Young earth creationism is valid and the macroevolutionary hypothesis is not valid

Dear Brian:I think you need to reexamine this statement too:"So why do you read Macdowell and not academic literature?"Could a person read both?If you are asserting I do not read both, please consider that in debate it is a time honored principle that he who asserts must prove.More importantly, you are still using a logical fallacy - genetic logical fallacy. Perhaps, you have imbibed too much wine and have a low tolerance for alcohol. You seem to be under the impression that academia has a monopoly on truth. I would remind you that that a very large percentage of the Forbes 400 individuals did not graduate college let alone obtain MBA's.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-20-2004]

First, to you and Brian, this is not the thread about Hittites. Not that I care, but someone bigger than I is bound to notice.Second, you can dispute that we have measured matter and anti-matter appearing spontaneously all you want. What you choose to believe has nothing to do with how the universe actually behaves. Not only are you going to argue with evolutionary biologists, geologists, cosmologist, but you are going to argue with basic physics too? D**n, that Genesis must be a powerful book if it can trump every so many basic, repeatedly verified experiments in so many fields! (Translation for the sarcasmically challenged: kendemyer is now skating on very thin ice right now.)Finally, the law of conservation of energy doesn't give you any comfort here. The Casimier Effect is the result of matter and anti-matter appearing spontaneously, yet it does not violate conservation of energy. Some ideas of how the universe may have began in the Big Bang also don't violate the law of conversation of energy. You are trying to use conservation of energy to argue with principles that do not violate conservation of energy to begin with.

To: ChiroI have never found this type of "argumentation" effective that you used below:"Not only are you going to argue with evolutionary biologists, geologists, cosmologist"I could easily counter this statement by saying that creationism has the the fields of: _____________,_____________, ____________,
________________,_______________, ______________,______________, and _____________ behind it.I do agree with you, however, regarding Hittites and perhaps you should tell Brian to stop hiding behind Asgara's skirt.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-20-2004]

Hi, Of course a person could read both, but a sensible person would read something like John Bright's 'A History of Israel' instead of Disney's 'Prince of Egypt.'I wouldn't say you didn't read both, but understanding any of them, well the jury is still out (like the pun?)I don't drink wine, I only drink beer and whisky. Wine is made for ladies.Brian.

TO: ChiroI have not studied regarding the alledged Casimier Effect. I do think thought that the materialist often try to hide behind little understood areas of science and abandon logic. I think it is better to look for causes of effects rather than abandon logic though. Even the skeptic Voltaire said the word chance was just a cover for our ignorance. In short, Voltaire was saying there are reasons why things behave the way they do.Sincerely,Ken

Dear Brian and others:Goodbye for today.Sincerely,Ken<[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-20-2004]

I don't use paper cups for whisky. If I ever meet a 'scott' I will ask them if they do Brian

Kendemyer, this post comes awfully close to an admission on your part that you don't have an argument.I am always willing to learn something about logic. Why don't you demonstrate it by proving that something can't come from nothing? I'm sure that the proof is long and technical - you can just summarize it in a few paragraphs, and then if I have some problems with parts of it we can scrutinize those parts in more detail.Anyway, we are right that you should take a break for today. Brian, Crashfrog, and I seem to have you running in circles. Take a breather, and think a little about what you want to say.

Likewise. What would be the point of talking to somebody who places theory over observation?

Ken,Regrettably, that link doesn't answer my question - in fact it seems to purposely step around it.Are you holding the Universe and God to a different standard?Why is it impossible for the Universe to have "come from nothing", but not for God to have "come from nothing"?PE (Mr)

YEC is refuted by overwhelming evidence for an old earthsee: http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth -->EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earthenjoy.

I agree with Egg. Having read the essay, I see that it is mainly a bunch of words strung together. The authors make statements as if they were true, but they don't actually demonstrate their validity. I can see how this essay would be convincing to someone who already accepts the conclusions and has little experience with logical argumentation, but the essay is essentially empty of any real content.

Furthermore, even if it were true it would not prove that any one model (such as the fundamentalist literal christian) is correct.all it would say is "god did it" -- and it could either be a long time ago or just in the last second.such a position does not add any information of value to philosophy or science.

The "best" bit is where they try to argue that the Universe must have a personal cause. They dance around the issue but ultimately their argument is "the Bible says so".Just another case of Ken evaluating his sources on their conclusions rather than the quality of their evidence and arguments, I think.

TO: ChiropteraIt appears that Frege developed a system of logic that may be useful for mathematics. It appears not to have falsified traditional logic but appended it and it appears to have its shortcomings as far as its use for non-mathematical applications: Term logic - WikipediaMore importantly, I do not see any information that states that Frege falsified the law of non-contradiction. You comments so far also show no indication that Frege was able to overturn the law of non-contradiction. You did, however, say: "So, hidden in our laws of logic there may ultimately be an inconsistency." I really do not see this as having any weight. It is a "Just suppose" defense that I frankly find wanting. You also appealed said that men have constructed logic and that it may have no reality. I really do not find this compelling either. Logic is a necessary foundation for science and I see no compellling to turn from being logical and descend into being illogical.I could not find anything regarding Boule.TO: AllI read John Ankerberg's essay and I put myself in the shoes of a person who did not read R.C. Sproule's book "Not a chance" and as a person who has not read material on epistomology and related topics. I think Ankerberg's essay is a readers digest proof that can only direct people to resources that explain things more in depth. I would suggest reading Sproule's book plus reading material in regards to the contingency arguments for God's existence.Here is a synopsis of the argument for God's existence from contingency taken from a website:Something is contingent if it is not necessary, i.e. if it could have failed to exist. Most things seem to exist contingently. All of the human artefacts around us might not have existed; for each one of them, whoever made it might have decided not to do so. Their existence, therefore, is contingent. You and I, too, might not have existed; our respective parents might never have met, or might have decided not to have children, or might have decided to have children at a different time. Our existence, therefore, is contingent. Even the world around us seems to be contingent; the universe might have developed in such a way that none of the observable stars and planets existed at all.The argument from contingency rests on the claim that the universe, as a whole, is contingent. It is not only the case, the argument suggests, that each of the things around is us contingent; it is also the case that the whole, all of those things taken together, is contingent. It might have been the case that nothing existed at all. The state of affairs in which nothing existed at all is a logically possible state of affairs, even though it is not the actual state of affairs.It is this that the argument from contingency takes to be significant. It is because it is thought that the universe exists contingently that its existence is thought to require explanation. If the universe might not have existed, then why does it exist? Proponents of the cosmological argument suggest that questions like this always have answers. The existence of things that are necessary does not require explanation; their non-existence is impossible. The existence of anything contingent, however, does require explanation. They might not have existed, and so there must be some reason that they do so.Critics of the argument from contingency have sometimes questioned whether the universe is contingent, but it remains at least plausible to think that it is so.The only adequate explanation of the existence of the contingent universe, the argument from contingency suggests, is that there exists a necessary being on which its existence it rests. For the existence of the contingent universe must rest on something, and if it rested on some contingent being then that contingent being too would require some explanation of its existence. The ultimate explanation of the existence of all things, therefore, must be the existence of some necessary being. This necessary being is readily identified by proponents of the cosmological argument as God.The argument from contingency, then, can be summarised as follows:The Argument from Contingency
(1) Everything that exists contingently has a reason for its existence.
(2) The universe exists contingently.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a reason for its existence.
(4) If the universe has a reason for its existence then that reason is God.Therefore:
(5) God exists.taken from: http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/...fromcontingency.htmlI would recommend at this point to read Sproul's book which I believe is a very "meaty" book.SUMMARY1. I see no compelling reason to turn from logic and replace it with being illogical.2. I see no compelling reason to say that there may be a hidden flaw in logic. You could use that "argument" for anything and say there may be a hidden flaw that could overturn that 2 plus 2 is four.[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-21-2004]