(August 7, 2012 at 5:28 pm)Drich Wrote:

(August 7, 2012 at 5:06 pm)whateverist Wrote: It may be true that we all expend a measure of faith to carry on with the beliefs which are manifest in our actions. But, if you're doing it right, there is no place for faith in scientific theory. You may be mistaking the application of poor-faith science such as creationism for actual science. They operate on completely different principles.

Actually they do not. for the fact that this 'theory' is ever changing means it is not based in sceientific Truth. Because it is not based in truth but fact one has to have faith that the current incarnation of what he or she believes is actual truth. Faith in ever changing facts is still FAITH no matter how you want to justify it.

Think you'll find that theories are developed with the evidence available and change as further evidence comes to light. Gravity is technically a theory but it has more than enough evidence to judge it as conclusively proven true.

Where as you have... well let me see if I've understood this correctly;
An assumption the Garden of Eden ever existed, there is no evidence to back this.
An assumption Adam and Eve existed, there is no evidence to back this.
An assumption God existed and he created everything, there is no evidence to back this.

From these assumptions you have attempted to assimilate a theory with a tremendous amount of evidence to back it into creationism that rests on the assumptions you have made as a necessity.
This is *not*, as you attempted to claim, something creationism itself claims;

(August 6, 2012 at 11:44 pm)Drich Wrote: I'm not talking evolution. I am talking about how creationism assimilates evolution in it's trivial entirety. Again there is more than enough meat on the bone for a serious discussion here. I took a pot shot at your faith to see who would fall, and to see who would set up to the actual arguement.

The Bible never mentions anything remotely similar to evolution and The Bible is essentially where your brand of creationism originates from.
You are attempting to make creationism more plausible than it obviously is by bastardising it with your own half-baked understanding of evolution.
The fact remains that there is no evidence for creationism but plenty for evolution and incase it hasn't already become self-evident we are not in the business of mixing fact with fairytale.
Next time you attempt this, which I would advise against, would you perhaps research evolution beforehand so your ignorance isn't so readily apparent. Not only do you present no actual evidence creationism is anything more than a pipe dream put onto paper but you don't even present an argument that draws on any knowledge of what you are attempting to combine creationism with.
The idea that someone would even attempt such a thing without a basic understanding of natural selection is frankly offensive to the intellect of all who have bared witness to your rather pale imitation of a hypothesis.

Please, don't embarrass yourself further.
Go away and learn something about evolution before bringing it up again.

(August 7, 2012 at 5:50 pm)Annik Wrote:

(August 7, 2012 at 5:33 pm)Drich Wrote:

like using wiki definations over Merrium-webster's definations, because the better suit my arguement? you mean change my world to reflect my reality, rather than adjusting my reality to fit the established standard?

Yeah, i'll be sure to hop on that turnip truck wid ja, why don't yu run on up thar, and I'll be along shortly...

Besides that that particular dictionary is not the greatest, check out the 5th definition on the list: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

MW Wrote:: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>

This is referring to the scientific definition of a theory. However, it's not nearly in depth enough. So look at the indepth version provided in the wiki article I sent and do check the citations they list.

For further clarification:

Dictionary.co Wrote:a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory?s=t

Oxford Dictionary Wrote:a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained: Darwin’s theory of evolution
a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based: a theory of education music theory
an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action: my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged
Mathematics a collection of propositions to illustrate the principles of a subject.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition...s&q=theory

Cambridge Dictionary Wrote:something suggested as a reasonable explanation for facts, a condition, or an event, esp. a systematic or scientific explanation:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictiona...y?q=theory


It's like you don't understand how dictionaries work or that words have multiple meanings. Stop being so smug.

Lol.. I posted ALL of the definations listed... I was going to slam you for appealing to wiki first because it matched your arguements ,and how now you arguement has seemingly changed to... what does it really matter. you know and I know what has happened here even if only one of us can admit it. That's good enough for me.

---

(August 6, 2012 at 11:44 pm)Drich Wrote: I'm not talking evolution. I am talking about how creationism assimilates evolution in it's trivial entirety.

(August 7, 2012 at 8:00 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: The Bible never mentions anything remotely similar to evolution and The Bible is essentially where your brand of creationism originates from.

the account in Genesis only tells the account in detail from the garden perspective. the bible is silent as to what happens outside of the garden. i have only point to the fact that it is plausable, because nothing the bible says contradicts the evolutionary account of orgins.

Quote:You are attempting to make creationism more plausible than it obviously is by bastardising it with your own half-baked understanding of evolution.

that is the beautiful thing here. You can freely take my account of evolution out of the picture and put in whatever you wish with whatever time lines and names that tickel your fancy. the linch pin here is not me nor my level of education. It's the fact that there is no time line between creation and the fall.

Quote:The fact remains that there is no evidence for creationism but plenty for evolution and incase it hasn't already become self-evident we are not in the business of mixing fact with fairytale.
Next time you attempt this, which I would advise against, would you perhaps research evolution beforehand so your ignorance isn't so readily apparent. Not only do you present no actual evidence creationism is anything more than a pipe dream put onto paper but you don't even present an argument that draws on any knowledge of what you are attempting to combine creationism with.
The idea that someone would even attempt such a thing without a basic understanding of natural selection is frankly offensive to the intellect of all who have bared witness to your rather pale imitation of a hypothesis.

Please, don't embarrass yourself further.
Go away and learn something about evolution before bringing it up again.

you Really do not know what is going on here do you? or are you simply hoping and praying the 'standard' creation closing arguement will cover your loss for words.

---

(August 7, 2012 at 6:36 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

Drich Wrote:So again show me where i added anything. please...

Soulless monkey men that evolved from single cell organisms ring a bell?

That's not me, that evolution. i am showing you how 'evolution could potentially fit with in the bounds of creation.

---

(August 7, 2012 at 7:12 pm)whateverist Wrote:

(August 7, 2012 at 5:28 pm)Drich Wrote: Actually they do not. for the fact that this 'theory' is ever changing means it is not based in sceientific Truth. Because it is not based in truth but fact one has to have faith that the current incarnation of what he or she believes is actual truth. Faith in ever changing facts is still FAITH no matter how you want to justify it.

Oh my, you're going to catch hell for this. There is no scientific truth, just theories all the way down. No matter how much reliability a scientific theory demonstrates it always retains its provisional status given additional evidence or a better interpretation of the known data.

Basically you are demonstrating exactly what is wrong with creation science in that it exists to support a predetermined conclusion.

Now your monkeyman theory, that's a real humdinger. Obviously since no scientific theory represents established fact, your monkeyman proposal is right up there with the best of them .. at least in your completely biased opinion. You lack the intellectual maturity to engage in determining which theory best fits the available evidence. Unless you take god's titty out of your mouth you'll never be able to take the first step.

Squeak, squeak, squeak..

Stop being ignorant to the facts. Read the wiki article which explains what a scientific theory really is. Educate yourself and stop being so intellectually dishonest.

So, still no scriptural support, still no evidence? Dead in the water. Just like the last time you floated it.
"That's not me, that evolution." -Firstly, no it isn't. Secondly, you seem to have misunderstood how this works. You made this claim as a part of your "explanation", it is your baby now. You don't get to pass the buck.

(August 8, 2012 at 12:40 am)Annik Wrote: Stop being ignorant to the facts. Read the wiki article which explains what a scientific theory really is. Educate yourself and stop being so intellectually dishonest.

Errr, he's a pretty fundamentalist Christian. He wouldn't be if he had it in him to be even just a little bit less intellectually dishonest than he is.

---

(August 8, 2012 at 1:19 am)Rhythm Wrote: So, still no scriptural support, still no evidence? Dead in the water. Just like the last time you floated it.
"That's not me, that evolution." -Firstly, no it isn't. Secondly, you seem to have misunderstood how this works. You made this claim as a part of your "explanation", it is your baby now. You don't get to pass the buck.

You are talking beethoven to a monkey who imagines himself to be Monkeyman with a "soul".

(August 7, 2012 at 8:00 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(August 7, 2012 at 5:28 pm)Drich Wrote: I'm not talking evolution. I am talking about how creationism assimilates evolution in it's trivial entirety.

You are attempting to make creationism more plausible than it obviously is by bastardising it with your own half-baked understanding of evolution.
The fact remains that there is no evidence for creationism but plenty for evolution and in case it hasn't already become self-evident we are not in the business of mixing fact with fairytale.
Next time you attempt this, which I would advise against, would you perhaps research evolution beforehand so your ignorance isn't so readily apparent. Not only do you present no actual evidence creationism is anything more than a pipe dream put onto paper but you don't even present an argument that draws on any knowledge of what you are attempting to combine creationism with.
The idea that someone would even attempt such a thing without a basic understanding of natural selection is frankly offensive to the intellect of all who have bared witness to your rather pale imitation of a hypothesis.

Please, don't embarrass yourself further.
Go away and learn something about evolution before bringing it up again.

Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind. Don't feel too bad for him, Raph. He probably has no idea how far off his idea of science is or how ridiculous it is to compare creationism to science. He can't feel our cringe on his behalf.

So Drich, when you are at a loss for a decent argument, you try and make it appear that everyone else is ridiculous, and make yourself look an arse in the process.

Your "the bible doesn't contradict me therefore I'm right" shit doesn't make you seem credible in any way. The bible is silent on evolution because 2000 years ago, they had no fucking idea that it was a thing, the same reason the bible's silent on quantum physics and the standard model.

Drich Wrote:That's not me, that evolution. i am showing you how 'evolution could potentially fit with in the bounds of creation.

No, that's you inserting evolution into the bible where the bible says nothing about it. "Stay silent where the bible is silent," remember?

Do you realize the precedent you're setting with this mishmash of science and myth? When the bible doesn't conform to the scientific evidence, feel free to add to it to make it fit. What's stopping others from adding to other parts of the narrative where it doesn't fit the scientific episode, and more specfically, why can't I conform the ressurection to fit scientifc evidence by giving it a plausible, natural explanation?

(August 7, 2012 at 2:09 pm)Drich Wrote: The soul is the part of God that you have been made in the image of. It is the spiritual essence that indwells this corporeal form, destined for eternal life or eternal separation from God.

Since you adher to the proposition that man as you perceive him as a whole, plus soul, has been out of the garden for only 6000 years, would you state that the civilizations that occurred in china (Jiahu) up to 2000 years previously had no soul as they developed symbolism, architecture, pottery, and music?

Secondly, by what mechanism is the current population of the planet completing overrun by the "Soul Man". Is a soul like a disease which propagates via genes? That would still mean that unless you can prove that all modern humans have a common ancestor within the last 6000 years, it means a great portion of the planet continue to be soulless monkeymen surely.

It's hard to know where to start pointing out the weaknesses in your imagination, but sadly we both know that your adherence to self-authenticating private evidence beyond reason and material evidence will continue regardless of the contradictions your imagination provides so that you can attempt to coincide your fairy tales with reality.

The sad fact is, anybody can make up a story that cannot be falsified, but this does not automatically make the story true, even if you convince yourself it is so. Another word for it is Delusion.

Drich Wrote:That's not me, that evolution. i am showing you how 'evolution could potentially fit with in the bounds of creation.

You don't need to do this. There is a much better story I heard a christian come up with, god put all the fossils in the rocks to confound those awful atheist unbelievers.
It works very well if you believe in the bable rather than the world, and it makes me laugh, which is nice.