Posted on 04/01/2009 6:24:14 AM PDT by seanindenver
Some time ago, a highly charged argument was set in motion. It pitted evolution against creationism. One side of this debate relies on scientific inquiry and the other relies on ancient mythological texts.
That's my view. That's what I intend to teach my children.
Yet, I have no interest in foisting this curriculum on your kids. Nor am I particularly distressed that a creationist theory may one day collide with the tiny eardrums of my precocious offspring.
Which brings me to the Texas Board of Education's recent landmark compromise between evolutionary science and related religious concerns in public school textbooks.
The board cautiously crafted an arrangement that requires teachers to allow students to scrutinize "all sides" of the issue. This decision is widely seen as a win for pro-creationists — or are they called "anti-evolutionists"?
(Excerpt) Read more at denverpost.com ...
So are you arguing that there is no way to learn anything about unobserved events? If we're not allowed to draw any conclusions about P from either predicted results of P (Q) or the absence of contradictions of predicted results of P (not-Q), how can we conclude anything about P at all?
The problem w/ your example is that P is observed
No, nobody saw the accused killer commit the murder. They merely made predictions about what evidence would be found if he had. But you want to rule that evidence out.
I must conclude that, while you've learned the names of these two logical fallacies,...
I believe that is known as the "I know you are but what am I" fallacy.
And you have just agreed that God worked a six day span. And you have presented it as if you need to affirm the six days of creation and the one day of work.
So...which is it? Is it idiotic or is it what you believe?
You cannot assume that unobserved P exists because unobserved P predicts Q and Q is observed. That is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. You cannot assume that unobserved not-Q supports unobserved P. That is the fallacy of argument from ignorance. These are fallacies and will always be fallacies. In every case, P is assumed 'a priori' and fallacy is used to justify belief in P when P cannot be shown to even exist.
"No, nobody saw the accused killer commit the murder. They merely made predictions about what evidence would be found if he had. But you want to rule that evidence out."
No, in the case of macro-evolution, you don't have a body and you don't have anyone's DNA at the scene because you don't have a 'crime scene' to examine. That supposedly happened back in unobservable assumed history. All you have is a guy w/ blood on his clothes. Maybe all that happened is that he punched somebody in the nose. You simply add the fallacy of inconsistent comparison to the fallacy of affirming the consequent in a desperate attempt to support macro-evolution. All you are doing is multiplying fallacies.
"I believe that is known as the "I know you are but what am I" fallacy."
No, that would be the bare assertion fallacy being reflected back at you. Now that it is reflected back at you, you can recognize fallacious argument. You just can't accurately recognize which fallacy it represents.
Then why do so many creationist on this site use Bible versus when asked about the science behind creationism?
Thank you oh so very much for your outstanding essay-post, dear brother in Christ!
Also, the metaphysical naturalists often claim that the mind is merely an epiphenomenon of the physical brain, a secondary phenomenon that cannot cause anything to happen.
In their view, there is no ghost in the machine. Everything is caused by the physical brain. To them, mind/soul/spirit is the illusion - it cannot cause anything to happen. Brains fall in love, brains make commitments, brains get married, etc.
What a pointless life it would be for people who actually believed such nonsense.
Which view of man is more politically manipulable?
Also, when a people denies God the Creator they are of no more or less value than any other biological entity. If the United States were to ever go that way, the next step would be equal rights for all animals.
Thank you oh so very much for your insights, dearest sister in Christ!
The Sun was not even created the first few “yoms”. Where does that necessitate exactly twenty four hours?
So, I ask you again: how can we know anything about the past if we can't draw a conclusion from the evidence and we can't draw a conclusion from the lack of evidence? How do we investigate prehistory? If evolution is true, how do we demonstrate it?
It is worse than that AG.
If God is not the creator of man, if man is just an accident of nature, then we have no more intrinsic value than rocks. Because that is all we are. We are just chemicals.
Thank you so very much for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!
You have a need to affirm the “6 days.”
Is it idiotic or is it not?
Yet, you have a strong need to affirm XYZ number of “yoms.”
Why?
I was asked a question about the number of days of creation.
Answering the question asked of me shows I have a strong need to answer the subject?
Those who have a “need to affirm” a timeline, are those who think that by counting generations they can derive the exact time frame of God, and think they possess some hidden wisdom from so doing, a hidden wisdom that is completely at odds with the evidence.
It’s about you, because you keep affirming 6 yoms + 1 yom.
Why are you doing that? That’s my only question. It’s not personal. I’m curious.
Now why don't you answer the question I have posed to you several times. What about a “yom” without a Sun, to you, necessitates a 24 hour period?
But, if “yom” is an indefinite period, then there’s no reason to insist on there being seven of them. All you need is the simple statement, “time is indefinite with God.”
I preserve the 24 hour day, because the story was penned in this realm, and in this realm, a day is 24 hours.
Therefore, I consider it an important proportion requiring preservation.
A “yom” without a Sun could be any amount of time.
What about a “yom” without a Sun to you necessitates exactly 24 hours?
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.