Now this post is a 5!(Your post I am responding to, not my one)
You yourself have just shown wisdom, by not jumping to any of the conclusions the other people did. (I don't include Iano, I am grateful for his comments, and think he done a good job in his posts, of explaining things better than I can.)
When I said, "deduction", I didn't mean, "believe and accept Jesus in your heart". Infact, it was nothing to do with being Christian, or Christ.
I know that you also know this.
What I mean is logical deduction.
Here is an example;
God kills somebody for sin. Therefore, God has done evil, therefore God is evil.
Now this is an example of a claim. Now within that claim is a whole host of assumptions, and potentially, fallacies.
Now here's the deduction, which is as simple as 5 x 5;
If you do, "evil", it does not FOLLOW, logically, that you are evil.
For example, there are two people, both of them have something evil happen to them. They are both victims of the electric chair.
An evil thing has come upon them both, CERTAINLY. There is no escaping it. However, one person was being executed legally, and the other person was the victim of a serial killer.
The EFFECTS are the same;
evil has come upon them both, but the serial killer is evil, and the legal executioner is not evil.
This is all I meant by, "deduction".
Now, Hyroglyphx, this is how I approach EVERY SUBJECT.
I am certain, as much as I can be, that this is perfectly sound deduction, whether "God" is involved or not.
example;
We know that the new government are responsible for tax rates because they are higher than ever, and they have been in power for four years!
This is begging the question, because it doesn't establish that the tax rates were NOT inherited from a previous government, that were actually responsible.
You see, I KNOW, Hyroglyphx, that I am rational, and that my arguments are based on genuine deduction, and TRUST ME - they hate me for it. Look at my rate-scores.
My friend, people will hate you for being wrong, but they will absolutely detest you and even kill you for being
RIGHT, against their beliefs.
I claim a wisdom - it doesn't make me the smartest ever, and I have to deal with pride, but the Holy Spirit will help me with that as He has with other sin-problems in my life.
This truly is my final post, I only responded, because you have acted completely honestly, and rationally, and didn't opportunistically jump all over me..
Bye for now. All the best.
EDIT, some more things I have said.
mike the wiz writes:
I condemn rape. (snip)
But Jack the Ripper doesn't. He said that according to his relative morals, I should rape. I told him I don't want to rape therefore he concluded I was immoral.
--
The problem with the natural assumption is that it is the very same thing as the God of the gaps fallacy. That is - it is also fallacious. Think with me for a moment.
Science is great when it comes to analyzing natural processes, repeatable experiment, and so forth. But when it comes to evolution, whether chemical or biological, you MUST include assumptions about questions pertaining to God. Such theories depend on a designer not being involved.
If you say that you can't include God in science - I agree. If you say you can continue to assess "truth" about nature - without God, I don't agree, because logically, you can now only come to a false conclusion, based on premisses which do not involve a Creator.
--
Since bacteria are asexual, reproduce much much faster than humans, then a fossil of 1 billion years would represent the equivalent of a human fossil which is what? 100 billion years old?
The silly examples of flagellum apparently "evolving" certainly seem to not to be impressive, when put next to such a living fossil.
--
But ofcourse - just keep on stating ad nauseum, that there is no evidence for creation whatsoever. This doesn't make you scientific - it makes you dogmatic, because even a very weak theory has evidence.
--
To understand why we (Christian Creationists), reject evolution, the big bang theory, and chemical evolution is because when man attempts to find "truth" and ignores the bible, then if you believe in an inerrant bible, as we do, then logically it follows that certain theories will be mutually exclusive to that belief.
Therefore in response to special pleading, we have to show that there is a reason for our rejection, which is exclusive, which then removes the accusation of a double standard.
What is important is that we don't reject any facts. for example, I do not reject effects of gravity, but more precisely, I do not reject anything which exists in God's universe,
An acceptance of oxygen will not negate an inerrant bible. But evolution clearly is a theory which makes it follow that an inerrant bible must certainly be false.
Therefore, even though Darwin doesn't specifically state that we can not have bible belief, nor any evolutionary scientist, infact, logically one must reject that very thing.
This means that it now becomes a question of priorities. Does a person who believes in the God of the bible, and puts his whole life there for God to take, reject the God that he knows has done so much for him/her?
--
Thou foolish creationist, uneducated, with no pride that swelleth the head, verily I will treat thee with respect if you sacrifice a bull to my omniscience at Lake Darwin. And if thou pretendeth to have the useage of thine brain for even a moment, in the delusion that you can actually think like me, then I will smite thee asunder and leave thee in the road-side, as yet another foolish, teenage, under-educated twurp that you are. So be good little fool, as your arguments have been blown apart since the beginning of time, even though I don't even know what you know, or how you think.
Here is my blog, which is much less contentious, and it's only short "bursts" of writing.
Blog not found
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
(1)