Bronzesnake: Your misrepresenting what is meant by the first quotations. You see, Those weren't meant to show how the ICR are incapable of producing accurate scientific evidence. It shows how the ICR is incapable of gathering information without looking through biblical scripture to insure it goes without blaspheme. In a sense altering evidence to make sure they stay correct.
You see, Creation science and science are simply two different things.
In Creation, It can't afford to be incorrect, or else it's literal view of the bible can be accidentally contradicted. If biblical literalism is your lens, then you cannot gather information without altering the facts. You don't believe that the earth is flat do you? That's an actual question as I cannot tell if you do or don't.
In Science, It is
always better to find evidence that a specific hypothesis or theory is incorrect. If evidence is found to show that a theory or hypothesis is incorrect, then a more accurate theory/hypothesis can be formed to explain a natural phenomenon.
You state at the end of your post that your not willing to bother and find evidence for your claims, but instead your just comfortable making them. So, could you perhaps defend your claims by giving us some evidence behind the ones such as:
~evolutionists are so arrogant that they can’t understand they base their conclusions on their own presuppositions and assumptions.
Bronzesnake said:
I don’t see creationists complaining because evolutionists framework is prescribed at the outset by atheistic literalism and thus antithetical to the methods and framework used by scientists.
You don't see this because there is no such thing as "Atheistic literalism", literalism of what exactly? There is no defining book of atheism. There is nothing that atheists deem sacred or unquestionable. The only thing that makes an atheist an atheist is his/her disbelief in a deity. This is a laughable excuse for an argument Bronze...
Bronzesnake said:
Evolutionists are also incapable of understanding atheism is also an ideology.
HAHAHA, this one really made me laugh. Here's an nice quote that couldn't be stated any better than this...
Atheism is not a philosophy for the same reason that it is not an ideology: it's not even a single belief, much less a system of interconnected beliefs, and by itself atheism does not guide anyone anywhere. The same would be true if we defined atheism narrowly as denial of the existence of gods: that single belief is not a system of principles. As with ideology, atheism can be part of a philosophy.
http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/p/overview.htm
I also like how you put quotation marks around "quote", as if it wasn't a real quote.
Bronzesnake said:
Evointrinsic said:
Duane Gish himself, the former vice president of the ICR, stated that "neither creation nor evolution are scientific theories. Evolution is no more scientific than creation" If this is correct, than Creationist logic cannot be used in a scientific debate.
Let’s see what Gish is really all about and then we can decide if this “quote†makes sense.
This is what Gish really said, look under
The Nature of Theories on Origins http://www.icr.org/article/391/
Notice how this is under "Theories on Origins" where Gish himself states:
Gish said:
On the other hand, the theory of creation and the theory of evolution are attempts to explain the origin of the universe and of its inhabitants.
This is the very first sentence, and already he makes a misconception that "The Theory Of Evolution describes the origin of the universe and of its inhabitants". Um no... The Theory Of Evolution describes the genetic changes through successive generations to
life that already exists. You start to wonder just how Gish acquired a PhD in Biochemistry if he could make such a remarkably simple yet drastically wrong claim about a intensely known Scientific Theory.
If Gish read even the first paragraph, let alone the first chapter of Darwin's book "On The Origin of Species" he would have known this. Just incase you havent, this is what the first few words say.
I will here give a brief sketch of the progress of opinion on the Origin of Species. Until recently the great majority of naturalists believed that species were immutable productions, and had been separately created. This view has been ably maintained by many authors. Some few naturalists, on the other hand, have believed that species undergo modification, and that the existing forms of life are the descendants by true generation of pre existing forms.
How can a person with a PhD In Biochemistry make such a ridiculous claim?
It's like me saying that the Bible never said anything about how the universe, galaxy, sun and stars, and earth came into existence. That is the equivalent mistake that Duane Gish just made. Except it wasn't a mistake, he actually believes this as he states this claim over and over again.
It is very easy to vilify a person when you do not give him an opportunity to defend himself. This is not communist Russia my friends.
There is no need for him to defend himself because he has outright lied and plagiarized. it's been proven many times before.
Pard: That is by far a different thing. Gravity and mathematics can be tested, where is Genesis can not. Simply because I believe in something doesn't make it acceptable within scientific discussion. If you have evidence, however, about whatever you believe in, then it is acceptable within scientific discussion (depending on what the evidence actually is and what the scientific discussion is). Unfortunately the evidence we have in all sorts of scientific fields outweigh the evidence for many biblical literalistic claims.
There are Christian scientists, however, that do not take the bible to a literal level, and there for are still capable of discovering incredible scientific information, and still holding their faith.
We can't simply say "creationist" though, as there are Young Earth and Old Earth Creationists, both with radically different thoughts, claims, believes and so on. When debating a certain topic, though, one or the other may possibly be wrong off the start simply because of the evidence we already have discovered. Not only that, but there are a variety of different young earth creationists, as well as a variety of Old Earth Creationists. So even grouping one or the other together has its issues.
So I am torn between yes and no for the "git-go" statement. but that really applies to a lot of other things as well.
Tell me, do you believe in Microevolution? just out of curiosity.
