What is an Articulate Informed Creationist

Questions, Can I even answer these questions in this thread without going off topic, and if not then where can I go to answer these questions? Are these questions off topic, or do they fit in with this topic? I, personaly, am a 'big picture' thinker, I attempt to look at the whole, determine where the majority of the interpritations of the evidence leeds, etc. etc. to determine what the big picture is, and go from there. Appearently I find it quite difficult, or so I've been told to stay on topic, since I generaly try to include some of the evidence/interpritations/reason behind my statements. i.e. why I make a particular statement. I do not include this information to intentionaly lead the thread off topic, but give the read an idea as to where i am coming from. Is this wrong? Or can I even ask this question in this post since it is not pertenate to the topic? Every oppinion can be informative, at least to a degree, even the ones that appear to be nonsence, i.e. the basic premise can still be agreed upon even if the method of getting to that premise is not. (science does this all the time) for instance: * ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny is still stated as a proven scientific fact in science and biology texts books (at least on the middle to highschool level) even though it was disproven within months of the theory being published. and: Evolution has no problem siting that cave pantings depicting man with bison, deer, and giraffs, etc. as proof that man cohabitated with these animals, but when the same cave painting depicts what can only be a dinosaur, the drawing is relagated to a mythological creature because the idea of man and dinosaurs living together is inconsistant with the currently held interpritation of the geological column. Ergo there is a certain amount of nonsence on both sides of the fence.For the most part it seems (at least from my point of view) that most of the replys to my posts attack the foundations of my belief rather than the statements I make (even if I don't include these foundations in said posts) in which case I find myself hard pressed to both defend my foundational ideas/beliefs/reasons and yet unable to; because, to do so in most cases seems to go off topic. For instance statments like this: Which I personaly would concider an attack on my foundational (i.e. creationist) view point. Am I aloud to put forth an arguement against such a statment (since many have done so against me) in the thread in which it appears or not? Does looking at evidence from a different referance frame and coming to a conclusion based on that referance frame indicate misinformation? This is an attempt to argue that ones perspective does not alter the conclusion/observation and therefore equates to misinformation.As to this: "we cannot expect our creationists to be scientists, when by definition they are not." I would have to say that the most articulate of creation scientists are too busy gathering observational data to support thier view concerning their piers; to bother debating their view on a forum such as this. Which leaves a great deal of laypersons with varing degrees of understanding and articulation concerning that which is being debated. But even when a creatinist sites one of these scientists via a link I have found that the sitation goes greatly ingnored simple because of where it comes from. And when these laypersons attempt to site such scientists 'in thier own words' they generaly misrepresent the idea or confuse the facts and end up being accused of siting misinformation.I have also noted a strict adherance to ones own personal and widely varing views on both sides of the fence as well as on the part of those who ride the fence. Which begs the question; are we tring to determine the truth (whatever that may be) or are we debating just to win the arguement? And if one wins or loses a particular debate does that realy prove whether their idea is right or wrong, or just that they do not either have enough information or the skills to argue their point of view articulatly enough to win the arguement?* L. Rutimer, professor of zoology and comparative anatomy at university of Basel 1868. coraborated by William His Sr. professor of anatomy at the university of Leipzig and a comparative embryologist. (My highschool biology text book still included Haekel's work as proof of evolution, back in 1995)Edited by imageinvisible, : some spelling

---

Disclaimer: Topical discretion is advised.
This post may contain information, logic/reason exercises, and/or questions used to illustate what I base my logical conclusions on and to expond upon a particular idea. That information/etc. should not be debated in this thread, and any questions that do not fit the topic should not be answered in this thread. Many of these questions/etc. are retorical and/or are included to elicit a mental response not necessaraly a verbal (or in this case a literary) one.

Surely there is a better thread in which to debate this. Particularly I want to know which lies, because I know for a fact that one does not have to lies for Jesus, He can speak for Himself, more importantly, that one should not lies for Jesus. Not true. We do trust alot of what science says concerning that which can be tested directly. (i.e. that one can determine what 'a' is either by observing 'a' directly or observing how 'a' effects 'b') What we are trying to point out, especialy concerning evolution and origin science [sic], is that science cannot observe it directly. (i.e. tring to determine what 'a' is without being able to look at 'a' or how it effects 'b'; but rather how 'c' or 'd' might be effected by 'b' if certain things are true of 'a'. which means that one has to make assumptions concerning what 'a' is because they cannot see or observe 'a', make predictions of how 'a' might effect 'b', and how 'b' might have effected 'c' to explain what we observe in 'c' and or 'd') Appearently you missed the part of my post where I stated that it was in my Highschool text book back in 95 (as was nebraska man), but direct me to those threads if you want to debate this further. LOL. direct me to these threads too please if you do not mind. I won't argue any further concerning them on this thread. And yet, as I was pointing out, I get in trouble when I try to correct someone elses falshoods that are used to support their arguments against me.Therefore as to the rest of your post, though I wish to correct a great number of falsehoods, misinformation, and flat out lies in it, I will refrain. Not because they are correct but because to debate them here would be off topic.

---

Disclaimer: Topical discretion is advised.
This post may contain information, logic/reason exercises, and/or questions used to illustate what I base my logical conclusions on and to expond upon a particular idea. That information/etc. should not be debated in this thread, and any questions that do not fit the topic should not be answered in this thread. Many of these questions/etc. are retorical and/or are included to elicit a mental response not necessaraly a verbal (or in this case a literary) one.

Kind of the point. That creationism and ID, from a scientific point of view, was not ment to convence evolutionist scientists with their ingrained aversion to any explaination that is not based on naturalism. So much as to provide evidence viewed from a different perspective, to help those who do not have the foundation they need to both have a reasonable and scientific foundation for what they believe as well as the spiritual foundation. For instance, I believe in the inerant Word of God as it is written in the Bible and that the Bible contains the true history of the earth. Any hypothesis that contradicts that history is a lie from the pit of hell and satan himself, no matter how much science [sic] one claims supports it. Much in the same way many evolutionist (even here) claim that evolution and big bang cosmology are the truth and anything that contradicts them is a lie. Further more that anyone who is tring to study the earth and the cosmos from a creationist point of view cannot be a scientist. Creation scientists have provided me with enough observational evidence, for me personaly, to fit the Biblical account, that I no longer feel inadiquately equipt to argue my position with others. Just because I can't answer a specific question does not mean an answer does not exist, it just means that I haven't come across it yet, or creation scientists have not yet reached a point in which they can study that perticular question to answer it.All such debate forums like this one point out, is that it requires different amounts of 'proof' even from a certain standpoint, (i.e. creation/evolution) to convince certain people. Some here would probably contend that anyone who falls for the creation account as being true by definition must be stupid, ignorant, or mentaly ill in some way to believe such. I personaly am offended by such statements but I will forgive them. While I would not go so far as to make statments concerning a persons intelligence, I do find it hard to believe that someone would think that the evolutionary account of history is anymore intelectual and therefore scientific than the creation account, to the point of completely ignoring, or labling as misinformation, that which is being represented as observations that indicate creation.Frankly the more someone tells me that I am stupid or unintelligent for believing in the creation account, the stronger my conviction becomes. Nothing an evolutionist says is going to alter what I believe. Niether is any thing I say going to alter what they beleive. Should we agree to disagree then? No, because evolution is still being tooted as a proven fact when it is not, and cannot be proven. (FYI you cannot define a process by the mechanism. Evolution is a process, natural selection is a mechanism. You cannot define what a car is by spouting out the defininition of an engine)This might not be what you where intending to say but it fits for the most part with how I feel.

---

Disclaimer: Topical discretion is advised.
This post may contain information, logic/reason exercises, and/or questions used to illustate what I base my logical conclusions on and to expond upon a particular idea. That information/etc. should not be debated in this thread, and any questions that do not fit the topic should not be answered in this thread. Many of these questions/etc. are retorical and/or are included to elicit a mental response not necessaraly a verbal (or in this case a literary) one.