quote:
OK. Assumptive Claims, such as "In the beginning God created . . . on the sixth day . . . the land animals" (corroborated by the fossil record's lack of "transitional forms")
[/b]
And refuted by the observation that the order in Genesis is not present in the fossil record. The earliest evidences of birds are found in the Triassic. The fish go much further back than that. Fruiting plants are fairly recent, not the oldest life on Earth.
Reply:
Are you saying that the six day range of created forms would have to be in the fossil record in the same order in which they were created?
Quote:
Also you admitted that we have "uncles" and "cousins" of transitional forms. Why is that, if there is no macroevolution?
Reply:
What did I say that caused you to think that I believe in transitional forms (things that are not merely limited variation examples within the genetic barriers of like kinds)?
Quote:
You have acknowledged that a whole set of transitionals (brachiosaurs, beetles, and woodpeckers) are not likely to be found. Now extend that to cover most of the fossil record.
Reply:
The transitional fossils will not be found because they never existed in the first place.
QUOTE:
If we notice the nested hierarchy of the fossil record (including upright logs with bluntly terminated root ends, extending through layers of strata that supposedly represent millions of years each, etc.)
You've overlooked something patently obvious, roots grow "in the ground". What is the colloquial term for past sediments that often represent millions of years each? "The Ground". If I fall down a well that terminates in Cretaceous sediments, does that make me a contemporary of the dinosaurs? Does it mean that eighty feet of Cretaceous sediment was catastrophically deposited around me? No.
Now, if a tree is standing on a steep hillside and a rainstorm causes a landslide of prior-existing sediments millions of years old, does that mean that the whole world is underwater? No, that's another unfounded assumption. And a terrible assumption to make, to say that because you have some vertical petrified logs the whole world was underwater, especially when that "flood" was discontinuous (see the debate between TB and others regarding 'multiple surges') and there is no global flood debris layer.
Reply:
A lot of the strata questions are answered by the Mt. St. Helen's eruption. For example, hundreds of feet of multiple strata types--virtually identical to the Grand Canyon phenomenon, but 1/40th the size--were laid down in less than mere years, to say nothing of millions of years. The strata's are endowed with the sorts of evidences that evolutionists point to as proof of their millions of years darwinian scenario.
QUOTE:
we see that we have an increasing ability to escape from the Flood, depending on the complexity of the creature.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Ability to escape has nothing to do with "complexity".
If a
T. rex can sprint at 30 mph, I think it could find shelter before I did. That would put the dinosaur layer above the layer I would be in. Of course, mountain goats would already have the high ground so they would appear to be contemporaries with the dinosaur. Where is that evidence?
By the way, what in the world does this have to do with "complexity"? How do you define "complexity" anyway?
You do recognize, of course, that more complexity often has nothing to do with the ability to survive? You know that ancient saying about roaches and nuclear war, right?
Reply:
I used complexity there in a sense that isn't really limited to the biological make-up of the creature(s), so, you're right about that--I was being vague. Single cell life is virtually limitlessly complex. Of course, both of us realize that there's a lot of exceptions to the strata idea: fossils that are supposed to belong at a particular level to fit the evolutionary idea, can be found anywhere throughout the range of strata's anywhere in the world. Evolutionism was well-established on the philosophical level before the "evidence" was sought, and much of the results of this situation can be applied to the strata issue in general.
QUOTE:
Aren't you forgetting to factor my equalizer
Are we talking about the universal definition of science, or do you have your own personal definition that is exclusive to you?
Reply:
I posit the "equalizer" because "science" as it is popularly understood today is based largely on the metaphysical assumption of the validity of naturalism. Naturalism isn't just a philosophy that limits itself to the study of nature for objective reasons. Ruled out (before the "investigation" begins) is the possibility that the study of nature could, itself, prove that something other than the laws and materials of nature were necessary in order for our universe to exist. It is not objective to rule that possibility out at the onset. It is assumptivism to do so. Not the kind of assumptivism that is born out of observation or analytical proofs, but a mere religious, a priori preference.
QUOTE:
The tale of evolution, of course, begins with cosmic evolution.
No, the Theory of Evolution deals with the divergence of traits.
If you were to compile the history of the Universe we would have to deal with astrophysical theories, but I'm not interested in that debate right now. We're going to stick to the topic, the definition of science, and those Flood arguments.
Reply:
If you're up to sticking with science, and adhering to an aversion of assumptive, metaphysical, naturalistic digressions, I too will stick to the science arguments that support creation without making reference to my brand of "metaphysical beliefs."
QUOTE:
I remind you of my equalizing agent again.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
I remind you that the definition of science was around before you came up with an "equalizing agent". I also remind you that science is based partly upon extrapolation, and that the extrapolation in evolution is no different from that in Atomic Theory.
Reply:
No. Atomic theory extrapolation is based on facts, hard science. Macroevolutionary extrapolation is based upon unfounded metaphysical assumptivism.
QUOTE:
Yes, as you are against creationism, a model that happens to fit the facts of hard science better than the model of evolutionism does.
Begging the question. If there are "facts of hard science" that fit Creationism better I have not yet heard them.
Reply:
Begging squared. If there are "facts of hard science" that fit Naturalism better I have not yet heard them.
Quote:
You have given us a hypothesis that "complex" living things can escape the flood better than everything else, but you didn't even define "complex" things or present any kind of case that "complexity" means an organism can run to high ground.
You also used a 'polystrate fossil' argument that is around 200 years old, and is itself a fossil, and every bit as able to support a YEC view as those petrified trees are to sprout leaves.
Reply:
I responded to the "complixity" point, and perhaps we'll renew the other fossil issues if you decide to respond to my Mt. St. Helens claim.
QUOTE:
that the prior state of universal nonexistence became, without cause
Fundamental error, there is a cause for everything. That cause may be natural, but it is a cause. The cause may not even be understood, but the general assumption in science is that there
is a cause.
But since you are obfuscating the point with philosophy, I'll just skip down until we start talking about science again.
Reply:
It is interesting that you are so quick to cry "you're philosophizing," when indeed it is philosophy that undergirds the notion of naturalism.
Quote:
Work with biology, not cosmology. You are obfuscating again. (Friendly reminder)
Reply:
Work with biology, i.e., science, not naturalism. Ditto.
Quote:
You confuse "evolution" and "naturalism" with science.
You confuse "creationism" and "supernaturalism" with science.
Naturalism is a necessity in science. Because science deals with the mechanisms of natural phenomenon, anything supernatural is beyond the bounds of science. Therefore you have no right to include anything other than "natural" phenomena in any discussion in science.
Reply:
And scientific "scientists" do not rule out the possibility that the
study of nature could yeild evidence that the universe is a product of something that transcends nature.
QUOTE:
SCIENCE does not embrace naturalism.
See above. Science, particularly natural science, is a study of nature, that is, what is physical or quantifiable. Anything outside of that nature is outside the realm of science.
Reply:
See above also. I have no problem with the study and exploration of nature. I have a problem with cloaking metaphysical philosophy with scientific sounding rhetoric. Is there proof that there is no Creator. No? Do you mean that it is a possibility that a Creator exists? Well, if he does exist, its too bad that he really doesn't, all because naturalism is pre-programmed with an inability to function at all even if the physical universe itself might provide more evidence favoring Creation (than exists for naturalism).
Quote:
This is a very simple principle. If you can't explain or quantify a creator how can you make it science? (The creator would be beyond your comprehension anyway.)
That is why you call Christianity a
religion, and not a science.
Reply:
Do you mean that even though naturalism may be wrong, it's what should undergird science because it's more scientific to know for sure that God doesn't exist, than to procede with an investigation of nature without any prior conclusions one way or another?
In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)
--Marty
™ Version 4.2
