I. Reply to argument issues
In response to criticism regarding failure to address the evolutionist "model", cfldsl wrote:
I had the inherent notion that anything pertinent to a truly academic or intellectual debate involving opposing viewpoints would, of necessity, require a level playing field; neither side could be allowed to enjoy any artificial advantage. The following quotations expressed this equality exactly:
"The rules of logic and science indicate that there must be some kind of basis [either in substance or in thought] for an assertion or else it
must be denied. An assertion, without evidence, is not accepted as true. That is the default position, the position that defines what critical thought
is. Critical thought means not believing things you are told unless there is evidence to back it up. And without critical thought, logic and science are abandoned, and this is the only kind of productive thought humanity has ever come up with."
"[Secondly,] a person who rejects an assertion does not need to provide any justification for it. The evidence has to be provided by the party making the assertion.
The person rejecting the assertion needs to provide nothing at all." [Emphasis in original]
Link:
http://www.graveyardofthegods.net/artic ... ative.html
II. Reply to Scripture issues
cfldsl wrote:
Normally the evolutionist's task is to persuasively argue that this miraculous event of creation was a complete and total accident. Because this event has not yet been attended by suitable scientific verification, the event itself, and other such related theorizations, extrapolations, and fanciful meanderings of the mind, are not science.
zoegirl wrote:
No, I would clarify this. It is good observations, unsupported extrapolations. There are interesting and intriguing chemistry that had shown some evidence for self-assembly of molecules that can then be their own template to copy themselves. Have they been able to observe the self-generation of life? No.
But here is an interesting question: Suppose tomorrow, they do, suppose in 5 years, they do. Would this rock your faith? In other words, observing something happening "naturally" does not mean that God was not involved. Nor does it mean that God could not have orchestrated it.
I would not expect any of man's
truthful exploits, experiments, or efforts to contradict or negate anything in the Scripture. God is not surprised by the doings of man. The Scripture contains all the information that we must have and nothing of mis- or disinformation; it is completely truthful.
[Genesis 1:21] "And
God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind; and God saw that
it was good. [v 22] And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the water in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. [v 23] And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. [v 24]
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. [v 25] And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."
[Genesis 2:1] "Thus
the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. [v 2] And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. [v 3] And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it
he had rested from all his work which God created and made. [v 4]
These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the heavens,..."
[Exodus 20:11] "For
in six days
the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."
These Scriptures above have satisfied me that God created every living thing at one time; I do not believe that anything "evolved" after God finished with Creation. The Scripture below is the reason that the exploits of man referenced above were specified as "truthful".
[Genesis 6:5] "And God saw that the wickedness of man
was great in the earth, and
that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart
was only evil continually."
III. Purpose of writing
I had hoped to add Christian weight in the balance of evolution/creation.
Because theists [and Christians] readily acknowledge that their belief is accepted on their faith [which is suitably defined as "a firm belief and reliance upon ideas, doctrines, concepts, etc., for which no proof is available or required"] in Biblical scriptures, there is nothing to prove, or provable, from the theist position. But the evolutionist's position is exactly identical; it rests on faith because there is no proof [which in this case, means "proof according to the scientific method"] which has been offered and accepted as valid. It is true that theists cannot prove their own position, nor can they disprove the evolutionist position; identically, it is true that the evolutionists cannot prove their own position, nor can they disprove the theist position. Now this would result in an impasse were it not for at least one further fact: The evolutionist position is that evolution and an evolutionistic origin of life are scientifically proven, or provable.
Christians and all other theistic believers can raise the cry for the scientific proof to be brought forward and accounted.
*Opinions and beliefs of "scientists" are of no value; proof must be verifiable and reproducible. Of course, this proof is as unicorns are. Once these "scientists" come to acknowledge that their belief is not based on proof, but rather, faith, there will exist insufficient reason to continue to beleaguer young minds with the "science of evolution".
*Lest this seem a little extreme, please remember that these "scientists" and teachers have gone about to intentionally perpetrate falsehood; and that being for the duration of several lifetimes. No pleadings for special consideration in regard to scientific method are appropriate; remember Who it is that musters to Untruth.
IIII. Dessert
zoegirl wrote:
And a scientist would say....ok, we're working on it. It doesn't throw a scientist when we don't know everything. And I worry that your rebuttal come perilously close to "God of the Gaps". What I hear from you is "they can't show me now, so that shows that it couldn't have happened that way, therefore I know that God had to be involved in this."
So what happens if in five years they do show that a very basic cell can be recreated? By OUR very own rules, we have given them their argument. "We have shown that it can happen this way, you said it couldn't".
Evolutionism:
1. If life were to come to pass, then it would be a completely naturalistic process without any elements of plan, design, oversight, or control of components and/or conditions.
2. Life came to pass.
3. Therefore life came to pass through a completely naturalistic process without any elements of plan, design, oversight, or control of components and/or conditions.
Suppose that scientists were able to produce some living material through such or similar intellectual facilitation: Such a feat would disprove step 1 above; it would in fact prove the case for creation. Those scientists involved in such pursuits are certainly aware of this. Submitted for your consideration: All this laboratory research is just a strategy to enable the teaching of evolution by claiming it is science as long as possible--perhaps even several more lifetimes.
Thank you.
cfldsl
