a "religion"...not a "science."
Creationism (and it is NOT a theory because it has no testable hypothesis) ASSUMES God exists without any observable evidence in support.Creationists then use God to explain anything that they are unable to explain because they don't have the intellectual discipline needed to grasp complex issues and they're just too lazy to read and research and think and develop the brain power to do so.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Creationism can be tested using the scientific method, by evaluating data produced from experiments involving earth/natural sciences. Through experimentation, one can conclude that their is an intricate and precise design that everything in the universe consists of. This leads one to the logical conclusion that an "intelligent designer" was involved in the universe's creation.
The need for Creationism is born out of infantile insecurity: the need for everything in the world to be simple, explainable, and safe. Anything that is complex, mysterious, or undefined HAS to have an explanation. This need cannot be put off, it must be satisfied immediately. The Creationist cannot imagine spending the time and effort to systematically investigate and logically infer. Instead, he takes the easiest and laziest way out: God is responsible.
Everything does have an explanation, however, believing that ALL "natural phenomena" can be broken down into mathematical equations and scientific paradigm is foolish. One who is mature/secure in thought and being will realize the "limitations" of their own abilities/understanding.
Evolutionary theory provides many benefits. It encourages us to examine the world around us. It subscribes to scientific methodology which encourages discipline in thought. It leads us to be aware that we are linked to the world around us, and that there are similarities between species, even if there can be no definitive proof of common ancestry.
Evolutionary theory provides the "imaginary" benefit that man can essentially control/understand everything regarding his own existence. It falsely attempts to relate this theological belief system to science, which enables those who are "insecure" about themselves to "justify" any action or immoral code they choose.
Creationism, on the other hand, offers NO benefits to modern society (except maybe to coddle infantile minds). But in fact exacts an incredible toll on the level of education. It discourages independent thought, explaining the existence of everything by reference to some higher power. I promotes extreme intellectual laziness and myopia. It separates man from his environment, making him believe that he is somehow above it and does not need to understand it.
Creation science helps explain the logical order/patterns/designs that exist in life. It encourages man to explore the world around him, and use the knowledge he acquires for the benefit of humanity. It also exposes the "logical inference" of the limitations to human understanding/knowledge.
Whether Creationism should be taught in schools depends on HOW it is presented. If it is presented as the Church would have it: as dogmatic doctrine, then it DEFINITELY SHOULD NOT BE TAUGHT.If it is presented in context: as a metaphorical explanation for existence adopted by religion to give little children a sense of security before their minds can grasp the more complex theory of evolution, then fine.
To believe that one "religion" should be compromised when being preached about in tandem with another is a very "dogmatic" point of view. There is no need for compromise/censure of any "religion" when it is being taught in a public forumn.
Whobdamandog>”Macro - Evolution/Darwinian speciation has never been observed, and can not be induced or tested.”
This is wrong.
May I suggest you visit the old and venerable “Evolution”-thread here in the GDF?
“Creationism can be tested using the scientific method” 😆
Examples?
Please read the first few pages of the “Evolution”-thread so as to avoid you using the “examples” which we gave already proven to be wrong and lies.
(HERE we go... again)
Originally posted by The Omega
Whobdamandog>”Macro - Evolution/Darwinian speciation has never been observed, and can not be induced or tested.”
This is wrong.
May I suggest you visit the old and venerable “Evolution”-thread here in the GDF?
“Creationism can be tested using the scientific method” 😆
Examples?
Please read the first few pages of the “Evolution”-thread so as to avoid you using the “examples” which we gave already proven to be wrong and lies.
To state that I'm wrong without providing a substantive argument to support your opinion is very un-scientific. If you believe me to be wrong just scan through the thread..and repost/rebut every point that you disagree with. I've given much evidence to support all of my arguments. I'll respond as soon as you provide your "evidence" that proves my arguments invalid..your move sweety...
Whobdamandog> “To state that "I'm" wrong without providing a substantive argument to support your opinion is very un-scientific.”
This may be correct, if I did not direct you to a thread which has already dealt with this subject in great detail. I’m in no way in the mood (nor do I have the desire) to repeat what I have already said in that thread, where I wasted hours engaging in civilised debate and providing substantial evidence in favour of evolution.
“If you believe me to be wrong just scan through the thread..and repost/rebut every point that you disagree with. I've given much evidence to support all of my arguments. I'll respond as soon as you provide your "evidence" that proves my arguments invalid..your move sweety...”
(Points to the evolution-thread. Page 2+)
Your move 😉
Unfortunately, no matter what I say I will not be able to open any ones eyes to the fact that we were created by a supreme being. That supreme being not only created us, but allowed His Son to die for us, whether you believe in him or not. If you have been decieved into believing the humanistic lies that people have made up then I am sorry.
I will pray for everyone on this forum that has made the statements that they do not believe in God. I hope you can find it in your heart to look into reading the Bible with an open mind sometime. Start with the book of John. If you are interested in any other information about that feel free to email me at [email protected]
No one ever wins an argument cuz even if you win you still lose.........No creationism in schools.........
To debate either one of the topics and try and justify as either correct or incorrect is a long winded topic obviously.
A better way perhaps think of this is which of these topics has a better way to help our children come up with their "own" decisions making process? Read a book and believe or understand a process of creating "theories" to better come up with a way to make your own educated decisions?
Either both be taught as theories or neither one be taught. Evolution is just as full of shit at Gennesis exsept thier lie is alot more wordy and complex. As the entire left's movement is..
I refuse to believe the Earth was created in six days. Even if six days means eons. I don't care. I don't think God being infalliable would be stupid enough to create something as unstable as mankind. If it were up to these types who actually believe this crap, women would be barefoot in the kitchen and anything but missionary position would be punishable by law..
I also refuse to believe we adapted and evolved beyond primates considering there still is primates. These lunatics believe the dolphin and the cow are related geneticaly, these people are so ****ed up they pick and choose what they consider a human being and a plant. (Not going to get into it, but you know what I'm talking about.) So I trust thier stupid ideas as far as I can throw them. And sense a thought has no physichal basis, I believe I've made my point..
Originally posted by Spelljammer
Either both be taught as [b]theories or neither one be taught. Evolution is just as full of shit at Gennesis exsept thier lie is alot more wordy and complex. As the entire left's movement is.....
I also refuse to believe we adapted and evolved beyond primates considering there still is primates. These lunatics believe the dolphin and the cow are related geneticaly, these people are so ****ed up they pick and choose what they consider a human being and a plant. (Not going to get into it, but you know what I'm talking about.) So I trust thier stupid ideas as far as I can throw them. And sense a thought has no physichal basis, I believe I've made my point.. [/B]
btw, you say both have lies, where is the lie in Evolution?
you make it sound like the cow and dolphin are related to eachother "in the first degree", don't be so silly! It took more than 7 million years to get something that some might get as the earlies humanoid-ish-like-almost looking like-etc- human (the Tsjadensis guess it's Tchadensis in english) so if it takes 7 million years for us to go from homonidae to homoninae, how many millions of years would it take to get a cow and a dolphin? It simply took a damn long time, that's all there is to it.
Furthermore, you completely misunderstand evolution. It is not because we evolved from primates (which is already a dubious statement) that there can't be any left! We are from in the family of homonidae the homoninae while you still have gorillae and other apes, we are part of it, it has branches.... it's not that your "nephew" in those genetic trees HAVE to get wipes out.
you made no point at all btw
So then you're saying evolution says we are to primates as dogs are to wolves? More domestic?
And the cow/dolphin thing, I think it would be easier to say they were just never related..
And what about cultures they're finding in archelogical studies? Like those hobbit bones? Then you have to admit religoun and science are not that far apart when the Aztecs made thier calender of the rise and fall of multiple races of men..
Infact, I believe that's half of the problem, you both want to seperate God from science. And if you do that, you will learn nothing..