What was the first living thing like according to evolutionists

[MarkNigro]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Everything you'll ever need to debunk & refute the bogus theory of evolution: http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

And yep, besides all of the other numerous problems with it, It's curtains when it comes to the law of biogenesis

That is not a peer-reviewed scholarly article, and therefore not a reliable source when it comes to science.

 

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/76/4/1967.short

 

http://63.198.242.16/people/BIOs/john%20smiley/heliconius_project/pdfs/sci_78.pdf

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5915/737.short

 

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46

 

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

  

Here, this is at least better list of source materials for arguing against evolution;  http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

That said I would complain that while these people claim to be arguing for/providing evidence for intelligent design the only thing they actually appear to be doing is pointing out problems with Evolution.  Disproving one does not prove the other.  That would be a logical fallacy.

 

The proof is simple. Assume that atheistic origin science is correct that all things came into being without God.

 

This leads to a contradiction in logic and facts.

 

If something is assumed true and the leads to a contradiction, then its opposite is proven true.

 

Thus proving atheistic origin science fasle proves theistic origin science true.

 

Therefore God created all things.

 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

 

A great proof against atheistic origin science is that it can't be defended in a simple discussion.

 

What is usually done is that a one sided debate is carried out by those that support atheistic origin science. The present a straw man for creation science. Again that is a great proof against atheistic origin science.

 

In public schools they actually try to silence any questioning of it.

 

Again a great proof against atheistic origin science.

 

If any questions are even allowed the forum is small by a single student. The professor or teacher acts as moderator even though they believe in atheistic origin science and give the student their grades.

 

Again a great proof against atheistic origin science.

 

Everything about atheistic origin science is just a few stories with all the hard questions never answered and hidden away.

 

The intention of the link wasn't for you to practice the fallacies! 

 

Name a fallacy that I am practicing.

 

I already have identified a number that atheistic origin science does.

 

There are plenty of theistic evolution scientists.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Everything you'll ever need to debunk & refute the bogus theory of evolution: http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

And yep, besides all of the other numerous problems with it, It's curtains when it comes to the law of biogenesis

That is not a peer-reviewed scholarly article, and therefore not a reliable source when it comes to science.

 

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/76/4/1967.short

 

http://63.198.242.16/people/BIOs/john%20smiley/heliconius_project/pdfs/sci_78.pdf

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5915/737.short

 

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46

 

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

  

Here, this is at least better list of source materials for arguing against evolution;  http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

That said I would complain that while these people claim to be arguing for/providing evidence for intelligent design the only thing they actually appear to be doing is pointing out problems with Evolution.  Disproving one does not prove the other.  That would be a logical fallacy.

 

The proof is simple. Assume that atheistic origin science is correct that all things came into being without God.

 

This leads to a contradiction in logic and facts.

 

If something is assumed true and the leads to a contradiction, then its opposite is proven true.

 

Thus proving atheistic origin science fasle proves theistic origin science true.

 

Therefore God created all things.

 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

 

A great proof against atheistic origin science is that it can't be defended in a simple discussion.

 

What is usually done is that a one sided debate is carried out by those that support atheistic origin science. The present a straw man for creation science. Again that is a great proof against atheistic origin science.

 

In public schools they actually try to silence any questioning of it.

 

Again a great proof against atheistic origin science.

 

If any questions are even allowed the forum is small by a single student. The professor or teacher acts as moderator even though they believe in atheistic origin science and give the student their grades.

 

Again a great proof against atheistic origin science.

 

Everything about atheistic origin science is just a few stories with all the hard questions never answered and hidden away.

 

The intention of the link wasn't for you to practice the fallacies! 

 

Name a fallacy that I am practicing.

 

I already have identified a number that atheistic origin science does.

 

 

• Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true (or false) because it has not been proven false (true) or cannot be proven false (true).^[13]
• Argument from (personal) incredulity (divine fallacy, appeal to common sense) – I cannot imagine how this could be true, therefore it must be false.^[14][15]
• Argument from silence (argumentum e silentio) – where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence.
• Begging the question (petitio principii) – providing what is essentially the conclusion of the argument as a premise.
• (shifting the) Burden of proof (see – onus probandi) – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false.
• False dilemma (false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy) – two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more.
• Straw man – an argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position^[66]
• Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument. 
  • Poisoning the well – a type of ad hominem where adverse information about a target is presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says^[49]  (in this case, you point to specific negative behaviour by unspecified individualize and generalize it to all people who believe in Evolution, then apply it as evidence against the idea itself)

^{Also, none of the things that you just listed as proofs against Evolution have anything to do with the theory of Evolution, they have everything to do with the debate etiquettes of the individuals in question!  Being rude to someone doesn't prove that a theory is untrue, it proves that someone is being rude!  The use of the term atheistic origin science although there are Christian Biologists who work with Evolution could be considered an example of;}

 

• Judgmental language – insulting or pejorative language to influence the recipient's judgment.

By mischaracterising the theory of evolution as 'atheistic origin science' you purposefully deny all of the evolution scientists who are also theistic.

 

  If you read and consider all of the fallacies you will be better equipped to make more bulletproof arguments for your case, AND you'll be able to accurately point out when people who believe in Evolution are using the same fallacies against you!  Win/win! 

 

But grouping theistic evolution with atheistic evolution is itself deceitful. 

 

Atheistic origin science is easily proven false. Yet it is taught in the schools.

 

The theistic origin science group then has their theory of origins being taught as true. That BTW is against the establishment clause of the US constitution.

 

So atheistic origin science and its methods are taught. When creationist refute atheistic origin science, theistic origin science jumps to the rescue claiming God or whatever could have done it that way. But the methods of atheistic origin science become the starting point for discussion of the nature of God or whatever.

 

In reality it is atheistic origin science versus theistic origin science first.

 

Once atheistic origin science is refuted, the determination of the nature of God or whatever cannot start with the methods and conclusions of atheistic origin science.

 

As to what is judgmental or not is in the eye of the beholder. In a discussion you can insult or judge me all you want. I dod not care and I do not use that as part of the debate,

 

In fact from Debate 101 rules - whenever the facts and truth are against you try anything else.

 

Trying to turn the discussion into claims of someone being judgmental proves atheistic origin science is false.

 

You should watch Inherit the Wind.

 

It is one of the most judgmental, poisoning of the well movie  ever produced. Evolutionist used the most blatant indoctrinating techniques.

[JDavis]

Everything you'll ever need to debunk & refute the bogus theory of evolution: http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

And yep, besides all of the other numerous problems with it, It's curtains when it comes to the law of biogenesis

That is not a peer-reviewed scholarly article, and therefore not a reliable source when it comes to science.

http://www.pnas.org/content/76/4/1967.short

http://63.198.242.16/people/BIOs/john%20smiley/heliconius_project/pdfs/sci_78.pdf

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5915/737.short

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

Here, this is at least better list of source materials for arguing against evolution; http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

That said I would complain that while these people claim to be arguing for/providing evidence for intelligent design the only thing they actually appear to be doing is pointing out problems with Evolution. Disproving one does not prove the other. That would be a logical fallacy.

The proof is simple. Assume that atheistic origin science is correct that all things came into being without God.

This leads to a contradiction in logic and facts.

If something is assumed true and the leads to a contradiction, then its opposite is proven true.

Thus proving atheistic origin science fasle proves theistic origin science true.

Therefore God created all things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

A great proof against atheistic origin science is that it can't be defended in a simple discussion.

What is usually done is that a one sided debate is carried out by those that support atheistic origin science. The present a straw man for creation science. Again that is a great proof against atheistic origin science.

In public schools they actually try to silence any questioning of it.

Again a great proof against atheistic origin science.

If any questions are even allowed the forum is small by a single student. The professor or teacher acts as moderator even though they believe in atheistic origin science and give the student their grades.

Again a great proof against atheistic origin science.

Everything about atheistic origin science is just a few stories with all the hard questions never answered and hidden away.

The intention of the link wasn't for you to practice the fallacies!

Name a fallacy that I am practicing.

I already have identified a number that atheistic origin science does.

There are plenty of theistic evolution scientists.

Everything you'll ever need to debunk & refute the bogus theory of evolution: http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

And yep, besides all of the other numerous problems with it, It's curtains when it comes to the law of biogenesis

That is not a peer-reviewed scholarly article, and therefore not a reliable source when it comes to science.

http://www.pnas.org/content/76/4/1967.short

http://63.198.242.16/people/BIOs/john%20smiley/heliconius_project/pdfs/sci_78.pdf

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5915/737.short

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

Here, this is at least better list of source materials for arguing against evolution; http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

That said I would complain that while these people claim to be arguing for/providing evidence for intelligent design the only thing they actually appear to be doing is pointing out problems with Evolution. Disproving one does not prove the other. That would be a logical fallacy.

The proof is simple. Assume that atheistic origin science is correct that all things came into being without God.

This leads to a contradiction in logic and facts.

If something is assumed true and the leads to a contradiction, then its opposite is proven true.

Thus proving atheistic origin science fasle proves theistic origin science true.

Therefore God created all things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

A great proof against atheistic origin science is that it can't be defended in a simple discussion.

What is usually done is that a one sided debate is carried out by those that support atheistic origin science. The present a straw man for creation science. Again that is a great proof against atheistic origin science.

In public schools they actually try to silence any questioning of it.

Again a great proof against atheistic origin science.

If any questions are even allowed the forum is small by a single student. The professor or teacher acts as moderator even though they believe in atheistic origin science and give the student their grades.

Again a great proof against atheistic origin science.

Everything about atheistic origin science is just a few stories with all the hard questions never answered and hidden away.

The intention of the link wasn't for you to practice the fallacies!

Name a fallacy that I am practicing.

I already have identified a number that atheistic origin science does.

• Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true (or false) because it has not been proven false (true) or cannot be proven false (true).^[13]
• Argument from (personal) incredulity (divine fallacy, appeal to common sense) – I cannot imagine how this could be true, therefore it must be false.^[14][15]
• Argument from silence (argumentum e silentio) – where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence.
• Begging the question (petitio principii) – providing what is essentially the conclusion of the argument as a premise.
• (shifting the) Burden of proof (see – onus probandi) – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false.
• False dilemma (false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy) – two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more.
• Straw man – an argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position^[66]
• Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument.
• Poisoning the well – a type of ad hominem where adverse information about a target is presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says^[49] (in this case, you point to specific negative behaviour by unspecified individualize and generalize it to all people who believe in Evolution, then apply it as evidence against the idea itself)

^{Also, none of the things that you just listed as proofs against Evolution have anything to do with the theory of Evolution, they have everything to do with the debate etiquettes of the individuals in question! Being rude to someone doesn't prove that a theory is untrue, it proves that someone is being rude! The use of the term atheistic origin science although there are Christian Biologists who work with Evolution could be considered an example of;}

• Judgmental language – insulting or pejorative language to influence the recipient's judgment.

By mischaracterising the theory of evolution as 'atheistic origin science' you purposefully deny all of the evolution scientists who are also theistic.

If you read and consider all of the fallacies you will be better equipped to make more bulletproof arguments for your case, AND you'll be able to accurately point out when people who believe in Evolution are using the same fallacies against you! Win/win!

But grouping theistic evolution with atheistic evolution is itself deceitful.

Atheistic origin science is easily proven false. Yet it is taught in the schools.

The theistic origin science group then has their theory of origins being taught as true. That BTW is against the establishment clause of the US constitution.

So atheistic origin science and its methods are taught. When creationist refute atheistic origin science, theistic origin science jumps to the rescue claiming God or whatever could have done it that way. But the methods of atheistic origin science become the starting point for discussion of the nature of God or whatever.

In reality it is atheistic origin science versus theistic origin science first.

Once atheistic origin science is refuted, the determination of the nature of God or whatever cannot start with the methods and conclusions of atheistic origin science.

As to what is judgmental or not is in the eye of the beholder. In a discussion you can insult or judge me all you want. I dod not care and I do not use that as part of the debate,

In fact from Debate 101 rules - whenever the facts and truth are against you try anything else.

Trying to turn the discussion into claims of someone being judgmental proves atheistic origin science is false.

You should watch Inherit the Wind.

It is one of the most judgmental, poisoning of the well movie ever produced. Evolutionist used the most blatant indoctrinating techniques.</p>

What about the other 7 logical flaws you are making?

[MarkNigro]

Please answer the topic at hand. 

[JDavis]

Please answer the topic at hand.

Not really my place since i am not an evolutionist.

I wonder, as a young earth creationist, what do you say the first creature was?

[TsukinoRei]

But grouping theistic evolution with atheistic evolution is itself deceitful. 

 

 

Atheistic origin science is easily proven false. Yet it is taught in the schools.

 

The theistic origin science group then has their theory of origins being taught as true. That BTW is against the establishment clause of the US constitution.

 

So atheistic origin science and its methods are taught. When creationist refute atheistic origin science, theistic origin science jumps to the rescue claiming God or whatever could have done it that way. But the methods of atheistic origin science become the starting point for discussion of the nature of God or whatever.

 

In reality it is atheistic origin science versus theistic origin science first.

 

Once atheistic origin science is refuted, the determination of the nature of God or whatever cannot start with the methods and conclusions of atheistic origin science.

 

As to what is judgmental or not is in the eye of the beholder. In a discussion you can insult or judge me all you want. I dod not care and I do not use that as part of the debate,

 

In fact from Debate 101 rules - whenever the facts and truth are against you try anything else.

 

Trying to turn the discussion into claims of someone being judgmental proves atheistic origin science is false.

 

You should watch Inherit the Wind.

 

It is one of the most judgmental, poisoning of the well movie  ever produced. Evolutionist used the most blatant indoctrinating techniques.

 

 

=o( It is certainly not my intention to insult or judge you.  With respect your statement that 'trying to turn the discussion into claims of someone being judgemental proves atheistic origin science is false', is again not a true statement.  It's like this;  'I hereby declare that I have a bottle of cream soda and you a narfspat!'  My calling you a narfsplat may be rude and is almost certainly untrue as to my knowledge no such thing exists.  However, you not being a narfsplat does not disprove that I have a bottle of cream soda.  You see?

 

Also, there is no such thing as atheistic origin science.  The term does not exist within the vocabulary of scientific discourse.

Edited August 12, 2013 by TsukinoRei

[MarkNigro]

 

But grouping theistic evolution with atheistic evolution is itself deceitful. 

 

 

Atheistic origin science is easily proven false. Yet it is taught in the schools.

 

The theistic origin science group then has their theory of origins being taught as true. That BTW is against the establishment clause of the US constitution.

 

So atheistic origin science and its methods are taught. When creationist refute atheistic origin science, theistic origin science jumps to the rescue claiming God or whatever could have done it that way. But the methods of atheistic origin science become the starting point for discussion of the nature of God or whatever.

 

In reality it is atheistic origin science versus theistic origin science first.

 

Once atheistic origin science is refuted, the determination of the nature of God or whatever cannot start with the methods and conclusions of atheistic origin science.

 

As to what is judgmental or not is in the eye of the beholder. In a discussion you can insult or judge me all you want. I dod not care and I do not use that as part of the debate,

 

In fact from Debate 101 rules - whenever the facts and truth are against you try anything else.

 

Trying to turn the discussion into claims of someone being judgmental proves atheistic origin science is false.

 

You should watch Inherit the Wind.

 

It is one of the most judgmental, poisoning of the well movie  ever produced. Evolutionist used the most blatant indoctrinating techniques.

 

 

=o( It is certainly not my intention to insult or judge you.  With respect your statement that 'trying to turn the discussion into claims of someone being judgemental proves atheistic origin science is false', is again not a true statement.  It's like this;  'I hereby declare that I have a bottle of cream soda and you a narfspat!'  My calling you a narfsplat may be rude and is almost certainly untrue as to my knowledge no such thing exists.  However, you not being a narfsplat does not disprove that I have a bottle of cream soda.  You see?

 

Also, there is no such thing as atheistic origin science.  The term does not exist within the vocabulary of scientific discourse.

 

I termed it . 

 

It happens to be what is an entire approach to origin science. Without God origin science is atheistic origin science. 

 

If you want to gain an ally for atheistic origin science do not call it that. Then those that believe in some form of theistic origin science can be fooled into supporting atheistic origin science.

 

It is just one more con job.

 

Also as to names, atheistic origin science does not get to name it self. It is named by what it believes, atheistic origin science.

 

As an example anti-abortionist are against what they believe is child murder. They are anti- child murder.

 

Now those for abortion would never call themselves pro- child murder or even pro-abortion.

 

They label themselves pro-choice and the other side is anti-choice.

[TsukinoRei]

 

 

But grouping theistic evolution with atheistic evolution is itself deceitful. 

 

 

Atheistic origin science is easily proven false. Yet it is taught in the schools.

 

The theistic origin science group then has their theory of origins being taught as true. That BTW is against the establishment clause of the US constitution.

 

So atheistic origin science and its methods are taught. When creationist refute atheistic origin science, theistic origin science jumps to the rescue claiming God or whatever could have done it that way. But the methods of atheistic origin science become the starting point for discussion of the nature of God or whatever.

 

In reality it is atheistic origin science versus theistic origin science first.

 

Once atheistic origin science is refuted, the determination of the nature of God or whatever cannot start with the methods and conclusions of atheistic origin science.

 

As to what is judgmental or not is in the eye of the beholder. In a discussion you can insult or judge me all you want. I dod not care and I do not use that as part of the debate,

 

In fact from Debate 101 rules - whenever the facts and truth are against you try anything else.

 

Trying to turn the discussion into claims of someone being judgmental proves atheistic origin science is false.

 

You should watch Inherit the Wind.

 

It is one of the most judgmental, poisoning of the well movie  ever produced. Evolutionist used the most blatant indoctrinating techniques.

 

 

=o( It is certainly not my intention to insult or judge you.  With respect your statement that 'trying to turn the discussion into claims of someone being judgemental proves atheistic origin science is false', is again not a true statement.  It's like this;  'I hereby declare that I have a bottle of cream soda and you a narfspat!'  My calling you a narfsplat may be rude and is almost certainly untrue as to my knowledge no such thing exists.  However, you not being a narfsplat does not disprove that I have a bottle of cream soda.  You see?

 

Also, there is no such thing as atheistic origin science.  The term does not exist within the vocabulary of scientific discourse.

 

I termed it . 

 

It happens to be what is an entire approach to origin science. Without God origin science is atheistic origin science. 

 

If you want to gain an ally for atheistic origin science do not call it that. Then those that believe in some form of theistic origin science can be fooled into supporting atheistic origin science.

 

It is just one more con job.

 

Also as to names, atheistic origin science does not get to name it self. It is named by what it believes, atheistic origin science.

 

As an example anti-abortionist are against what they believe is child murder. They are anti- child murder.

 

Now those for abortion would never call themselves pro- child murder or even pro-abortion.

 

They label themselves pro-choice and the other side is anti-choice.

 

 

The purpose of developing a discourse (an agreed form and vocabulary for communicating ideas specific to a given field of study) within any given field of study is so that people from all walks of life who are working in the field can come together and understand what on earth each other is talking about.  If you rename things willynilly just for yourself, then use that vocabulary when talking to other people within that discipline, they have no hope of knowing what on earth you're on about.  I am rather certain that the only people likely to accept your new terminology are people within your particular branch of your particular religion.  When you agree together to use that new terminology and set for yourselves your own standards of proof you have together created a new discourse, and so a new discipline which only others who are like minded with you will understand - one that is theologically based, not scientifically based, and one which will make it impossible for the two fields to discuss anything together.

Edited August 12, 2013 by TsukinoRei

[MarkNigro]

 

 

 

But grouping theistic evolution with atheistic evolution is itself deceitful. 

 

 

Atheistic origin science is easily proven false. Yet it is taught in the schools.

 

The theistic origin science group then has their theory of origins being taught as true. That BTW is against the establishment clause of the US constitution.

 

So atheistic origin science and its methods are taught. When creationist refute atheistic origin science, theistic origin science jumps to the rescue claiming God or whatever could have done it that way. But the methods of atheistic origin science become the starting point for discussion of the nature of God or whatever.

 

In reality it is atheistic origin science versus theistic origin science first.

 

Once atheistic origin science is refuted, the determination of the nature of God or whatever cannot start with the methods and conclusions of atheistic origin science.

 

As to what is judgmental or not is in the eye of the beholder. In a discussion you can insult or judge me all you want. I dod not care and I do not use that as part of the debate,

 

In fact from Debate 101 rules - whenever the facts and truth are against you try anything else.

 

Trying to turn the discussion into claims of someone being judgmental proves atheistic origin science is false.

 

You should watch Inherit the Wind.

 

It is one of the most judgmental, poisoning of the well movie  ever produced. Evolutionist used the most blatant indoctrinating techniques.

 

 

=o( It is certainly not my intention to insult or judge you.  With respect your statement that 'trying to turn the discussion into claims of someone being judgemental proves atheistic origin science is false', is again not a true statement.  It's like this;  'I hereby declare that I have a bottle of cream soda and you a narfspat!'  My calling you a narfsplat may be rude and is almost certainly untrue as to my knowledge no such thing exists.  However, you not being a narfsplat does not disprove that I have a bottle of cream soda.  You see?

 

Also, there is no such thing as atheistic origin science.  The term does not exist within the vocabulary of scientific discourse.

 

I termed it . 

 

It happens to be what is an entire approach to origin science. Without God origin science is atheistic origin science. 

 

If you want to gain an ally for atheistic origin science do not call it that. Then those that believe in some form of theistic origin science can be fooled into supporting atheistic origin science.

 

It is just one more con job.

 

Also as to names, atheistic origin science does not get to name it self. It is named by what it believes, atheistic origin science.

 

As an example anti-abortionist are against what they believe is child murder. They are anti- child murder.

 

Now those for abortion would never call themselves pro- child murder or even pro-abortion.

 

They label themselves pro-choice and the other side is anti-choice.

 

 

The purpose of developing a discourse (an agreed form and vocabulary for communicating ideas specific to a given field of study) within any given field of study is so that people from all walks of life who are working in the field can come together and understand what on earth each other is talking about.  If you rename things willynilly just for yourself, then use that vocabulary when talking to other people within that discipline, they have no hope of knowing what on earth you're on about.  I am rather certain that the only people likely to accept your new terminology are people within your particular branch of your particular religion.  When you agree together to use that new terminology and set for yourselves your own standards of proof you have together created a new discourse, and so a new discipline which only others who are like minded with you will understand - one that is theologically based, not scientifically based, and one which will make it impossible for the two fields to discuss anything together.

 

We are developing a discourse ( not one sided) 

 

atheistic origin science is the name of origins without God.

[TsukinoRei]

 

 

 

 

But grouping theistic evolution with atheistic evolution is itself deceitful. 

 

 

Atheistic origin science is easily proven false. Yet it is taught in the schools.

 

The theistic origin science group then has their theory of origins being taught as true. That BTW is against the establishment clause of the US constitution.

 

So atheistic origin science and its methods are taught. When creationist refute atheistic origin science, theistic origin science jumps to the rescue claiming God or whatever could have done it that way. But the methods of atheistic origin science become the starting point for discussion of the nature of God or whatever.

 

In reality it is atheistic origin science versus theistic origin science first.

 

Once atheistic origin science is refuted, the determination of the nature of God or whatever cannot start with the methods and conclusions of atheistic origin science.

 

As to what is judgmental or not is in the eye of the beholder. In a discussion you can insult or judge me all you want. I dod not care and I do not use that as part of the debate,

 

In fact from Debate 101 rules - whenever the facts and truth are against you try anything else.

 

Trying to turn the discussion into claims of someone being judgmental proves atheistic origin science is false.

 

You should watch Inherit the Wind.

 

It is one of the most judgmental, poisoning of the well movie  ever produced. Evolutionist used the most blatant indoctrinating techniques.

 

 

=o( It is certainly not my intention to insult or judge you.  With respect your statement that 'trying to turn the discussion into claims of someone being judgemental proves atheistic origin science is false', is again not a true statement.  It's like this;  'I hereby declare that I have a bottle of cream soda and you a narfspat!'  My calling you a narfsplat may be rude and is almost certainly untrue as to my knowledge no such thing exists.  However, you not being a narfsplat does not disprove that I have a bottle of cream soda.  You see?

 

Also, there is no such thing as atheistic origin science.  The term does not exist within the vocabulary of scientific discourse.

 

I termed it . 

 

It happens to be what is an entire approach to origin science. Without God origin science is atheistic origin science. 

 

If you want to gain an ally for atheistic origin science do not call it that. Then those that believe in some form of theistic origin science can be fooled into supporting atheistic origin science.

 

It is just one more con job.

 

Also as to names, atheistic origin science does not get to name it self. It is named by what it believes, atheistic origin science.

 

As an example anti-abortionist are against what they believe is child murder. They are anti- child murder.

 

Now those for abortion would never call themselves pro- child murder or even pro-abortion.

 

They label themselves pro-choice and the other side is anti-choice.

 

 

The purpose of developing a discourse (an agreed form and vocabulary for communicating ideas specific to a given field of study) within any given field of study is so that people from all walks of life who are working in the field can come together and understand what on earth each other is talking about.  If you rename things willynilly just for yourself, then use that vocabulary when talking to other people within that discipline, they have no hope of knowing what on earth you're on about.  I am rather certain that the only people likely to accept your new terminology are people within your particular branch of your particular religion.  When you agree together to use that new terminology and set for yourselves your own standards of proof you have together created a new discourse, and so a new discipline which only others who are like minded with you will understand - one that is theologically based, not scientifically based, and one which will make it impossible for the two fields to discuss anything together.

 

We are developing a discourse ( not one sided) 

 

atheistic origin science is the name of origins without God.

 

 

I do not agree to that term, it excludes all of those who believe evolution was the tool of the Creator, and is therefore a misrepresentation of the theory.  Also, any honest examination of Creationism as a theory must examine ALL the creation stories.  The question does not become did God create all life by speaking it into being over a period of time as outlined in Genesis, it should also include all the creation stories of every religion that's ever existed whether monotheistic or polytheistic.  Otherwise it should be called Genesis Theory.  At which point it reveals itself as being entirely Bible based, not science based.  Which is not to say that the Bible either is or is not true, but rather it is a philosophical work, not a scientific work.  This further invalidates the assertion that creationism is a science.

Edited August 12, 2013 by TsukinoRei

[Meta_Agape]

I'm at work right now so I'll have to go over this when I get home. Skimming through I'm glad someone pointed out that refuting evolution=intelligent design is a logical fallacy. This is all nothing new to me and I was waiting for someone to say that because now I'd like to introduce you to Kalam's Argument (Macro) & DNA (Micro) more on that later

Edited August 12, 2013 by Meta_Agape