What is needed for creationists to connect evidence to valid conclusions

The more Biblical claims that are shown to be true the more other claims are probably true. If prophecy is evidenced as true then these facts make creation claims more credible. This is why prophecy is denied with equal vigor as creation claims because once the supernatural is proven all of the other claims logically come with it.Evolution, on the other hand, that is common ancestry, is based on far-fetched extrapolation. In other words, "recent time" homology evidence, by extrapolation, is used to conclude for things millions of years ago. This is an invalid connection if there ever was one.Evolutionists are completely blind to these invalid connections based on scant physical and circumstantial evidence. In fact, uniformitarianism is the ultimate "invalid connections between evidence and conclusions" doctrine.Ray

[colorization added]You made one unfortunate error at the very end of your commentary that I colorized. But I, of course, agree with your commentary.The more the Bible is shown to be true and factual corresponding to reality the more ToE is, in direct ratio, shown to be false. Of course this fact presupposes that the Bible and ToE convey antithetic claims in regards to origins.I just think you should have used stronger language at the end, so maybe it is not an error per se.And Percy is making a genuine error: why would we claim Biblical events reflect kindly on ToE? I think he meant just the opposite, of course.But to the question of the OP: everytime a Biblical claim is evidenced true, especially major ones, the same supports the credibility of the claim that Adam was created from the clay-like ground in the image of God. That is sound logic that Percy, as far as I can tell, is simply asserting to be invalid.I will now proceed to read more of his arguments to see if I can ascertain the explanation and logic behind his assertion, which appears to be bare, at this point.Ray

[colorization added]Except for the error denoted by colorization, I completely agree with the above statement.I am assuming that the Koran does not say that Allah created Adam.Ray

This is an unexplained bare assertion. It might be correct but there is no way to know unless it is shown. This phrase, by presupposition, says the Bible is an authority. False. The Bible is a source. I do believe "that the Bible is accurate and true in every respect" because it is in itself textual evidence, and said evidence is corroborated by reality and other evidence. But if Percy wants to stipulate that all literature is "argument from authority" or closely allied, which would, of course, include Origin of Species then such a proposition is objective, and we could argue the point under said stipulation.If Percy rejects, then the burden is on him to show why the Bible is as such and why the Bible is being singled out (if it is). Presently, we only have assertions. That is not my understanding even though your belief is reasonable. My understanding is based on the logic of reliability. IF a source is shown reliable time and again, the same reflects positively on the reliability of the whole source. I am choosing my words carefully here. It does not prove other claims, it just, in the minds of objective persons, gives credibility that these claims ARE TRUE TOO.And you have yet to back up your assertions showing how or why this is faulty reasoning or logic. I think you need to make an argument that goes beyond assuming that your premise is true and explain why you think it is true. Well said, that is our position and it is perfectly logical. Negative, since I already explained that the Bible is a source and not an authority in the sense that I believe you intend the word "authority" to mean. I also reject the supposition that you speak for science. I will accept that you speak for neo-Darwinian science. Its hard to know exactly what you are talking about here. Are you saying that having a source for your views is an "argument from authority"?Fact: evidence exists.Fact: According to Western society criteria since the advent of colleges and universities: evidence does not exist outside of a recognized scholar or expert who establishes the evidence to exist and an interpretation or explanation of said evidence. Otherwise it is subjective and unsupported. If the Exodus as portrayed in the Bible did occur, and a massive amount of physical and other evidence says it did, then the existence of the Biblical Deity is proven and so is Genesis chapters one and two. In short, if the Red Sea parted then special creation is true. This is logical extrapolation. Since these miracles are proven then ToE is proven false. The Red Sea did part and I and Buzsaw have argued and evidenced this miracle ad nausuem in this Forum. This fact disproves the sourceless miracle of apes morphing into men over the course of millions of years.RayEdit: Fossils and genetics is evidence, but not of evolution. We simply disagree on the correct and best explanation of these lines of evidence.RMEdited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

Who or what is "Jinn"?Also, your previous point, like I said, I agree with. This is why Comparative Religion proves that the Koran is in error when it disagrees with the Bible.Ray

Off topic.Ray

Since you hold Moderator status I will proceed. ....and/or claims. Okay. Yes, of course, just like the Bible. First, let me say that even if the Koran is wrong on this point it does not mean other claims are necessarily false or wrong.Jesus did not claim to be a Prophet or Priest (even though He was both). Jesus claimed Divinity itself. Jesus did not say God was the light of the world; rather, He said that HE WAS the light of the world. Jesus forgave sins, at which time the Pharisees accused Him of blasphemy since only God could forgive sins. The Pharisees, in this instance, were correct: only God could forgive sins. Jesus never hesitated to forgive sins. The point is: Jesus THOUGHT He was God or the Son of God co-equal to the Father.Jesus never prayed the so called "Lord's Prayer" which included a confession of needing forgiveness of sins. It should be called the "Disciples Prayer". Jesus's prayer is recorded in John 16 and it claims moral perfection. The point here: Jesus THOUGHT He was perfect.After He rose from the dead Jesus said: "All authority in heaven and earth is given unto me."Jesus is who He says He is (perfect and all powerful God) or He is the biggest lunatic mankind has ever seen - nothing in between. It is said that Jesus was and is good. He cannot be good if the claims He made about Himself are lies. It is said that Jesus was and is wise. He cannot be wise and make these types of claims about Himself because a wise man knows he cannot be God. Jesus is either a nut or liar or He is good and wise God in the flesh - nothing else is possible. He can be a nut but not wise, or He can be wise but not good or, like I said: He is exactly who He claimed to be: all powerful and perfect God.The point is: Jesus cannot be good AND wise unless He is who He claimed to be.Who is going to deny that Jesus was good?Who is going to deny that Jesus was wise?He cannot be both unless He was God because a good person would not lie and a wise person knows he cannot be perfect all powerful God.Even the Koran admits Jesus lived.No serious scholar denies that Jesus lived.Even the worst critics of Christianity - the Jesus Seminar, admit that Jesus lived.The CLAIM of the Koran is that it is revelation from the one true god - Allah, given to Mohammed His Prophet. Everything now hinges on the person Mohammed, who only CLAIMS to be Allah's Prophet. A Prophet is a mouthpiece that relays the mind of the Deity. It is an office presumably established by the Deity to convey His will.Now, who are we going to believe: one person who claims to be a Prophet, or the Apostles and disciples of Jesus and Jesus Himself?Not to mention the trilemma argument that was made.The Koran's or Mohammed's contention about Jesus is false. Jesus was not a Prophet. He was either a nut or a liar or who He claimed to be: Divine Son of God of whom all authority in heaven and earth was given unto Him.Raysource of accurate information in this post: Dr. Gene Scott.Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

LOL because the Creationist position is that the Emperor is naked.There is no evidence for evolution.The interpretation of evidence FOR evolution defies reality and relies on a pro-Atheist supposition: that the appearance of design does not indicate invisible Designer. Once evolution is assumed the same can never be harmed by reality or evidence because the assumption is not eligible to be considered as false.In short, what you call evidence is an assumption based on Atheist philosophy called Materialism. Needless to say: philosophies and assumptions are not evidence, but filters explaining evidence.The explanation of evidence concluding for evolution is demented, and does not stand up under scrutiny - the Emperor is naked.Scholars have always known that evolution is false. They have had to break the news gently. Starting in 1996, scholars decided not to be nice anymore.Ray Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

We know this is intentionally false for two reasons:1. Science (Jar's intended meaning of the word) says reality shows no signs or evidence of God. That is why Materialism is the accepted philosophy of science since Darwin.2. Since no Atheist member of EvC Forum blasted Jar for this deliberate falsehood, this confirms that they understand that Jar is attempting to convert the undecided to evolutionism. If a real Creationist had said what Jar said then there would have been an outcry by the Atheists making the first point above. Imagine that; according to Jar God is going to send you to hell for not accepting the theory that says Genesis chapters one and two is false!How do we explain such a perversion of objective fact and scripture?How do you expect to get accurate information and representation of the Bible from an evolutionist, that is from a person who believes the same origins theory that all Atheists believe?I would say that Jar's beliefs about Science and the Bible correspond to a confused person, unless, like I said, he is intentionally attempting to convert the undecided by misrepresentation.RayEdited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

Yes, the evolutionists are....same net effect. Whatever has preeminence is the object of worship. Evolutionists, like Antiochus Ephiphanes (name means "God with us"), allows you to worship as you please as long as you bow to (him) or their (anti-God is Creator) ideas as representing reality - first.The Maccabean rebellion started by saying that they will kill every man, woman and child that bows to Antiochus Ephiphanes for any reason.Creationists refuse to bow to Darwin despite the fact that Antiochus Ephiphanes, in the form of Science, Higher Education, Law and Media persecute us daily through laws and slander for not doing so.The same spirit that controlled Antiochus Ephiphanes (Satan) controls the four reigns of society just mentioned. That is why Satan showed Jesus all the kingdoms of this world and the promise that he would hand them over if Jesus would just bow down and worship him.Like Jesus, we refuse.Evolution is an assumption based on pro-Atheist philosophy (Materialism) that does not allow any other explanation or conclusion.RayEdited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

Then we can count on Rahvin to put any given evolutionist in his or her place when they invoke the ending of the Origin of Species as proof that Darwin was intending his theory to be the work of God?Personally, I think Rahvin is a hypocrite talking out of both sides of his mouth....Rahvin: "Evolution doesn't exclude the existence of a deity (as you can see, we have quite a few theists who also accept Evolution right here on this site, including the actual site administrator), and neither does it say that one cannot exist. It just doesn't count the deity as relevant."....looks like I am correct. The above comment is self-evidently contradictory. This is what happens when neutrality is asserted when in fact evolution is anything but neutral - contradictory statements are made that make no sense."Evolution doesn't exclude the existence of a deity.... It just doesn't count the deity as relevant."We know this is BS since no Atheist evolutionist protested. Evolution says the attributes of God are not seen in biological reality, that is why material causation instead of Deity causation is postulated. Rahvin is attempting to trick a creationist into believing that ToE is friendly to Deity when the main and OBJECTIVE claim of ToE says the God of Genesis did not produce living things.Professor Richard Dawkins: "For Darwin, any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God was no evolution at all. It made a nonsense of the central point of evolution." (The Blind Watchmaker 1996:249).Professor Steven Jay Gould: "Before Darwin, we thought that a benevolent God had created us." (Ever Since Darwin 1973:267). "No intervening spirit watches lovingly over the affairs of nature (though Newton's clock-winding god might have set up the machinery at the beginning of time and then let it run). No vital forces propel evolutionary change. And whatever we think of God, his existence is not manifest in the products of nature" (Darwin's Legacy 1983:6-7).Charles Darwin "But I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow as a sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted...." Autobio:p.85; context: speaking of his beliefs in the years 1837 and 1838, twenty years before his theory was published.Again, the equivocation and deception coming out of Rahvin's mouth is inexcusable, unless he is ignorant. There is no way to tell. Now Rahvin admits that the Genesis Deity (= God) is not seen in nature (but remember evolution is neutral toward God). Again, he is clearly insulting the intelligence of everyone with these contradictions. Unless, of course, he is ignorant or deluded. There is no way to tell for sure. Very predictable Atheist ideology. We already know Atheists reject the scientific facts of design = Designer, what is the point? Evolution is a presupposition; once it is accepted the same is not eligible to ever be falsified since the only other option (Genesis) is not an option. Evolution is a one horse race.This means there are no predictions just more equivocation from the mind of Rahvin. Here Rahvin does not understand. ID is a scientific fact whether evolutionists accept it or not. Evolution is Scientism, not Science, since it worships Atheist ideology. Creationists and IDists have always accepted science; we just reject Darwinian "science" because it makes no sense and is "true" by how they define 'science'. All this says is that because fiction authors use real places in their stories this means the Bible is the same - a work of fiction. It's hard to believe that any educated person would think that this is a good point or argument.Rahvin: we already know Atheists believe their enemy - the Bible - is a work of fiction, what is the point?Ray

Rahvin: "Evolution has nothing to do with atheism, excepting that nearly all atheists accept evolution."Obviously, Rahvin is too confused or deluded to see that the above sentence is blatantly contradictory.Nearly all Atheists are evolutionists for one reason: objectivity and logic dictate that this reason is because it supports their worldview. Why else would they support evolution? Atheists do not support evolution because it supports Theism, they do so because they know that if it is true it refutes the existence of the Genesis Creator (God).Why would Christians support the same origins theory that all Atheists support?Obviously one party is not genuinely as such and that party is not the Atheists.This means Christian evolutionists are ignorant, deluded or deceived. There are no other possibilities. I would advance the idea that since all Atheists accept evolution, and the fact that most evolutionists consider themselves Christians, these facts support the existence of Satan to explain the enigma.How else would you explain Atheists and Christians accepting the same ORIGINS theory?Since Judas thought he was a real Christian and since he betrayed Christ to His face with a kiss - looks like Biblical typology explains and corresponds to reality. "Christians" are still betraying Christ to His face.Ray

Said imagery representing the claim of human evolution is more accurately known in creationist circles as 'evolutionary iconography'. It perfectly depicts what evolutionists believe: apes somehow morphed into men. It is the ultimate blasphemy against God and clearly indicates to any objective person that evolutionists are capable of anything.Iconography shows the degree of hate and anger that evolutionists have towards God and the Bible. Like I said these persons are capable of anything.Ray

Misrepresentation is a bad idea, it indicates the inability to refute.I have over 3000 posts - so you very well know my views.Ray

This is just reverse psychology, which, in this case, is expressing interest in my work while telling me to hurry up. I am working as fast as I can and I thank you for expressing interest in reading my argument refuting evolution.Ray