[DavisBJ]

Originally Posted by I aint no monkey

Not according to your fellow evolutionists.

I said impartially. taikoo said with perfect objectivity. If you don’t know the difference, I am sure there is a Junior High nearby that can fill that gap in your education.

[I aint no monkey]

Originally Posted by JWStipple

Why do you continue to assert that this is "pre" supposed? That is a presupposition on YOUR part. If you object to presuppositions, why would you use presuppositions to make your case?



Ahhh....so are you telling us that the "scientists" who work for creation organizations are trying to advance their careers? Why should we trust them, then, if they have that agenda, that conflict of interest motivating their behavior?

I don't object to presuppositions, I use them all the time in creation, I just object when evolutionists deny using them.

[JWStipple]

I don't object to presuppositions, I use them all the time in creation, I just object when evolutionists deny using them.

Well...ya gotta define what you mean by "presupposition" then...because your former comments suggest that they're strictly off-limits.

Do you have a problem with the notion that there might be an entirely natural explanation for biological diversity? What's wrong with a CONDITIONAL pre-supposition...a HYPOTHESIS...that there MIGHT be a natural explanation?

Do you think anyone would bother to look for a natural explanation if they pre-supposed that any such explanation could not possibly exist?

What if that "presumption" is based on the OBSERVATION that tons of things once thought to be beyond man's understanding turned out to have natural explanations? While that might be a "pre" sumption with regard to evolution...isn't it really a POST-supposition, since it's based on observation of loads of other aspects of existence?

[DavisBJ]

Originally Posted by Tom From Mabank

Brian, first, the plans to build the jet had to come from an intelligent mind. I'm sure you'll agree with this.

If the "detailed instructions" are undisturbed, the information is still on the plans.

If the plans were destroyed, the information is still in the mind of the man who drew up the plans.

If everything is destroyed (man and matter), then the information still exists in the mind the the man. The man is created an eternal being in the mage of God and he will exist forever (either with God or apart from God). I know you will not agree with this.

God bless, Tom from Mabank, TX

To rescue your definition of information you had to resort to claiming man is eternal. That is a desperation move I have not seen any of your YEC colleagues have to invent.

Do you dare answer the question of whether the information still exists without the need to invoke eternal life issues?

[DavisBJ]

Originally Posted by I aint no monkey

Here is the problem, assuming evolution to be true, when interpreting scientific data, is not considered being unobjective by scientists, when it really is. Whether or not a scientist knows the evidence for or aganst evolution, they assume it to be true and run with that.

No they don't.

[DavisBJ]

Originally Posted by I aint no monkey

Let me correct that for you. No scientist wanting a paycheck will question evolution.

I take it just generally saying that all scientists are liars is the best you can do?

[DavisBJ]

Originally Posted by Tom From Mabank

On the contrary! The morals I ascribe to come from God and are therefore absolute. They are invariant and universal.

I see in your Bible where, had you lived long ago, those morals would have required you to hack babies to death. You would have approved of animals ripping disrespectful kids to pieces.

When you were actively serving in law enforcement, did you make it clear to your superiors that if you felt God so commanded, that you would put the muzzle of your gun against the forehead of a healthy innocent baby girl and pull the trigger?

And I could add that morals can't come from chemicals--which have been "repeated pointed out to you."

Yes they can.

JW found out to his dismay that in order to argue against the laws of logic, he had to use the laws of logic and therefore he refuted his own argument.

I don’t think I was arguing against the laws of logic.

Likewise, one can't argue against absolute morality without assuming absolute morality.

Of course I can. What is immoral about me saying absolute morality does not exist?

In this post, you used God's morality to judge me and argue against His morality.

No I didn’t.

If morality is not absolute, then you can't use His morality to condemn me.

Agree.

[taikoo]

Originally Posted by Tom From Mabank

taikoo,

Definition of red herring: Something to divert attention from the matter at hand.

You are the one accusing Christians of being unscientific; yet, when presented with a science question, you present a "red herring." Why can't you answer the question?

God bless, Tom from Mabank, TX

first off it is not a real question. second, you brought it up as a diversion.

[taikoo]

Originally Posted by I aint no monkey

Scientists aren't naturally dishonest, but they operate under the presupposed framework that there are only natural explanations for everything, including how mankind came to say "I" and that evolution is true. If a scientist doesn't believe in evolution, it would be career advancing suicide if they were to loudly proclaim it. Unless they work for a creation organization of course.

you made this up, it is false. you have no examples of this; it is basically a lie. any reason that does not bother your conscience?

If a person wants to be taken seriously with his claims of course, he has to provide evidence. nobody has ever come up with any way to show that evolution is false, tho fame and suceess awaits anyone who could. odd, huh? not even a guy at the U of Beijing can do it. Nor in Mumbai nor in Tokyo. why do you suppose it is? all dishonest, all conspirators?

[DavisBJ]

Originally Posted by Tom From Mabank

Brian, the answer is no.

Ok, let’s summarize this.
You said

Originally Posted by Tom From Mabank

If intelligent minds did not exist, then no intelligent information can exist.

Then you said:

Originally Posted by Tom From Mabank

DNA is intelligent information.

So by the laws of logic that you so dearly rely on, replacing “intelligent information” in your first claim, with “DNA”, which you have directly said is a form of intelligent information, we have:

If intelligent minds did not exist, then no DNA can exist.

But then when asked what would happen if intelligent life were extinguished on the earth, not only do you admit that DNA could still exist, but that it would go right on functioning.

You wax so eloquent about how logic supports you. And then you try to pass this contradictory nonsense off on us?

Where did the DNA come from?

Don’t know. The conditions that it likely developed under are not well understood, and any residual evidence has probably long since been destroyed. Do you find solace in those places where science does not have a clear answer?

[DavisBJ]

Originally Posted by Tom From Mabank

In an atheist worldview, morality has to be relative. Do you agree?

If relative, then no behavior can be deemed moral or immoral by anyone. Do you agree?

Maybe I am missing something, but I can’t see the logic in what Tom says here at all. Why does the lack of a universally accepted morality preclude anyone from saying another person’s actions are immoral?

[Wunderhund]

Originally Posted by taikoo

It is my theory, so far unfalsified by a single exception, that no creationist is capable of admitting they are mistaken about any matter or substance related to an evo / creo debate.

Does anyone know of an exception to this?

How can one admit right or wrong when you are talking about one's faith?

[Jukia]

Originally Posted by Wunderhund

How can one admit right or wrong when you are talking about one's faith?

My faith tells me that unicorns exist. right or wrong?

[alwight]

Originally Posted by Wunderhund

How can one admit right or wrong when you are talking about one's faith?

There seems to be no shortage of or problem with admitting being right, even when they are patently wrong.

[Cruciform]

Originally Posted by I aint no monkey

If I take a plain reading of the Bible it says that I should be a YEC in many many areas...

Really?...

G E N E S I S 1
literary features of the biblical creation story

~ The ancient creation story in Genesis 1 bears several literary features that reveal its essentially poetic structure, as opposed to its being a straightforward historical narrative, as modern “creationists” wish to assert.

 The Scriptures contain virtually no additional references to any of the individual days of creation outside of Genesis 1. After the first chapter of Genesis, only the Sabbath receives any more specific attention. Thus, the modern creationist movement is giving the six days of creation far more emphasis than the Jews and the biblical writers ever did, even though the accounts were written by them and for them.
 The creation account in Genesis 1 resembles a hymn, and is thus sometimes called the Hymn of Creation, or the Poem of the Dawn.
 The creation accounts contain a number of alliterations (a poetic device) which are evident in the original Hebrew, but are essentially lost in the translation to English.
 The Genesis 1 account contains several instances of Hebrew parallelism, a common feature of ancient poetry. These literary devices are clear in the Hebrew language, but are not evident in the English translation.
 Repetition (a common feature of Hebrew poetry) plays a prominent role in the Genesis 1 account. The sentence “And God saw that it was good” serves as a refrain, tying the various creative acts of God together. Phrases like “and it was so” or “And God said” appear several times in repetition.
 God’s creative activity is treated not literally, but anthropomorphically (using human imagery to describe divine activity). God “speaks,” “sees,” “moves,” “breathes,” etc. These are clearly figurative descriptions, familiar features of ancient poetry. We know (as the ancient Hebrews did) that God doesn’t literally do these things, since he is a Spirit (Jn. 4:24), and these are activities of a physical being. But literary license permits these colorful images.
 The biblical writer uses numbers 3, 7, and 10 in a very specific and coherent way. The account starts with three elements to be formed----earth, darkness, and watery deep. These are dealt with within two sets of three days. Create is used at three points. The phrase “and it was so” appears seven times, as does “God saw that it was good.” The phrase “God said” appears 10 times, as does “make” and “according to its kind.” All of these numbers carry significant symbolic meaning within Hebrew literature, particularly in poetry.
 There are particular places in the Genesis 1 account where the words rhyme, an obvious feature of poetry. As in the case of the alliterations and parallelisms mentioned above, this is completely lost in the translation from Hebrew to English.
 The elaborate internal structure of the Genesis 1 creation account is far more characteristic of poetry than of a straightforward historical narrative. No scientific literature ever uses these kinds of literary devices. If this account is contrasted with, say, the story of Abraham and Isaac, it immediately becomes clear that this is very different kind of literature.
 Finally, when the creation story is discussed elsewhere in the Bible, it is absolutely clear that its literary form is poetry (see, for example, Job 10:8-11; 38:1, 4-9).

~ So, then, there are many reasons, evident within the very structure and mode of expression of the biblical text itself, why we should not require that modern science agree with the Genesis account of creation, nor that it be approached in a strictly literalistic manner. As Pope Benedict XVI has wisely observed:

“Now more reflective spirits have long been aware that there is no either-or here. We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God…does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the ‘project’ of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary----rather than mutually exclusive----realities.”