Posted on 07/23/2004 1:48:15 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
Most agree that the modern creation movement began in 1961 with the publication of The Genesis Flood, the classic work on flood geology. God has marvelously blessed in succeeding decades, and now there are scores of creationist organizations worldwide, with books and videos and seminars and websites multiplying rapidly. Not only has creation information become widely available, but the face of science has swung dramatically toward creation positions (i.e., recognition of the lack of transitional fossils, the acceptance of catastrophism in geology, etc.).
[Snip]
ICR remains distinct from other creation groups in its graduate-degree programs and staff of research scientists researching and gathering information made available to all the groups. Sometimes I wonder what could be accomplished if we had access to the huge government grants available to our evolutionary colleagues at universities, but we're winning without these grants.
The rather new Intelligent Design (ID) movement has also emerged, and has been quite effective in demonstrating the exquisite design in living things, quite beyond the ability of natural processes to produce, and the religious, naturalist underpinnings of evolution. Their membership spans a wide spectrum of viewpoints, from evolutionists, to New Agers, to Bible-believing Christians. As a tactical strategy, ID has chosen to be scrupulously secular in their presentation.
While ICR applauds the work of ID, sells their materials, and supports their efforts, we cannot join them. As a Christian, Bible-based organization, our goals are different. [Snip]
[Note: the article is copyrighted, so I've excerpted some portions.]
1. Anything you admit you don't know is proof of creationism.We now return you to your regularly scheduled debate.
2. Anything you claim you do know is also proof of creationism.
3. Everything is proof of creationism.
We already know that you are dogmatic in your response to item 1 with “I don’t know”
And what about number 2?
2. Life should be common throughout the universe.
The placemarker peanut gallery is welcome to debate.
No thanks. But I'm betting on you. I'm confident that you'll remain firm in your convictions.
As do you Pat…
In evolution theory it does. Your genetic code is derived from your ancestors. But if you were specially created, and not a product of common descent, your genetic code could be utterly unrelated to that of any other creature.
If all life on Earth is predicated upon genetic code (DNA) then all life on earth is related.
All life on Earth is predicated upon genetic code
THEREFORE
Contrast this premise to:
if you were specially created, and not a product of common descent,your genetic code could be utterly unrelated
This is precisely what cannot be proved by evidence. You cannnot "prove" it is "not a product of common descent" since you cannot prove a negative.
The only proof would be a life form that had no genetic descent (meaning no DNA) and propogated by some other means.
DNA itself implies commonality.
As for 5.
Either God placed fossils into existence solely to confuse Humankind or fossils are evidence of some form of evolution. This is a classic either/or in this discussion.
I often reflect on this point that it was barely more than 100 years ago that we discovered the first dinosaur fossil. After Darwin. When they discovered dinosaurs there were no automobiles. When my grandmother was born there were no cars, when she died we'd been to the moon. Do you really think we now know what reality is?
My point is that I'm tired of being tied to the beliefs of people who still live in a world view from centuries ago. This is the "War on Terrorism" that we are now fighting and that so many don't understand. You cannot win if you are just going to argue your myths against theirs. You're both wrong.
It then becomes a Duel Fallacy "Appeal of Authority" of their revealed documents versus yours. Against reality both will eventually lose.
The only question is: how many lives do you want to take with you along the way?
Science is the real world people. Wake up or die.
I had in mind a creature with genetic material made of DNA, but it wouldn't have any ancestral forms. Kind of like what g3k used to claim for the platypus, but in this case there would truly be no possible ancestral forms. As an example: it would have 4 wings covered with silicon scales, a body covered with fur, 8 legs, 6 eyes, etc. It would be fully functional, and it would have a female companion, so it's not some solitary outrageous genetic freak. In other words, you couldn't tell it from an extra-terrestrial. Now that's an example of special creation.
As for 5 [The fossil record must show all kinds of species (such as dinosaurs and humans) living together at the same time.] Either God placed fossils into existence solely to confuse Humankind or fossils are evidence of some form of evolution. This is a classic either/or in this discussion.
Yes. All scientific tests are either/or. Either my theory survives this experiement or it doesn't. Are you criticising my point or what?
"Science of Stupid Lawyer Tricks" placemarker.
Happy little thread, but dormant. Placemarker.
This statement brought me up short.
Unless it's meant as a jest, I'm afraid you must be philosophically naive.
Ah, you're probably just jerking us rational empiricists' chain! ;^)
What planet are you from? A good deal of scientific advances and technology was developed by people who believed in the Bible. Pasteur, Lister, the guy who invented the MRI, and a whole lot more.
If you would be kind enough to read what I posted, you'll see that your reply has nothing whatever to do with what I wrote.
Or, to put it more succintly: "what planet are YOU from?"
Planet Seven placemarker.
It would be so easy to say, "Yeah" and slide outa this but I'm just not egotistical enough to lie.
No, being late in my day I was just being sloppy with what I said versus what I meant.
What I remember is reading that there was no real understanding of dinosaurs until the discovery of T.Rex. At that point Palentology really began to solidify as a science and the true timeline of when the dinosaurs lived began to be realized. Before that people had lots of theories about such fossils, but it was sort of like today's arguments about why some people are gay. Like anybody really knows.
So, as the lower class is so fond of saying, "Whatever."
Come on! You cannot prove this. How do you know there isn't an ancestral form that existed but went extinct with no other trace? Some mutational dead end that this creature is the only decendent of? You are attempting to Prove the Negative here.
In other words, you couldn't tell it from an extra-terrestrial.
Begs the Question that there are extra-terrestrials (which is a more plausible explanation than)
that's an example of special creation.
Begs the Question that special creation is a valid concept over and above other explanations, such as mutation or, as yet, unknown evolutional factors.
---
Yes. All scientific tests are either/or. Either my theory survives this experiement or it doesn't. Are you criticising my point or what?
Sorry, it was the chain of logic that led up to this point. Previous to your comments
one could argue that if fossils from two species, such as humans and dinosaurs, were found together, that would argue against the Theory of Evolution, but I don't see how one could argue that in order for creation to be true one would have to find any possible combination of species. There are millions or species, so having any possible combination would require quadrillions of fossils.
The very existence of fossils means that either God is trying to trick us, or the world is other than Creation. The understanding of when what was placed where is irrelevant.
IOW, the mere fact of a fossil record exists is either/or. . . especially when one takes into account generations of creatures that are the predicate for our very existence.
I'm not criticizing your point, I'm saying it doesn't exist.
My bride insists that I buy Dinosaur Bones for our dogs, all the GD time - nothing too good for a mutt!
They not be cheap, and now I find out they're the devil's product!
The dogs can bloody well catch a bear and gnaw on that!
You said of creationists that "they called science the Devil's handmaiden" while availing themselves of its benfits like modern medicine. Therefore, I think my first post had very much to do with what you wrote. Rather than thinking of science as "the Devil's handmaiden" many creationists have advanced science.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.