Evolution V Creation

[TruthWorthy]

Still to see evidence for a young earth Rjh4

No Zen! It's all in the scriptures!! You have to understand that time runs at a different constant for "God". What could take us a thousand, or even a million, years could count as a single day in human time! Sheesh, don't you know anything lol.

[rjh4 is back]

Still to see evidence for a young earth Rjh4

I will point to the Bible as the main evidence. Remember, I look at things from a Biblical perspective and interprets facts from a Biblical perspective, and have readily admitted this over and over again. The problem is you do not want to step out of your own paradigm for even one minute to look at things from a different point of view. Our presuppositions are entirely different and you seem to be asking me for evidence for a young earth from within your presuppositions (i.e., you seem to want me to give you evidence that forces you to see a young earth given your presuppositions). I don't think this can be done as I don't think your presuppositions will allow you to think in that manner. Anything I could show you, you would reinterpret from within your own presuppositions and you will arrive at a different conclusion. I would suggest you look into your own worldview, figure out what your presuppositions (first principles) are from which you build your worldview, and then get back to me and we can discuss our presuppositions and where they lead.

[TruthWorthy]

Lollies

[rjh4 is back]

Rjh4, even if 'man' was not an animal (and we - humans - are) - how would that make us superior? You say we are superior because we're "not animals" (and of course, we are, but that's besides my additional point here) - what have you got against animals?

EvF

It is funny, Evie, how you say with such conviction that humans are animals...like that is some objective truth. If we are animals it is only because we choose to classify ourselves that way. It is not like everything comes prelabeled and humans have an "animal" label on them. And I do not have anything against animals, by the way. I think I said before that I think we are superior to the animals because God has made us so and given us dominion over them (see the Bible). That is my reason. As I said to Zen, I have not hidden the fact that I look at things from a Biblical perspective. Why can you not see my point of view even though it may be a different perspective from yours?

[Darwinian]

Still to see evidence for a young earth Rjh4

I will point to the Bible as the main evidence. Remember, I look at things from a Biblical perspective and interprets facts from a Biblical perspective, and have readily admitted this over and over again. The problem is you do not want to step out of your own paradigm for even one minute to look at things from a different point of view. Our presuppositions are entirely different and you seem to be asking me for evidence for a young earth from within your presuppositions (i.e., you seem to want me to give you evidence that forces you to see a young earth given your presuppositions). I don't think this can be done as I don't think your presuppositions will allow you to think in that manner. Anything I could show you, you would reinterpret from within your own presuppositions and you will arrive at a different conclusion. I would suggest you look into your own worldview, figure out what your presuppositions (first principles) are from which you build your worldview, and then get back to me and we can discuss our presuppositions and where they lead.

And where is your evidence that the Bible contains any scientific fact? After all, if I was to ask a question about astronomy it would be foolish of me to go to a desert in the middle east, find some wandering tribesmen who have never had an education and ask them. This is basically what you are doing.

This really is a prime example of garbage in, garbage out because with such an intellectually unsafe starting point, no conclusions that follow can possibly make any sense.

[Edwardo Piet]

It is funny, Evie, how you say with such conviction that humans are animals...like that is some objective truth. If we are animals it is only because we choose to classify ourselves that way.

Well wouldn't you think it kind of odd if for no reason at all we didn't classify, say, giraffes as animals?

It is not like everything comes prelabeled and humans have an "animal" label on them.

We are animals by the same criteria(s) that other animals are I presume. I fail to see any reason that we are an exception and are "not animals" that's the point.

And I do not have anything against animals, by the way. I think I said before that I think we are superior to the animals because God has made us so and given us dominion over them (see the Bible). That is my reason.

Why do you believe God is right in his judgement in the first place? Because it says in the Bible that he says he is?

As I said to Zen, I have not hidden the fact that I look at things from a Biblical perspective.

Indeed, I'm just questioning you.

Why can you not see my point of view even though it may be a different perspective from yours?

I don't understand why you believe that we are not animals just because the Bible says we are superior to them. And I do not see why you accept anything at all in the Bible if it is only because it says so?

I'm trying to see your point of view.

EvF

[rjh4 is back]

And where is your evidence that the Bible contains any scientific fact? After all, if I was to ask a question about astronomy it would be foolish of me to go to a desert in the middle east, find some wandering tribesmen who have never had an education and ask them. This is basically what you are doing.

This really is a prime example of garbage in, garbage out because with such an intellectually unsafe starting point, no conclusions that follow can possibly make any sense.

As I said above, I have not been shy about admitting that I take God and the Bible as the Word of God as my presupposition and I work from that as my basic framework. You say that is an intellectually unsafe starting point. And how do you know this for sure? Also, please enlighten me as to what you think an intellectually safe starting point is.

[Darwinian]

I know it's an unsafe starting point for the same reason that I know Greek, Roman or Norse mythology is an unsafe starting point or anchoring all your inquiries on the opinions of a chatty 3 year old is unsafe, lovely as she may be.

[rjh4 is back]

We are animals by the same criteria(s) that other animals are I presume.

It seems to me that it all boils down to this, Evie. Whether or not one considers mankind as an "animal" or not clearly depends on the criteria one uses to define "animal". If one goes with the classification system used by biologists, then certainly we would fall within the animals. However, that is not to say that biologists could not have classified mankind differently by coming up with different criteria. But they didn't. It is all manmade. I am not coming from a biologists point of view but am looking at it from a Biblical point of view (see my other comments regarding my presuppositions). From a Biblical perspective (criteria) we are different from and greater than the animals and the criteria is because the Bible says so.

So, I think our different answers are due to different perspectives on the issue, that is all.

---

I know it's an unsafe starting point for the same reason that I know Greek, Roman or Norse mythology is an unsafe starting point or anchoring all your inquiries on the opinions of a chatty 3 year old is unsafe, lovely as she may be.

That is doubletalk...not an answer.

[Darwinian]

Doubletalk? That's the pot calling the kettle black :S