(November 12, 2009 at 7:16 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Your last sentence is interesting, and reveals your close-mindedness very well. It says simply "you can show me all the evidence in the world of evolution, you could even build a time machine and take me back and make me watch it, but since it contradicts my biblical teaching, and therefore my faith, I will always find a way to reject it". If this is truly your attitude, I have no further wishes to discuss this with you, as you aren't in the least bit interested in discussing it properly.
…
No you aren't. You've just said that you ignore such facts and choose the Bible over them. Don't ask us for evidence when (a) we've already given it, and there is plenty of it in these forums and elsewhere online anyway, and (b) you have no interest in even considering it.
What I said in this thread was:
“The rest is an extrapolation/interpretation from what we observe to something we don't and would be based on one's presuppositions. As I stated in another thread, where such an extrapolation conflicts with the Bible, I will take the Bible.”
What I said in the other thread was:
“I am a young earth creationist and think that the fossil record (or at least the bulk of it as I would not rule out some of it being the result of local catastrophic events) is a result of the flood of the Bible. God and the Bible as the word of God are my starting point for my analysis of reality. Observational science is really good for explaining the universe that God created and I have not seen nor heard of a scientific observation that would necessarily contradict the Bible. To a very large degree, historical science, particularly as it relates to origins, is taking observations and extrapolating to the unobserved past and, therefore, the conclusions reached by scientists will reflect their own bias and presuppositions. So insofar as the conclusions/interpretations made by these scientists conflict with the Bible...I will go with the Bible. I think that this world view explains reality better and is more consistent than any other world view. Are there still questions that I can't answer? Certainly, but I think there are unanswerable questions for any world view.”
Neither statement says anything close to "you can show me all the evidence in the world of evolution, you could even build a time machine and take me back and make me watch it, but since it contradicts my biblical teaching, and therefore my faith, I will always find a way to reject it".
Neither statement says I would ignore the facts.
I think one of the problems here is a disagreement on what is a fact and what is an interpretation of the fact.
For example, you said:
“However what was recorded was the fossil record, which quite clearly shows the transition between various forms of organism, to the point that you can accurately trace back all the changes and see that we indeed did come from ape-like hominds, and they in turn came from smaller monkey/lemur like creatures, and they came from...etc etc.”
The existence of the fossil record is a fact.
Fossils of various creatures appear in certain layers of the fossil record. That is a fact.
Fossils of various creatures do not appear in certain layers of the fossil record. That is a fact.
Stating that the fossil record “quite clearly shows the transition between various forms of organism” is NOT a fact. It is an interpretation of the fossil record, the fact, based on an evolutionary presupposition.
Further stating that the supposed transition is “to the point that you can accurately trace back all the changes and see that we indeed did come from ape-like hominds, and they in turn came from smaller monkey/lemur like creatures, and they came from...etc etc.” is NOT a fact. It is an interpretation of the fossil record, the fact, based on an evolutionary presupposition.
Animals change. That can be observed. That is a fact.
Humans change. That can be observed. That is a fact.
Such changes can be defined as evolution and in this sense I accept that evolution occurs.
Stating that those changes we see demonstrate evolution in the sense of common descent or molecules to man evolution is NOT a fact. It is an interpretation of the fossil record, the fact, based on an evolutionary presupposition.
It seems to me like you and others here take all those things that I said were interpretations based on an evolutionary presupposition and you state them as fact. They are not fact. Sae has even suggested that they are fact like gravity.
We continuously observe that there is a force exerted by the earth on objects. That is a fact. That force is named gravity. Therefore, gravity is a fact. The things that I said were interpretations based on an evolutionary presupposition are not remotely like gravity.
If you cannot see the difference between facts and interpretations as I outlined them above, then there is not much more for me to say. Furthermore, based on the above analysis, it is in this sense that I say that when an interpretation/extrapolation/conclusion of scientists conflicts with the Bible, I will take the Bible.
(November 12, 2009 at 7:16 pm)Tiberius Wrote: If you showed me evidence of creationism, I'd accept it. It's evidence after all, and I accept evidence.
You say that…but you still have to filter that evidence through your world view. Facts are always interpreted in some way to explain what they mean…what ramifications they have. Let me give you an example. Paleontologist Mary Schweitzer found soft tissue in a T-rex fossil. As the article stated conventional wisdom was that all soft tissue in a fossil decomposes. That would be particularly so after millions of years. So the presence of soft tissue in a T-rex fossil is a fact. It is also a fact that conventional wisdom was that all soft tissue in a fossil decomposes. So is this enough to sway your way of thinking. I doubt it. I think at most you would slightly change your view of things to say that now we know that the conventional wisdom was wrong and soft tissue can last millions of years in fossils.
Now I do not want to imply here that what I do is any different. The only difference is that I filter the facts through my world view. I just think my world view is more consistent and explains more than yours.
Lastly, there is the issue of the use of the word “kind”. I went back and reread your sentence and maybe we are using the word the same. But now I am just not sure what your point was when you said: “Because what we observe isn't that dogs all come from the same "kind" of dog, and that's the end of it.”
