Presuppositionalism

[Sapiens]

CJ: Other Creationism

• CJ000: Vedic Creationism
  • CJ001. Mankind has existed essentially unchanged for billions of years.
• CJ200-CJ499: Native North American Creationism
  • CJ300: Creationism from individual tribes
    • CJ311. The 9,400-year-old Kennewick Man was an Umatilla ancestor.
• CJ500-CJ699: Islamic Creationism
  • CJ500: Qur'an Accuracy
    • CJ530. The Qur'an's accuracy on scientific points shows overall accuracy.
      • CJ531. The Qur'an speaks of an expanding universe.
      • CJ533. The Qur'an describes human embryology accurately.

OK, Man of Faith, when your done with that list ... then let's talk.

Earth to Man-of-Faith: there's no debate about it in scientific circles. More than 99.99% of relevant scientists accepted the theory. The few who don't, do it on religious grounds. And what's more, they refuse to publish in scientific journals, where their viewpoints can be discussed by their peers. Not science. The fewer than 0.01% of relevant scientists who call themselves "creation scientists" have never even produced one little piece of evidence for their beliefs. Just quotes from their favourite holy books. That's why it is rejected by the other more than 99.99% of biologists. Any evidence for this, or is it what you want to believe? Are you making it up?
In the end, it doesn't matter what lay people say about science. It's what the scientific method says about science that matters. Evolution happens. It's fact. Every single bit of empirical, verifiable evidence we have confirms the fact. You denying it won't change it. Wishful thinking won't change it. It just shows that you are deluded. The same Behe that testified in court that astrology is "science"? He's a liar. Why would anyone trust what he says?

He is a liar and a perjurer and should not be taken seriously by anyone.

What you are doing is using the propaganda techniques of public ridicule and scorn to win an argument. Just because a scientist’s ideas and claims aren’t accepted by the mainstream scientific community doesn’t mean that they don’t have merit.

That is true, but when they have been shown to be claptrap with multiple data sets from multiple fields ... then they can be discarded. At the point continued use of such arguments flies in the face of even the christian bible, as noted by Creation Ministries International: "Persisting in using discredited arguments simply rebounds—it’s the truth that sets us free (John 8:32), not error, and Christ is “the truth” (John 14:6)!"

Actually, lying does not have any merit. Creationists always lie in every "article" they write. Even in courts, too. That's all they have, together with people not versed in science believing their untruths. If you want specific examples, I've got plenty of creationist lies I can specifically refer to.

I can add plenty on the biological side.

Why don't you want to debate a scientist? Come on, show us your stuff! If Krok is a secular geologist with weak arguments and you have better arguments, you should be able to embarrass him by making mince meat of his arguments.

I so dare you to debate him!

I'll be glad to take the biological part of the debate.

I thought that was what I was doing? I have no problem with the science, it's the conclusions based on the presuppositions of naturalism and uniformitarianism that I have a problem with.

Asked and answered.

Everything that is observed, duplicated and tested by scientists is allowed in the creation model. So I have no problem with what the scientists uncover, or the data they present.

Here is what the debate is really about. If everything that is observed is allowed in both the evolution and creation models, why do mainstreams scientists say that the data fits only one of the models? It is because of the presuppositions that are in science that says evolution is a fact so let’s see how it was done. And nobody would dare challenge those presuppositions if they want to pay their bills.

Because the creation model does not fit the data ... it is proven to be incorrect by multiple fields of inquiry and is "proven" correct only by fundamentalist interpretations of the Christian Bible, a process that requires presupposition to the max.

That's not surprising giving your attitude that anybody that doesn't accept evolution and an old earth age is simply reduced to "religious" and should be discounted.

That's a reasonable thing to do. They've had their days in court and they lost big time, every time. Let's move on (See Creation Ministry International statement above).

If you choose to reject science because of the assumption of naturalism, fine. Just be honest about it.

Honesty is not their policy when it contradicts their presuppositions.

Is an intial assumption that turns out to work still an assumption? All our observations support naturalism and uniformitarianism and none refute them. I think it is dishonest to refer to them as assumptions. Just another lieing ploy by the religious.

One of many lies, that's why I pointed out (above) that they are not presuppositions but rather theories or laws.

I take your point, but I still have to say that yes it is an assumption. It is an incredibly reasonable and practical assumption. It is an assumption that every sane individual makes in 90% of their day to day lives. We demand that people make this assumption, not only scientists, but also mechanics, plumbers, electricians, manufactures etc. If you take your car to a mechanic and he recommends a magical spell that will dispel the gremlins from your engine, you take your car to a different mechanic.

I don’t think it is dishonest to call them assumptions, but it is dishonest to imply that they are invalid assumptions, and it is incredibly dishonest to deny that everybody makes exactly these same assumptions.

Assumptions? No. There has more than enough work done for them to be theories or laws ... I'd frankly pull for the Law of Uniformitarianism and the Theory of Naturalism.

I agree with the OP completely. One thing I find interesting is that one of the greatest Christian thinkers, St. Augustine of Hippo, said basically that when science reveals something to be true, and it is contrary to what Christians believe the Bible teaches, that it is the Christians who should change their interpretation of the Bible, so they don't come across as ignorant fools. And like it's stated in the OP, most Christians do not accept literal scientific understandings of the Bible, especially stories in the OT, like creationism, the global flood, etc. It's just that the small amount who do, are much more vocal about it. They don't even realize that most of their religious brothers and sisters reject such things. When one presupposes that their view is right, simply because they think it is, it shows them to be foolish, ignorant, and dishonest. Those unwilling to change their views even in clear light of truth are not really worthy of the time and energy to debate. Arguing for the sake of arguing is pointless. If you can't learn, then don't waste the time. It's said that the wise are open to chastisement, while the foolish are not. And, if I'm not mistaken, that is from the Bible. That's my two cents.

... and an excellent two cents it is.

 

[adi2d]

Dmit Sapiens. Now I won't get anything done this week and I'm going to have to lay some of the blame on you


And my 5th grade teacher.

So much to read. So little time

 

[Sapiens]

Dmit Sapiens. Now I won't get anything done this week and I'm going to have to lay some of the blame on you


And my 5th grade teacher.

So much to read. So little time

Think how much easier it will be. e.g., the creationist posts: "Evolution is only a theory!" ... and all you have to say is: "CA201."

 

[gnostic]

I just think that all inerrantists, no matter of what religious backgrounds, are ignorant, superstitious fools.

 

[Castaigne]

There is evidence of a global flood. It's at your fingertips if you want to look. Sometimes I wonder if peoples Google works. Over 350 cultures around the world have a great flood story and 80% of the stories have commonalities.

There is no evidence for a global flood wiping out most of humanity a few thousand years ago. I quote:

"The archaeological record of 5,000 years ago would be replete with Pompeii-style ruins — the remains of thousands of towns, villages and cities, all wiped out by flood waters, simultaneously. [Archaeology would show cultural development with a discontinuity as everything was wiped out and Noah's descendents had to restart] ... It would appear that the near annihilation of the human race, if it happened, left no imprint on the archaeological record anywhere."
—Ken L Feder
​

Many other flood myths have existed throughout history in many cultures, but most of these likely arose independently, as virtually all of them were written by societies that resided near regularly flooding bodies of water. The commonalities are due to the commonalities of flooding in general.

Everything that is observed, duplicated and tested by scientists is allowed in the creation model.

That is false. The creation model DOES NOT allow all the data that is observed, duplicated, and tested by scientists.

It is because of the presuppositions that are in science that says evolution is a fact so let’s see how it was done.

See the Lenski experiments for evolution in action.

 

[Sha'irullah]

As the name implies it is just fools presuming too much about matters

 

[Desert Snake]

It is also important to note that many current Christians who accept theistic evolution, who believe that a global flood did not occur, and who believe that the earth is old, originally presupposed that creationism is true, that a global flood did occur, and that the earth is young, and changed their minds.

Is this supposed to inspire confidence?

'I believe in some of the ideas of this Holy book, however I generally consider it to be false. Yeah.

 

[viole]

There is evidence of a global flood. It's at your fingertips if you want to look. Sometimes I wonder if peoples Google works. Over 350 cultures around the world have a great flood story and 80% of the stories have commonalities.

Yes, they all involve ... massive amounts of water. And the fact that people tend to live near sources of water might explain why so many cultures experienced floods. I experienced one, as well.

So, do you think they all refer to the same flood? I don't see how, since there were not a lot of survivors if that was the case. Only Noah and his family could possibly transmit the information over the generations.

But then, it is not clear why he managed to faithfully transmit that and not other myths like the Biblical God. Unless you see similarities between Yaweh and Ganesha, and all the other variants of different beliefs on earth. Not to talk of the Egyptians gods that seem to have evolved quite rapidly from the original.

Ciao

- viole

 

[idav]

Yes, they all involve ... massive amounts of water. And the fact that people tend to live near sources of water might explain why so many cultures experienced floods. I experienced one, as well.

Hey over 350 cultures around the world experienced this massively devastating flood covering some 80% of the world. Shocking that all these cultures even lived to tell about it when it was so wide spread.

 

[Bunyip]

Hey over 350 cultures around the world experienced this massively devastating flood covering some 80% of the world. Shocking that all these cultures even lived to tell about it when it was so wide spread.

No, that is not at all true.

Floods occur wherever there is water and people - every culture has flood stories, but they are not about the same flood.

 

[viole]

Hey over 350 cultures around the world experienced this massively devastating flood covering some 80% of the world. Shocking that all these cultures even lived to tell about it when it was so wide spread.

How do you come to this 80% figure?. You make the unsubstantiated assumption that that flood affected all people at the same time. That is not plausible, for there is no geological evidence of that. Much more plausible that there were many independent floods at different times and those cultures remember those.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Monk Of Reason]

How do you come to this 80% figure?. You make the unsubstantiated assumption that that flood affected all people at the same time. That is not plausible, for there is no geological evidence of that. Much more plausible that there were many independent floods at different times and those cultures remember those.

Ciao

- viole

The majority of the human societies lived at the coastlines or on major rivers. Most of which were known to flood from time to time due to natural causes. It is very reasonable to assume that the idea of a global flood or huge flood story could be a common occurrence.

 

[idav]

Floods occur wherever there is water and people - every culture has flood stories, but they are not about the same flood.

Exactly

Much more plausible that there were many independent floods at different times and those cultures remember those.

Pretty much and they just mistake it for something beyond their areas.

 

[Bunyip]

Exactly

Pretty much and they just mistake it for something beyond their areas.

Exactly, it is like imagining that every love song across the earth is about the same girl.

 

[Sapiens]

Exactly, it is like imagining that every love song across the earth is about the same girl.

Damn, they're not all about my wife? Now you tell me!

 

[Bunyip]

Damn, they're not all about my wife? Now you tell me!

Awwwww...you romantic bugger.

 

[Shad]

Damn, they're not all about my wife? Now you tell me!

Just do not mention it to her and you will be fine

 

[NulliuSINverba]

There is evidence of a global flood. It's at your fingertips if you want to look.

Why not cite a few? If it's that easy, I mean.

I'll see your claim of There Is Evidence Of A Global Flood and raise you several citations for There Is Evidence Against The Claims Of A Global Flood:

Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition
Six Flood Arguments Creationists Can't Answer.
The Bible and Interpretation - Forget about Noah's Ark; There Was No Worldwide Flood
Psalm 104:9 - Does it refer to the Original Creation or the Flood?

That last one is remarkable, because it's specifically a religious site. Here's what that site has to say about it (in case you can't be bothered to click the link):

The concept of a global Genesis flood can be easily eliminated from a plain reading of Psalm 104, which has been called the "creation psalm." The Psalm claims that the original waters of the earth (which initially covered the entire earth) would "never again cover the earth" (Psalm 104:9). Obviously, if this is a proper interpretation of the Psalm, the global flood interpretation must be false or else this verse must be false.

Obviously, if the waters never again covered the earth, then the flood must have been local.

Psalm 104 clearly is a discussion about creation, not the flood. Did God stretch out the heavens (Psalm 104:2) in Genesis 6-9 (the flood narrative)? Did God set the earth on its foundations (Psalm 104:5) in Genesis 6-9? If it were talking about the flood, there would be a reference to judgment. There isn't any. There is no reference to the world being destroyed. These are all things that one would expect to see (and does see) in virtually every other biblical passage that mentions the flood.

In order to accept a global flood, you must reject Psalm 104 and the inerrancy of the Bible.

The boldface is all mine. Just in case you were wondering.

Over 350 cultures around the world have a great flood story and 80% of the stories have commonalities.

So what? Considering that 70% of the Earth's surface is currently flooded with water .. this hardly seems remarkable.

...

How many religious figures were allegedly born of a virgin?

10 Christ-like Figures Who Pre-Date Jesus - Listverse

What do these commonalities suggest?