Replies

I am aware of the method of which you speak. And I'm not sure which Creationists are being refuted. It's not relevant though, and here's why.

If you read that paper, you will note allusion to quantities, geometrical concepts, trigonometric constructs - things for which the logical conclusion of evolution (atheism) fails to account. I feel I've already dealt with this at length in previous posts but will reiterite it one last time here.

Some claim science makes no presuppositions. Fact is, without a set of rules in which to interpret the data, far less a consciousness with which to observe it, it is meaningless. Theism (the logical conslusion of Creationism) readily gives an account for the transcendental: The Creator of the Universe also governs the same; He made the rules. They make sense. They provide a basis for scientific inquiry.

Atheism (logical conclusion of evolution) must hold that transcendentals (incl. the universe's physical existence) stand on their own - without meaning, without purpose. Sure, he uses them, but he cannot give an account for them. They become, themselves, the great "I AM" - presupposed but unaccounted for. They just are.

Our choice becomes one of probability: the logical conclusion that we live in an ordered universe whose laws point to a lawgiver, or we live in a random universe in which said laws "just happen" to exist.

Until the atheist can give a coherent and rational account for the very premises he uses in the conclusions of his version of science, the latter holds no weight to the extent it borrows that which makes much more sense in a theistic context - and far less so to the degree it makes assumptions that are predicated on an unprovable premise.

You are talking about furniture. I'm talking about the rug it sits on.

I'm going to bed before I begin taking insults for spelling/grammatical errors.

Thanks also for your input.

Atheism (logical conclusion of evolution) must hold that transcendentals (incl. the universe's physical existence) stand on their own - without meaning, without purpose. Sure, he uses them, but he cannot give an account for them. They become, themselves, the great "I AM" - presupposed but unaccounted for. They just are.
choice becomes one of probability: the logical conclusion that we live in an ordered universe whose laws point to a lawgiver, or we live in a random universe in which said laws "just happen" to exist.

The order of the universe does not point to a lawgiver. Unless you view atoms & energy quanta as having minds of their own, and have chosen to obey God instead of going off on their own private adventures.

But there is no reason why consistency should not be exactly the expected result of a natural world. In fact there is every reason to think that a consistent universe consisting of unthinking parts would be precisely that - consistent. Because the fundamental particles can't "choose" to act in any other way.

Your basic assumption of how a mindless universe should act is totally wrongheaded.

(I'm off to bed too. :-)

The most comfortable position for an atheist is to imagine a timeless, steady state Earth and universe, and that indeed did use to be the default position of atheists in past ages (yes, there were quite a few atheists before Darwin et al). It's a lot harder to explain away the Big Bang and the cosmic soup than to just simply say "humans have always existed". So don't assume that science automatically approaches with the intent to take God out of the equation totally... it doesn't... it approaches with the intent to document history. The fact that there *is* a beginning keeps me believing in a Creator.

You: You cannot prove or disprove the constancy of lightspeed using the scientific method given limiations of the human lifespan. In fact, the only hard data available seems to indicate it is decreasing slightly though we are certainly free to question the methodologies used for the various tests over the centuries..

I linked to a study that shows the speed of light to be constant for the last 160,000 years. Do you have an objection to their reasoning or observations? Do you agree that the speed of light is now known to be constant for at least the last 160,000 years? If not, please explain.

Also, assuming that it varies, what would be the astrophysical effects, since stars depend on E=mc² for their energy?

But instead, you responded with

If you read that paper, you will note allusion to quantities, geometrical concepts, trigonometric constructs - things for which the logical conclusion of evolution (atheism) fails to account.

Quantities? I assume you mean things like the measurement of Cepheid periods, their spectra, the angular increase in the light echo from the supernova, etc.

.. geometrical concepts, trigonometric constructs? These depend only upon the axioms of math.

[snip... philosophical woolgathering ...]

I really don't get your argument here. Whatever your presuppositions, the regularities of the universe are observed facts.

You are talking about furniture. I'm talking about the rug it sits on.

You're analogy doesn't make sense to me.