Creationists think Evolutionists think like Creationists.

It certainly is.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Considering that's what I just asked you, it seems a little silly of you to ask.You appear to be under the strange impression that your assertions about what exists in the universe are immune from challenge so long as you can pretend you're not asking anyone else to be convinced by them.If that's not the case, then how do you explain your repeated evasion on precisely that basis?

You are of course free to believe that what I believe is false; it is really silly of you though to think you can question whether or not I believe what I claim to believe.I have no problem if you do not believe the GOD I happen to believe in is real, but that is totally irrelevant to what I happen to believe or even whether the GOD I believe in really exists.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

The bible was written by many different folks. It's more of a library than a book. I think it has to be sorted out. I think there are huge philosophical truths in the book of Genesis. I think that God chose the Jews as the tribe that was given the job of bringing his message of love, truth, mercy, justice, forgiveness etc. to the world. Much of the OT then is the history of the early Jews written from the their perspective.I agree with you that God as expressed through Jesus, who told us to love our enemies and turn the other cheek, is not likely to being telling his people to go down and kill every living man, woman, child and beast in some town.I think that the Bible should be read as a meta-narrative to come to a real understanding of what God's message is for us. My point was only that the message of loving your neighbour is found in the OT along with some of the atrocities that were committed. In "The Abolition of Man" C S Lewis write about the "Tao" which comes I believe from Buddhism. He talks about a natural law of morality which is part of our world in the same way that natural laws of our world such as gravity exists. In other words morality is one aspect of the creation except of course that it is more easily broken than the physical laws. IMHO the miracle that is central to Christianity is the bodily resurrection of Jesus. As Paul writes, if this isn't true then we are wasting our time. If Jesus isn't resurrected in my view Christianity is either a Jewish sect or a social movement. If Jesus was resurrected then the other miracles can be looked at in a different light. I'm not a deist as I do believe in an interventionist god and I do believe that God's dimension is a part of the universe that is outside of our 4 dimensional existence. I suppose the major difference between myself and a fundamentalist is that I don't believe that the Bible should be read literally. I think by trying to read it literally the message that we are supposed to take away from gets lost in the clutter. My point in that is that I believe human emotions, (or for that matter my retriever’s emotions) are unlikely to come from purely physical processes. I think that they are indications of there being something outside of the physical world. I'm not saying though that this necessarily leads to the God of Christianity. Of course. I think that there is a fundamental truth to Christianity. I think that the problem with Christians, is the same problem that all people have. I believe that we are made in the image of God but as humans we keep trying to make God in our image. In other words we bring our biases to our views and as a result our faith becomes distorted.We can see this in the actions of the early Jews in the OT and frankly we can see it in the military applications by so called Christian nations in the world today.In the end though I believe that there is a fundamental truth and as far as I know I'm the only one who has it completely right. In the end though, it is the most important question that we can face as humans. As Pilate said, "what is truth?". Actually the search for it is what this forum is about.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

I'm not doing that. I'm questioning whether you have justification for believing what you do.You've not made the case that you do. I don't think you can demand a pass on that.

I have no problem with you questioning whether I have justification for what I believe. I really don't much care whether you believe I have justification for what I believe or not. Nor do I have any intention of trying to justify what I believe.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Then I don't think you should get to pass yourself off as anything but a fundamentally deluded person.

Okay, I have no problem with you thinking that.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Hi Granny Magda I finally got around to reading through this thread, but must admit that I skimmed along pretty quickly through the somewhat off-topic parts, and didn't take the time to check any of the links offered. With that said, I'll now answer your questions that you posed in the other thread from about a week ago. It starts with my quote that you referenced; You may not say it, but the actions of the scientific community, and the postings/personalities of posters on several message boards like this one clearly show that’s exactly what they think. As well as literature, past and present, from Darwin's Bulldogs, and he had a lot of them. Everyone has a set of presuppositions that guide their moral and ethical analyses. There is no neutral ground from which to discuss questions regarding behavior in an organized society. Many/most evolutionists have a passion for science that is equal to the most passionately religious person — it’s obvious on these forums. There’s no evidence that evolutionists are like robots, operating in a vacuum where their mind is a blank slate, changeable at any second, if new data comes in. If new, compelling evidence for a young earth was suddenly unveiled, evolution would not instantly disappear from the minds of all evolutionists. Any evidence for a young earth, no matter how compelling, would be attacked, ridiculed, brushed aside to keep the evolutionist faith alive.Throughout this thread, from the first post to several other places, evolutionists make statements about their own beliefs, concerning objectivity and neutrality that they say religious people don't have. The problem with this is that they make declarations about themselves that they believe quickly settles that issue. It sounds reasonable at first, after all, who is better authorized to declare what a person believes than that person himself/herself, right? The problem is, they don't allow religious people that same luxury. For example, Michael Behe basically claimed to be an unbiased analyst of Intelligent Design, that he could explore it and teach it with no religious bias whatsoever. A court (the Dover court) told him he was wrong about his own belief, that ID is inseparable from religion, that his statements about his personal beliefs are better analyzed by someone else in this case. So that's true for everybody, just because an evolutionist, or theistic evolutionist, makes a statement about themselves, it's subject to interpretation by someone of another worldview. As someone that knows quite a bit about Christianity, and someone who is learned and informed on just how much Christianity has been compromised with evolution in the past 100 years, I'm just as capable to raise the BS flag when I see some evolutionists call themselves Christians as evolutionists are when they see an ID proponent claim to be studying science.

If this doesn't prove the thesis of this thread, nothing will.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- PhatIt has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

To the contrary. Part of thinking in a scientific way is establishing precisely what evidentiary criteria it would take to cause you to change your mind. Indeed almost every evolutionist has, at one point, told creationists what evidence they would need to present to cause them to change their minds. (J.B.S. Haldane once famously quipped "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian", and that's certainly something that would necessitate a complete re-evaluation of the science of evolution if it were found.)Not once has any creationist, to my knowledge, put forth the criteria that they would find convincing against creationism. Because for creationists it's not a belief about the evidence, it's a belief about religion. You can't reason somebody out of a position they didn't arrive at by reason.That's one prominent way that those on the evolutionist side think differently than creationists. Which actions, specifically? Are you referring to the murders you seem to think scientists take part in? Why don't you present some, then, and see if your prediction holds true? Isn't it possible that the reason no evidence for a "young Earth" has ever convinced any scientist is because that evidence has always been found to be flawed, or an outright fabrication? (For instance, "human" footprints next to dinosaur footprints.) Because there was substantial evidence that Behe was lying. That he had perjured himself before the court. That he had ignored evidence that conflicted with his religious views. That his so-called "science" of ID was nothing more than religion under another name.That was the finding of a conservative, Republican, Christian judge. Hardly someone we would expect to be biased against creationism, but because the judge was an honest person who honestly weighed the evidence before him, he was forced to conclude that:

quote:

---

A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity.

---

What's your evidence that he erred in coming to this conclusion?

I think that's the nicest thing I've ever seen you say about a conservative, Republican, Christian. You've grown, young son.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- PhatIt has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

Hi Marc, Oh, I see; it's going to be one of those weird ones where you tell me what I think. Funny, I would've thought that I knew what I thought better than you did. But apparently, no, your psychic powers allow you to better gauge my opinions than I can myself.I don't believe in the ToE because Darwin just says so.No-one believes in the ToE because Darwin just says so.If you disagree, please show us some evolutionist sources saying; Darwin says it. I believe it. That settles it.or something equivalent. Now if you can't find any such statements, the sane conclusion would be to conclude that evo's don't think that way, that there is some other reason for our belief in the ToE. You could perhaps try asking us why we believe in the ToE. Instead, you seem to have decided that you know what we think, despite having absolutely no evidence of any kind to back that up. That's crazy talk my friend. Even if we grant that this is true, it is irrelevant. The ToE is completely unconnected to moral and ethical decisions. I make no reference to the ToE when making a moral judgement, nor does anyone I know of do so.It makes a certain amount of sense for Christians to refer to their foundational texts in solving moral dilemmas; there is at least some material in there that addresses morality. In the case of evolution proponents however, there is no foundational text. The Origin is not a foundational text, and even if you insist that it is, it doesn't dispense moral advice, so there would be little point in consulting it for moral advice. I have a passion for the books of George MacDonald Fraser. I also have a passion for Mexican food. My attitudes to the two are not identical just because I am keen on them both. I have no desire to eat Fraser's books, nor to sit down and read a bowl of nachos. My enthusiasm for each manifests in a different way.Many people who believe in evolution are keen on science, but that doesn't mean that we regard science in the same way you see your faith. That is just you projecting (so far as I can tell). You should remember that not everyone thinks the way you do and not every action people take can be fitted into a framework that makes sense to you.Personally, I do not feel that I have replaced religion with science in my own personal philosophy. I was never religious, not to even the smallest extent. There is nothing to replace. Religion is of so little importance to me that it has never played any part in influencing any of my opinions (save for those that are actually about religion itself). I have no desire to replace religion in my thinking, with science or anything else. There is no need. I don't think anyone ever claimed that to be the case. Evolutionists, whether laymen on internet message boards, or preofessionals, are only human. Science is not a perfect process, that's why it has built in checks and balances, to defeat such prejudices. Perhaps. Perhaps not. Why don't try and find just the smallest scrap of evidence for a young Earth and put your theory to the test? You're right, that does sound reasonable. Oh. I see. you are engaging in the tu quoque fallacy. Tell me Marc, if you think it so unfair to judge others views without letting them speak for themselves, why do it? Because they did it first? That's not much of a justification. Either it is wrong to label the views of others contrary to their objections, or it is not. Claiming "They started it!" is not sufficient justification. But in this case there is good evidence that Behe was mistaken or lying. His claims were shown to be misleading. Other ID proponents were shown to be telling downright lies whilst under oath. What conclusion do you expect?In telling me that I only believe in the ToE because Darwin says so, you are effectively accusing me of a) being a moron and b) lying about my motivations. Now if you are making that accusation, as the Dover court pretty much did against Behe, you better have evidence. Accusing me of lying about my own beliefs without any evidence would be a shitty thing to do. So... where's the evidence that I hold The origin to be a sacred text Marc? I am oh-so-curious to know what I think. Except that science is created by and defined by humanity. It is ours to decide on as we please. We get to decide what it is and isn't.Christianity by contrast is split into a thousand factions, all claiming to be the true Christianity. The truth of their claims is not a matter that humanity can reasonably judge, at least not with any authority. Only God, if he exists, can decide that. Why not leave it to God to decide who's a real Christian, and leave it to me to tell you what my opinion is.Mutate and Survive

But as I touched on in my previous post, it goes both ways. Creationists are often told that their understanding of science, (and therefore how the world works) is very limited. It happens to the extent that some in science are accusing creationists (and scientifically studying for) a brain quirk that causes people to be religious. Weird indeed. I’ve done some reading and studying on the actual history of the ToE. Darwinism wasn’t made a complete package by only Darwin, it has been put together by many others, by philosophers as well as scientists. People like Thomas Huxley and Herbert Spencer were two of the more prominent early ones, but there are practically too many to name. Huxley’s two grandsons, Sir Julian, and Aldous, made profound statements about evolution that are no longer politically correct, but are just as true as they ever were. From Aldous Huxley;

quote:

---

I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves...For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political. Ends and Means p.270

---

From what I see in the political beliefs of evolutionists, from college professors to frisky teenagers to posters on these types of forums, it’s easy to see a motive for not wanting the world to have meaning. It is an instrument of liberation, sexual and political. It is documented that the purposelessness of the evolutionary mindset is often closely connected to moral and ethical decisions. The Terry Schiavo case is a good example. Several people with scientific credentials that were quoted by the media attempted to discredit individuals of opposing views simply by mocking them because of their public Christian worldview.Evolutionists are generally politically liberal, and anti-tradition. Anti-tradition is often anti-US Constitution. The Origin is not directly consulted, but the detailed works that followed it were inspired by it and are often consulted. Daniel Dennett is described as a major contributor to the understanding of the conceptual foundations of evolutionary biology. He doesn’t call evolution an innocent study of science, he calls it a universal acid that eats through just about every traditional concept, and leaves in its wake a revolutionized world-view, with most of the old landmarks still recognizable, but transformed in fundamental ways.Have you ever heard of Daniel Dennett?Text doesn’t have to be foundational to be profound and applicable to a subject. Just as Christians have no desire to eat Bibles. The passions are equal — each worldview applies their beliefs to their own lives, and their opinions on the political decisions that they believe make the best organized societies. In believing that the order we see the world is formed by purposelessness, it’s only natural that evolutionists hold science in high regard as a source of knowledge. Those of the Christian religion are more likely to regard time-tested,corroborated, written history over the evolutionist writings of Daniel Dennett or Richard Dawkins. Neither worldview holds a defined advantage in critical thought, as this threads opening posts assert. All I’m doing is reading many common sense quotes from people who have been instrumental in shaping evolution to be regarded as it is today. Here’s one from Sir Julian Huxley;

quote:

---

The concept of evolution was soon extended into other than biological fields. Inorganic subjects such as the life-histories of stars and the formation of the chemical elements on the one hand, and on the other hand subjects like linguistics, social anthropology, and comparative law an religion, began to be studied for an evolutionary angle, until today we are enabled to see evolution as a universal and all pervading process. What is Science? (1955) p.272

---

In claiming an intellectual high ground over religious people as is the subject of this thread, it clearly proves that today's thinking in evolution is exactly as is described in the above quote. You don’t have political opinions? But if science were taken to court, and all the literature about evolution were studied and combined, a ruling would come forward that would look strikingly similar to the Dover ruling about Intelligent Design. It would look something like this;

quote:

---

A significant aspect of the evolutionary movement is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes evolution as being atheistic. In that vein, the writings of leading evolutionary proponents reveal that there is no god, or that god is insignificant enough to be non-existent.

---

Hmmm, that’s the same illogical question that I was asked in message 161. I don’t need to test it! I never claimed or implied that I had that evidence anyway. But an old earth is one of several fragile foundations that evolution rests on, and the evolutionary community spends a lot more effort mocking the possibility of a young earth than they attempt to reasonably address the points made by those who suggest the possibility of it. I’m not using time as a justification. I’m using an equal application as a justification. It’s necessary when discussing worldviews, if one worldview claims a secular superiority, a superior intellect over another worldview, as the opening of this thread asserts. A passion for one’s own worldview can be labeled as mistakes or lies in court decisions, that’s why US foundings don’t give courts much authority to decide high level matters. Another problem is that some high level matters don’t make it to court. Example, if the current scientific claim abiogenesis is a fact were to be taken to court, and the traditional meaning of the word abiogenesis were carefully considered, the conclusion would be that the phrase is a lie. I’m not saying anything at all about what you think personally. All I did was answer the questions that you asked of me. I’m making general statements about how atheists/evolutionists don’t want the world to have meaning. If that offends you, I’m sorry. But my advise would be to think about how offensive you are when you say It's the creationist camp who rely on the word of a magic book. Does the word humanity mean atheists? Since some 90% of the members of the National Academy of Scientists are atheists, I suppose it does. But humanity would more accurately be described as the public who foots the bills. Most of the differences in Christian denominations are minor ones, but this thread isn’t really about Christian authority. It’s about a claim of evolutionists superior intellect, by those who are one minute claiming evolution is biological change, and the next minute that it’s an instrument of liberation, a philosophy of meaninglessness.

quote:

---

But as I touched on in my previous post, it goes both ways. Creationists are often told that their understanding of science, (and therefore how the world works) is very limited.

---

So what you mean is that creationists assume that they know what their opponent's think - and are wrong AND creationists often assume that they know about science - and are wrong about that, too.

quote:

---

I’ve done some reading and studying on the actual history of the ToE. Darwinism wasn’t made a complete package by only Darwin, it has been put together by many others, by philosophers as well as scientists. People like Thomas Huxley and Herbert Spencer were two of the more prominent early ones, but there are practically too many to name. Huxley’s two grandsons, Sir Julian, and Aldous, made profound statements about evolution that are no longer politically correct, but are just as true as they ever were.

---

Yet apparently you don't know that Aldous Huxley made no great contributions to evolutionary theory - or that the quote that you offer isn't about evolution at all. THe only good point is that you didn't falsely attribute the quote to Julian Huxley as a number of creationists have done.

quote:

---

It is documented that the purposelessness of the evolutionary mindset is often closely connected to moral and ethical decisions. The Terry Schiavo case is a good example. Several people with scientific credentials that were quoted by the media attempted to discredit individuals of opposing views simply by mocking them because of their public Christian worldview.

---

I very much doubt that that is an honest description of the case. Of course those who took the moral stand were those in favour of taking the corpse off of "life support". THe campaign of lies and slander came from the other side.

quote:

---

The Origin is not directly consulted, but the detailed works that followed it were inspired by it and are often consulted. Daniel Dennett is described as a major contributor to the understanding of the conceptual foundations of evolutionary biology. He doesn’t call evolution an innocent study of science, he calls it a universal acid that eats through just about every traditional concept, and leaves in its wake a revolutionized world-view, with most of the old landmarks still recognizable, but transformed in fundamental ways.

​

Have you ever heard of Daniel Dennett?

---

Yes. And that is why I know that he is a philospher - primarily known as a philosopher of mind - and that his main contribution is one popular-level book written in 1995. Hardly a foundational work, and one that did not meet with universal agreement from evolutionary scientists. Nor is it a book consulted for ethical advice by - to the best of my knowledge - anyone at all.

quote:

---

Just as Christians have no desire to eat Bibles. The passions are equal — each worldview applies their beliefs to their own lives, and their opinions on the political decisions that they believe make the best organized societies. In believing that the order we see the world is formed by purposelessness, it’s only natural that evolutionists hold science in high regard as a source of knowledge. Those of the Christian religion are more likely to regard time-tested,corroborated, written history over the evolutionist writings of Daniel Dennett or Richard Dawkins. Neither worldview holds a defined advantage in critical thought, as this threads opening posts assert.

---

And what "time-tested,corroborated, written history" contradicts the writings of Dawkins or Dennett ?