Creationists:: What would convince you that evolution has happened ?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[b]You haven't responded to my points that they might have actually deserved it and that the attack might have been preemptive.[/QUOTE][/b]No, I just feel that a preemptive strike is otherwise known as an attack. I grew up thinking a lot about cold war politics. Bomb them before they bomb us. Preemptive or not, the first attack starts the war.

quote:

---

Finally you ignored the point that God does not level cities with even a few righteous people inside.

---

Entire cities with not one righteous person. This is very hard to believe. Of course, righteous is defined by believing in Israel's God.... [QUOTE][b]Numbers 31:7, 17-18--- soldiers got to take virgins to rape and marry.[/QUOTE][/b]

quote:

---

I'm sure that you're aware that in OT law, it was the right of the soldier to take unmarried female captives to marry (and thus have them granted the marital rights afforded the women of the day).

---

The right of the soldier? Oh come on. Kidnapping is kidnapping. These people were taken against their will.

quote:

---

This law is not an invitation to do something cruel, it is a restriction of what the soldiers would normally do: debauch, then torture, kill, or sell them into slavery.

---

Which is effectively what happened anyway.

quote:

---

I have to keep reminding you that this is not the 21st century we are talking about and that the Israelites were, on their own, not a nice people.

---

Nor were they a nice people with the guidance of their god. Doubtful that any other tribe was any nicer, but those other tribes didn't birth the religion that permiates this culture, so I'm not all that concerned. I am concerned about the influence of a religion that in my opinion has done more damage to humanity than any other single source I can name.No, I've not forgotten that we are not discussing 21st century culture.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

I'm going to take your points in reverse order this time-- seems to flow better that way for what I want to say.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
Something else you are overlooking: I consider most of Christianity to have fallen into apostasy anyway.

​

---

I agree, in this way: From what I can tell -- archeology, textural analysis, etc.-- Christianity now is very different from what it probably was when it began. Christianity a few hundred years after its birth had changed greatly. The Catholic Church came into power. It became a political power and all hell broke loose.I don't critise that early christianity. It seems relatively harmless, even benevolent. But for the most part that Christianity died 1800 years ago.Now throughout the ages a few groups here and there developed and lived according to those early ideas. Again, I don't criticise those groups.As for LDS, I don't know a whole lot about the branch. But, I was in Utah a few years ago and was impressed that there was only one prison in the state (so I was told anyway). That says something about the culture of the state and about its most prevalent moral authority/institution-- LDS.In contrast to the positive effects I noted above, a similar survey of other branches/churches around the world and throughout history does not reveal such positive effects. This reflects badly upon the dominant moral/religious institutions.I don't claim that religion causes people to be nasty, but I do maintain that it influences its believers for good or bad. Christianity as a whole, is far into the bad range. And most of that has to do with the fact that a major portion of scripture is derived from the religion of a war-like tribal society-- the Israelites. I doubt the Isrealites were significantly different than any of the tribes surrounding them, but this is the one the bible is based upon.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:

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?

---

Oh wow Martin! This is a take on this issue that I haven't seen before. But you do need a mechanism to account for the order in the record.

quote:

---

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.

---

Except for well ordered sequences of fossils....

quote:

---

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.

---

If this were the case, there would be no ToE, or at the very least, I'd be on your side of the debate.

quote:

---

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.

---

It actually seems the other way around to me, though I grant that science of few hundred years ago wasn't what it is today.

quote:

---

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:

---

No. Atomic theory extrapolation is based on facts, hard science. Macroevolutionary extrapolation is based upon unfounded metaphysical assumptivism.

---

How exactly? What are the relevant differences?

quote:

---

It is interesting that you are so quick to cry "you're philosophizing," when indeed it is philosophy that undergirds the notion of naturalism.

---

And undergirds your belief system as well. What is the point? Philosophy undergirds pretty much everything if you think about it just right.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
You were astounded that I questioned the perceived necessity for the fossil record to reflect the order of created forms that came from the six days indicated in Genesis.

---

Well, not astounded that you questioned it, but that something so glaringly obvious hadn't occurred to me.

quote:

---

Your idea for the strata order is based on the far-from-confirmed philosophy of naturalism.

---

No, my idea of the strata order is derived from the fact that there are strata and that certain critters appear in certain strata pretty consistently. This part can't be denied. It is independent of evolution , or naturalism, or creationism. The ToE explains why these critters fall in the strata they do. Any alternative theory, such as a creation/flood theory, would have to explain this sequence as well. So far as I have seen no flood model can do this. [QUOTE][b]You did not mention anything against my point that the Mt. St. Helens phenomenon sports the sort of evidence (minus only the fossil sequence) that evolutionists point to in order to "prove" evolutionary speculation, yet the time frames needed to produce the St. Helens phenomenon directly contadict the evolutionary framework.[/QUOTE][/b]True enough. I am not enough of a geologists to discuss Mt. St Helen without first doing a considerable bit of research on it first. I was actually hoping that edge or Joe Meert would comment on this, as I would learn a lot that way. But as you point out, the fossil sequence is missing and that is a major component of geological strata. This makes me think that this may not be a good analogy.

quote:

---

It would be interesting to see if the order of "fossils" supports the idea of escape ability

---

Agreed, it would be interesting.

quote:

---

You indicated that if there were a lot of exceptions to the strata aspect of evolution, there would be no ToE and you would be on my side of the debate. This intrigued me until I realized that you, like most evolutionists, would very likely continue to increase your requirements for the meaning of "a lot" until your theory was no longer threatened by your statement.

---

Actually, I wouldn't.

quote:

---

The difference is that naturalists are unable or unwilling to distinguish between unseen processes that can be uncontroversially extrapolated from empirical realities, and unseen processes that are inherently metaphysical in nature.

---

How then do we learn to make this distinction?

quote:

---

"The point" is that my philosophy (creationism) is, according to the naturalistic perspective, labeled irrational, whereas your philosophy (evolutionism--NOT SCIENCE) is labeled as rational. There's a problem with a double standard for equally metaphysical positions.

---

Science assumes certain metaphysical underpinnings; creationism assumes different underpinnings. As someone who has spent way too much time reading philosophy, I can understand your frustration here. But in accepting some science you open yourself up to all of the implications of science. Otherwise, you begin to commit a string of fallacies one of which is that of the double standard.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by William E. Harris:

Can anyone out there help me set up a web site?

---

William,I'm sure I could help with the site, just let me know.Take care.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
[b]QUOTE
What I claim is that if the MSH phenomenon was to be evaluated in the future by naturalists who had no idea that the MSH region was formed by the aftermath of a volcanic eruption, they would look at the vast variety of its strata's according to the millions-of-years evolutionary philosophical bias, i.e., the way they have looked at the ones already "evaluated." [/QUOTE][/b]No. They would look a it and realize that MSH strata represent pyroclastic flows. It isn't that hard to do.

quote:

---

The fact is that we have irrefutable documentation that multiple layers of very different and very distinct strata levels, virtually identical to other strata level sites that evolutionists cite to prove evolution

---

But the point you are missing is that the MSH strata are not virtually identical to 'other strata' [QUOTE][b]. . . and further informed about the psychology of dyed-in-the-wool naturalists.[/QUOTE][/b]ooooooo....oooooooo....... what can you tell me about my psychology????!!!!

quote:

---

Actually, I realize that the MSH deposits would reflect the number of animals who were overcome by the phenomenon, which could very well be a substantial amount.

---

I am sure you are right.

quote:

---

It is significant that such aventure has not taken place.

---

aha.... the conspiracy!

quote:

---

But is it necessarily unreasonable to believe that many, many animals were overcome by the aftermath of the MSH eruption?

---

Not unreasonable at all, but it won't look like non-pyroclastic strata.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
My "reply quote" not fully honored, thus:

---

Hey Martin,Something that seems to help with the 'reply quote' function is to select the post and copy it, then hit reply quote.Kinda weird but so far it has worked for me everytime I've had trouble (bout three or four times now) I haven't decided if this is a trick of my imagination or a dependable glitch.take care------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:

Something that seems to help with the 'reply quote' function is to select the post and copy it, then hit reply quote.

​

Hey, thanks for the tip. But I'm afraid I have an embarassing confession. I don't know how to do what you recommend . . . h-e-l-p m-e . . . (The Fly).

​

---

Well, I have now found a case where this trick didn't work but here goes.Put your mouse cursor at the begining of the post, left click and drag to the bottom of the post. Then right click on the selected text to get a pop-up menu. Choose 'copy.' Then use 'reply quote' like normal.Even if it doesn't work like planned you can paste into the reply window.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
The example of levitical sanitation principles compared to the coterminus example of inferior secular humanist medical practices
of the Egyptian Empire comes to mind.

---

I think you would have a hard time proving that the Isrealites had a better understanding of medicine than the Egyptians, or of other civilizations of the time. Probably deserve its own thread...

quote:

---

Or the sphericity of the earth as declared in scriptures compared to the coterminus inferior secular humanistic notions of ancient times.

---

I have seen this claim made before. I haven't yet seen convincing evidence that scripture declares the earth to be round. It seems pretty much neutral on the subject really-- an account of the heavens as seen from Earth. Except for the early chapters of Genesis, which imply to me an Earth pretty typical of all of the cultures of the area at that time-- that is, kind-of a flat Earth with a half dome above it.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
If evolution were true, the record would be a big blur of fossils that couldn't readily be separated according to "kind."

---

And this might be what we'd see if we had a fossil record which includes 100% of everything that has lived and died. Even then, with enough effort-- ie. not readily, distiguishing species would still be possible.We see distinct critters because we are only getting one in every 100,000(?) animals. Its like a artist's color spectrum or color scale. Pick a few spots randomly and you get individual colors, but if you have the whole spectrum and look closely enough the colors blur one to the next.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Admin:
Can someone characterize the "reply quote" problem? Please also provide browser type, browser version, and OS type and version. Thank you!

---

Win98, Mozilla (build: 2002031104)When replying to long messages, I sometimes get only a small part of the message copied to the response box.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
[b][QUOTE]In other words, the fossil record, when considered as it exists--without an introduction of any secondary assumptions--lends more support to the creation model, rather than the evolution model.
[/b][/QUOTE]No. The fossil record, when taken as is-- ie. completely out of context, doesn't point to anything at all; because all of the relevant variables are missing. You can't interpret the record without having a time frame-- this would require secondary assumptions whether you argue creation or evolution or anything else. I think that you are neglecting to consider the assumptions of Creationism. Creation would require the assumption of a very short time-frame; evolution a long time-frame. This time-frame isn't immediately obvious. It requires many other sciences to establish. You can't look out the window and see the time-frame. All you can see is right now.But even so some features of the fossil record still point towards common descent, or common relationship (to take the time factor out). Even with the gaps in the record, morphological changes can be traced. I wouldn't expect this with Creation.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:

quote:

---

The "incomplete" fossil record is incomplete in the sense that there are indeed other fossils to be found, but it is a secondary assumption to conclude that if all of them were available for inspection, there would be some vast blur demonstrated from the billions of fossils that bloomed out from the original form.

---

​

Ok. In the absense of any other data... [QUOTE][b]I realize that assumptions are incorporated into both models. It's just that creationism fits the facts more harmoniously when 2ndary assumptions are not factored into the equation.[/QUOTE][/b]Without secondary assumptions, or data, I don't see how you can even approach the question of origins. Like I said, it doesn't really point to anything. The strata is just there. It's like asking what 'red' is without being able to talk about light. To me, to claim creation is the same as saying 'It just is'Think about the volume of animals today which die, decompose and disappear. Extrapolating from that, hopefully you will allow this, it seems a big assumption to think that the fossil record is complete enough to imply creation.

quote:

---

I'd expect variation in creation within certain genetic barriers for each "kind," I'd expect that some features that are a part of the makeup of some kinds of creatures would be useful on others, etc. In short, I'd expect "microevolutionary" change. The case for microevolution extrapolating to macroevolutionary change is mythology.

---

But why? Why even have kinds at all? Or, why have similar animals at all? If everything was created, why not one creature per kind with no repeated morphology-- especially without small peculiarities of structure that make little difference to the organisms? We build upon past technology, as we are limited both in knowledge and resources; but presumably a creator wouldn't have such limitations.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
m: OK? "In the absence of any other data" assume that the unprovable philosophy of naturalism is valid? That's not objective.

---

Martin, what we see, hear, etc and what we can infer are the only sources of information we have. Those sources are by default what you would can naturalistic -- I prefer empiricism actually, but no point debating that. What data is there that isn't natural? I'd be happy to include it. Tell me how. Ruling out biased natural data and in the absence of non-natural data, what are we to use to distinguish the true from the false?

quote:

---

m: Your "It just is" rationale is just as applicable to the mindset of naturalists who, without proof, assume that nature is all there is.

---

Interesting, but we were discussing the introduction of secondary assumptions and you did not address that issue.It isn't an matter of assuming that nature is all there is, it is a matter of reasoning using the only data we have instead of the data we don't have.

quote:

---

m: Given the number of fossils we do have, and given the mismatch of those fossils with what evolutionism requires, the assumption of creation of distinct kinds makes more sense than the assumption of a holistic continuum springing from one kind.

---

1) Please define kind. It makes no sense to discuss it if we don't know what the word means. You, perhaps, know but I don't.2) Fossils match pretty exactly what evolution requires.

quote:

---

m: You may be confusing "limitations" with "choice."

---

No, I wasn't confusing the two. I understand the distinction. What I was trying to point out is that we, as limited creatures, build upon what we already know. So this seems the normal method. But there is no reason to ascribe this habit of building on past effort to an unlimited God.

quote:

---

God could have created life forms, each of which could have been as different as the (cinematic) PREDATOR alien is compared to the ALIEN alien. It seems perfectly reasonable to me, though, for God to create with some consistency, in patterns, rather than each form exhibiting a complete departure from all other forms.

---

It seems pefectly unreasonable to me. Deadlock.... and is an illustration of WHY we need hard data to back up opinion.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
the problem becomes increasingly pronounced when the definition of "science" is controlled by a presently seated coup.

---

What definition do you propose? Can you lay out an unbiased method for us?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com