Member Since: March 19, 2013


123 To page: Go
  • [-1] January 27, 2015 at 5:59pm

    Using observational, experimental science, we observe that circumstances X leads to Y. We also observe that Y exists in the present. The inference that the Y that we observe in the present must have been caused by circumstances X is practicing historical science, a totally different set of events then when we found X leading to Y.

    One issue arises when you consider that C can also lead to Y. Furthermore, in the case of molecules to man evolution, we have never observed the X that leads to Y. We have observed A leading to B (microevolution), and evolutionists ASSUME that the same process can lead all the way to Y, which just isn’t the case.

    At any rate, I know you are a zealot for naturalism, and cannot see reason when it comes to attacks on what you call science.

  • [-2] January 27, 2015 at 5:50pm

    I’ll be more specific then. Evolution is a pillar of atheism, one of its central tenants.

    And on the distinction between observational and historical science, you are a fool if you think molecules-to-man evolution has ever been observed. When we apply what we have learned by observing what occurs in the present in order to infer what happened in the past, this is a very different practice than when we perform experiments and develop technology in the present. Evolutionists refuse to acknowledge the difference because it would betray the fact that they are relying on unprovable assumptions. If anyone told you that “water freezes at zero degrees Celsius” is the same sort statement as “all life of earth is descended from a common ancestor,” you were lied to. If you will not acknowledge that one is provable and observable while the other is by nature unprovable and unobservable, then you are lying to yourself.

  • [-1] January 27, 2015 at 10:23am

    No one is advocating the teaching of creationism in government schools. Evolutionism and creationism are both religious ideologies, and neither should be taught in government schools. We can be so much more productive if we focus on observational science, leaving origins science to be taught by the private institutions that believe them.

    Responses (8) +
  • [-3] January 27, 2015 at 10:13am

    This is good. Evolution is a religion, so a religious group has called for and received recognition of a religious holiday. Now if we are persistent in calling them out for obfuscating observational science with historical science (which attempts to connect preconceived beliefs about the unobservable past with observable data in the present), we might be able to halt the use of government agencies from being used to impose the atheistic religion of naturalism on the culture.

    Responses (3) +
  • [-1] December 19, 2014 at 2:20pm

    #8 brings in the idea of “responsibilities”. In truth, rights and responsibilities are two sides to the same coin. Thus, we ask, to whom are we responsible? Again, if not God, then man. If the mighty care not for our consideration of others, then we have no such responsibility.

    #10 – Better for who? Humans? Crows? Fish?

  • [-1] December 19, 2014 at 2:19pm

    #4 brings “rights” into the discussion, which begs the question, where do “rights” come from? If not God, then man. Thus this is only true where the mighty agree to it. This would also require several caveats (which the Ten Commandments, when understood in the original language, do not). This “law” implies that it is wrong to imprison criminals.

    #5 is merely a statement of opinion. How do atheists define “good” or “full and meaningful”?

    #6 says “you must take responsibility for [your actions]”. If there is no God and you don’t get caught, why would you have to “take responsibility” for your actions?

    #7 attempts to improve on the golden rule, but in application results in the politically correct idiocy that we’re dealing with today. Don’t worry about treating people the way “they want to be treated”. Acting in good faith as you would have someone do to you, you will easily forgive the accidental insults or injuries of another who is also acting in good faith as they would have you do to them. If someone does not afford you that grace, they are not yet seeking to live in harmony with other human beings. This also ignores the many applicable cases where the good thing to do is not the thing that they want you to do. This is often the case for parents raising their children.

    Responses (1) +
  • December 19, 2014 at 2:19pm

    It is absolutely possible to be (relatively) good without believing in God. That’s not the point of Christianity. The Moral Law, as manifested in limited scope via the Ten Commandments, provides an illustration of the NATURE (and not just the actions) of the person who is able to enter an eternally perfect kingdom, abiding there forever, perpetuating joy and causing no pain or strife whatsoever. The lesson that you are supposed to learn from the Old Testament is that we do not have such a nature, and must place our hope and trust in the God who is able to transform us into the perfect versions of ourselves, the creatures that we were always meant to be. But we must also be free, thus we begin our existence imperfect, so that we are able to choose to be made perfect.

    That said, this attempt to “improve” on the Moral Law is laughable. #9 says there is no one right way to live, which basically means you can totally disregard the others if they don’t suit you. The first three have nothing to do with morality whatsoever, but instead deal with how a person should form beliefs. As previously mentioned, a person can believe just about anything and still be a (relatively) good person.

    Responses (1) +
  • [8] December 10, 2014 at 1:38pm

    If most rapes don’t get reported, how could you know that most rapes don’t get reported? Also, we are talking specifically about reported incidents of rape, thus unreported rapes are irrelevant to this discussion.

    Responses (3) +
  • [4] December 9, 2014 at 3:39pm

    She went to a hospital?? In what way did they treat her? “You’re stoned. Sleep it off. That’ll be $300.”

    I mean, I get it. Pot makes you paranoid. But was everyone else in the school stoned as well?!

    PSA: If you accidentally ingest marijuana, try to relax. Don’t try to drive, but if possible, remove yourself from public areas, as you are likely to make a fool of yourself. If you can accomplish these things, literally nothing bad will happen to you. Do what you would normally do in your leisure time, sleep it off, and you will be fine.

  • [3] October 17, 2014 at 11:37am

    Hi Mot: A complete “orchard of life” model is neither useful nor necessary, it simply shows a different view of how life is related – many original ancestors as opposed to the evolutionary single ancestor for all life. Evolutionists would need to show that all life is related, thus the necessity for the complete “tree of life” model. Of course, it doesn’t work. Also, we both observe many genetic similarities between all life forms on earth. You and others who hold an evolutionary worldview interpret this as evidence of common descent, while creationists interpret this as evidence of common designer. Neither of us are using science when we form beliefs about the unobservable past, even if those beliefs are attached to things we observe in the present. The tree of life cannot be tested or repeated – thus not science. It is in fact a religious symbol.

  • [1] October 16, 2014 at 10:28pm

    K so everyone knows the Oort Cloud is made up, right? Comets have short lives, so to explain their existence in a multi-billion year old universe worldview, this guy Oort just, you know, made it up. There is NO observable evidence for the existence of the Oort cloud. Old-earth believers just pretend that its real so they don’t have to face the fact that comets shouldn’t exist in such an old universe.

  • October 16, 2014 at 6:08pm

    GUP, don’t have much time, but He called the light “day” and the darkness He called “night”. Thus, “evening and morning were the first day” = “one period of darkness followed by one period of light”. While this does not support the idea that the creation days were “regular 24 hour days”, neither does it specifically contradict it. More importantly, though, it does rule out the idea of theistic evolution via the “day/age” interpretation, as complex life is biologically suited to a much shorter light/dark cycle, and thus, it is supposed, a regular light/dark cycle must have forced them to evolve this way.

  • [3] October 16, 2014 at 5:14pm

    The Bible says that God called the original creation “very good”. If He was referring to a world full of disease, suffering, and death, as theistic evolutionists believe, I would not care to know Him. To say “God thinks suffering is very good” is far more blasphemous than saying “The word that God delivered us can be trusted.”

    Observable science is always found to be perfectly consistent with a young earth and “orchard of life” phylogenetic model. Those who claim that creationists believe religion and science are incompatible are obfuscating observable, testable and repeatable science with the enormous and unsupportable extrapolations of present day observations into the unobservable past. Evolution, radiometric dating methods, and the “tree of life” phylogenetic model are wholly dependent upon such extrapolations. Furthermore, such theories must hold as their basis ideas which fly in the face of observational science, see abiogenesis and the Big Bang. In other words, both worldviews are dependent upon events which violate the laws of nature as we observe them happening today, yet only one worldview allows for such violations.

    But trusting God’s word will mean that lots of people won’t like us. Friendship with the world is enmity with God. Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you!

    Responses (2) +
  • August 15, 2014 at 4:15pm

    I didn’t say scientific evidence, I just said evidence (logical and empirical). Your demand that religious truths to be scientifically discernable is unreasonable and illogical. The product of scientific study is technological, and not philosophical, advancement.

    For a very basic example of a logical and empirical evidence which supports my religious beliefs, consider this: (1) The universe is not past eternal, but began to exist. (2) All of my experiences tell me that everything that exists has a cause. (3) Therefore, the universe must have been caused to exist. Exactly what caused the universe to exist cannot be empirically proven, however there is a very old, very special book that claims to deliver an account of that cause. From here, a rational person must endeavor to determine whether or not that book is trustworthy. This is not a scientific endeavor. To assume that the book is not trustworthy without studying the book and its history is irrational, lazy, and ignorant.

  • August 15, 2014 at 2:49pm

    Eutope, what you and Dawkins both misunderstand is that Christianity specifically, and theism generally, are not “evidence-free” belief systems. Dawkins simply rejects the logical and empirical evidences which support them, and then, rather than treat those who disagree with him respectfully, he pretends those evidences simply don’t exist, and paints us all as unreasonable, unthinking idiots.

    Dawkins said, “They’re entitled simply to say ‘oh that’s my faith, I believe it, you’re not allowed to question it and you’re not allowed to ask me why I hold it,” That may be true of Islam, and may go a long way toward explaining the last 1400 years of slaughter that that particular religion has caused. However, Christianity invites criticism, and the followers of Christ are explicitly commanded to “be prepared to give an answer to EVERYONE who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have” (1 Peter 3:15). Dawkins relies on misrepresentations in order to support his blind faith of materialism.

    Furthermore, in the last century we have seen how blind faith in evolution (materialism) leads its adherents to commit genocide in the name of “natural selection”.

  • July 14, 2014 at 3:43pm

    So people are only gay when they are having gay sex, and you want “equal rights for gay people”. Does that mean you want people to be able to vote, drive, and work while having gay sex? What an idiot. Go bump yourself.

  • [9] June 25, 2014 at 10:46am

    It’s a false dichotomy. The debate is not over whether or not man has any impact on climate change, but whether or not man has significant impact on climate change. Furthermore, there is debate over whether or not climate change will lead to catastrophic circumstances. And what’s more, since way more people die of cold than of heat each year, there is debate about whether global warming would be a bad thing at all.

    Typical alinskyite politicized science. Evolution to justify might-makes-right rule, and global warming to justify overregulation of commerce. Throw in the dumbing down of education and overwhelming of welfare systems, and you have your bloodless communist takeover in less than a century.

  • June 23, 2014 at 11:05am

    Mot – congratulations, you have checkmated your strawman. I have used the term “macroevolution” interchangeably with terms like “molecules to man” evolution, due to the contested definition of macroevolution. You know well that creationists contend that microevolutionary mechanisms cannot account for changes beyond the “kind” level, which is above the species level. The word “kind” is used in the Bible, which predates modern classification schemes. Kind is generally understood to be close to the genus level of classification.

    Thus creationists do not contend that natural processes can produce new species. But a new species of dog is still a dog. Thus, observational science is consistent with God’s word that animals will reproduce after their kinds.

    You said “…you won’t need to post that anymore.” As I already mentioned, I stated my challenge in a simplified form, more in reference to a well known (but never directly addressed) creationist challenge. You addressed the simplified form, but not the actual challenge.

    My note on incest was to point out that if mutations are known to be generally detrimental, then this would utterly invalidate the theory that unguided mutations produced the variety and complexity of life on the planet today. In other words, Darwinian evolution runs contrary to observable science.

  • June 20, 2014 at 3:17pm

    MOT – Something has occurred to me, and I wonder if there is a standard evolutionist answer. If random mutation naturally tends to produce more complex and beneficial traits and functions, then why don’t evolutionists encourage incest? Closely related parents are more likely to possess the same mutations, and thus are more likely to pass those mutations down to their children.

    Of course everyone knows that naturally occurring mutations naturally tend to be detrimental, which is why we marry outside our families, so that one parent’s existing mutations might not be passed down, or if they are, they will be masked by the unmutated genes inherited from the other parent.

    Or would you say we’ve been doing it wrong?

  • June 20, 2014 at 1:52pm

    MOT – My point is that if you say that duplication + mutation results in “new genetic information”, then so does plain mutation by itself. What you are calling “new information” is merely a sequence of base pairs that was not previously present. Mutation accomplishes that all by itself, without the need for duplication.

    Of course, information is more complex than that, and so is the production of increasingly complex traits and functions required by macroevolution, which has never been observed. In order to respond to the creationist challenge, you’ll need to show the process whereby increasingly complex and beneficial traits and functions can be produced, resulting in an entirely new kind of creature.

    I acknowledge that I was not perfectly accurate in my challenge of evolution – after all, we only get 1500 characters to make our argument.

    A bacteria gaining the ability to consume whatever food is provided in its environment is still a bacteria. Duplication/mutation can never turn a bacteria into a fish, or a fish into a dog, or a dog into a human. That requires new and more complex information that duplication/mutation can produce, nor can any mechanism that has ever been observed.

123 To page: Go