Replies

Spare me your paranoia and your unsupportable insults. I haven't said a thing about religion, and your knee-jerk blanket view that all geologists or all biologists who subscribe to the hardly debatable principles of natural selection are godless anti-Christian heathens is a profound demonstration that you haven't thought an awful lot about either side of your supposed divide. Or don't you believe that some variations of a species prevail over others? And if so, don't you think that God has a role in that beyond simply choosing an outcome from on high?

My view is not knee-jerk - it is the result of alot of reading and alot of debate. I didn't call anyone a godless heathen, but I have encountered you enough times to believe that you do have an anti-Christian bias. I might believe that in view of your support of the courts' suppression of the Free Exercise of religion under the U.S. Constitution. That gave me a clue. As for naturalists, I merely posited an accurate statement as to their worldview. Naturalists are called naturalists becuase they don't believe in a Creator. Is that true or false? Since they don't believe in a Creator, it logically follows consistently that they also believe all reality can be reduced to particles. And in my experience, naturalists, neodarwinists, evolutionary biologists, etc., do believe religion is superstitious nonsense - it is wholly consistent with the naturalist (secularist) mindset. Not a judgment just a general fact. All you have to do is look at the open HOSTILITY exhibited by naturalists toward Christians in this forum to see that.

So stop mischaracterizing my statements. Just read what I write in black and white and try to come up with a logical rebuttal. Would you like to deny that naturalists hold presuppositions that are not based on science - their own brand of "faith" if you will...

Or don't you believe that some variations of a species prevail over others? And if so, don't you think that God has a role in that beyond simply choosing an outcome from on high?

Variation is true, not macroevolutionary speciation. I can't believe humans evolves from the same ancestors as chimps just because the DNA is similar. It is logically absurd. Here is the logical argument:

A is similar to B in Y. Therefore, A and B evolved from Z.

Huh? The conclusion does not follow the premise. Fallacy alert!

Oh, I might add that your atheistic view on this issue is wholly consistent with your secularistic view of law. What a surprise! It seems there is some consistency in the naturalist worldview, eh? We all begin with fundamental presupposition as to whether God exists or not - all other beliefs flow from that. One presupposition leads to another.

If you say that all life came from a proto-bacteria, you need to show me the evidence for this. Where are all of those transitional forms in the fossil record? How did life just spring up on its own? Do you know how complex a bacteria is, or even a single protein molecule? You take these to be fact on blind faith. There is zero evidence for them. The darwinists cite the same hackneyed examples over and over - peppered moth, fruit fly, etc.