The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Ekancone

Soul Winner wrote: »

It wouldn't it matter if he held a PhD in Physics, Microbiology and Quantum Mechanics, he'd still be regarded as a non reliable source by the Evolutionist because he also happens to also be a Creationist.

Creationist 'believe' that a creator did it without any proof that Evolutionists will accept, and Evolutionists 'believe' it was a done by natural processes without any proof that the Creationists will accept. The argument is stalemated. It will never be won or lost by either side because both sides have no proof of their underlying foundational arguments. The only ones that can possible win are the Creationists because God could peep his head out of the clouds one day and stop the whole argument, if He exist that is, which is what Christianity sort of says will happen some day. But how can evolution be proved unless we create a time machine? How can we have fossils of fully developed species show up in the earliest geologic period if evolution is true? Evolution is as much a religion based on faith as all other religions. There is nothing wrong with that but please stop preaching that Creationism is not Science, because if that is the case then Evolutionism is also not Science as science would define it. Evolutionism is as non-falsifiable as creationism because there is no way ever ever ever ever that it can be dis-proven to be the method by which all living things came into being and evolved thereby, evidence of evolutionary changes observed in nature today not withstanding.

The power of wilful ignorance in full display. Beautiful, isn't it?

Eschatologist

Soul Winner wrote: »

The argument is stalemated. It will never be won or lost by either side because both sides have no proof of their underlying foundational arguments. The only ones that can possible win are the Creationists because God could peep his head out of the clouds one day and stop the whole argument, if He exist that is, which is what Christianity sort of says will happen some day.

This is not a competition! But I agree that both sides are entrenched in their ideas and it's highly unlikely each will cede to the other. However, in terms of evidence and just plain plausibility - 'Evolutionists' win hands down (have you seen the geology models of creationists?).

Soul Winner wrote: »

But how can evolution be proved unless we create a time machine? How can we have fossils of fully developed species show up in the earliest geologic period if evolution is true?

Fossils of developed species show up because preservation is a fickle thing and the accepted age of the Earth is 4.5 billion years old leaving plenty of time for evolution to do its thing.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Evolution is as much a religion based on faith as all other religions. There is nothing wrong with that but please stop preaching that Creationism is not Science, because if that is the case then Evolutionism is also not Science as science would define it.

Evolution is not a faith or a religion - it is a scientific theory.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Evolutionism is as non-falsifiable as creationism because there is no way ever ever ever ever that it can be dis-proven to be the method by which all living things came into being and evolved thereby, evidence of evolutionary changes observed in nature today not withstanding.

Evolution was developed through application of the scientific method, it is a falsifiable theory. Creationism starts out with an assumption which cannot be proved, is religiously-motivated and so far has made no useful contributions to our understanding of the world. Any evidence which doesn't fit this pre-determined result is claimed to be either wrong, misinterpreted or is based on a flawed theory. Therefore it falls outside the realm of science and is not a theory.

After the discussion over the last few pages regarding falsifiability, truth and what science actually is - I'm amazed at why you posted this.

Ekancone

I honestly don't see why creationism and evolution are even opposed. They don't even discuss the same subject. It should be creationism versus abiogenesis.

Galvasean

Eschatologist wrote: »

Evolution is not a faith or a religion - it is a scientific theory.

Quoted so people can see it. Although may I mention that many have faith in said scientific theory.

robindch

daithifleming wrote: »

It should be creationism versus abiogenesis.

Yes, but you wouldn't get an argument then since none us know the process by which the first self-reproducing molecules arose. This thread would have petered out after five posts.

Instead, creationism's marketeers manufacture a controversy by willfully misrepresenting evolution and the processes of science generally, use this controversy to define their godly in-groups and satanic out-groups, manufacture a threat that demands immediate action, use the millions of dead of the Holocaust, Russia, China, Cambodia and elsewhere to lend a disgraceful and transparently fraudulent credibility to their cause, then -- and most importantly of all -- pass around the collection plate.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

Who defined what science is and does? and has this definition changed over time/still changing? Just curious.

The word "science" as currently understood has been placed on a useful philosophical foundation by Karl Popper. His greatest work surrounded the idea of falsifiability, which is the notion that an idea can be considered "scientific" if a test can be found which can credibly falsify the idea.

Using this criterion, creationism is not considered "scientific" since creationists consider that the unfalsifiable "god did it" is a reasonable response to every question.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

However, a process called 'the scientific method' was developed by clergymen (Grosseteste, Roger Bacon, Copernicus), other Christians (Galileo, Francis Bacon) and Muslims (Ibn al-Haytham)

Indeed, and Popper was born in 1902 of jewish parents in Austria, spent some time as a Marxist, had wife whose middle name was "Anna" and had male pattern baldness in old age.

And, like Bacon's work in science and his christianity, all of these were entirely irrelevant to his work on falsifiability.

Soul Winner

daithifleming wrote: »

The power of wilful ignorance in full display. Beautiful, isn't it?

A typical argument from silence comment. Can you back up what you mean with some good old fashioned 'why you think that' kind of information?

Ekancone

Soul Winner wrote: »

A typical argument from silence comment. Can you back up what you mean with some good old fashioned 'why you think that' kind of information?

If the last 10,000 posts haven't gotten through to you, what hope does one more have?

robindch

Allow me

Soul Winner wrote: »

Evolutionists 'believe' it was a done by natural processes without any proof that the Creationists will accept.

The leading creationist marketing organization, AiG, make it quite clear that creationists are not permitted to accept any evidence that contradictions their own personal, particular interpretation of the bible. See here, section D, item 6. To wit:

AiG wrote:

No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

Given this statement, you'll understand why creationists reject without consideration anything that they disagree with.

This seems a tad-closed minded to me. Others will disagree.

Soul Winner

Eschatologist wrote: »

This is not a competition! But I agree that both sides are entrenched in their ideas and it's highly unlikely each will cede to the other. However, in terms of evidence and just plain plausibility - 'Evolutionists' win hands down (have you seen the geology models of creationists?).

No, can you point me to one or two? If they talk anything like this then I don't want to know.

Eschatologist wrote: »

Fossils of developed species show up because preservation is a fickle thing and the accepted age of the Earth is 4.5 billion years old leaving plenty of time for evolution to do its thing.

So for evolution to work we need a 4.5 billion year old Earth. And we know that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old because that is what's needed for evolution to work??? And evolutionists criticize creationists for their method of reasoning.

Eschatologist wrote: »

Evolution is not a faith or a religion - it is a scientific theory.

Don't you agree that a lot of it is be taken on faith though?

Eschatologist wrote: »

Evolution was developed through application of the scientific method, it is a falsifiable theory. Creationism starts out with an assumption which cannot be proved, is religiously-motivated and so far has made no useful contributions to our understanding of the world. Any evidence which doesn't fit this pre-determined result is claimed to be either wrong, misinterpreted or is based on a flawed theory. Therefore it falls outside the realm of science and is not a theory.

From what I gather the creationists say they see evidence of a creator in the creation, how is that religiously motivated? In any case what’s wrong with being religiously motivated anyway? A lot of people think that the theory of evolution is irreligiously motivated. And yet it’s ok to call that a science? A little level playing field is what’s needed here.

Eschatologist wrote: »

After the discussion over the last few pages regarding falsifiability, truth and what science actually is - I'm amazed at why you posted this.

I'm slow at learning sorry

Soul Winner

daithifleming wrote: »

If the last 10,000 posts haven't gotten through to you, what hope does one more have?

In fairness I haven't read all 10,00 posts. I wasn't even a twinkle in Boards.ie's eye when that one started.

Go on, humour me. One more won't hurt

Eschatologist

Soul Winner wrote: »

No, can you point me to one or two? If they talk anything like this then I don't want to know.

That was a good vid, gave me a laugh. Unfortunately, the creationist movement is not a satire. One of their 'geological' models would be catastrophic plate tectonics. The model is fraught with flaws and provides no useful predictions. The amount of heat energy released in order to drive plate motions (some creationist models say the Atlantic opened at a rate of 1/2 mile per hour :pac:) would melt the planet.

Heck, radioactive decay is purported to have been faster in the past according to creationist 'scientists', never mind that this scenario would also melt the planet. Nice and convenient to just change fundamental physical laws than to have to accept the actual evidence.

Soul Winner wrote: »

So for evolution to work we need a 4.5 billion year old Earth. And we know that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old because that is what's needed for evolution to work??? And evolutionists criticize creationists for their method of reasoning.

No, that's circular reasoning, apologies if I implied that (my post was a bit rushed). The Earth isn't 4.5 Gyr old because evolution needs it to be - the Earth is 4.5 Gyr old because radiometric dating (40 different isotope methods) confirms it to be. This is based on the equations of nuclear physics, careful, repeated and independent measurements of half lives and corroborative ages from Moon samples and meteorites. Literally hundreds of thousands of isotope dates have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. More than one dating method is often used to verify the ages of rocks too. I recommend this site for good solid info on radiometric dating, written by a Christian too! http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html

My original point was that because the Earth is so old evolution has time to proceed and produce the diversity we see. Evolution says nothing however, about how life came about.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Don't you agree that a lot of it is be taken on faith though?

If you base your assumptions on faith, that's not science. You need to find evidence to back your claim. The evidence then needs to be confirmed and repeated. If a physicist for example claimed to have discovered a new particle, every other physicist would not just blindly accept this. Other labs around the world would then devise their own experiments to try and produce the same results, and question the original experiment. If multiple labs found the same particle with the same characteristics after performing many experiments, the founding physicist could then say that yes, they had discovered a new particle. Faith does not equal science.

Soul Winner wrote: »

From what I gather the creationists say they see evidence of a creator in the creation, how is that religiously motivated? In any case what’s wrong with being religiously motivated anyway? A lot of people think that the theory of evolution is irreligiously motivated. And yet it’s ok to call that a science? A little level playing field is what’s needed here.

It's religiously motivated when a creation 'scientist's' evidence comes from the bible. It's unscientific to say 'God did it' because that can never be proven. Religion and science don't have to clash but basing your science on religious ideas will never work because creationists already have their forgone conclusion, rejecting anything that doesn't fit - which is the exact opposite of the scientific method. And they claim to be scientists!?

Evolution is not a smack in the face of religion and does not depend on personal agendas or egos - it's a well-founded theory which best explains the data and what's more, makes useful predictions.

wolfsbane

JimiTime wrote: »

Genesis
1.In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

There is no time here. He created the heavens and the earth. formless etc. There isn't actually a time line from this point to when he created the luminaries. So why must one believe in a young earth? BTW, I'm not looking to argue, just looking for some insight.

Yes, some argue that a gap is here, and in that gap they pour billions of years for the earth - and a prior, evolved creation.

That view gets one over the 'age' issue and the fossil issue. But it does not remove the 6000 year age of the present biosphere and the global Flood.

It is certainly much better theologically, in that no issue (that I can think of) contradicts the Biblical record. I doubt it will be anymore acceptable to our evolutionary friends.

Scofflaw

Soul Winner wrote: »

No, can you point me to one or two? If they talk anything like this then I don't want to know.

Here's one for you.

Soul Winner wrote: »

So for evolution to work we need a 4.5 billion year old Earth. And we know that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old because that is what's needed for evolution to work??? And evolutionists criticize creationists for their method of reasoning.

Yes, because what you've said there is the Creationist version. The scientific version says that evolution takes a long time (unknown duration). Entirely separately, geology and geological dating methods have come to the conclusion that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, which is separately established outside geology in astrophysics.

Evolution does not appear to take up the whole span of the 4.6 billion years, because we're not certain when life started. The oldest certain signs of life we have are from about 3.465 billion years ago, from the Apex Chert, Australia. A listing is here.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Don't you agree that a lot of it is be taken on faith though?

For the man in the street, yes. For the scientist, not really, since perfectly normal scientific methods are used - the only "faith" required is the faith that everything and everyone isn't a huge deception/conspiracy. For the scientist in a relevant field, it would be established directly.

Soul Winner wrote: »

From what I gather the creationists say they see evidence of a creator in the creation, how is that religiously motivated? In any case what’s wrong with being religiously motivated anyway? A lot of people think that the theory of evolution is irreligiously motivated. And yet it’s ok to call that a science? A little level playing field is what’s needed here.

Creationists see evidence of a creator in creation, but are have failed thus far to establish that scientifically. They're not actually on the playing field at all, because they have failed the basic entrance requirement.

Scientists qua scientists have no objection to the creationist view. They object only to its claim to being science, because it has not been scientifically established. Creationists want it to be regarded as science without passing any of the tests - and no scientist is under any obligation to accept that. Why do you feel they should be?

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Indeed, and Popper was born in 1902 of jewish parents in Austria, spent some time as a Marxist, had wife whose middle name was "Anna" and had male pattern baldness in old age.

And, like Bacon's work in science and his christianity, all of these were entirely irrelevant to his work on falsifiability.

Well I thought a few historical tidbits might prove educational to some. I was thinking particularly of those poor deluded saps who don't read books, get their history from anti-Christian websites, and think that science developed as a result of atheists breaking out of a period called the Dark Ages where nothing good happened due to the tyranny of religion.

BTW, did Popper's wife really have male pattern baldness?

wolfsbane

bonkey said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I may be very dim,

I doubt it. I think you're a pretty smart guy.

Awh, Shucks.

You seem to have a curiously short memory, given that when we retread old roads, you don't seem to pick up the argument where it was left off, but insist on starting it all over again, but I really don't think that makes you dim.

Well, I do confess my memory is not too dependable. That come as a surprise to many after a youth of confident reliance on it - 'Ah yes, I remember it well.' http://er.neoxer.com/lyrics/gigi.html

But here it may be that we may see each other's 'clinching post' as something else. So if you would point me to where you think we established the definition of evolution, I'll be happy to review it.

Quote:
All I've encountered is mention of bird-song changing and drug-resistant bugs, etc. Nothing about evolution.

As someone (Wicknight?) just suggested...maybe you should define what you mean by evolution in this sense.

I suspect that we're going to end up treading down the whole macro- vs. micro- road again,
and it will once again have to be explained why its a strawman....rather than picking that discussion up where we left off.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, though, and hope that you're taking some other angle.

It looks like it is the macro-micro debate all right.

So...how about it? Are you talking about something different, or shall I go find a link to an old
part of this thread, and you agree not to post anything on the subject which is already covered in that previous discussion?

Er, OK, if you abide by the same rules. But you seem to be under the impression you - or someone else - has proved it is a strawman.

As I recall - not clearly, mind you - the argument went something like this: (from your post below) Selection and adaption are fundamental predictions of evolutionary theory. My argument: Selection and adaption are well explained mechanisms of creationist theory. Same applies to all observed scientific laws. You are asking us to take from observed changes and extrapolate it far outside anything we have observed, and offer that as proof of the theory!

You agree on them, you agree that they exist, and that they have been (and are being) studied....but somehow still argue that predictions of evolutionary theory aren't being tested?

I think what you're trying to say is that specific predictions of evolutionary theory aren't being tested....but you're not clearing up what specific predictions they are?

Yes, I'm asking you to show where bacteria have been evolved into non-bacteria; or to the point about falsification, to show me evolutionist reseach being done that would prove that bugs cannot change over time into non-bugs.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Selection and adaption are fundamental predictions of evolutionary theory. My argument: Selection and adaption are well explained mechanisms of creationist theory.

Very good! We can, I think, point to thousands of papers and other works that show the former statement to be the case. Can you point us to the references that show your argument to be true, please?

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

Soul Winner wrote: »

It wouldn't it matter if he held a PhD in Physics, Microbiology and Quantum Mechanics, he'd still be regarded as a non reliable source by the Evolutionist because he also happens to also be a Creationist.

Creationist 'believe' that a creator did it without any proof that Evolutionists will accept, and Evolutionists 'believe' it was a done by natural processes without any proof that the Creationists will accept. The argument is stalemated. It will never be won or lost by either side because both sides have no proof of their underlying foundational arguments. The only ones that can possible win are the Creationists because God could peep his head out of the clouds one day and stop the whole argument, if He exist that is, which is what Christianity sort of says will happen some day. But how can evolution be proved unless we create a time machine? How can we have fossils of fully developed species show up in the earliest geologic period if evolution is true? Evolution is as much a religion based on faith as all other religions. There is nothing wrong with that but please stop preaching that Creationism is not Science, because if that is the case then Evolutionism is also not Science as science would define it. Evolutionism is as non-falsifiable as creationism because there is no way ever ever ever ever that it can be dis-proven to be the method by which all living things came into being and evolved thereby, evidence of evolutionary changes observed in nature today not withstanding.

.....an excellent and well balanced summary of the current 'state of play' on this thread!!!!!!!!!

......the only thing I would add is that the newly emerging science of ID has proven that an 'Intelligence' produced life.......which actually gives Creationism the scientific 'edge' over materialistic explanations!!!:D

Hot Dog

Evolution is as much a religion based on faith as all other religions.

Is that you, Kent Hovind? How did you get the internet in Jail?

If evolution is a religion, gravity, nuclear theory and everything else is a theory.

Is tis what you believe?

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

......I would also point out that the newly emerging science of ID has proven that an 'Intelligence' produced life....

And yet, you have yet to post this proof. So good of them to discover proof but not share it with the rest of us.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Well I thought a few historical tidbits might prove educational to some. I was thinking particularly of those poor deluded saps who don't read books, get their history from anti-Christian websites

Can't say I know any of these saps myself -- everybody I know reads books, rather than doing something else with them -- I'm there must be a few around though. But you shouldn't forget the far greater number of deluded saps who trust their education in astronomy, biology, chemistry, history and so on to sites like AiG, and who post on boards!

Say, for example, what do you feel when you see Ken Ham attempting to blame Charles Darwin for racism -- "Although racism did not begin with Darwinism, Darwin did more than any person to popularize it". And then, having banged on about Darwin causing interracial trouble, he performs a spectacular 180-degree and starts saying that christians who want to marry non-christians are under the influence of satan and that people "need to teach against the only interracial marriage the Bible warns against—the two spiritual races mixing".

I can't imagine that a smart guy like you would find this kind of rewriting of history very palatable -- it certainly suggests christianity is intolerant and its preachers are frauds, which I'm sure you find irritable at the very least.

Out of interest, have you ever spoken out against Ken Ham's deceit, and if not, do you plan to?

bonkey

Soul Winner wrote: »

So for evolution to work we need a 4.5 billion year old Earth. And we know that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old because that is what's needed for evolution to work???

I can't remember which one at the moment, but one of the more accessible "pop science" books I have lying around gives an excellent rendition of how the age of the earth was arrived at.

You are somewhat correct in that the original (Ussherian) timescale was called into question because it simply did not seem long enough for many of the emerging explanations for obsered phenomena to be valid.

However, it is not the case that the end-figure was reached once we had randomly picked a date far back enough and found that all the various scientific models which required long timespans were now happy.

AS I said...I can't remember which book it is. I'll see if I can job my memory by browsing through my 'stacks' over the coming days.

robindch

bonkey wrote: »

I can't remember which one at the moment, but one of the more accessible "pop science" books I have lying around gives an excellent rendition of how the age of the earth was arrived at.

Was it Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything"?

PDN

robindch wrote: »

I can't imagine that a smart guy like you would find this kind of rewriting of history very palatable -- it certainly suggests christianity is intolerant and its preachers are frauds, which I'm sure you find irritable at the very least.

Out of interest, have you ever spoken out against Ken Ham's deceit, and if not, do you plan to?

The claim that Darwin is responsible for racism is bunk & junk.

The quote about mixed marriage is sheer nonsense. Incidentally I don't believe that believers should marry unbelievers, but to describe believers and unbelievers as 2 races strikes me as pretty bizarre.

Some versions of Christianity certainly are intolerant, and some preachers are undoubtedly frauds.

You obviously know more about Ken Ham than I do. I've advised people to avoid him on the grounds that he is a crank and fixated on one rather minor issue. I'm not aware of deceit, but then again I'm not particularly interested in the guy.

I do think that there is an unfortunate tendency for people to gain their 'knowledge' by surfing propaganda websites rather than doing some proper old-fashioned reading. A recent example has been the untruthful claim that the Bible purports to give a value for pi. The same would apply to those who pretend knowledge of geology or biology based on something they cut and pasted from a Creationist website. In either case it doesn't mean that the posters are necessarily deceitful.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Was it Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything"?

Really enjoyed that book. It almost made me interested enough in science to read more on the subject.

bonkey

robindch wrote: »

Was it Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything"?

I'm not sure. I know he discusses it in there, but I didn't have time this morning to check if its the account I'm thinking of. Could be...and as a book its a good read. Very accessible.

bonkey

wolfsbane wrote: »

It looks like it is the macro-micro debate all right.
...
Er, OK, if you abide by the same rules.

Most certainly.

Here's what I propose...neither of us will mention the micro/macro issue, directly or tangentially, until I've had a chance to review the entire thread and present a compiled list of links to when it was seriously discussed before. (By seriously, I mean more than a passing reference that one side or the other then ignored, unless I feel that the post is particularly important to one side or the other).

Given that we're talking about a thread thats over 10,000 posts in length, I hope you'll be willing to give me a short amount of time to prepare this. I'd ask for a week to ten days, meaning I "only" have to review somewhere in the region of 1000 to 1500 posts each day.

Along the way, I'll also pick out any definitions of evolution, as offered by either side or discussions of same, seeing as you've mentioned it.

Now...of course...my work is open to criticism. Someone could claim that I'm going to bias my selection, and omit areas where I don't like what was said. To forestall such a criticism, I'd be quite happy to let anyone else independantly do the work in parallel and present their findings at the same time as me. Alternately, we can take the "falsifiability" routine (somewhat akin to peer review) and anyone who wishes to offer references that I have omitted after I have posted my findings, then that will be good too (although I would prefer in advance that we agree it would more suggest fallability than bias, unless I can be shown to be grossly negligent in my work.)

But you seem to be under the impression you - or someone else - has proved it is a strawman.

It has been unquestionably been alleged to be a strawman. I take it from this response that you agree that this allegation has been made....just that you don't agree that the allegation has been proven.

Now...we've agreed not to disuss the past content until we've reviewed it, so I'm only going to address this point tangentially...

As anyone who is familiar with logic should know and which also has oft been pointed out(I hope I don't need to compile a third list here!) it is impossible to prove a negative. No-one can prove that something is a strawman...merely prove that the allegation that it is a strawman is incorrect.

So I would put it to you, given that we appear to agree that the asseertion of "strawmanship" has been made on this issue, that when I produce my list of references, the onus must be on you to show that you (or someone) has proven that it is not a strawman by showing that it does indeed attack something evolution says, rather than something it erroneously claims evolution says.

To give a simple example, I claim that someone called Fredrick Q. Bloggs lives in Ireland today. Scofflaw says there isn't. By your reasoning, the onus should be on Scofflaw to prove my claim wrong. How can he do this? Lets say he provides what he claims to be a complete list of birth records, all recorded entries and exits to the country and even an affidavit he claims is signed by every single individual in the country, and none of them are called Fredrick Q. Bloggs. I counter-claim that he's missed someone, and that someone is called Fredrick Q. Bloggs and he's just refusing to accept that I'm right.

Scofflaw can never, ever prove that my claim is wrong. Ever. Its just not possible. In fact, in mathematical terms, Its mathematically proveable that he cannot prove me wrong (an interesting implication of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, if memory serves)!

This suggests that the onus should never have been on Scofflaw to prove my claim wrong. I claim FQB exists, Scofflaw claims he doesn't. Scofflaws claim is unproveable-but-falsifiable. All I have to do is produce a guy who can show his name is Fredrick Q. Bloggs, show he lives in Ireland, and Scofflaw's claim of non-existence is shown to be false.

Now, of course, the implication of this is somewhat unsettling. It means that anyone can just shout 'strawman' any time they like, and put a load of work on anyone making a claim. Well, Id firstly argue that no-one should be making claims they cannot (or are not willing to) back up. More importantly though, after someone has made such claims of 'Strawman' a couple of times and been shown to be wrong each time...well, its a like the Boy Who Cried Wolf really, they won't have much credibility left.

So when this list comes back, are we agreed that the onus is not on me to show that the claim of strawman has been proven, but rather that it is on you to show that the claim is false?

Are we agreed that I cannot show that the theory of evolution doesn't say something, but you can (or should be able to) show that it does?

Quite honestly....if we can't get past such simple understandings of what falsifiability entails, or indeed the fundamentals of the correct apoplication logic, then I'd much rather we spare myself the significant number of hours I'm going to invest in this research.

I'd be happier to just show that you're not applying logic correctly to your argument and let the interested reader draw their own conclusions based on that evidence alone.

As I recall - not clearly, mind you - the argument went something like
this:

<snip>

Now now...you agreed only a few sentences ago not to discuss this until the list was. Granted, you made that acceptance conditional on me also accepting it, but I've now given that. Granted, I've asked that you accept the timeframe it will (reasonably) take me to review the content, asked that you accept where the burden of proof lies in one specific case, and so forth, but I think that it would be self-defeating for me to respond to these issues whilst waiting for your response.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

It wouldn't it matter if he held a PhD in Physics, Microbiology and Quantum Mechanics, he'd still be regarded as a non reliable source by the Evolutionist because he also happens to also be a Creationist.

Well no, he is considered a non-reliable source because he has got the definition of Darwinian Evolution wrong about 100 times so far.

If it was simply a matter than he disagreed with Evolution theory that wouldn't be much of an issue. Its the fact that he really doesn't seem to understand what Evolutionary theory actually says that is why his claims to be a scientist who was "once an evolutionist" just ring hollow.

Would you regard as reliable as a source of Biblical information someone who though Jesus was a girl who lived in Scotland? I doubt you would, and it wouldn't be because they were an atheist.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Creationist 'believe' that a creator did it without any proof that Evolutionists will accept, and Evolutionists 'believe' it was a done by natural processes without any proof that the Creationists will accept.

Its not about "proof". It is about accuracy of models.

For Creationists to be taken seriously in scientific circles they need to produce testable (and falsifiable) models of what they think happened. "Evolutionists" will certain accept these models if they appear to explain and match and predict observation, and if they work together to form a structured concept of what is happening in the universe without contradicting each other.

Needless to say the Creationists haven't done this

The few "models" (I use the term very loosely to humour wolfsbane) they have produced don't match observations. Normal science would simply reject these models as being inaccurate and therefore worthless, but as has been pointed out, Creationist start with an assertion that there interpretation of the Bible must be correct, and as such they cannot reject models based on this interpretation.

Soul Winner wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with that but please stop preaching that Creationism is not Science, because if that is the case then Evolutionism is also not Science as science would define it. Evolutionism is as non-falsifiable as creationism because there is no way ever ever ever ever that it can be dis-proven

There are hundreds of ways Darwinian evolution can be falsified.

Perhaps you would read up a bit on a subject before making vast (inaccurate) statements about it.

Ekancone

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3X8aifay678

This pretty much sums up the creationist debate for me.