Quote:Oh, but clearly you did commit them.
Assertion. I already demonstrated why I didn’t commit them.
Quote:Clearly you are mistaken. Both Darwin and Dawkins have had no problem whatsoever making it very clear that evolution is a fact and that the theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution.
You clearly didn’t get my point. The point was that they both admitted that there were two possibilities, creation by naturalistic means, or creation by supernatural means. So that is why disjunctive logic is completely valid in this instance and that is why both of them have used it and that is why I too use it.
Quote:Except:
1) There is no evidence refuting evolution, and
2) Even if there were, by itself, such evidence would not be evidence that your "God did it". For all you know it could be evidence of a magical woodpecker.
There are actually loads of evidence refuting evolution. The very fact that evolution has never increased information content and violates the very laws of Information Theory refutes it. You just don’t want to acknowledge this because it’s become more than a scientific theory and more of a religious dogma.
If a magical woodpecker had created everything I am sure you are aware that this would still be an example of special creation. So my argument still stands, it’s a two model system- either evolution or special creation. So evidence against evolution is still evidence for special creation. Like I have said many times, once you admit that life had to be created by special creation, then we can discuss why it has to be the God of the Bible and not a magical woodpecker.
Quote: Darwin has been dead for over 130 years, dude. I take it up with you because you are still trying to push a 19th century religious philosophy in the 21st century.
I think the scariest thing of all is that you actually got two kudos for your post when you didn’t even read my post correctly. I clearly said “Dawkins” here, not “Darwin”, and I assure you, Richard Dawkins is still very much alive.
Quote: Hey thanks for agreeing our point that evolution is a universally accepted theory. Oh, and it is a universally accepted theory because 150 years of experiments and observations support its validity. Likely he doesn't give any reasons why special creation is not possible because that's not his theory and it isn't for him to defend. It's for creationists to defend. So when are you going to actually start defending it?
I am not arguing that Evolution is not the accepted theory. I am sure you are aware though that the fact it is widely accepted does not make it valid since scientific fact is not based on consensus. So you agree with this quote when he says it is the accepted theory, but you disagree when he says it is not because it is based on logical or scientific evidence? How very convenient. My point, which you seemed to miss, was that he is using the exact same logic I am using. However, you seem to approve when he uses it but think it’s not valid when I use it. Special pleading.
Quote: Geology is a historical science. And Steno's law is the only natural law that has been entirely devised and documented from geologic research. See, Statler, if you had taken rocks for jocks in your youth, you'd know this.
I am pretty sure that empirically measuring the angles between crystal faces would not count as a historical science since you directly observed them and measured them. So my statement still stands, in historical sciences you never use the term “know”, because you are dealing with the past, not the present. Get an education
(December 14, 2010 at 11:59 pm)ziggystardust Wrote: Statler Waldorf, the only reason why you believe the universe is 6000 years ago, is because some Iron Age book said it was true. If Genesis 1 had not ever been included in the bible. Right now we would not be having this conversation and you would accept the discoveries countless scientists over a period of two hundred years or more.
The evidence completely confirms the account in Genesis 1 when interpreted using the Creation framework. Quite frankly, if Genesis 1 was not in the Bible none of us would be here because it is impossible for all that we see to arise by purely naturalistic means.
I noticed you didn’t answer my pyramid question and I know exactly why. In order to believe the pyramids were created by humans you have to use the exact same logic that I use to demonstrate that life on Earth was created. So you knew that I would ding you for this, so you just dodged the question. Classic.
