do creationists know they are losing or not

[Lowpro]

Nice post I get what you are saying Dinwar. I kind of assumed evolutionists thought the earth was older than most creationists think it is, using the constraints of biblical age of the earth interpretations.

I don't know how old the earth is, but I can believe millions or billions no prob. 5 or 10k, a common religious model, I find obsurd. Its just my opinion it takes genetics and biology much longer to cycle from dinosaurs to where we are now.

Based on your studies Dinwar are you thinking millions, thousands or billions I'm truly wondering. Id expect you to have seen alot of the physicality I've just read about.

I believe in God for theses reasons which aren't empirical proof enough for you guys:

Personal experiences remaining undisclosed that are beyond timing coincidences imo and represent a measurable, two way relationship. Hugely impactful events in my life...ie the testimony Christians or observers of other religions have...ascribe to a God

Its sufficient proof for me, how I interpret the world, but it won't be enough to convince you and discussing here isn't worth tainting it imo.

My concept of the cosmos can't exist without a creator

My interpretation of genetics, macromolecule genesis etc can only comprehend a creator inspiring the first 'breath'

I fully believe I could be wrong in my views so I don't sell them to others unless they genuinely want to know. I find amazement in the mysteries of the universe and amusement in those who let current science models explain everything to them.

I fully believe evolutionists cannot be sure of their science if they can't answer basic questions required to impart the evolutionary factors that supposedly brought us from apes to man
I'm ok with using empirical science in some areas of my life and lacking it in others, it doesn't make the science I'm fascinated by less cutting edge or less entertaining, I'm just ok with not having all the answers. And that's where I stand man.

Okay, sorry but I feel I have to step in a bit:

Your experiences are irrelevant, glad you already know that.

Your perception of the cosmos needing a creator means you don't know enough about cosmology. Don't let your ignorance (not an insult) fool you into making things up.

Your interpretations of genetics and macromolecules needing a creator are also probably wrong. Physics does the job just fine IMO.

You'll ask "where did DNA come from?" And I'll just say "physics and selection" and that actually is really really hard for you to refute; harder than it is for me to just say "That's probably what happened" because Chemistry is proven to occur. God, not so much.

You're putting your money on a bad horse.

I fully believe evolutionists cannot be sure of their science if they can't answer basic questions required to impart the evolutionary factors that supposedly brought us from apes to man

You've not read up. I suggest Freeman/Herron's "Evolutionary Analysis". We already have the fossils and genetic evidence for science to correctly tell us where we came from (common ancestor), and evolution made the proper prediction.

 

[el zone]

Hey Mr cool, my experiences were listed cuz Indiana Jones asked for my proof, read page 1, I knew better than to begin there

Matter of fact he asked a few times now.

 

[Dinwar]

Based on your studies Dinwar are you thinking millions, thousands or billions I'm truly wondering. Id expect you to have seen alot of the physicality I've just read about.

The current best evidence is 4.6 billion years old. This is based on the age of multiple bolides, which were formed at the same time as the Earth. This is corroborated by radiometric dates from ancient rocks, and fossils found 3.9 billion years ago. The date of Earth rocks are a bit lower than extraterrestrial bolides because the Earth was liquified during the formation of the Moon (we know that from non-related lines of evidence, including petrological analysis of the rocks on the Moon compared to rocks on Earth).

I believe in God for theses reasons which aren't empirical proof enough for you guys:

We can ignore them, then.

My concept of the cosmos can't exist without a creator

Unless you are a cosmologist or have studied cosmology in-depth this is irrelevant.

My interpretation of genetics, macromolecule genesis etc can only comprehend a creator inspiring the first 'breath'

Unless you have studied the biogeochemistry of the Hadean Earth in depth, this is irrelevant. Your studies have been based on modern organisms in the modern environment, and therefore are not applicable to proto-organisms on a planet with a fundamentally different chemistry (including redox state, pH of the water, etc.--and we know the Hadean was different through independent measures, such as sedimentological data).

I find amazement in the mysteries of the universe and amusement in those who let current science models explain everything to them.

So you laugh at people who accept evidence and experimentation. Got it.

I fully believe evolutionists cannot be sure of their science if they can't answer basic questions required to impart the evolutionary factors that supposedly brought us from apes to man

You've already demonstrated that you don't know the current state of the knowledge. And your "basic questions" are outside of the field of evolution, and therefore are irrelevant.

I'm just ok with not having all the answers

If you were, you would accept that filling in the gaps with "Goddidit" is wrong. Further, you'd admit that you haven't done the research necessary to understand the current state of knowledge in fields where you haven't done the research necessary to understand the current state of knowledge.

In reading the collective smirks from all of us here intermingled with our various training and philosophies its still very clear we have all interpreted our world with profound subjective leaps.

Thus far I'm the only one in this conversation who's provided any data, so count me out of that generalization.

 

[Robrob]

I believe in God for theses reasons which aren't empirical proof enough for you guys

Subjective belief is fine. No one is going to (or can) debate you about what you "feel." OTOH, when you seek to support your subjective POV with objective facts, you are going to encounter some resistance. Especially if your facts don't add up.

 

[Dinwar]

Hey Mr cool, my experiences were listed cuz Indiana Jones asked for my proof, read page 1, I knew better than to begin there

Matter of fact he asked a few times now.

I am not Indiana Jones. I'm a REAL scientist.

And your experiences are irrelevant. I asked for DATA. Data, in science, means something independently verifiable, at least in theory; thus, subjective interpretations do not count. Further, assumptions in the absence of data don't count as data.

What I'm after is actual facts that support your position. What specific chemical reactions are not possible in the conditions that existed in the Hadean Earth or outer space? What specific actions did your god take, and what evidence supports your interpretation? Things like that. Simply saying what you believe is irrelevant to this conversation, because we're talking about science, not feelings.

 

[el zone]

was joking on the I Jones

So, in four pages neither one of us has been won over who'd have guessed!

 

[Dinwar]

So, in four pages neither one of us has been won over who'd have guessed!

We've only actually been discussing Creationism for about a page.

I'll make it simple for you: In order for you to prove Creationism to me, you need to provide data about the god you propose did the creating. That's Step 1. When you've completed that, we'll move on to Step 2 (evidence for a creation event). We have to do it in that order because what god you think did the creating will determine what methods of creation were used. Thus far, you've merely stated that you're incapable of accomplishing Step 1, and not discussing the evidence I've provided. Not exactly convincing.

 

[el zone]

I know, but your side has done the same. So my original stance remains

Evolutionists cite recent science models under constant revision to make claims about a fraction of a not-understood timescale critical to their interpretation of the world, and they totally convince themselves they are right having no key certainties of pre-evolutionary biological models.

I'm not convinced I'm right, I admit you may be but we won't know till the end.

In your concept, there's no way a Christian could be right even if you are wrong

we differ in both humility and interpretation of science in that regard. I know you don't care, but the fact remains you guys are the smartest white men I've ever known. Evolution got that really right!

 

[Lowpro]

I know, but your side has done the same. So my original stance remains

Evolutionists cite recent science models under constant revision to make claims about a fraction of a not-understood timescale critical to their interpretation of the world, and they totally convince themselves they are right having no key certainties of pre-evolutionary biological models.

I'm not convinced I'm right, I admit you may be but we won't know till the end.

In your concept, there's no way a Christian could be right even if you are wrong

we differ in both humility and interpretation of science in that regard. I know you don't care, but the fact remains you guys are the smartest white men I've ever known. Evolution got that really right!

It's not that we are certain we're right. The fact we work under a theory that can be falsified or revised it evidence of that.

But in the meantime, look at how wrong and just BAD your alternative explanations are. The Christian explanation is already demonstrably untrue. WITHOUT evolution and everything we know. If we had NO ABILITY to dig past 6 feet of dirt, the Christian explanation STILL wouldn't be right. How do you not understand that? The Christian argument could NEVER be right, no matter what we know or DON'T know because it just. didn't. happen that way.

What you SHOULD have said is "Well I don't like evolution, and I have no good alternative"

 

[Craig4]

I know, but your side has done the same. So my original stance remains

Evolutionists cite recent science models under constant revision to make claims about a fraction of a not-understood timescale critical to their interpretation of the world, and they totally convince themselves they are right having no key certainties of pre-evolutionary biological models.

I'm not convinced I'm right, I admit you may be but we won't know till the end.

In your concept, there's no way a Christian could be right even if you are wrong

we differ in both humility and interpretation of science in that regard. I know you don't care, but the fact remains you guys are the smartest white men I've ever known. Evolution got that really right!

What are the applications for your ideas?

 

[el zone]

The applications Craig are being able to preserve coral in the average home in spite of mass natural extinction, by laypersons having no training in marine biology. I'm not joking that's really important to me.

 

[Dinwar]

I know, but your side has done the same.

No. I have provided numerous references to specific data that can be verified by anyone. That's fundamentally different from "personal experiences".

Evolutionists cite recent science models under constant revision to make claims about a fraction of a not-understood timescale critical to their interpretation of the world, and they totally convince themselves they are right having no key certainties of pre-evolutionary biological models.

We understand the timescale quite well, and the "constant revisions" you bemoan amount, if you'd taken the time to learn what they are, to little more than refinements. Take, for example, the recent discovery of a bird that's closer to the common ancestor than Archaeopteryx. Not a surprise to paleontologists--we KNOW that we don't have all the data, and this minor adjustment makes our interpretations that much better. Creationists scream bloody murder at any revision, however, assuming for some asinine reason that science is supposed to be static (asinine because science SAYS UP FRONT that everything is subject to revision).

As for pre-evolutionary biological models, they've been proven to be false. That's all that needs said about them. That said, if you want to know more read "Darwin's Century". It discusses those pre-evolutionary biological models from Greece to 'On the Origin of the Species", and outlines (with citations to more complete arguments) the reasons why they were and continue to be rejected.

In your concept, there's no way a Christian could be right even if you are wrong

This is putting words into my mouth. I've never said I can't be convinced that Christians are right. In fact, if you'd bothered to read what I wrote you'd see that I told you EXPLICITLY how to convince me. The fact that you failed to do so doesn't make me unreasonable; it makes you wrong.

we differ in both humility and interpretation of science in that regard.

That's right, we do. I'm humble enough to admit that I'm a member of a species that represents a small twig on a small branch of the evolutionary tree, and that I'm a cosmic accident. You're not. As far as interpretation goes, you have yet to demonstrate that you've gotten to that point. Again, I'm the only one who's provided any data here, so thus far I'm the only one who can honestly call what they're doing interpretation ("interpretation" is a verb--it's something you do with data, and therefore requires data).

But that's a side issue, and a personal attack to boot. I could be the most arrogant jerk on Earth, and evolution would still be right and Creationism wrong.

I'm not convinced I'm right, I admit you may be but we won't know till the end.

Gee, that's such a humble thing to do--state that my entire field is impossible for no reason other than, well, you say so! Never mind that we have literally TONNES of data supporting our arguments, all of which is widely available and a good chunk of which is on display for the public.

I have to ask at this point: Do you WANT to know? Or do you want to pretend that such knowledge is impossible? If you want to know the evidence and actually figure out this issue, we can provide it. If you merely want to insist that such knowledge is impossible, there's no point to continuing this conversation.

 

[Dinwar]

Do you deny that 98% of posters this forum are white and men and you can tell that from just the writing alone?Some can get angry really fast.

The highlighted part I deny 100%. I don't believe it's possible for anyone to interpret race based on writing, and I especially don't consider anyone without any training in psychology to be able to do so. The part before it is something you simply cannot know.

I'm not actually angry with you, by the way. I'm extremely frustrated. You have to understand, every argument you've thus far presented is nothing more than a rehash of garbage that I've had to deal with over and over again innumerable times over the past decade.

Here's a stock response to the Big Bang argument.

Here's one for your "you need to know everything that happened before" argument.

Here's one of many discussing your notion that we don't understand deep time.

And here's an index to all of the claims that have thus far been made. If you use any of these you're going to get a reaction that's equal parts exasperation and annoyance, because we've addressed these numerous times and we're BORED. Science thrives on NEW questions--repeatedly answering old ones offers us nothing. Some of us are willing to do so, in hopes that we'll convince a few people to abandon disproven nonsense, but it's not something that makes us happy. Add to that your continued attempts at pop psychology, cramming words in peoples' mouths, dismissing entire fields of science without justification, refusal to stick to the topic, etc., and it should be no surprise that people aren't reacting well to your arguments.

The applications Craig are being able to preserve coral in the average home in spite of mass natural extinction, by laypersons having no training in marine biology. I'm not joking that's really important to me.

This has nothing to do with Creationism. You apparently don't understand EITHER theory under discussion.

 

[Dinwar]

I'll make it easy for you: watch the following two series of videos before continuing in this conversation. At least that way you'll get an understanding of what Creationism is, what evolution is, some of the evidence behind it, and what it would take to disprove the theory of evolution:

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0C606FE36BEDAC75&feature=plcp

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL126AFB53A6F002CC&feature=plcp

 

[stokes234]

Evolutionists cite recent science models under constant revision to make claims about a fraction of a not-understood timescale critical to their interpretation of the world, and they totally convince themselves they are right having no key certainties of pre-evolutionary biological models.

The model of evolution isn't under constant revision. The fundamental tenet of natural selection has remained the same since discovery. We've found out plenty more about how it works, but the underlying theory of evolution hasn't been revised. Because it's correct. Dawkins' "The Greatest Show on Earth" is a very good book for understanding it, and understanding why it won't be falsified.

 

[CapelDodger]

Can you explain this? Are you equating Jews to fascism?

What a very strange suggestion. If you look at fascist rhetoric today it's identical to the fasccist rhetoric of the 20's and 30's, but with "Muslim" where "Jew" used to be. Well, that and "environmentalist" where "Bolshevik" used to be, I suppose, but the Muslim theme is by far the more prominent.