Just a question...

quote:

---

It's not fair because Creationism is biased, and not science.

---

Well, that's not strictly accurate.Both are biased.Creationism is biased in favor of a preconceived conclusion found in a 2000 year old religious book.Science is biased in favor of the evidence as observed.

quote:

---

I then noticed about 10 people responding to his posts, which is a very typical occurrence at EvC for anyone espousing Christian, conservative, or creationist views.

---

Neither Purpledawn and LindaLou are Christian, conservative, or creationists.They do, however, get "piled on" when they espouse nonsense in the form of bad arguments for poltergeists, bigfoot, and quack alternative health practices.Bad arguments, inaccuracies or misrepresentations get pounced upon, no matter who they come from.

quote:

---

I'm past doubting, jar, thanks be to God, but I know many others are not (yet) so blessed.

---

If you are "past doubting" then you are past learning.You are doomed to stagnate in a dead belief.How sad and wasteful.

It is the conventional model, called science. The model is readily available most anywhere.But where is the Biblical Creationists model?Why is it they can never present a model that explains what we see? Why is it they can never present a model for the flood that can stand up to even a cursory examination?Where are the Biblical Creationists models? How sad and pitiful.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

jar, when i said i was "past doubting", it was within the context of having described to you my lifelong doubts concerning the existence of a "God". IOW, I meant that i was "past doubting" the existence of "God", since I believe that God graciously manifested himself to me after so many years of doubt on my part. I am NOT "past doubting" any given dogma concerning "God" (or anything else for that matter), as your reply suggests; on the contrary, all dogma is questionable, IMO, and ought to be examined very closely before swallowing it down. It's not "sad and pitiful" for me to believe in "God" on the basis of my own experience, provided that that experience offers me enough clear and convincing "real" evidence...on the contrary, it's rather "sad and pitiful" if such convincing "real" evidence were ever to be simply ignored, flatly rejected, or else suppressed due to one's own "sad and pitiful" predilections in life. For me it was a matter of choice, and I took the step of faith simply because it made logical sense for me to do so, in my judgment. I cannot imagine ever regretting my decision, and I wish the same surety for others.BTW, science is not a model, but a field of systematic study, of course. I don't claim to have a "creationist" model, but surely you do have a real "evolutionist" model that you can cite in so many words? Is there only one monolithic "evolutionist" model to which you may be referring, albeit indirectly, or are there many? I don't know, honestly--I was just curious to hear how life may have begun, for example, according to the "evolutionist" model.

Too bad, pitiful. There are many models, cosmological ones, biological ones, chemical ones.The study of how life began is called Abiogenesis and right now we do not have a firm model there. Until we do have more information, that model sits in the Unknown category.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

nator, please refer to my reply to jar (Message 65) for my clarifying remarks. It's easy to take my comments out of context and distort them, rather than simply asking me for clarification, but that's your choice, isn't it? Yes, I am "past learning" about the existence of God in that I have sufficient empirical evidence of my own to satisfy all previous doubt, and I have now put that question aside. Thanks for caring though.

jar, I'm curious--"Too bad, pitiful" because I believe in a God, based upon empirical evidence that you may doubt, or just "Too bad, pitiful" because I believe in a God? Which is it? Or are you only trying to provoke me somehow?

I feel sad anytime someone says they believe in God beyond any doubt.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Dr A, science is a field of inquiry, not a model. You know that, but it's still a dodge of the question. What is your model explaining the appearance of life on planet Earth? Sure "science" is not your answer!If jar claims to be a theist, I have no problem with it, but that is quite irrelevant. I never accused him of being otherwise, and even theists are entitled to hold to a few strange ideas, in my opinion. More power to him.If you had read my posts more thoughtfully, I think you may see that I'm not a proponent of any "creationist" model, by my own admission. I too believe in a real world.

Gee, jar, I'm sad, too! If only you would read my posts more carefully, you would know that I said that I was nearly 100% convinced of the existence of God, NOT 100%! Also, I said I was "past doubt" because I don't intend to keep revisiting that particular question ad nauseum after so many years of doubting. "Beyond any doubt" is your own characterization of what I actually said.

quote:

---

Yes, I am "past learning" about the existence of God in that I have sufficient empirical evidence of my own to satisfy all previous doubt, and I have now put that question aside.

---

I strongly suspect that you don't actually have emprirical evidence, but subjective evidence.Meaning, you don't have evidence for the existence of God that is;1) falsifiable, and
2) not falsified.

Excellent! I for one want to hear about this empirical evidence.Really, this is not a rhetorical or cynical request. Every time I encounter this claim I am underwhelmed when the evidence presented.I don't consider myself cynical, but skeptical (and even skeptical of some skeptical positions). I have perused the Strobel books and heard the McDowell arguments but found them not only wanting but an illustrated handbook on logical fallacies, half-truths and outdated arguments.So let's here this evidence. Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

nator, I'm not putting my empirical evidence up for peer review or something--I don't really expect to convince anyone but myself on this question. If my judgment is a deficient measure of things, well then I guess I'll have to live with the consequences of believing in God, for pete's sake. If you like, we can call my evidence subjective, but I would have thought that much was quite obvious to all. Webster says 'empirical' means "relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory." And I'm fine with that. The operative word there is "often", and in my judgment, I have exercised due regard for system and theory.

You've already been told that how life began is not encompassed by the ToE. Your refusal or inability to acknowledge or understand that point strongly suggests that you would refuse or be unable to understand any other explanations offered on more complicated points.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat