|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Conclusion vs Presupposition | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
imageinvisible Member (Idle past 5938 days) Posts: 132 From: Arlington, Texas, US Joined: |
Simple. Evolutionism starts with the presupposition, the idea, that everything in the universe can be explained naturaly, and/or has a natural cause. Ergo, this presuposition states that there is or can be no supernatural intervention. From this starting presupposition a postulate concerning the origin of the universe was derived based on that supposition, i.e. the Big Bing, a postulate which requires billions of years to be feasable. from this same supposition a postulate concerning the origin of life was derived, i.e. the postulate of evolution, which reqiures billions of years to be feasable. These two postulates then became the foundation for studying the universe, and any postulate that follows after them must adhere to their conclusion that the universe and everything in it reqiures billions of years, because any other conclusion would negate the starting presupposition.
The founding presupposition of evolutionism asserts that there is no God, without being able to prove that there isn't a God. Creationism starts with the presupposition that the universe had to be created suppernaturaly, by God. We have several postulates as to how God created the universe, (one of these is contained in the Bible) and life, (also in the Bible). When we observe the universe we use these postulates as our foundation for any conclusions that we come to, and that no evidence will refute our primary presupposition, because any other conclusion would negate our starting presupposition. The founding presupposition of creationism asserts that there is a God, without being able to prove that there is a God. The question concerning the cause of the universe can only have one answer. Either a) it occured naturaly, or b) it was created suppernaturaly. The same goes for the question concerning the origin of life. Either a) it occured naturaly, or b) it was created suppernaturaly. One starting point must be wrong, and the other must be right. How we view the big picture determines which answer we chose. We then chose one of these starting points (a or b) and then test the evidence to try and prove that starting point. We then use the observations from those tests to further support our belief in the starting point. How we observe the evidence around us determines which one we chose; however, which one we chose determines how we observe the evidence around us. Mmmm...circular reasoning at it's finest, dig in and eat up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
imageinvisible Member (Idle past 5938 days) Posts: 132 From: Arlington, Texas, US Joined: |
You are alot of things Jar but you are not a christian. The doctrine you follow is not Christ's but I will not argue that with you on this thread. False...Hmm.
We Make the Rules Now?
| Answers in Genesis
A Designer Is UnscientificEven If All the Evidence Supports One! | Answers in Genesis Darwinism Believed Because of Anti-God Bias | Answers in Genesis Darwinists’ tactics | Answers in Genesis Evolution Incompatible with Christianity | Answers in Genesis Evolution = Atheism | Answers in Genesis Amazing Admission | Answers in Genesis The Atheists Know . . . Why Christianity Has to Fight Evolution | Answers in Genesis Mysterious Evolution | Answers in Genesis Quotable Quotes: Lejeune and Hoyle | Answers in Genesis Twisted Thinking | Answers in Genesis Chemical Evolution: Based on (Blind) Faith Not Fact | Answers in Genesis Davis Young: Why He Abandoned the Day-Age Theory | Answers in Genesis No Real Theory of Evolution | Answers in Genesis Spurgeon on Evolution | Answers in Genesis Science ... a reality check | Answers in Genesis Science and Bias | Answers in Genesis Quotable Quote: Spontaneous Generation and Perpetual Motion | Answers in Genesis Missing Link | Answers in Genesis Mass Murderer (Dahmer) on Evolution v. Morality | Answers in Genesis Darwin Versus Compassion | Answers in Genesis Quotable Quote: H.G. Wells, Evolution and the Gospel | Answers in Genesis Hitler and Evolution | Answers in Genesis Hutton’s a priori commitment to materialism | Answers in Genesis Fossil Evidence for Evolution . . . Expert Says FORGET IT | Answers in Genesis Big Bang Cosmology | Answers in Genesis Leading Anti-Creationist Philosopher Admits that Evolution Is a R | Answers in Genesis Aldous Huxley Admits Motive for Anti-Theistic Bias | Answers in Genesis Ape-Man Olympics | Answers in Genesis Archaeologist Speaks Out | Answers in Genesis Who Said It: Contradictory Knowledge | Answers in Genesis Oxford Hebrew scholar, Professor James Barr, on the meaning of Ge | Answers in Genesis Darwinism, Morality and the Tiger | Answers in Genesis Death in the Garden | Answers in Genesis Just a few quotes that refute your claim that I am makeinga false claim when I say that evolution excludes a God; and concerning the amount of supposition that goes into the CvE ideologies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
imageinvisible Member (Idle past 5938 days) Posts: 132 From: Arlington, Texas, US Joined: |
I have already answered as to where the suppositions are. You seem content on ignoring my answer because you seem the believe that majority rules equates to the truth. I am not the one in error, neither am I refuted. Your agrument is based souly on presupposed opinion and majority rules mentality. Even if I gave you facts you would not accept them because they over rule your presupposition, ergo you prove my point exactly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
imageinvisible Member (Idle past 5938 days) Posts: 132 From: Arlington, Texas, US Joined: |
jar writes: Well lets examine it closely. I look at the evidence and find that as a Christian I can see, understand and accept both God and the fact of Evolution. In addition I find that over 11,000 US Christian Clergy also accept God, the Bible, Evolution and that the Theory of Evolution is the best explanation for what is seen. From those observations I can conclude that Evolution does not require a pre-supposition that there is no God since both one Christian I know intimately (myself) as well as over 11,000 US Christian Clergy all accept the existence of God as well as Evolution. Where are the suppositions in this example. Suppositions just in this statement. 1) that you are a christian. 2) that they are christians. 3) that evolution isn't based on supposition. 4) that (once again) what a certain group of people says is true based on their supposition, must be true because it matches with your supposition. 5) that christianity and evolution are not mutualy exclusive, contrary to what is written in the Bible, specificaly contrary to what Jesus Christ said. 6) that the definition if Christain, as defined by scripture, does not mean all of these a) one who is like Jesus Christ, both in word and deed b) who follows devotly all the teachings of Jesus Christ c) who relies souly on the redeeming sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross for the remision of their sins and for their salvation d) that in order to be that sacrifice reqiures that Jesus be completely without sin, pure and holy in the eyes of God e) and who believes that every word that issued from the mouth of Jesus Christ is the absolute truth, because He is the source of all truth, and cannot lie. 7) that Jesus Christ believed in evolution, contrary to what the scriptures say. 8) that your suppositions hold more wieght than another persons suppositions. 9) that the postulate of evolution best fits observable evidence 10) that claiming to be a christian makes someone a christian. 11) that your observations of reality are not as twisted and corrupt as your idea of christianity. 12) that you have any idea what it means to be a christian. 13) that you can twist the Word of God (who is Jesus Christ) to conform to the postulate of evolution. 14) that God is a lier and all men are true, contrary to what the scripture says. 15) that there are no suppositions in your statement. Did you even read the quotes I listed in message 14? Because at least one of them dealt exclusively with one or another of the suppositions in message 1. Specificaly, that I can remember, the supposition of uniformitarianism. Supposition: 1) something that is supposed: hypothesis 2) the act of supposingAccording to Merriam-Webster Suppose that the universe was created naturaly, and one can determine that all the evidence supports their supposition. Suppose that the universe was created suppernaturaly, and one can determine that all the evidence supports their supposition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
imageinvisible Member (Idle past 5938 days) Posts: 132 From: Arlington, Texas, US Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
imageinvisible Member (Idle past 5938 days) Posts: 132 From: Arlington, Texas, US Joined: |
Yup, you just refuse to adress it because you refuse to acknowledge it, or even look at it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
imageinvisible Member (Idle past 5938 days) Posts: 132 From: Arlington, Texas, US Joined: |
Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood
| Answers in Genesis
:stay tuned for more updates.
jar writes: They can only settle on the bottom. That is what is so clear about this example. We have over 4,000,000 instances of a finer material being laid down followed by a slightly coarser layer then another finer layer, another coarser layer. To get that fine a silt to settle out the water must be near still, followed by the more active flow to provide the slightly coarser layer, followed another quiescent period. supposition 1. The research, which appears in this week’s edition of Science, counters the old view of geologists that mud only settles when water is placid, instead showing that “muds will accumulate even when currents move swiftly.”News to Note, December 22, 2007 | Answers in Genesis see point number 3. referance PhysOrg: “As Waters Clear, Scientists Seek to End a Muddy Debate” I won't even worry concerning the rest since this proves that your very first stament is a supposition, though many of your others are suppositions as well. Edited by imageinvisible, : oops
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
imageinvisible Member (Idle past 5938 days) Posts: 132 From: Arlington, Texas, US Joined: |
Acctualy if you read the article the scientists involved used clays.
"Schieber’s team chose fine clays for the experiment”calcium montmorillonite and kaolinite, clays that would not settle easily in rapidly moving water, according to the prevailing view. " I know you didn't read the artical I can't copy and paste it in this forum, so I guess where at an impass. I have proven, from various points, that your statements in the OP are based on suppositions, but you refuse to acknowledge them as such. Who then is in error? Me because I cannot convince you that there are soppusitions in your statments or you because you refuse to acknowledge them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
imageinvisible Member (Idle past 5938 days) Posts: 132 From: Arlington, Texas, US Joined: |
jar writes: The question is, where are the alleged presuppositions? case closed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
imageinvisible Member (Idle past 5938 days) Posts: 132 From: Arlington, Texas, US Joined: |
no, I have already pointed out two. Your OP states that there would be no suppositions in your OP, I have proven that there are. ergo case closed.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024