Thanks Krimsa

On a more serious note now.... here's another interesting read...

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2004

Have a Good day Krimsa......and everyone...

only have a few free minutes this morn.....Be Blessed Now

Morningsong,

One's credibility very much depends on the credibility of its information source.

I am sure you are able to understand that no one can expect to argue, and make a point with others, hoping to reach any form of consensus, by simple throwing around:

'... you've got to believe me, because what I say is true, because that's what it says is the bible, and the bible is true, because I believe it is true, and I also believe that nothing is AS TRUE, so evolution is WRONG because it contradicts the bible, which I think is true...!!!'

I hope that you would agree that any circular argument have absolutely no credibility whatsoever in a conversation which seeks to establish what is more likely to be true about the reality of our naturally observable condition.

That kind of natural and pragmatically observable reality requires that one founds one's arguments on a solid series of observable and testable facts, which when presented to 'peers' for their review, can be tested and validated by them (no force, nor faith required, JUST TESTABLE FACTS), such that after testing, all reach the same conclusion (consensus).

In a short paragraph, you have here what could approximately point to the scientific method, where the CREDIBILITY OF THE INFORMATION AND THE APPROACH IN TREATING IT (in accordance wioth the scientific approch) ARE TANTAMOUNT.

Resorting to 'apologetics-fundamentalist-bible- inerrancy-exclusive' information sources might be considered a credible source amongst fundamentalists having a 'funadamentalistic' conversation about their faith, but it is totally impertinent, and incoherent when it comes to the scientific arena.

It would be like someonme claiming that his/her Washington politics trusted reference and information source was Saun Hannity!!! Can't get any clearer than that :
NO HOPE FOR CREDIBILITY EVER!!!

You see Morningsong, whether you and your apologetic-fundamentalist-bible-inerrancy-exclusive friends 'BELIEVE' otherwise, the theory of evolution is a product of the scientific method, NOT OF THE BELIEF DOMAIN.

Scientifically testable observations of nature is teh theory of evolution's own genetic code if you will. And that code is incompatible with the 'religious fundamentalist bible inerrancy exclusive' genetic code.

In other words Morningsong, there is no use trying to force evolution to mate with 'bible-inerrancy fundamentalism', its NEVER naturally going to make a 'bible inerrancy' correct baby!!! THE TWO CODES ARE EVOLUTION-PROOVEN INCOMPATIBLE.

That by the way Morningsong, comes from understanding some of the most basic and obvious FACTS about the theory of evolution!!!

Evolution, if you are going to have any credibility arguing for or against it, belongs entirely to the scientific arena, requiring scientific arguments, defended in accordance with the scientific method inside a fact testable peer review structure.

There is no such 'creationist-apologetics-fundamentalist' peer reviewed case, and therefore no scientifically coherent argument to be made for that side of the equation.

When your creationists-apologetic fundamentalist friends accept that simple FACT OF LIFE, and start presenting testable and verifiable arguments to their scientific PEERS for review, and that the scientific peers, and your friends come to the same conclusion, then and only then will the 'creationist' dogmatic argument will have transformed into a credible scientific argument.

But as you often say yourself Morningsong:

'... Never going to happen ...'

MS these apologetics sites have zero credibility. They are Christians who sit there and try to defend the bible in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence. It’s pointless. However, you can always follow Eljay’s lead and find a dentist or two to argue the validity of Creationism. They went to dental school and such. Or maybe you can even dig up Kent Hovind although he’s in prison at the moment for some sort of tax evasion issue.

I guess he's a "fake Christian."

Krimsa said:

MS these apologetics sites have zero credibility. They are Christians who sit there and try to defend the bible in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence.

End quote

What is overwhelming is how the scientists are at odds with each others theories. More and more each day there are scientists that side with creationism but most are automatically discredited by Agnostics because of the possibility of Christian bias.

The scientists differ in their beliefs, theories are theories, not fact or evidence.

Can you substantiate that premise? And since when are scientists not permitted to disagree on the results of their own findings? Isn’t that part of the scientific research method? You see Gary; unfortunately, we don’t have ONE book with all the answers for us wrapped up with a neat little contradictory bow.

It would be a waste of time to try because you or another Agnostic would only ask for irrefutable proof. There is no irrefutable proof on either side of this debate. There are able Defenders on both sides.

It is a pointless topic to debate in my mind. Some would ask then why am I posting in this thread- well thats a good question- I obviously must like to argue pointless debates that can not possibly be proven either way.

That’s interesting. I have never once told you I was an Agnostic yet you immediately jump to this conclusion because I poo hoo the Christian god.



I have never asked any Christian on this forum for anything other than a logical rebuttal to the Theory of Evolution and support for the biblical account of Creation. Why should you be exempt from providing the exact same level of credible evidence that the proponents of biological evolution have been demonstrating on these threads?



Then why bother?



You guessed it.

In response to your second response above: I should be exempt because I do not make it a habit of arguing topics that can not be proven to people with closed minds. I stated an opinion thats all.

In response to your third and forth responses above: I answered both of those questions in my last post. Conveniently, you did not paste the entire quote. I will restate then:

I obviously must like to argue pointless debates that can not possibly be proven either way.

Catch up to the sarcasm.

If you are exempt from making rational statements based in logic and providing supportive evidence for your claims (other than scripture) then what do you want us to do about that if we are capable of this? It would be like me bringing out a Ferrari to race your 6 cylinder Honda Civic.



Really? It sounded more like you were attempting to create an argument. I am perfectly willing to listen to any new or additional information you can bring to the table at this point in time.



I don’t agree with this statement. The overall evolutionary sequence is extensively documented and no longer open to credible dispute. You would be fully aware of this if you had taken the time to read and digest about the past 3 pages of this thread.

Ah, yes - the problem with English. Obviously you are not concerned wih the placement of cmma's and chose to interpret as it fits your presumption.

Fine. Belive what you want - but don't be puzzled because others are surprised that you're amoung a very select few with a bias world view who interprets the passages this way. Yet iyt seems so obviously clear to the rest of the world. Doesn't make you wonder though - does it?

You brought it up.

Oh sorry, this is abuse, if you want an argument, arguments are in room 5 down the hall. <- apologies to Monty Python.

Eljay most apologetics explain the passage by insisting the contradiction was caused by a later insertion. Anyone who is functionally literate can clearly see the discrepancy. The apologetics certainly did. As you wish. Believe what you want yet again in the face of stark reality.

That Gary guy brought it up and then you and Feral leaped on it like chimps at feeding time screeching.

I never claimed to be an expert in this particular disciline - but I'm not unfamiliar with it either. I spent a great deal of time studying chemistry in my youth - and have a degree in Math with emphasis on logic - so I have a fairly good idea when I'm asked to accept an premise that screams fallious reasoning. As is the case with the dating methods extrapolating fossils back millions of years ago. I remain unconvinced, and this is not due to my not being an expert in this field. It's due to reasoning and a gross lack of empirical evidence for the claim. Oh - one day there may be major demonstratable evidence - but it's not there.

So - while I don't dispute the intelligence of these men, I do doubt their "theories", and don't accept them as proof. Just "viable idea's". This is the same reasoning that I use to accept the testimonies of the 1st disciples and their day to day walk with Jesus. I have no reason to doubt that they heard what they heard, and saw what they saw. When there is logical evidence to cause me to doubt this - I will. But usually, I find that those who cry "liars" - haven't even examined the text for themselves. Including the "experts".

So - I do examine all of these contrary video's, and I generally study the flow of logic that brings about their concluisns - but they aren't any stronger than the logic that they're trying to refute. We're discussing theories here.

Evolution (theory) and Creation (theory)

The evidence I have witnessed supports either one without contradiction. There's no argument against a God creating species in their kind, and establing the ability of them to evole. Contrary to what scietists think - it makes more sense that he would have established the creation in this manner than it would have been to create every variance of species all at the same time. Why not let the creation exand in this way? We see the universe expanding as a perfect parallel to this very concept. Does not the consistancy make one stop and marvel?

Actually - that's wrong. The argument does not counter the idea of Intelligent design. The evidence clearly shows that God decided to create the Ape with similar qaulities as humans. For the same reason that sharks are similar to Dolphins - yet one is a fish - the other a mammel.

Then why did they offer no rebuttal argument? That issue keeps getting glossed over. It doesn’t matter what you or I choose to personally accept now does it? Not in light of that fact.

Read my last post.

A totally unsubstanciated claim. And we have enough manuscripts to reference of the original languages to now that this claim is not only erronious - but provably false. It is clearly indicated in bibles these das what inconsistancies have been discovered through the translations of the Septuagent and Aramaic. This is not one of those passages.

In addition to this - have you researched both of these passages in the original Greek to see if your understanding is consistant with those languages?

No need to answer that - it was Rhetoric.

Like I said - believe who you want according to what your world view is. Me - I just look at the facts and see where they lead. I conclude that Jesus did not baptise because the script declares it so.