Not Darwin's Law, it's God's Law.

[Ernie S.]

You'll have to ask OP.

 

[Hollie]

One involves the origin of species. The other involves the origin of higher orders of life (genera and above). Both operate under the exact same principles. Both have significant evidence to support them. And Rawlings, I seriously doubt about your claim to being highly educated. If it is true that you've spent a lot of time and money educating yourself, damn. Ask for a refund.

Remember your anteater? Micro involves your example of the anteater adapting. That is what micro is all about, adaptation.

And when you have that adaptation over thousands of generations among diverse populations? All "macroevolution" is really is just "microevoution" over the long term.

It doesn't even necessarily need to be over the long term. We've seen the effects on breeding populations in ring species. Ring species - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Yes, it has to be over the very very long term. Such a long term in fact that the earth itself is not old enough for it to have happened.

4.57 billion years is plenty long enough.

I'm waiting. I showed you mathematically that it was impossible. A statement means nothing. Show me mathematically how it is possible. I'm willing to listen.

You shouldn't think your phony "christian math" has shown anything but the sheer fraud that oozes from your creation ministries.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

In your list of -isms, you neglected to mention the genetic, molecular biochemical, and geologic evidence backing evolution. I'm quite sure the philosophy of science trumps the libraries of evidence, yet I'm not sure why papers that would so easily overturn evolution just aren't being published. Surely there are some creationist multi-millionare types willing to write grant checks to people that would disprove two centuries of data and we all know the first scientist to overturn evolution is at least getting a Nobel prize out of the deal, so where's the papers?

You don't understand what I'm talking about. The philosophy of science doesn't trump evidence. The philosophy of science doesn't necessarily overturn evolutionary theory, though a good many philosophers of science, particularly those also highly trained in mathematics and engineering, question the validity of a common ancestry.

The philosophy of science necessarily precedes and/or has primacy over science. Period. That is to say, we define science and its methodology. Everything we do in science is ultimately predicated on a metaphysical rationale. Science is not some kind of conscious agent that defined itself to us or established its methodology for us, and evidence doesn't interpret itself. Hello! Evolutionary theory presupposes the metaphysics of a Darwinian common ancestry and/or the metaphysics of ontological naturalism. Brace yourself: ultimately, evolutionary theory is a teleological-theological tautology.

There are an innumerable number of published works by philosophers and theologians highly trained in the sciences who challenge the subjective, teleological-theological nature of the Darwinist's interpretation of the evidence. I hold that evolutionary theory does not predict, but accommodates the very same body of evidence that supports the microevolutionary motifs of creationism. The fact that the regnant community in the biological sciences presupposes an evolutionary metaphysics is the very crux of the matter.

By the way, this is why I will not respond to any more of Hollie or Taz's childish straw men: as if the dated, prescientific hermeneutics of Ussherian fundamentalism, on the one hand, and the scientifically informed exegesis of scripture, on the other, were synonymous; as if young-earth creationism and creationism proper were synonymous. They can go bark at the moon.

We now know what many biblical scholars suspected for centuries. The ancient Hebrews of the Bible did not hand down nor did they intend to hand down a comprehensively successive genealogy. From archeological science, we now know that the ancient Hebrews of the Bible would be astonished by the belief that they did so. Ussher's genealogically based age for mankind has been falsified for decades, the holdouts of fundamentalism premised on Ussher's genealogical fallacy notwithstanding. The biblical age for mankind is no less than 40,000 to 50,000 years.

The actual essence of the Christian fundamentalist's reactionary rejection of an older Earth:

God's word stands and stays, and it's abundantly clear from scripture that life can only come from life and that speciation is a series of direct, creative events, regardless of the actual period of time in which they occurred, not a series of evolutionary branchings of a common ancestry.

Ham continues:

If we were to ask an evolutionist what he believes about the origin of the universe, he would likely tell us that there was a big bang 14 billion years ago, that 4.5 billion years ago there was a hot molten blob that formed into the earth, and that the solar system then formed. He would tell you that billions of years ago life formed in the oceans and then as life came out on land, one kind of animal changed into another, resulting in the many species we see today. He might even show you an evolutionary tree, and tell you that ape-like creatures eventually became human, that writing was invented in the course of human evolution, and that man learned to grunt before he learned to speak.​

What do the received estimations of contemporary science concerning the age of the universe and that of the Earth have to do with the underlying metaphysical presuppositions of abiogenesis and evolution?

Answer: Nothing.

If you do not grasp the implications of the question or the finality of the answer, you do not adequately understand the matter.

Progressive creationism, for example, does not countenance the unwarranted compromise of theistic evolution, let alone any of the other meandering superstitions of atheism. Contrary to Ham's contention that secular science's dogma regarding biological origins, for example, is unassailably monolithic (which, owing to the lack of intermediate biological forms in the paleontological record, compounded by the tautological nature of evolution's supposed mechanisms, it is not) while the voice of the Church is a discordant chorus of compromise and confusion: progressive creationism utterly annihilates Darwinism with scripture and hard science in its exposition of origins.

It's not an "uncertain sound" at all, but a sledgehammer.

Ham's pessimism is mystifying, for whether the world's secular philosophers and scientists realize it or not, the Church's very best scientists and theologians, backed by the word of God, have been pummeling the myths of the former into bloody pulps for centuries. The job of the Church is not to win popularity contests. The job of the Church is to speak truth to darkness. The rest is in God's hands.

The charge that those among the redeemed who don't necessarily hold to a cosmos and an Earth that are only thousands of years old begin with the calculi of science, rather than with the imperatives of scripture, is false, and the charge is especially tiresome to those of us who are well-versed in the larger textual, hermeneutical, theological and scientific concerns of the matter, well beyond a mere superficial reading of scripture, and grasp the entirety of the young-earth creationist's worldview at a glance.

Elementary, My Dear Watson.

And, once again, our reading of God's word does not countenance any interpretation of scripture in reaction to the Darwinist's notions of cosmological or biological origins, for these are chiefly predicated on philosophical presuppositions regarding the extent of reality itself and much less on any extent of time. The duration of the latter for the Darwinist is merely an operational aspect of necessity for his subsequent theoretical models. --Rawlings

Prufrock s Lair Elementary My Dear Watson A Rebuttal of Ken Ham s Days of Decline in the Church ​

 

[Taz]

We've watched it happen in ring species that can no longer interbreed. We've watched it in bacteria and viruses in labs and in the wild. It doesn't take billions upon billions on years to illustrate the point.

Older T. rex fossils show larger eye ridges than later T. rex fossils. We can see the changes within the existence of a single species from the time it came on the scene to its extinction.

Give me something better than an "older T-rex fossil" please. That thing's so old that even the rain and wind has worn it away. Show me a half-bird, half-fish or something. Show me your monkey doing algebra.

Wear and tear on fossils is well understood. The features he describes above are not due to wear and tear. If you believe they are, then I challenge you to prove your claim to us that those features are due to wear and tear.

Give me something that isn't billions or millions of years old. If your evolution myth is true and ongoing, you should be able to show me something a recent as 100 years. Specimens should be plentiful and found all over the earth that are fairly fresh.

Humans are evolving to live longer and get taller than they were 100 years ago.

Just to clarify for you once again, I do not respond to you at all.

Cuz I own you and you have nothing, you pipsqueek.

 

[Hollie]

In your list of -isms, you neglected to mention the genetic, molecular biochemical, and geologic evidence backing evolution. I'm quite sure the philosophy of science trumps the libraries of evidence, yet I'm not sure why papers that would so easily overturn evolution just aren't being published. Surely there are some creationist multi-millionare types willing to write grant checks to people that would disprove two centuries of data and we all know the first scientist to overturn evolution is at least getting a Nobel prize out of the deal, so where's the papers?

You don't understand what I'm talking about. The philosophy of science doesn't trump evidence. The philosophy of science doesn't necessarily overturn evolutionary theory, though a good many philosophers of science, particularly those also highly trained in mathematics and engineering, question the validity of a common ancestry.

The philosophy of science necessarily precedes and/or has primacy over science. Period. That is to say, we define science and its methodology. Everything we do in science is ultimately predicated on a metaphysical rationale. Science is not some kind of conscious agent that defined itself to us or established its methodology for us, and evidence doesn't interpret itself. Hello! Evolutionary theory presupposes the metaphysics of a Darwinian common ancestry and/or the metaphysics of ontological naturalism. Brace yourself: ultimately, evolutionary theory is a teleological-theological tautology.

There are an innumerable number of published works by philosophers and theologians highly trained in the sciences who challenge the subjective, teleological-theological nature of the Darwinist's interpretation of the evidence. I hold that evolutionary theory does not predict, but accommodates the very same body of evidence that supports the microevolutionary motifs of creationism. The fact that the regnant community in the biological sciences presupposes an evolutionary metaphysics is the very crux of the matter.

By the way, this is why I will not respond to any more of Hollie or Taz's childish straw men: as if the dated, prescientific hermeneutics of Ussherian fundamentalism, on the one hand, and the scientifically informed exegesis of scripture, on the other, were synonymous; as if young-earth creationism and creationism proper were synonymous. They can go bark at the moon.

We now know what many biblical scholars suspected for centuries. The ancient Hebrews of the Bible did not hand down nor did they intend to hand down a comprehensively successive genealogy. From archeological science, we now know that the ancient Hebrews of the Bible would be astonished by the belief that they did so. Ussher's genealogically based age for mankind has been falsified for decades, the holdouts of fundamentalism premised on Ussher's genealogical fallacy notwithstanding. The biblical age for mankind is no less than 40,000 to 50,000 years.

The actual essence of the Christian fundamentalist's reactionary rejection of an older Earth:

God's word stands and stays, and it's abundantly clear from scripture that life can only come from life and that speciation is a series of direct, creative events, regardless of the actual period of time in which they occurred, not a series of evolutionary branchings of a common ancestry.

Ham continues:

If we were to ask an evolutionist what he believes about the origin of the universe, he would likely tell us that there was a big bang 14 billion years ago, that 4.5 billion years ago there was a hot molten blob that formed into the earth, and that the solar system then formed. He would tell you that billions of years ago life formed in the oceans and then as life came out on land, one kind of animal changed into another, resulting in the many species we see today. He might even show you an evolutionary tree, and tell you that ape-like creatures eventually became human, that writing was invented in the course of human evolution, and that man learned to grunt before he learned to speak.​

What do the received estimations of contemporary science concerning the age of the universe and that of the Earth have to do with the underlying metaphysical presuppositions of abiogenesis and evolution?

Answer: Nothing.

If you do not grasp the implications of the question or the finality of the answer, you do not adequately understand the matter.

Progressive creationism, for example, does not countenance the unwarranted compromise of theistic evolution, let alone any of the other meandering superstitions of atheism. Contrary to Ham's contention that secular science's dogma regarding biological origins, for example, is unassailably monolithic (which, owing to the lack of intermediate biological forms in the paleontological record, compounded by the tautological nature of evolution's supposed mechanisms, it is not) while the voice of the Church is a discordant chorus of compromise and confusion: progressive creationism utterly annihilates Darwinism with scripture and hard science in its exposition of origins.

It's not an "uncertain sound" at all, but a sledgehammer.

Ham's pessimism is mystifying, for whether the world's secular philosophers and scientists realize it or not, the Church's very best scientists and theologians, backed by the word of God, have been pummeling the myths of the former into bloody pulps for centuries. The job of the Church is not to win popularity contests. The job of the Church is to speak truth to darkness. The rest is in God's hands.

The charge that those among the redeemed who don't necessarily hold to a cosmos and an Earth that are only thousands of years old begin with the calculi of science, rather than with the imperatives of scripture, is false, and the charge is especially tiresome to those of us who are well-versed in the larger textual, hermeneutical, theological and scientific concerns of the matter, well beyond a mere superficial reading of scripture, and grasp the entirety of the young-earth creationist's worldview at a glance.

Elementary, My Dear Watson.

And, once again, our reading of God's word does not countenance any interpretation of scripture in reaction to the Darwinist's notions of cosmological or biological origins, for these are chiefly predicated on philosophical presuppositions regarding the extent of reality itself and much less on any extent of time. The duration of the latter for the Darwinist is merely an operational aspect of necessity for his subsequent theoretical models. --Rawlings

Prufrock s Lair Elementary My Dear Watson A Rebuttal of Ken Ham s Days of Decline in the Church ​

Your buffoonish comments are pretty typical for religious fundamentalists.

Why would any qualification in philosophy be necessary? The issues here are not philosophical. Evolution, science, biology, etc., are entirely scientific issues. They can be discussed, explored and understood without any necessity of recourse to philosophy.

This is why anti-evolutionists and science-loathing types such as yourself tend to run screaming from actual discussion of the science involved and instead insist that the issues are philosophical or theological. You must set up and knock down irrelevant straw men, otherwise they are directly faced with their lack of scientific evidence or argument.

Philosophy (as eventually separated from science) is among the most futile of human endeavors. It delivers essentially nothing of genuine human utility. It can be used to argue anything, since it ultimately has no obligation to be true.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

In your list of -isms, you neglected to mention the genetic, molecular biochemical, and geologic evidence backing evolution. I'm quite sure the philosophy of science trumps the libraries of evidence, yet I'm not sure why papers that would so easily overturn evolution just aren't being published. Surely there are some creationist multi-millionare types willing to write grant checks to people that would disprove two centuries of data and we all know the first scientist to overturn evolution is at least getting a Nobel prize out of the deal, so where's the papers?

Now, as for the nuts and bolts. I didn't neglect anything. Is it so difficult to understand that perhaps the Darwinist's interpretation of the various evidence is skewed by a teleological a priority?

Start with the genetic evidence. What genetic evidence allegedly supports an evolutionary common ancestry exclusively and falsifies creationism in you mind?

 

[Hollie]

In your list of -isms, you neglected to mention the genetic, molecular biochemical, and geologic evidence backing evolution. I'm quite sure the philosophy of science trumps the libraries of evidence, yet I'm not sure why papers that would so easily overturn evolution just aren't being published. Surely there are some creationist multi-millionare types willing to write grant checks to people that would disprove two centuries of data and we all know the first scientist to overturn evolution is at least getting a Nobel prize out of the deal, so where's the papers?

Now, as for the nuts and bolts. I didn't neglect anything. Is it so difficult to understand that perhaps the Darwinist's interpretation of the various evidence is skewed by a teleological a priority?

Start with the genetic evidence. What genetic evidence allegedly supports an evolutionary common ancestry exclusively and falsifies creationism in you mind?

What is truly laughable about creationist is the lack of any affirmative description of what “creationist doctrine” really is, other than mindless reiteration of biblical tales. As an example, nowhere in the creationist ministry literature is there an explanation of how the gawds achieved their “creation”. There is no doctrinal literature such as "The Creation Scenario is described as..."

Similarly, there is no literature to be found with the phrase: "The Creator gawds used the following mean, methods and creative processes in making living organisms..."

And ultimately, we will never hear the creation ministries announce: "We have just published evidence in peer reviewed scientific journal of physical evidence which reveals the means and methods by which the creator gawds established life on this planet."

Instead, all we get is simpleton creationist drivel that supernatural means and supermagical causes define their gawds.

Creationist can offer no explanations of how life developed on the planet. They have found no physical evidence for any of their gawds. Very simply, creationism is nothing more than a window dressing for fundamentalist christianity.

 

[orogenicman]

One involves the origin of species. The other involves the origin of higher orders of life (genera and above). Both operate under the exact same principles. Both have significant evidence to support them. And Rawlings, I seriously doubt about your claim to being highly educated. If it is true that you've spent a lot of time and money educating yourself, damn. Ask for a refund.

Remember your anteater? Micro involves your example of the anteater adapting. That is what micro is all about, adaptation.

And when you have that adaptation over thousands of generations among diverse populations? All "macroevolution" is really is just "microevoution" over the long term.

It doesn't even necessarily need to be over the long term. We've seen the effects on breeding populations in ring species. Ring species - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Yes, it has to be over the very very long term. Such a long term in fact that the earth itself is not old enough for it to have happened.

4.57 billion years is plenty long enough.

I'm waiting. I showed you mathematically that it was impossible. A statement means nothing. Show me mathematically how it is possible. I'm willing to listen.

All you've shown is that you will agree with anyone as long as they disagree with the rest of the planet's scientists. That doesn't make you smart, or even a maverick. It makes you brainwashed. Congratulations.

 

[orogenicman]

And when you have that adaptation over thousands of generations among diverse populations? All "macroevolution" is really is just "microevoution" over the long term.

It doesn't even necessarily need to be over the long term. We've seen the effects on breeding populations in ring species. Ring species - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Yes, it has to be over the very very long term. Such a long term in fact that the earth itself is not old enough for it to have happened.

We've watched it happen in ring species that can no longer interbreed. We've watched it in bacteria and viruses in labs and in the wild. It doesn't take billions upon billions on years to illustrate the point.

Older T. rex fossils show larger eye ridges than later T. rex fossils. We can see the changes within the existence of a single species from the time it came on the scene to its extinction.

Give me something better than an "older T-rex fossil" please. That thing's so old that even the rain and wind has worn it away. Show me a half-bird, half-fish or something. Show me your monkey doing algebra.

Wear and tear on fossils is well understood. The features he describes above are not due to wear and tear. If you believe they are, then I challenge you to prove your claim to us that those features are due to wear and tear.

Give me something that isn't billions or millions of years old. If your evolution myth is true and ongoing, you should be able to show me something a recent as 100 years. Specimens should be plentiful and found all over the earth that are fairly fresh.

Erm, why would I do that? I am not the one who disagrees with the rest of the world's scientists. I'm also not the one who believes that the world is flat and 6,000 years old. And besides, you still haven't proven your claim that the features in question were caused by wear and tear.

 

[BreezeWood]

In your list of -isms, you neglected to mention the genetic, molecular biochemical, and geologic evidence backing evolution. I'm quite sure the philosophy of science trumps the libraries of evidence, yet I'm not sure why papers that would so easily overturn evolution just aren't being published. Surely there are some creationist multi-millionare types willing to write grant checks to people that would disprove two centuries of data and we all know the first scientist to overturn evolution is at least getting a Nobel prize out of the deal, so where's the papers?

Now, as for the nuts and bolts. I didn't neglect anything. Is it so difficult to understand that perhaps the Darwinist's interpretation of the various evidence is skewed by a teleological a priority?

Start with the genetic evidence. What genetic evidence allegedly supports an evolutionary common ancestry exclusively and falsifies creationism in you mind?

Start with the genetic evidence. What genetic evidence allegedly supports an evolutionary common ancestry exclusively and falsifies creationism in you mind?

Genetics The Smithsonian Institution s Human Origins Program

No matter how the calculation is done, the big point still holds: humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos are more closely related to one another than either is to gorillas or any other primate. From the perspective of this powerful test of biological kinship, humans are not only related to the great apes – we are one. The DNA evidence leaves us with one of the greatest surprises in biology: the wall between human, on the one hand, and ape or animal, on the other, has been breached. The human evolutionary tree is embedded within the great apes.

.

just curious holy christian, when did Adamic man first write a novel ?

.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
- and if Adamic man appeared just 50K years ago ...

World s Oldest Stone Tools - Archaeology Magazine Archive

More than 2,600 sharp-edged flakes, flake fragments, and cores (cobbles from which flakes have been removed), found in the fine-grained sediments of a dry riverbed in the Afar region of Ethiopia, have been dated to between 2.52 and 2.60 million years ago, pushing back by more than 150,000 years the known date at which humans were making stone tools.

who was responsible for the above tools, 2.5 million years ago irregardless their genetics ?

.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Case in point. . .

<rant snip>

I'm an amateur biologist, with a solid formal background, though mostly self-taught thereafter, but that article is solid.

Which means nothing. I'm not an amateur geologist. I am a real, degreed, certified professional geologist with 24 years of field and lab experience. Now that we are done dick-waving, care to explain in detail how the Earth came to be, how old you believe it to be, and on what scientific evidence you base your conclusions?

According to current theory, the Earth formed just like the Sun and the other planets in our solar system, with the Sun, of course, being the largest lump of matter retained after the gravitational collapse of our system's hydrogen cloud/nebula: space dust clustered into grains, then lumps of matter, then boulders, then planetesimals and eventually planets. The Sun, being the largest and densest lump of matter, heated up, generating its own energy in nuclear fires.

The various constituents of the our primordial "dust plain" as distinguished from the primordial dust plains of other systems is thought to be about 4.6 to 5 billion years old. The universe is thought to be nearly 14 billion years old.

The Earth as such is approximately 4.5 billion years old. Its age is calculated on the bases of the currently oldest known terrestrial rock (the Australian Zircon) via radiometric dating coupled with the age of the solar system. The Australian Zircon is not quite as old as the Earth itself, of course, as older parts of the Earth's surface are recycled in the Earth's core as a result of plate tectonics, but it gives us the bottom range of the Earth's age against which we have the radiometrically determined age of meteorite fragments such as those of the asteroid that created the Barringer Crater. Ultimately, then, we know that the Earth is the same age as these fragments.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

In your list of -isms, you neglected to mention the genetic, molecular biochemical, and geologic evidence backing evolution. I'm quite sure the philosophy of science trumps the libraries of evidence, yet I'm not sure why papers that would so easily overturn evolution just aren't being published. Surely there are some creationist multi-millionare types willing to write grant checks to people that would disprove two centuries of data and we all know the first scientist to overturn evolution is at least getting a Nobel prize out of the deal, so where's the papers?

You don't understand what I'm talking about. The philosophy of science doesn't trump evidence. The philosophy of science doesn't necessarily overturn evolutionary theory, though a good many philosophers of science, particularly those also highly trained in mathematics and engineering, question the validity of a common ancestry.

The philosophy of science necessarily precedes and/or has primacy over science. Period. That is to say, we define science and its methodology. Everything we do in science is ultimately predicated on a metaphysical rationale. Science is not some kind of conscious agent that defined itself to us or established its methodology for us, and evidence doesn't interpret itself. Hello! Evolutionary theory presupposes the metaphysics of a Darwinian common ancestry and/or the metaphysics of ontological naturalism. Brace yourself: ultimately, evolutionary theory is a teleological-theological tautology.

There are an innumerable number of published works by philosophers and theologians highly trained in the sciences who challenge the subjective, teleological-theological nature of the Darwinist's interpretation of the evidence. I hold that evolutionary theory does not predict, but accommodates the very same body of evidence that supports the microevolutionary motifs of creationism. The fact that the regnant community in the biological sciences presupposes an evolutionary metaphysics is the very crux of the matter.

By the way, this is why I will not respond to any more of Hollie or Taz's childish straw men: as if the dated, prescientific hermeneutics of Ussherian fundamentalism, on the one hand, and the scientifically informed exegesis of scripture, on the other, were synonymous; as if young-earth creationism and creationism proper were synonymous. They can go bark at the moon.

We now know what many biblical scholars suspected for centuries. The ancient Hebrews of the Bible did not hand down nor did they intend to hand down a comprehensively successive genealogy. From archeological science, we now know that the ancient Hebrews of the Bible would be astonished by the belief that they did so. Ussher's genealogically based age for mankind has been falsified for decades, the holdouts of fundamentalism premised on Ussher's genealogical fallacy notwithstanding. The biblical age for mankind is no less than 40,000 to 50,000 years.

The actual essence of the Christian fundamentalist's reactionary rejection of an older Earth:

God's word stands and stays, and it's abundantly clear from scripture that life can only come from life and that speciation is a series of direct, creative events, regardless of the actual period of time in which they occurred, not a series of evolutionary branchings of a common ancestry.

Ham continues:

If we were to ask an evolutionist what he believes about the origin of the universe, he would likely tell us that there was a big bang 14 billion years ago, that 4.5 billion years ago there was a hot molten blob that formed into the earth, and that the solar system then formed. He would tell you that billions of years ago life formed in the oceans and then as life came out on land, one kind of animal changed into another, resulting in the many species we see today. He might even show you an evolutionary tree, and tell you that ape-like creatures eventually became human, that writing was invented in the course of human evolution, and that man learned to grunt before he learned to speak.​

What do the received estimations of contemporary science concerning the age of the universe and that of the Earth have to do with the underlying metaphysical presuppositions of abiogenesis and evolution?

Answer: Nothing.

If you do not grasp the implications of the question or the finality of the answer, you do not adequately understand the matter.

Progressive creationism, for example, does not countenance the unwarranted compromise of theistic evolution, let alone any of the other meandering superstitions of atheism. Contrary to Ham's contention that secular science's dogma regarding biological origins, for example, is unassailably monolithic (which, owing to the lack of intermediate biological forms in the paleontological record, compounded by the tautological nature of evolution's supposed mechanisms, it is not) while the voice of the Church is a discordant chorus of compromise and confusion: progressive creationism utterly annihilates Darwinism with scripture and hard science in its exposition of origins.

It's not an "uncertain sound" at all, but a sledgehammer.

Ham's pessimism is mystifying, for whether the world's secular philosophers and scientists realize it or not, the Church's very best scientists and theologians, backed by the word of God, have been pummeling the myths of the former into bloody pulps for centuries. The job of the Church is not to win popularity contests. The job of the Church is to speak truth to darkness. The rest is in God's hands.

The charge that those among the redeemed who don't necessarily hold to a cosmos and an Earth that are only thousands of years old begin with the calculi of science, rather than with the imperatives of scripture, is false, and the charge is especially tiresome to those of us who are well-versed in the larger textual, hermeneutical, theological and scientific concerns of the matter, well beyond a mere superficial reading of scripture, and grasp the entirety of the young-earth creationist's worldview at a glance.

Elementary, My Dear Watson.

And, once again, our reading of God's word does not countenance any interpretation of scripture in reaction to the Darwinist's notions of cosmological or biological origins, for these are chiefly predicated on philosophical presuppositions regarding the extent of reality itself and much less on any extent of time. The duration of the latter for the Darwinist is merely an operational aspect of necessity for his subsequent theoretical models. --Rawlings

Prufrock s Lair Elementary My Dear Watson A Rebuttal of Ken Ham s Days of Decline in the Church ​

Your buffoonish comments are pretty typical for religious fundamentalists.

Why would any qualification in philosophy be necessary? The issues here are not philosophical. Evolution, science, biology, etc., are entirely scientific issues. They can be discussed, explored and understood without any necessity of recourse to philosophy.

This is why anti-evolutionists and science-loathing types such as yourself tend to run screaming from actual discussion of the science involved and instead insist that the issues are philosophical or theological. You must set up and knock down irrelevant straw men, otherwise they are directly faced with their lack of scientific evidence or argument.

Philosophy (as eventually separated from science) is among the most futile of human endeavors. It delivers essentially nothing of genuine human utility. It can be used to argue anything, since it ultimately has no obligation to be true.

. . . she foolishly prattled as she unwittingly philosophized science and evidence into metaphysically conscious entities dictating methodology and evidentiary interpretation to us. How does that work exactly? Don't hold your breath, boys, as the necessary order of things, the actuality, just flies right over her head.

As I have written elsewhere:

If the ever-revisable inferences of science trumped or had primacy over the laws of logic and the philosophy of science, how in the hell could we ever independently verify or falsify anything? From what other fixed point of apprehension do we accomplish this? There is no other! Our organic logic alerts us to the problems of theories in the face of new information, and we revise our previous convictions about empirical things accordingly. In the meantime, the rational convictions of first principles never change! The prescriptive laws of logic are the primary foundation and the infrastructure of human apprehension, not secondary.

. . . Science is premised on one metaphysical apriority or another, with epistemological-ontological constructs of justification serving as its infrastructure. The philosophy of science precedes science. It has primacy over science. It cannot be any other way around. Science is the methodological investigation of empirical phenomena, a system of precise rules of inference, experimentation and falsification. Methodology doesn't precede and cannot precede the first principles of ontological and epistemological justification.

Moreover, while there is a general consensus regarding the fundamentals of scientific methodology, there is no single, universally comprehensive consensus in the scientific community in terms of the regulatory concerns of epistemology and ontology; and the leading metaphysical presuppositions/apriorities for science range from metaphysical naturalism to methodological naturalism to theistic naturalism and to religious naturalism.​

 

[the_human_being]

Remember your anteater? Micro involves your example of the anteater adapting. That is what micro is all about, adaptation.

And when you have that adaptation over thousands of generations among diverse populations? All "macroevolution" is really is just "microevoution" over the long term.

It doesn't even necessarily need to be over the long term. We've seen the effects on breeding populations in ring species. Ring species - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Yes, it has to be over the very very long term. Such a long term in fact that the earth itself is not old enough for it to have happened.

4.57 billion years is plenty long enough.

I'm waiting. I showed you mathematically that it was impossible. A statement means nothing. Show me mathematically how it is possible. I'm willing to listen.

All you've shown is that you will agree with anyone as long as they disagree with the rest of the planet's scientists. That doesn't make you smart, or even a maverick. It makes you brainwashed. Congratulations.

What it really shows is your total lack of credibility.

 

[the_human_being]

Yes, it has to be over the very very long term. Such a long term in fact that the earth itself is not old enough for it to have happened.

We've watched it happen in ring species that can no longer interbreed. We've watched it in bacteria and viruses in labs and in the wild. It doesn't take billions upon billions on years to illustrate the point.

Older T. rex fossils show larger eye ridges than later T. rex fossils. We can see the changes within the existence of a single species from the time it came on the scene to its extinction.

Give me something better than an "older T-rex fossil" please. That thing's so old that even the rain and wind has worn it away. Show me a half-bird, half-fish or something. Show me your monkey doing algebra.

Wear and tear on fossils is well understood. The features he describes above are not due to wear and tear. If you believe they are, then I challenge you to prove your claim to us that those features are due to wear and tear.

Give me something that isn't billions or millions of years old. If your evolution myth is true and ongoing, you should be able to show me something a recent as 100 years. Specimens should be plentiful and found all over the earth that are fairly fresh.

Erm, why would I do that? I am not the one who disagrees with the rest of the world's scientists. I'm also not the one who believes that the world is flat and 6,000 years old. And besides, you still haven't proven your claim that the features in question were caused by wear and tear.

In other words you can't. That's the hard truth of it. None of you can. You're all gas and hot air.

 

[the_human_being]

In your list of -isms, you neglected to mention the genetic, molecular biochemical, and geologic evidence backing evolution. I'm quite sure the philosophy of science trumps the libraries of evidence, yet I'm not sure why papers that would so easily overturn evolution just aren't being published. Surely there are some creationist multi-millionare types willing to write grant checks to people that would disprove two centuries of data and we all know the first scientist to overturn evolution is at least getting a Nobel prize out of the deal, so where's the papers?

Now, as for the nuts and bolts. I didn't neglect anything. Is it so difficult to understand that perhaps the Darwinist's interpretation of the various evidence is skewed by a teleological a priority?

Start with the genetic evidence. What genetic evidence allegedly supports an evolutionary common ancestry exclusively and falsifies creationism in you mind?

What is truly laughable about creationist is the lack of any affirmative description of what “creationist doctrine” really is, other than mindless reiteration of biblical tales. As an example, nowhere in the creationist ministry literature is there an explanation of how the gawds achieved their “creation”. There is no doctrinal literature such as "The Creation Scenario is described as..."

Similarly, there is no literature to be found with the phrase: "The Creator gawds used the following mean, methods and creative processes in making living organisms..."

And ultimately, we will never hear the creation ministries announce: "We have just published evidence in peer reviewed scientific journal of physical evidence which reveals the means and methods by which the creator gawds established life on this planet."

Instead, all we get is simpleton creationist drivel that supernatural means and supermagical causes define their gawds.

Creationist can offer no explanations of how life developed on the planet. They have found no physical evidence for any of their gawds. Very simply, creationism is nothing more than a window dressing for fundamentalist christianity.

Hollie, you have posted for a month now and still haven't said anything of any consequence.

 

[the_human_being]

Give me something better than an "older T-rex fossil" please. That thing's so old that even the rain and wind has worn it away. Show me a half-bird, half-fish or something. Show me your monkey doing algebra.

Wear and tear on fossils is well understood. The features he describes above are not due to wear and tear. If you believe they are, then I challenge you to prove your claim to us that those features are due to wear and tear.

Give me something that isn't billions or millions of years old. If your evolution myth is true and ongoing, you should be able to show me something a recent as 100 years. Specimens should be plentiful and found all over the earth that are fairly fresh.

Humans are evolving to live longer and get taller than they were 100 years ago.

Just to clarify for you once again, I do not respond to you at all.

Cuz I own you and you have nothing, you pipsqueek.

You're such a bottom feeding degenerated sliver of humanity you don't even own yourself.

 

[Hollie]

In your list of -isms, you neglected to mention the genetic, molecular biochemical, and geologic evidence backing evolution. I'm quite sure the philosophy of science trumps the libraries of evidence, yet I'm not sure why papers that would so easily overturn evolution just aren't being published. Surely there are some creationist multi-millionare types willing to write grant checks to people that would disprove two centuries of data and we all know the first scientist to overturn evolution is at least getting a Nobel prize out of the deal, so where's the papers?

You don't understand what I'm talking about. The philosophy of science doesn't trump evidence. The philosophy of science doesn't necessarily overturn evolutionary theory, though a good many philosophers of science, particularly those also highly trained in mathematics and engineering, question the validity of a common ancestry.

The philosophy of science necessarily precedes and/or has primacy over science. Period. That is to say, we define science and its methodology. Everything we do in science is ultimately predicated on a metaphysical rationale. Science is not some kind of conscious agent that defined itself to us or established its methodology for us, and evidence doesn't interpret itself. Hello! Evolutionary theory presupposes the metaphysics of a Darwinian common ancestry and/or the metaphysics of ontological naturalism. Brace yourself: ultimately, evolutionary theory is a teleological-theological tautology.

There are an innumerable number of published works by philosophers and theologians highly trained in the sciences who challenge the subjective, teleological-theological nature of the Darwinist's interpretation of the evidence. I hold that evolutionary theory does not predict, but accommodates the very same body of evidence that supports the microevolutionary motifs of creationism. The fact that the regnant community in the biological sciences presupposes an evolutionary metaphysics is the very crux of the matter.

By the way, this is why I will not respond to any more of Hollie or Taz's childish straw men: as if the dated, prescientific hermeneutics of Ussherian fundamentalism, on the one hand, and the scientifically informed exegesis of scripture, on the other, were synonymous; as if young-earth creationism and creationism proper were synonymous. They can go bark at the moon.

We now know what many biblical scholars suspected for centuries. The ancient Hebrews of the Bible did not hand down nor did they intend to hand down a comprehensively successive genealogy. From archeological science, we now know that the ancient Hebrews of the Bible would be astonished by the belief that they did so. Ussher's genealogically based age for mankind has been falsified for decades, the holdouts of fundamentalism premised on Ussher's genealogical fallacy notwithstanding. The biblical age for mankind is no less than 40,000 to 50,000 years.

The actual essence of the Christian fundamentalist's reactionary rejection of an older Earth:

God's word stands and stays, and it's abundantly clear from scripture that life can only come from life and that speciation is a series of direct, creative events, regardless of the actual period of time in which they occurred, not a series of evolutionary branchings of a common ancestry.

Ham continues:

If we were to ask an evolutionist what he believes about the origin of the universe, he would likely tell us that there was a big bang 14 billion years ago, that 4.5 billion years ago there was a hot molten blob that formed into the earth, and that the solar system then formed. He would tell you that billions of years ago life formed in the oceans and then as life came out on land, one kind of animal changed into another, resulting in the many species we see today. He might even show you an evolutionary tree, and tell you that ape-like creatures eventually became human, that writing was invented in the course of human evolution, and that man learned to grunt before he learned to speak.​

What do the received estimations of contemporary science concerning the age of the universe and that of the Earth have to do with the underlying metaphysical presuppositions of abiogenesis and evolution?

Answer: Nothing.

If you do not grasp the implications of the question or the finality of the answer, you do not adequately understand the matter.

Progressive creationism, for example, does not countenance the unwarranted compromise of theistic evolution, let alone any of the other meandering superstitions of atheism. Contrary to Ham's contention that secular science's dogma regarding biological origins, for example, is unassailably monolithic (which, owing to the lack of intermediate biological forms in the paleontological record, compounded by the tautological nature of evolution's supposed mechanisms, it is not) while the voice of the Church is a discordant chorus of compromise and confusion: progressive creationism utterly annihilates Darwinism with scripture and hard science in its exposition of origins.

It's not an "uncertain sound" at all, but a sledgehammer.

Ham's pessimism is mystifying, for whether the world's secular philosophers and scientists realize it or not, the Church's very best scientists and theologians, backed by the word of God, have been pummeling the myths of the former into bloody pulps for centuries. The job of the Church is not to win popularity contests. The job of the Church is to speak truth to darkness. The rest is in God's hands.

The charge that those among the redeemed who don't necessarily hold to a cosmos and an Earth that are only thousands of years old begin with the calculi of science, rather than with the imperatives of scripture, is false, and the charge is especially tiresome to those of us who are well-versed in the larger textual, hermeneutical, theological and scientific concerns of the matter, well beyond a mere superficial reading of scripture, and grasp the entirety of the young-earth creationist's worldview at a glance.

Elementary, My Dear Watson.

And, once again, our reading of God's word does not countenance any interpretation of scripture in reaction to the Darwinist's notions of cosmological or biological origins, for these are chiefly predicated on philosophical presuppositions regarding the extent of reality itself and much less on any extent of time. The duration of the latter for the Darwinist is merely an operational aspect of necessity for his subsequent theoretical models. --Rawlings

Prufrock s Lair Elementary My Dear Watson A Rebuttal of Ken Ham s Days of Decline in the Church ​

Your buffoonish comments are pretty typical for religious fundamentalists.

Why would any qualification in philosophy be necessary? The issues here are not philosophical. Evolution, science, biology, etc., are entirely scientific issues. They can be discussed, explored and understood without any necessity of recourse to philosophy.

This is why anti-evolutionists and science-loathing types such as yourself tend to run screaming from actual discussion of the science involved and instead insist that the issues are philosophical or theological. You must set up and knock down irrelevant straw men, otherwise they are directly faced with their lack of scientific evidence or argument.

Philosophy (as eventually separated from science) is among the most futile of human endeavors. It delivers essentially nothing of genuine human utility. It can be used to argue anything, since it ultimately has no obligation to be true.

. . . she foolishly prattled as she unwittingly philosophized science and evidence into metaphysically conscious entities dictating methodology and evidentiary interpretation to us. How does that work exactly? Don't hold your breath, boys, as the necessary order of things, the actuality, just flies right over her head.

As I have written elsewhere:

If the ever-revisable inferences of science trumped or had primacy over the laws of logic and the philosophy of science, how in the hell could we ever independently verify or falsify anything? From what other fixed point of apprehension do we accomplish this? There is no other! Our organic logic alerts us to the problems of theories in the face of new information, and we revise our previous convictions about empirical things accordingly. In the meantime, the rational convictions of first principles never change! The prescriptive laws of logic are the primary foundation and the infrastructure of human apprehension, not secondary.

. . . Science is premised on one metaphysical apriority or another, with epistemological-ontological constructs of justification serving as its infrastructure. The philosophy of science precedes science. It has primacy over science. It cannot be any other way. Science is the methodological investigation of empirical phenomena, a system of precise rules of inference, experimentation and falsification. Methodology doesn't precede and cannot precede the first principles of ontological and epistemological justification.

Moreover, while there is a general consensus regarding the fundamentals of scientific methodology, there is no single, universally comprehensive consensus in the scientific community in terms of the regulatory concerns of epistemology and ontology; and the leading metaphysical presuppositions/apriorities for science range from metaphysical naturalism to methodological naturalism to theistic naturalism and to religious naturalism.​

Actually, there is a consensus. It's called ID'iot creationism.

While nothing more than window dressing on fundamentalist Christianity, (more appropriately, lipstick on a pig), it's just the latest label applied to a history of fundie cranks attempting to add the credibility of science to religious tales and fables.

 

[the_human_being]

Remember your anteater? Micro involves your example of the anteater adapting. That is what micro is all about, adaptation.

And when you have that adaptation over thousands of generations among diverse populations? All "macroevolution" is really is just "microevoution" over the long term.

It doesn't even necessarily need to be over the long term. We've seen the effects on breeding populations in ring species. Ring species - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Yes, it has to be over the very very long term. Such a long term in fact that the earth itself is not old enough for it to have happened.

4.57 billion years is plenty long enough.

I'm waiting. I showed you mathematically that it was impossible. A statement means nothing. Show me mathematically how it is possible. I'm willing to listen.

You shouldn't think your phony "christian math" has shown anything but the sheer fraud that oozes from your creation ministries.

At least I can do math. It is apparent that you cannot.

 

[Hollie]

In your list of -isms, you neglected to mention the genetic, molecular biochemical, and geologic evidence backing evolution. I'm quite sure the philosophy of science trumps the libraries of evidence, yet I'm not sure why papers that would so easily overturn evolution just aren't being published. Surely there are some creationist multi-millionare types willing to write grant checks to people that would disprove two centuries of data and we all know the first scientist to overturn evolution is at least getting a Nobel prize out of the deal, so where's the papers?

Now, as for the nuts and bolts. I didn't neglect anything. Is it so difficult to understand that perhaps the Darwinist's interpretation of the various evidence is skewed by a teleological a priority?

Start with the genetic evidence. What genetic evidence allegedly supports an evolutionary common ancestry exclusively and falsifies creationism in you mind?

What is truly laughable about creationist is the lack of any affirmative description of what “creationist doctrine” really is, other than mindless reiteration of biblical tales. As an example, nowhere in the creationist ministry literature is there an explanation of how the gawds achieved their “creation”. There is no doctrinal literature such as "The Creation Scenario is described as..."

Similarly, there is no literature to be found with the phrase: "The Creator gawds used the following mean, methods and creative processes in making living organisms..."

And ultimately, we will never hear the creation ministries announce: "We have just published evidence in peer reviewed scientific journal of physical evidence which reveals the means and methods by which the creator gawds established life on this planet."

Instead, all we get is simpleton creationist drivel that supernatural means and supermagical causes define their gawds.

Creationist can offer no explanations of how life developed on the planet. They have found no physical evidence for any of their gawds. Very simply, creationism is nothing more than a window dressing for fundamentalist christianity.

Hollie, you have posted for a month now and still haven't said anything of any consequence.

You're slow.