Creationists Present: Arguments Creationists Should Not Use

[Guest]

Although evolution is usually coupled with abiogenesis, it is logically compatible with any number of alternate possibilities, including God seeding the first cellular life on Earth.

Thank You Brother!

Dear One, how do you suppose evolution would deal with sin and it's resultant curse, death?

"But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept."

"For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead."

"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." (1 Corinthians 15:20-22)

Brother mine, what scientific tool would you suggest should be used to investigate redemption and salvation?

"In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;" (Ephesians 1:7)

"In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise," (Ephesians 1:13)

Beloved of The Living God, what logic do you think can be used to deal with eternal judgment and eternal salvation?

"And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death."

"And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." (Revelation 20:14-15)

"But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,"

"Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)" (Ephesians 2:4-5)

Thank you brother, You are most enthusiastic in the expression of your thoughts.

"The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:"

"The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:"

"The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace." (Numbers 6:24-26)

Love, Joe

[hatsoff]

I have yet to completely understand how irational numbers such as pi completely work in their being determined, but from whatI know I would think that the idea of pi completely repeating only depends on the method of defining it. We use a base 10 system with ten digits and 1/3 repeats forever because of this. But if we use a base 4 numbering system (base4<=>base10) 0=0, 1=1, 2=2, 3=3, 10=4, 11=5, 12=6, 13=7...etc) then 1/3 would simply be defined as .1 rather than .333333 and would thus cease to be an irrational number. If my understanding is correct then it would be true that the ability to see pi repeat depends on the base of the number system as well, thus altering the metaphor to this: what is possible depends on the perspective and the definitions of what is being considered as possible. Determine a clear sense of what logic is before making your decisions as to what must or must not be before applying what you percieve to be a weak probability, because if you cannot determine anything for certain on it's own then you haven't any ground for asserting anything at all.

Irrational numbers don't have a repeating decimal. 1/3, or .3333333... is a rational number with a non-decimal expression (1/3). Pi does not have a repeating decimal and cannot be expressed by a fraction of two digits. As a decimal expression, pi continues endlessly with no repetition, and is thus considered an irrational number.

Edited March 5, 2007 by hatsoff

[hatsoff]

Let

Edited March 5, 2007 by hatsoff

[The Lorax]

Darwinism cannot be disproved because Darwinists say it can’t be disproved.

Wrong. You've put words in my mouth; I never mentioned Darwinism, only the Theory of Evolution. Secondly, like every theory, the TOE can be disproved. For instance, if you can show species simply don't change over time, then you've disproved evolution.

Darwinism is correct because Darwinist say it is correct. Gotcha – is that how you presented you “empirical evidence” in college for your biology tests? Did you receive passing grades?

Crass remarks don't make up for sound arguments. If you think you're ready to continue this conversation as an adult, please spare me the sarcasm.

Without abiogenesis the naturalistic position can’t advance

Yes! Finally a true statement. You're right, the naturalistic position can't advance. But the TOE can--which was exactly my point. Again, you've switched the terms to suit your argument. You've conveniently replaced the Theory of Evolution (my words) with Darwinism (your words). In doing so you've completely avoided my actual argument.

No more word replacement. You've had several warnings from several users and this is your last one from me.

Horizon, that is not at all what Angry D was discussing. He was talking about individual naturalistic conclusions and theories, not a grand atheistic philosophy.

Exactly. It's good to see some people here who can read.

Edited March 5, 2007 by Angry Dragons

[hatsoff]

Without abiogenesis the naturalistic position can

Edited March 5, 2007 by hatsoff

[The Lorax]

I'd prefer "atheistic position," not "naturalistic position," for clarity. Naturalism, under what I would consider the most common definition, doesn't rule out a creator. That is, it doesn't deny that there is a God, but only that if God exists, he is natural.

Interesting, I never knew deities could be fit into a naturalistic world, but I guess they could be if they obeyed physical law. BTW, your post prompted me to look up metaphysical naturalism in Wikipedia and it is an interesting entry.

Edited March 5, 2007 by Angry Dragons

[TomPJr]

The monkey could type randomly forever and forever, and still never type any consecutive string that is a sonnet at all, much less a specific piece by Shakespear.

First you are rounding an infinitesimal to 0, then you are underestimating forever. Assuming there is no reason why any particular string of letters of a given length is any less likely than any other, then, given an infinite amount of time, the complete works of shakespear WILL be written. And they will be written an infinite many times. And they will be written with one letter wrong an infinite many times etc etc etc. Of course, if you have your little monkey going on this project, there is no garuntee that at any time when you check on him, he will have written anything legible, no matter how long you wait. In fact, you can't check on him at all, because doing so applies a finite time constraint, no matter when you do it (you can't check on him after forever, because forever hasn't elapsed yet and it never will).

Well I

[TomPJr]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

Some of the arguments NOT to be used:

[The Lorax]

Why not "no new species"

or, "Paluxy tracks",

or "Evolution is a theory",

or "there are no transitional forms"

or "plate tectonics"

Did you visit the link? It has answers to all your questions.

They used to teach that a cow was a non-extinct transitional species. I a sure you are quite aware that the cow is where the whale came from.

No, never a cow. The transitional form(s) are thought to belong to an extinct family of carnivores called the Pakicetids . The only similarity it has to cows is hooves. (Source.)

The cow got too close to the water, fell in, and its offspring was a whale; is all I can figure. Made no sense in biology, makes no sense today.

If you are kidding, then you're a funny guy. If you are serious, then I just feel bad. Scientists have made sense of the evolution of whales and I think you should read up on it.

You are also quite aware that Darwinian evolution is highly Racist are you not?

No. Evolution by natural selection is a very simple theory, basically, the adaptation of organisms to their environment via differential reproductive success AKA survival of the fittest. That this idea could in itself be "highly racist" is silly, almost as silly as saying the law of gravity is racist, or a particular mathematical theorem is racist.

During the scopes trial, the expert followers of Darwin's theory stated under oath that the Black african was the lowest, least advanced, human. They further stated that the White, Anglo-Saxon, European or American of European descent are the Most advanced, most highly evolved, members of the Human race. So, you Darwinian evolutionists have your roots in racism.

The Scopes Trial took place in Tennessee in the year 1925--not exactly the most egalitarian place in American history. Racism was rampant in the South long before Darwin and it is not surprising that racists made (false) Darwinian claims about race as soon as they had the chance. I should also mention that racism is still rife in the South, especially among fundamentalist Christians who don't believe in evolution at all.

In conclusion, racism that is ascribed to Darwinism can be blamed squarely on the racists that tried to put it there. And the racism never sticks, because scientific studies don't corroborate it. (In fact, "race" is no longer even considered a valid biological classification in anthropology.)

I hope, hr.jr., that in the future you take a little time to learn about scientific theories before you choose to slander them.

Edited March 5, 2007 by Angry Dragons

[Oh Hamburgers!]

I think that Darwinism is not a racist theory by nature, but rather it was used as a political means to advocate racism in earlier times. You can still be a Darwinist and disagree with some of those who used it as a tool to assert white supremacy. It's kinda similar to how religion can sometimes be used for evil, ala the Crusades. Christianity isn't evil by nature, yet ideas were drawn from it and used as a medium to inspire death. Therefore some results of the Crusades were evil, yet the religion it was drawn from was not. In the same way, I think that Darwinism was used by some to inspire hatred, but the theory itself is not a racist one.

Sorry, just had to stick my nose in. Carry on