Leaving creationism = leaving Christianity?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

River Jordan

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2014
1,856
50
48
UppsalaDragby said:
Well that depends on what you mean by the following remark:

"Evolutionary biology has reached conclusions about a range of questions (common ancestry, evolutionary relatedness of taxa);"
I mean that in general, the field of evolutionary biology has concluded that all life on earth shares a common ancestry, birds and reptiles share a common ancestry, and humans share a common ancestry with other primates.

So again, what alternative explanations did you think I was excluding when you said "You are trying to pass off assumptions as though they were conclusions, which I don't think you should be doing"?

I didn't claim to do either, so what exactly is your question based on?
I know you didn't claim either, that's why I'm asking. Again, did you conclude that the burglary scenario is more likely than the sleepwalker, or did you assume it?

The task given to a jury it so make judegments. The conclusion that those judgements are always correct can never be made.
No one has said that every jury verdict is always correct. But I'm asking you, is it more accurate to say a jury reaches a conclusion, or to say a jury assumes a verdict?

And of course my answer depends on what conclusions are being drawn. For example, we CAN conclude that birds and reptiles have similarities, just as we CAN conclude that humans and primates have similarities, which is why I answered yes to that particular question.
See above for what conclusions have been reached by evolutionary biologists.

And I guess I'm a little confused about what you're saying here. You agreed that science can draw accurate, reliable conclusions about reptile-bird common ancestry and human-primate common ancestry, but not about universal common ancestry. Why first two, but not the third? Also, if science is able to reach conclusions that are both reliable and accurate about those areas, why are they not able to access the truth about them?

The reason I don't believe such evidence is accessible is that it leans towards the presupposition that evidence of common ancestory actually exists.
So you believe there's not one single shred of evidence for common ancestry between different taxa? Not one thing at all?

And while it is somehow possible that there is evidence that birds and repiles, or humans and primates could not have had a common anscestor, I don't believe that it can be found.
Why not?
 

UppsalaDragby

New Member
Feb 6, 2012
543
40
0
River Jordan said:
I mean that in general, the field of evolutionary biology has concluded that all life on earth shares a common ancestry, birds and reptiles share a common ancestry, and humans share a common ancestry with other primates.

So again, what alternative explanations did you think I was excluding when you said "You are trying to pass off assumptions as though they were conclusions, which I don't think you should be doing"?
There is nothing in biology that enables anyone to conclude that common ancestry is factual. All you can do is assume that genetic similarities indicate a physical relationship that no one has ever observed. The alternative explanation is that God, or a designer if you will, organized life with common attributes and design patterns.

So, consequently, if you consider common ancestry to be based on a conclusion rather than an assumption, how do you exclude design as an explanation?

I know you didn't claim either, that's why I'm asking.
Again, did you conclude that the burglary scenario is more likely than the sleepwalker, or did you assume it?
If I didn't claim to do either then your question is missleading, and shows that you haven't taken time to understand what is being said. You phrased your question as though you interpreted my comment as EITHER a conclusion OR an assumption. I did neither, which you clearly admitted. The purpose for the comment I posted was NOT to draw a conclusion, NOR to make an assumption, but to do exactly what I intended to do. To point out that:

"the assumption that it was done by a burgler is not "conclusive" evidence." (see post #296)

So if you want to pursue this particular point any further then I suggest you stick to the arguments being made, rather than throwing out distracting and missleading questions. In other words, if you think that your analogy demonstrates an example of drawing conclusive evidence then please explain exactly how it does so.

No one has said that every jury verdict is always correct. But I'm asking you, is it more accurate to say a jury reaches a conclusion, or to say a jury assumes a verdict?
This is obviously a question of semantics. In everyday language we often say that the jury "concluded" that person x was guilty of crime y. But from a stricter (more scientific) point of view the verdict of a jury is definitely an assumption. Many people are incorrectly incarcerated of crimes that they did not commit, which becomes apparant when stronger evidence is presented.

In other words, such "conclusions" are not conclusive. They are merely the best things we have until something better comes along, which is what I pointed out previously.

It is also apparant that you are trying to use an analogy here that does not adequately describe the entire situation being discussed here. In a secular world that does not acknowedge God the conclusions that are made are considered the highest authority. If it somehow turns out later on that God actually does exist, then it would also be reasonable to assume that conclusions based on lower forms of evidence will prove to be incorrect.

You agreed that science can draw accurate, reliable conclusions about reptile-bird common ancestry and human-primate common ancestry, but not about universal common ancestry.
No I didn't, which is probably why you are confused about what I am saying. I never agreed that accurate, reliable conclusions could be drawn concerning either bird-reptile common ancestry or human-primate common ancestry. Go back and look at my answers. I agreed that there are some things that can be concluded concerning "this topic" and I even gave you an example of what I meant by that.

So you believe there's not one single shred of evidence for common ancestry between different taxa? Not one thing at all?
You really like putting words into my mouth don't you? Just as most creationists believe, I think there is reasonable evidence to suggest that some degree of common ancestry has occurred, but it is practically impossible to determine where to draw the line as to how far one can extrapolate the idea.

I doesn't seem as though there is anything within biology that enables anyone to prove that they didn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KingJ

River Jordan

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2014
1,856
50
48
Uppsala,

I'm done here. I've lost my patience with parsing over every single little word over and over. Thanks for your time.
 

KingJ

New Member
Mar 18, 2011
1,568
45
0
41
South Africa
River Jordan said:
And let's be clear...I'm fine with that. If your way of figuring out the truth of this issue is "whatever a literal reading of the Bible says is true, nothing else matters", great. All I ask is that people with that mindset say so up front and from then on be consistent. If the physical evidence doesn't really matter to you, then don't ask people like me to find it, post it, and/or explain it to you. Don't try and argue that the physical evidence supports YEC (especially if you've never actually studied it). Pretending that the physical data is important to you when it really isn't is disingenuous.
I must laugh at how this thread started.

You either believe the bible and ignore physical evidence or accept physical evidence and ignore the bible or acknowledge you too dumb to see the physical evidence doesn't support YEC and just read what River, who has studied it, says. ROFL :D :D :D :D
 

River Jordan

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2014
1,856
50
48
KingJ said:
You either believe the bible and ignore physical evidence or accept physical evidence and ignore the bible
Or you can do both and recognize that God's creation is another means of His revelation.

or acknowledge you too dumb to see the physical evidence doesn't support YEC and just read what River, who has studied it, says.
Apparently you don't understand the difference between ignorance and stupidity. We're all ignorant in more subject areas than ones we're knowledgeable in.

You bet.
 

KingJ

New Member
Mar 18, 2011
1,568
45
0
41
South Africa
River Jordan said:
Apparently you don't understand the difference between ignorance and stupidity. We're all ignorant in more subject areas than ones we're knowledgeable in.
But you only have a degree River.

So then, the links provided to those more qualified then you, disagreeing with you > you. Since you then proceed to post links to others agreeing with you, more qualified then you....do you accept that you have bias?
 

River Jordan

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2014
1,856
50
48
KingJ said:
But you only have a degree River.
I actually have two in the biological sciences. You?

So then, the links provided to those more qualified then you, disagreeing with you > you.
Is that the standard by which you determine the validity of things? If so, then you must conclude that evolutionary theory is a valid explanation for the history of life on earth, because waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more qualified people in the sciences with waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more degrees in the life sciences hold that position than don't.

Otherwise, you're being blatantly hypocritical (citing expertise when it suits you, waving it away when it doesn't).

Since you then proceed to post links to others agreeing with you, more qualified then you....do you accept that you have bias?
First of all, no one is free from bias. That's why peer review is so important.

Finally, I don't post links to demonstrate that others agree with me; I post links so people who are interested can see scientific descriptions of the data and how it is analyzed.
 

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,111
4,778
113
52
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
the cry of those who wish to be right at all costs......

"prove it by citing a source!"
"youre just citing that source because you agree with it!"

Hmm..... so are we supposed to cite sources we do not believe are crediable? is that why some people cite the Bible to try and prove an idea that goes against everything we observe in our world? sounds like more fan mentality to me....
 

River Jordan

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2014
1,856
50
48
It's "whatever is convenient at this point in time". If arguing "person A with more degrees than you agrees with me" is convenient here, then KingJ will use it. If arguing "person A with more degrees than you or me agrees with you" is inconvenient, he'll drop it like a hot potato.
 

KingJ

New Member
Mar 18, 2011
1,568
45
0
41
South Africa
River Jordan said:
Is that the standard by which you determine the validity of things? If so, then you must conclude that evolutionary theory is a valid explanation for the history of life on earth, because waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more qualified people in the sciences with waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more degrees in the life sciences hold that position than don't.

Otherwise, you're being blatantly hypocritical (citing expertise when it suits you, waving it away when it doesn't).
Do try read before you cry. I was quoting your reasoning.

River Jordan said:
First of all, no one is free from bias. That's why peer review is so important.

Finally, I don't post links to demonstrate that others agree with me; I post links so people who are interested can see scientific descriptions of the data and how it is analyzed.
Yawn. Pull another finger. You are biased. It shows in literally every post. It is laughable.

aspen said:
the cry of those who wish to be right at all costs......

"prove it by citing a source!"
"youre just citing that source because you agree with it!"

Hmm..... so are we supposed to cite sources we do not believe are crediable? is that why some people cite the Bible to try and prove an idea that goes against everything we observe in our world? sounds like more fan mentality to me....
The underlined is your assumption / opinion drawn from biased sources. We should be open minded.

So the million dollar question now applies to you too...WHY the bias?

River Jordan said:
I actually have two in the biological sciences. You?
You need to ask for your money back.
 

snr5557

Member
Jan 19, 2014
307
2
18
KingJ said:
Do try read before you cry. I was quoting your reasoning.


Yawn. Pull another finger. You are biased. It shows in literally every post. It is laughable.


The underlined is your assumption / opinion drawn from biased sources. We should be open minded.

You, from the beginning, have not been open minded at all.


So the million dollar question now applies to you too...WHY the bias?


Based of what she learned in school and observed in the lab. She has said this many times so why are you still asking for why she accepts evolution?


You need to ask for your money back.
 

River Jordan

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2014
1,856
50
48
KingJ said:
Do try read before you cry. I was quoting your reasoning.
What reasoning are you talking about, and where did I post it?

Yawn. Pull another finger. You are biased. It shows in literally every post. It is laughable.
And of course you're not, right?

You need to ask for your money back.
Why? Try and be as specific as you can.