Science, Creation & EvolutionAge of the EarthTedlusk wrote well, considering that science was born on the back of Christianity, and the foundation of a Creator God, what you just said is demonstrably false. like i've said many times here already, most of the greatest CONTRIBUTING scientists ever have been biblical creationists, or at least "believers". hmmm. interesting. i assume that you are proclaiming THAT statement to be truth using logic (the law of non-contradiction: saying that anything that opposes THAT "logical" statement of yours must be false). you cry out against logic and absolutes, in this case, and yet use them in your very arguments. the other point is that you're partly right about not being able to proclaim truth with logic, but logic can help us to weed out the false hypotheses and help us to narrow the playing field of ideas in cases like this. and since there don't seem to be any other options beside these two (if we take them at their core beliefs and not try to introduce some kind of Theistic Evolution), then if one is right, the other is false. this is almost right. your example does work, but the application is wrong. what i'm talking about is not some arbitrary idea where there are many opinions. i'm talking about an issue where there are only two possible options. if you deny that, then please give me a third option that is neither creation nor some kind of natural evolution. i read the full text of what you posted about the quote, and it helps you not at all. the context is STILL the same. what's your point? and there are many other examples of this kind of thinking as well. not to mention the fact that it's absolutely in line with the "definition" of evolution and its necessary support. Evolution CAN'T allow a "Divine foot in the door" without undermining its own philosophy. yeah. you still haven't given good reason to assume that the creationist website was deceptive in their use of the quote. some, yeah, i'll admit. there are honest evolutionists out there who aren't as "religious" as many, but those same statements you just made go for creationists as well. we've seen and studied and understood many lines of evidence and are fully convinced that evolution is as false as 1+1 equaling 5. the other point of this is that while the evolutionist claims that we're all simply rearranged matter and that we came from "simpler" organized matter in the beginning (i'm being very general here), there seems to be a huge contradiction. you talk about "previous experience" being a "good guide" but then don't realize that in order to be able to recognize this "previous experience" as a "good guide" one would need to be able to FREELY THINK through the evidence; an actual impossibility given the evolutionist's stance that our brains are made up of matter and therefore must obey the FIXED laws of chemistry and nature, leaving NO ROOM or possibility for free thought or will. stick to your evolution story, and you can't even explain the possibility for being able to think through the evidence in the first place! creationists have an eye-witness account from the One who created everything and told us how and in what order. where's your eye-witness account? in a court of law, an eye-witness account eclipses interpretations of evidence any day. i don't even know what this "Setterfield" stuff is. i'll look though. however, whatever this gentleman says with "evidence" should never be fully trusted as final, since data is always reinterpreted and influenced by newer discoveries and data and information. creationists (should, at least) start with the Bible, where Jesus Himself speaks about a "young" creation (Mark 10:6). and Moses as well (Exodus 20:8-11). the Bible is our main authority, not some interpretations of "evidence" relating to the UNOBSERVED and UNTESTABLE ancient past here on earth. what is "PE"? and maybe we'd better get a definition of "evolution" from you here or whatever it is that you're trying to defend so we have a clear understanding of what we're debating. please give me your definition and what you believe. evolutionists are masters at the old "bait-and-switch" tactic, so we need definitions. thanks. of course they do. you can try and convince yourself otherwise, but it's true. besides, it's usually not a stance founded on "evidence", but the rejection of moral absolutes and a desire to live how one wants to. if the evidence were so overwhelmingly in your favor, and i'm sticking to my false beliefs that force me to live under IMPOSSIBLE moral guidelines, i wonder what my motive is to stick to this belief. sounds far easier for me to just give it up, succumb to the "evidence" and live guilt-free, however i want. curious why we CHOOSE the more difficult path. you're a perfect example of two passages from the Bible, (not to mention my George MacDonald quote at the bottom): and Tedlusk wrote: no person. Adam was the first person created. the fact that the Bible has been tried and tested and proven to be accurate on everything it touches (be it morality, creation, philosophy, history, logic, science or whatever), and that it was fully demonstrated and supported by the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Himself, and His followers, i'd say it makes sense to trust what it says. there you go. any more questions or objections, please don't hesitate. thanks. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame