Dinosaur with feathers and scales?

[River Jordan]

I think this is why he feels his argument is "irrefutable." Logic, according to him, can only be reliable under the banner of creationism...and everyone (even non-creationists) accept logic as trustworthy to a large degree. Thus, they are basing their work, and debates, on the foundations of creationism, not secularism. As he illustrates, if someone claims they don't believe in air, they still have to use air to make their case, thus proving their case to be wrong (whether they recognize it or not).

Then that's nothing more than an empty assertion. He provided no actual evidence that logic is only reliable under creationism...he merely claimed it to be so. *shrug*

I have listened to other lectures of his. I think he has good reason for this. He would claim that methodological naturalism should not be assumed when it comes to origins..and to assume that is to fall prey to the assumptions of philosophical materialism.

No more than it is to "assume" that when a rock falls it is a natural event rather than a supernatural act of God.

But this I think is the deeper danger of the type of creationism he's advocating. He's essentially drawing the line in the sand against God creating life via natural means, whereby any attempt to explain the origin of life is the same as trying to disprove God. And as others have warned repeatedly, by drawing that line he's effectively saying that if scientists do figure out how life could have arose naturally, they will have disproved God (or at least God creating anything), even though that's not something the scientists themselves have claimed. IOW, it's not secular scientists who are claiming a natural origin of life disproves creation by God, it is Lisle, Ham, and their fellow creationists who are doing so.

This is the concession of worldviews he is talking about when he says there is no common ground. For instance, he would argue, that if a scientist walked up to Adam the day after he was created, the scientist would calculate by his size, language, intelligence, etc. that Adam was 30 or so years old. However, the scientist would be wrong because he is assuming methodological naturalism (all large adults were once babies and it takes 20-30 years for a baby to grow and mature. Likewise, the same could be said of Eve, and the same could be said of the planets, etc.

That only holds true according to a fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis, that again, narrows God's creation down to only one specific way of creating.

If God did create Adam distinctly from the animals, as Genesis indicates, then naturalistic assumptions are faulty. Again, if the earth formed naturally from a Big Bang, then yes, it would likely take millions/billions of years for the earth to form as we see it today. However, if it was created by an act of God, then such naturalistic assumptions are faulty because they are based on a presupposition of how things began and therefore assumes a particular age because of a faulty starting point due to naturalistic assumptions. Its also why he takes issue with OEC. Does this make sense?

Only from a fundamentalist standpoint. It's similar to what StanJ and I are discussing in another thread, where if God creates everything with the appearance of age, when in actuality it is much younger, IMO that is a deliberate and unnecessary act of deception. There's no reason for God to create everything recently but make it look like it is billions of years old, and it's certainly within God's ability to create things to reflect His manner of creation...much more honest too.

PS. Im not saying he is right or wrong...just trying to clarify what I think he would argue.

Understood.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

It is the fact that God made man as a special creation, distinct from all the animals, that I can be nothing less than dogmatic about. Evolution would have multiple subspecies between man and ape, but that's not the case. The biggest proof is our intelligence, philosophy (no other animal is self aware), art, language, and complete dominance over material and the ability to bend it to our will. The fact that no other animal comes close to the sophistication of humanity is more than enough evidence of our special, dedicated, and divine origins.

 

[Wormwood]

Then that's nothing more than an empty assertion. He provided no actual evidence that logic is only reliable under creationism...he merely claimed it to be so. *shrug*

Actually, he gave some philosophical arguments for that rationale. I don't know what you mean by "evidence" when it comes to epistemology.

And as others have warned repeatedly, by drawing that line he's effectively saying that if scientists do figure out how life could have arose naturally, they will have disproved God (or at least God creating anything), even though that's not something the scientists themselves have claimed. IOW, it's not secular scientists who are claiming a natural origin of life disproves creation by God, it is Lisle, Ham, and their fellow creationists who are doing so.

No, the problem is that many scientists have already assumed that life has come about purely by natural means (in spite of overwhelming evidence of the complexity of the cell). The assumption is there regardless of what has been found or ever will be found because naturalism and science have been improperly linked. You know this is true, even if you refuse to admit it. In any event, even if it is shown that life could arise naturally, this is no proof that it did. I could build a house from a deck of cards, and Im sure someone could prove that the wind could blow the same structure together given the right conditions. Just because it could happen doesn't mean it did. I guess that would be my point on the issue. What we are discovering today is valuable for life and medicine today. To try and develop a naturalistic worldview on our origins from modern science is a religious endeavor, is totally unnecessary, and quite troubling. If we want to eliminate religion from the public schools, maybe we should start there.

That only holds true according to a fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis, that again, narrows God's creation down to only one specific way of creating.

Whats wrong with someone having a particular view? I could say your view narrows God's creation to only one way of creating. What is wrong with having a conviction and sticking to it? It hasn't seemed to stop you. Maybe we should afford that same right to others without calling them "fundies" or implying they have no logic behind their views.

where if God creates everything with the appearance of age, when in actuality it is much younger, IMO that is a deliberate and unnecessary act of deception.

I think Dr. Lisle would say, "Its only the appearance of age for someone who assumes naturalism. Your presupposition determines how things appear. If God told us He did it in 6 days and you want to reinterpret what he said, then you are deceiving yourself...not the other way around."

 

[River Jordan]

It is the fact that God made man as a special creation, distinct from all the animals, that I can be nothing less than dogmatic about. Evolution would have multiple subspecies between man and ape, but that's not the case. The biggest proof is our intelligence, philosophy (no other animal is self aware), art, language, and complete dominance over material and the ability to bend it to our will. The fact that no other animal comes close to the sophistication of humanity is more than enough evidence of our special, dedicated, and divine origins.

I agree...we are specially created by God. But IMO it's not our opposable thumbs, bipedalism, relatively large brains, or any of our other physical traits that tells us that. All of our physical traits exist in the animal kingdom to one degree or another (and we have a very good fossil record showing the evolution of those traits over time).

What makes us created in God's image is our soul.

Actually, he gave some philosophical arguments for that rationale. I don't know what you mean by "evidence" when it comes to epistemology.

Well, at least we're clear that he wasn't making a scientific argument.

No, the problem is that many scientists have already assumed that life has come about purely by natural means (in spite of overwhelming evidence of the complexity of the cell).

Let's say that's true....so what? One group of people assumes life arose naturally, another assumes God poofed it into existence. Now what? In science, you go test your assumptions and see if they're warranted, and that's exactly what origins researchers are doing. Why is that such a problem? What would you have them do? Close down their labs and declare "Well, Answers in Genesis tells us God did it so there's nothing for us to do"?

I've never understood this creationist argument. Some scientists think life arose naturally, so they set up research programs to see if they can figure it out and creationists start screaming and yelling like they're doing something terribly wrong. IMO it looks to me like the creationists are worried the scientists will figure out a plausible pathway for the natural development of life, and since the creationists have already declared that such a thing is incompatible with the Christian God, it'll back them into a defensive corner even more than they already are.

The assumption is there regardless of what has been found or ever will be found because naturalism and science have been improperly linked. You know this is true, even if you refuse to admit it.

Again you make the same mistake of confusing methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism. Think of it this way...anyone from any faith or non-faith worldview can work in an origins research lab. A fundamentalist Christian, Hindu, Muslim, pagan, and atheist could all work on the science and even come up with the same results. Their philosophical views are irrelevant, because they're working under methodological naturalism, not philosophical naturalism.

In any event, even if it is shown that life could arise naturally, this is no proof that it did.

That's true and I've seen origins researchers say that. Remember, science doesn't deal in "proof".

I guess that would be my point on the issue. What we are discovering today is valuable for life and medicine today. To try and develop a naturalistic worldview on our origins from modern science is a religious endeavor, is totally unnecessary, and quite troubling. If we want to eliminate religion from the public schools, maybe we should start there.

??????? I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense at all. Just because an endeavor has religious implications for some people doesn't mean the endeavor itself is a religious exercise. As I pointed out earlier, some Christians opposed lightning rods because they thought they thwarted God's will. Does that therefore mean lightning rod manufacturing is a religious endeavor?

Whats wrong with someone having a particular view? I could say your view narrows God's creation to only one way of creating. What is wrong with having a conviction and sticking to it? It hasn't seemed to stop you. Maybe we should afford that same right to others without calling them "fundies" or implying they have no logic behind their views.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with it. I merely noted that his entire argument hinges on a fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis. Take that away and the whole thing falls apart.

I think Dr. Lisle would say, "Its only the appearance of age for someone who assumes naturalism. Your presupposition determines how things appear. If God told us He did it in 6 days and you want to reinterpret what he said, then you are deceiving yourself...not the other way around."

That doesn't make any sense. That argument basically looks like "If you believe in the Christian God, then you always assume things aren't as they seem". I don't buy into a God who goes out of His way to deceive.

 

[Wormwood]

"Well, at least we're clear that he wasn't making a scientific argument."

I suppose if we could prove God scientifically, then faith would be unnecessary. I dont think that has ever been the objective for creationists. However, epistemology is kind of the foundation of scientific inquiry. I think that is what he is driving at.

As I have said many times, we can understand cells, stones, comets and black holes without inserting theories into textbooks about how these things can be projected back millions of years to suggest we all evolved from tadpoles. If people want to hold that theory, that is fine. I just dont see any reason it needs to be taught as scientific fact and asserted in public school textbooks.

I think there is a difference in a functional tool like a lightning rod and teaching children in public schools that their great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great..... grandpa waddled out of a puddle. Im surprised I have to explain this to you. I think your professors have really done a number on you since you can only see things in such absolutes. If you dont believe we evolved from tadpoles then you are the equivalent of a flat-earth, geocentric, blood-letting cave-dweller. Gotta love the intellectual intimidation there.

No one is saying that if you believe in the Christian God, then you must believe things arent as they seem. Quite the opposite. The universe has laws, is filled with beauty, people have the ability to contemplate the universe (not much of a hunting/gathering skill), create music, are filled with almost a universal moral code, and the most basic forms of life are more complicated 21st century software programming. You think just because some creationists believe the universe and humans were created in a mature state that they cant do science without deceiving themselves? Come on now.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Uppsala,

I'm not sure it's even possible for you and I to discuss this subject in a reasonable manner any more. I mean, when you start disputing whether I've posted examples of speciation, when I think just about everyone here who's read my posts since I joined has to know that I have (remember all the discussion about Goatsbeard, my post #69 in this thread, and this thread I started for that exact reason).

I don't get your point here River. Why are you suddenly throwing in references to other threads here as if they proved your points? And what do you mean by me "disputing your examples of speciation"? Why not just stick to the issues being discussed in this thread, and if you really think i have missed anything relavant in other threads then why not explain exactly what you mean HERE rather than evasively sending me off on a wild goose chase. OK?

Or when you say "it isn't evolution of new genetic information unless you can show that population B is can no longer be classified in any of the biological classifications to which that organism belongs" and now dispute that it means "genetic information" is dependent on taxonomy. I honestly don't know what else to say to that.

So you don't have a response? Well that's your problem, not mine. I gave you a overview of what this discussion entails. If you just want to stick your fingers in your ears and pretend that any kind of change at all is "new information", and that such changes support evolution without involving taxonomic classification (which you DON'T seem to be doing since you mention species!) then WHAT CAN I SAY???????????

Or when with the "My mom went to the dairy store on Monday" analogy, you actually ask for "scientific evidence that sequences are copied and rearranged in a meaningful fashion" even though I provided you with exactly that (in post #124).

Really? All you did is provide a link to an article that starts off with an presupposition:

"When microbes evolve"...

And if it is your contention that this paper proves that the mechanism required to produce the changes involved are purely random rather than inherrant AND that these changes are enough to cause an organism to create new phyla, classes, orders, families, genera ... and so on, then put in a little effort and explain it yourself, rather than just posting a link to a paper that assumes that it does. I'm tired of hearing you call the old worn out bluff that since I am not a scientist I don't have a say in this matter, when both you and I know full well that there are creationist scientists that ARE well-versed in genetics and that DON'T find papers like this to be as weighty as evolutionists consider them to be. So if you can demonstrate that THEY are wrong, and YOU are right, WITHOUT appealing to popularity or authority, then please do so.

Then we've probably reached (or passed) the point of no return. It looks to me like you're in a spot now where you're going to just reflexively dispute everything I post, no matter what. Thanks for your time.

I have "reached the point of no return" when I say that I have, and not when you decide. If you want to bow out of this discussion then just say so, otherwise I will continue... and just blow holes in your infantile pretending games...

 

[River Jordan]

"Well, at least we're clear that he wasn't making a scientific argument."

I suppose if we could prove God scientifically, then faith would be unnecessary. I dont think that has ever been the objective for creationists. However, epistemology is kind of the foundation of scientific inquiry. I think that is what he is driving at.

That seems strange, since the video is called "The Ultimate Proof of Creation", which implies that he will be proving creation by God. Also, at around 3:10 he says people ask "if there's an ultimate proof, then is Christianity a faith system", to which he answers "the answer is yes, it's just one that's objectively provable". He then says people confuse the meaning of faith, and defines faith as "when you have confidence in something that you have not perceived with your senses" and again claims that he can objectively demonstrate creation. He then goes directly into the whole information thing.

So from what I can tell, he's actually saying the opposite of what you're saying.

As I have said many times, we can understand cells, stones, comets and black holes without inserting theories into textbooks about how these things can be projected back millions of years to suggest we all evolved from tadpoles. If people want to hold that theory, that is fine. I just dont see any reason it needs to be taught as scientific fact and asserted in public school textbooks.

Here's how I see it. When it comes time to set science curricula, how does a school, district, and/or state decide what to include and what not to include? Given that we're talking about science, the answer seems obvious to me...they do their best to teach what is the current state of scientific understanding (as well as how science works). And how do they determine what is and isn't "the current state of scientific understanding"? They look to the scientific community. And on this issue, there is no ambiguity as to what the scientific community thinks. At the very least, 95% of the overall scientific community recognizes evolution as valid science, and when we narrow it down to just those scientists in relevant fields (the life sciences) it's even higher (some have estimated 99%). Not only that, but every single scientific organization that has issued a statement about this has definitively stated that evolution is valid science.

Based on all that, the schools have a very obvious justification (and I would say obligation) to include evolution in their science curricula.

You obviously disagree, and that makes me wonder...

1) Do you disagree with the process for setting science curricula I described above? If so, how would you change it?

2) Given the level of agreement within the scientific community on this issue, can you give some objective reasons why evolution shouldn't be taught?

I think there is a difference in a functional tool like a lightning rod and teaching children in public schools that their great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great..... grandpa waddled out of a puddle. Im surprised I have to explain this to you.

Not from where I sit. IMO, both cases are basically people objecting to an aspect of science for purely religious reasons.

I think your professors have really done a number on you since you can only see things in such absolutes. If you dont believe we evolved from tadpoles then you are the equivalent of a flat-earth, geocentric, blood-letting cave-dweller. Gotta love the intellectual intimidation there.

LOL! Once again you reflect the sort of attitude and misconceptions about higher education that I described in my OP in the higher education thread.

"Many of these folks seem to have a view where the college experience, especially when it comes to science, is little more than students filing into a classroom, a professor basically reading from a script that he/she was taught as a student, telling the students what they must think, say, or do, and the students merely memorizing this script (some of whom go on to repeat it again when they become professors). IOW, the conservative Christian vision of college is more like an Orwellian brainwashing camp."

And here you are demonstrating my point for me....thanks!!

No one is saying that if you believe in the Christian God, then you must believe things arent as they seem. Quite the opposite.

You're contradicting yourself. You stated "I think Dr. Lisle would say, "Its only the appearance of age for someone who assumes naturalism. Your presupposition determines how things appear." Under that framework, a non-Christian would say "This looks old, therefore it's old" whereas a Christian would say "This looks old, but because I know God created with apparent age, it's actually quite young". IOW, the Christian believes that even though something seems old, it really isn't. That's in direct conflict with what you just wrote.

The universe has laws, is filled with beauty, people have the ability to contemplate the universe (not much of a hunting/gathering skill), create music, are filled with almost a universal moral code, and the most basic forms of life are more complicated 21st century software programming. You think just because some creationists believe the universe and humans were created in a mature state that they cant do science without deceiving themselves? Come on now.

?????????? Where did I say anything about creationists not being able to do science?

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Uppsala,

Again, I don't know what's going on with you, but you're coming across as angry, extremely defensive, and highly irrational. I mean, when you post "Why are you suddenly throwing in references to other threads here as if they proved your points?" right below a link to a post I made in this thread, something isn't right. IMO you're not even really processing anything I post to you anymore, which is why I feel it's best to just stop.

 

[aspen]

Okay, I think we have to take a minute to look at one of the characteristics of language. Language is incredibly reductionistic. It is important and useful and foundational to the human experience, but it is only a snapshot of reality. It is limited by time and it can only capture the bare essence of reality. Liberals who believe that education is the answer to every situation in life are misguided because they tend to overlook or become blind to the fact that education is language based, and cannot possibly capture the entire scope of reality. Conservatives who try to recapture the good old days have the same problem - they rely on memories and history and their preconceived ideas about what the good old days provided and forget all of it is based on language which can only captured 2% of the reality of the day. Christians who believe that the Bible is the perfect description of the Christian faith and describes everything there is to know about God and even everything we are required to know about reality are failing into the same trap. The Bible is as accurate as a photo album - it contains snapshots of reality - because it is comprised of language, it has all the limitations of language - it is time sensitive and poor at conveying information about emotions felt at the time of the writer and the characters. I believe this has ramifications for sola scriptura, as well, which is one of the reasons I reject it.

The limitations of language has consequences for evolutionists - no theory, even the more accurate possible, is going to capture perfectly how creation works or it's origins - it is a snapshot and an approximation and will always remain as such.

The same is true with the Creation account in the Bible. Which is another reason, it is best interpreted as a mystic revelation containing information about the human condition and Gods sovereignty.

Unfortunately, what happens is that each side likes to point out how flawed the opposing theory is, rather than just seeing each conclusion as the result of the limitations of language. It is a true "log in our own eye" situation, which is not being recognized.

The reason I lean towards River's point of view is that she is trying to make the point that making a literal interpretation of the Creation account a requirement for Christianity is going to place an unnecessary limitation on the justification and sanctification of humanity. It is just as valid as telling people that they have to be "good" in order to be saved. Neither belief; a literal interpretation of the creation story or being good is going to save anyone - learning to love like Christ is our only salvation and it cannot be achieved without Him.

 

[River Jordan]

Wow Aspen, that's pretty deep! And well put too.

 

[Wormwood]

Yes, I think his proof is an epistemological argument. I thought you were looking for a scientific proof such as something that can be pointed to in a test tube. I think his point is that you cant have knowledge about the validity of your scientific results without laws and logic...which stem from a creationist worldview. Yes, this may be a "proof" but not the type of scientific evidence it seems this thread has been about.

You obviously disagree, and that makes me wonder...

1) Do you disagree with the process for setting science curricula I described above? If so, how would you change it?
2) Given the level of agreement within the scientific community on this issue, can you give some objective reasons why evolution shouldn't be taught?

I have no problem with those in the scientific community establishing the curriculum for students. I have no problem with the issues we have discussed in this thread (that you label "evolution") being taught in classrooms. Lets teach kids how bacteria can manipulate, mutate, transfer, transmute DNA, etc. Lets teach them how we study bacteria and viruses to produce antibiotics and other medicines to help the body deal with the effects or to help the body fight against these invaders. Lets teach kids about the nucleus, ribosomes, DNA, mRNA, construction of proteins, cell walls, etc. Lets teach them how cells replicate, develop specific functions, mutate, become cancerous, and die. This is all great, important information. If you want to call these things, "evolution" then I am all for teaching "evolution."

But to say that a bacteria becoming immune to antibiotics is the same process by which amoebas turned into fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals and human beings is pure conjecture and is not based on science. Its not part of science, but is an assertion based on presuppositions that are neither observed or provable. This is where the line is crossed from teaching "science" to teaching the religion of secular naturalism. We can study animals without teaching kids that they all derived from protozoa millions of years ago. Those who want to teach it should do it in a private school just like Christians who want to teach their kids that God created it in 6 days or 6 ages or whatever.

Not from where I sit. IMO, both cases are basically people objecting to an aspect of science for purely religious reasons.

What makes the "theory" that grandpa waddled out of a puddle millions of years ago more scientific than the theory that life is too complicated to develop through natural means and must have been designed?

LOL! Once again you reflect the sort of attitude and misconceptions about higher education that I described in my OP in the higher education thread.

Numerous documentaries and hundreds of cases prove that a person is not "free" to be a creationist in many fields. Often they will be stripped of their titles, jobs or funding. I have heard many PhD's cite that they had to keep their religious beliefs a secret because some students would not be allowed to graduate with their doctorates if their views were made public. It is a simple fact that declaring yourself to be a creationist (whether old earth or young earth) is to commit professional suicide. I'm not saying you are being brainwashed in your school. However, I am saying that many professors are guilty of intellectual intimidation toward those who disagree with them. I really don't want to search out a lengthy list of such cases...especially since I know it wont really matter for you.

IOW, the Christian believes that even though something seems old, it really isn't. That's in direct conflict with what you just wrote.

No its not. Dr. Lisle would say, "There is no discovery of an Oort cloud. It has been made up to explain the continued existence of comets that should have burned up billions of years ago. Thus, secularists believe something is really old, even though comets tell them its not." He, and other YEC would point to lots of things that would validate what they believe scientifically...which the evolutionist would try to find ways to explain away. Likewise, creationists claim uniformitarianism is an improper way to determine the age of the universe because it implies things have always been uniform while the evolutionist would argue that testing must assume as much...we cant calculate phenomena of which we are unaware. The assumption guides the argument because we are dealing with theories and historical events no one witnessed (if we exclude the Bible of course).

A baby doubles his size in the first six months. If we only saw the first six months of a baby's life, we might conclude that after 30 years, a 9 pound baby could be thousands or tens of thousands of pounds. By your rationale, if we only could witness one 6 month old baby grow, then those who argued that it would not grow to be thousands of pounds and hundreds of feet tall would be a mere act of blind faith. That's simply not true.

Where did I say anything about creationists not being able to do science?

I think it is summed up more like: arguing that something came about through any process other than naturalism is not scientific. I'd say that's what we have been debating for the past few weeks in a nutshell...wouldn't you? Maybe a creationists can do science as long as their findings don't permit them to disagree with the age of the earth, Darwinian evolution, or secular naturalism.

Okay, I think we have to take a minute to look at one of the characteristics of language. Language is incredibly reductionistic. It is important and useful and foundational to the human experience, but it is only a snapshot of reality. It is limited by time and it can only capture the bare essence of reality. Liberals who believe that education is the answer to every situation in life are misguided because they tend to overlook or become blind to the fact that education is language based, and cannot possibly capture the entire scope of reality. Conservatives who try to recapture the good old days have the same problem - they rely on memories and history and their preconceived ideas about what the good old days provided and forget all of it is based on language which can only captured 2% of the reality of the day. Christians who believe that the Bible is the perfect description of the Christian faith and describes everything there is to know about God and even everything we are required to know about reality are failing into the same trap. The Bible is as accurate as a photo album - it contains snapshots of reality - because it is comprised of language, it has all the limitations of language - it is time sensitive and poor at conveying information about emotions felt at the time of the writer and the characters. I believe this has ramifications for sola scriptura, as well, which is one of the reasons I reject it.

The limitations of language has consequences for evolutionists - no theory, even the more accurate possible, is going to capture perfectly how creation works or it's origins - it is a snapshot and an approximation and will always remain as such.

The same is true with the Creation account in the Bible. Which is another reason, it is best interpreted as a mystic revelation containing information about the human condition and Gods sovereignty.

Unfortunately, what happens is that each side likes to point out how flawed the opposing theory is, rather than just seeing each conclusion as the result of the limitations of language. It is a true "log in our own eye" situation, which is not being recognized.

The reason I lean towards River's point of view is that she is trying to make the point that making a literal interpretation of the Creation account a requirement for Christianity is going to place an unnecessary limitation on the justification and sanctification of humanity. It is just as valid as telling people that they have to be "good" in order to be saved. Neither belief; a literal interpretation of the creation story or being good is going to save anyone - learning to love like Christ is our only salvation and it cannot be achieved without Him.

If what you are saying is true, than I can only understand 2% of it and therefore is of very little use for me. Who knows, maybe you read some of these ideas from Derrida and only were able understand about 2% of that..and after you transmitted that and I only get 2% from you...maybe I am only really getting like .04% of the real meaning that was originally intended! After all, you are using language...and it is so limited. And of course my response is in language...so maybe we are all just wasting each others time.

 

[aspen]

If what you are saying is true, than I can only understand 2% of it and therefore is of very little use for me. Who knows, maybe you read some of these ideas from Derrida and only were able understand about 2% of that..and after you transmitted that and I only get 2% from you...maybe I am only really getting like .04% of the real meaning that was originally intended! After all, you are using language...and it is so limited. And of course my response is in language...so maybe we are all just wasting each others time.

First of all, I think you are over interpreting my words - especially the percentage. I think you are probably doing this because you have a different perspective than I do on language and you want to illustrate how idiotic my viewpoint is. My response; try describing a sunset or a snowflake and you will see how poorly language captures what you are perceiving. We can't even seeing all the spectrums of light with the human eye in order to translate it into words. We cannot even perceive other dimensions of reality in order to translate it into language - all language is sensory based, which we as Christians already reject as the sole method of perceiving reality. Your post seems uncharacteristically short sighted, Wormwood.

 

[River Jordan]

Yes, I think his proof is an epistemological argument. I thought you were looking for a scientific proof such as something that can be pointed to in a test tube. I think his point is that you cant have knowledge about the validity of your scientific results without laws and logic...which stem from a creationist worldview. Yes, this may be a "proof" but not the type of scientific evidence it seems this thread has been about.

Interestingly it seems we agree on this point. Even though Dr. Lisle claims to have an irrefutable scientific argument for creationism, what he presents is actually a philosophical/apologetics argument.

I have no problem with those in the scientific community establishing the curriculum for students. I have no problem with the issues we have discussed in this thread (that you label "evolution") being taught in classrooms. Lets teach kids how bacteria can manipulate, mutate, transfer, transmute DNA, etc. Lets teach them how we study bacteria and viruses to produce antibiotics and other medicines to help the body deal with the effects or to help the body fight against these invaders. Lets teach kids about the nucleus, ribosomes, DNA, mRNA, construction of proteins, cell walls, etc. Lets teach them how cells replicate, develop specific functions, mutate, become cancerous, and die. This is all great, important information. If you want to call these things, "evolution" then I am all for teaching "evolution."

But to say that a bacteria becoming immune to antibiotics is the same process by which amoebas turned into fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals and human beings is pure conjecture and is not based on science. Its not part of science, but is an assertion based on presuppositions that are neither observed or provable. This is where the line is crossed from teaching "science" to teaching the religion of secular naturalism. We can study animals without teaching kids that they all derived from protozoa millions of years ago. Those who want to teach it should do it in a private school just like Christians who want to teach their kids that God created it in 6 days or 6 ages or whatever.

You completely failed to respond to what I asked. I already know all that about what you believe...you've made it abundantly clear. Specific to the process whereby science curricula are set, I asked...

1) Do you disagree with the process for setting science curricula I described above? If so, how would you change it?

2) Given the level of agreement within the scientific community on this issue, can you give some objective reasons why evolution shouldn't be taught?

What makes the "theory" that grandpa waddled out of a puddle millions of years ago more scientific than the theory that life is too complicated to develop through natural means and must have been designed?

There is an enormous amount of scientific evidence from diverse fields that converge on the conclusion that humans are descended from non-human ancestors via the process of evolution. What you posted about design is nothing more than an argument from ignorance (it's too complicated, therefore design). That's a pretty significant difference.

Numerous documentaries and hundreds of cases prove that a person is not "free" to be a creationist in many fields. Often they will be stripped of their titles, jobs or funding. I have heard many PhD's cite that they had to keep their religious beliefs a secret because some students would not be allowed to graduate with their doctorates if their views were made public. It is a simple fact that declaring yourself to be a creationist (whether old earth or young earth) is to commit professional suicide. I'm not saying you are being brainwashed in your school. However, I am saying that many professors are guilty of intellectual intimidation toward those who disagree with them. I really don't want to search out a lengthy list of such cases...especially since I know it wont really matter for you.

Sorry, but I'm guessing that most of the basis for these empty accusations is the creationist film Expelled, which contains ridiculous exaggerations and outright lies. If you're interested, we can walk through them and hopefully you'll once again be more aware of how creationist organizations have been lying to you.

But more importantly....let's assume what you say is true. If creationism really is scientifically valid and evolution isn't, what's stopping any of these poor persecuted creationists from demonstrating it to be so? Clearly they have lots of money to build "museums", lobby politicians, travel the world's churches, etc. Why aren't they devoting any of those resources to making an actual scientific case to the scientific community?

No its not. Dr. Lisle would say, "There is no discovery of an Oort cloud. It has been made up to explain the continued existence of comets that should have burned up billions of years ago. Thus, secularists believe something is really old, even though comets tell them its not." He, and other YEC would point to lots of things that would validate what they believe scientifically...which the evolutionist would try to find ways to explain away. Likewise, creationists claim uniformitarianism is an improper way to determine the age of the universe because it implies things have always been uniform while the evolutionist would argue that testing must assume as much...we cant calculate phenomena of which we are unaware. The assumption guides the argument because we are dealing with theories and historical events no one witnessed (if we exclude the Bible of course).

A baby doubles his size in the first six months. If we only saw the first six months of a baby's life, we might conclude that after 30 years, a 9 pound baby could be thousands or tens of thousands of pounds. By your rationale, if we only could witness one 6 month old baby grow, then those who argued that it would not grow to be thousands of pounds and hundreds of feet tall would be a mere act of blind faith. That's simply not true.

Well, I'd say none of those hypotheticals actually correspond to reality. But to stay on point, this is pretty simple...if the creationist viewpoint is that God created the universe with "apparent age", that requires God to have deliberately manipulated a great deal of variables (isotope ratios, starlight, tree rings, ice cores, etc.) to make it appear much older than it actually is. I honestly can't think of any reason for God to do all of that rather than just let it look exactly as it was created. Further, there's absolutely no scriptural support for this "apparent age" thing. Rather, it looks to me like a young-earth creationist apologetic crafted to try and wave away all the data that contradicts their beliefs.

I think it is summed up more like: arguing that something came about through any process other than naturalism is not scientific.

And that's true. If you disagree, can you please explain how supernatural acts of God can be objectively investigated and tested?

Maybe a creationists can do science as long as their findings don't permit them to disagree with the age of the earth, Darwinian evolution,

Of course they can. How else do you think scientific revolutions happen? Has it ever occurred to you that maybe the reason they haven't overturned an ancient earth and evolutionary theory isn't because they aren't allowed to, but because they don't have the actual science to do so?

or secular naturalism.

Once again you conflate methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism. At this point I guess I have to conclude that this misconception is such an integral part of your worldview that nothing can change it. Sad.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Uppsala,

Again, I don't know what's going on with you, but you're coming across as angry, extremely defensive, and highly irrational. I mean, when you post "Why are you suddenly throwing in references to other threads here as if they proved your points?" right below a link to a post I made in this thread, something isn't right. IMO you're not even really processing anything I post to you anymore, which is why I feel it's best to just stop.

River,

Unless you can point out what you mean by "coming across as angry" then all I can conclude from your comment is that your intention is to negatively missreprestent my character. Sure, when someone in a debate like this deliberately tries to disfigure my stance, or my frame of mind, then I find it irritating, just as you, or anyone else does. But please don't try to use the common debating tactic of trying to paint someone who disagrees with you as an angry hothead. That is not me.

I don't debate motivated by anger. The bulk of what I write is merely based on a strong disagreement with your arguments. And if you decide to stoop to dishonest tactics then as a Christian I am well within my rights to rebuke you. But I never do that motivated by hate or anger, but rather I try to do so in an attempt to get you to wake up and repent.

Now if you have any responses to the arguments I wrote in my posts then address them, rather than resorting to ad-hominems and attacking my character. If not , then fine, I can live with that...

 

[Wormwood]

First of all, I think you are over interpreting my words - especially the percentage. I think you are probably doing this because you have a different perspective than I do on language and you want to illustrate how idiotic my viewpoint is. My response; try describing a sunset or a snowflake and you will see how poorly language captures what you are perceiving. We can't even seeing all the spectrums of light with the human eye in order to translate it into words. We cannot even perceive other dimensions of reality in order to translate it into language - all language is sensory based, which we as Christians already reject as the sole method of perceiving reality. Your post seems uncharacteristically short sighted, Wormwood.

Thanks for your response. Sorry for my slow reply. Well, I admit, I was being a bit sarcastic. It wasn't because I feel your view is "idiotic." Rather, I know there are very intelligent philosophers who ascribe to these concepts. My problem, however, is that while language is certainly limited (although not nearly as limited as some postmodern philosophers would lead us to believe), I do not believe God is limited. This does not mean we can know the whole mind of God through Scripture. Certainly not. However, we can know what God intends for us to know. Suggesting that God is somehow limited in his ability to communicate us because of the confines of language and because of our own fallibility is an indictment on God and casts a shadow of uncertainty on the Bible..which is very concerning.

Certainly God can communicate to us in a way that is reliable and trustworthy. While we may need to be gracious with one another and study diligently, all Christians throughout the ages have understood the Scriptures to be both reliable and foundational for our faith. I think your line of thinking has caused a great deal of damage to the Church as a whole as the Scriptures have become much less about the author's intent and much more about the reader's response. The whole, "no wrong answers" mentality has led to all kinds of false and dangerous doctrines and catchy phrases such as "God is love" and personal sentiments have undermined clear teachings on Christian conduct and holy living in the Scriptures.

River, I am out of time. I will say that I don't think Dr. Lisle said his proof was "scientific." However, he does have an interesting video on mathematics and creation that is very interesting.

 

[River Jordan]

Wormwood,

I'm pretty sure Dr. Lisle tried to claim he was presenting a scientific argument. But either way, it's a failed argument anyways, so what he meant by it is irrelevant.

And I really am curious about how you will answer a couple of the other questions I asked regarding science curricula...

1) Do you disagree with the process for setting science curricula I described above? If so, how would you change it?

2) Given the level of agreement within the scientific community on this issue, can you give some objective reasons why evolution shouldn't be taught?

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Uppsala,

I've given some thought to whether or not I would respond to your post, and if I did, how to respond. And after thinking about it, I concluded that the best course of action is for me to try and explain to you how your posts read to me and why I concluded that you were just reflexively disagreeing with whatever I posted, no matter what it actually was. At the end of this, you likely won't agree with me, but at least you might understand where I'm coming from a little better.

"Genetic Information"

In post #123 you stated, "In order to accept evolution as the best explanation, we need to envision a mutation that adds a functional sequence in a manner that doesn't destroy another functional sequence that was put in place there in order to secure survival."

In response I posted a link to several papers that describe exactly that...the evolution of genetic sequences that were not in the parent population, and that result in new traits that confer a selective advantage.

In your post #127 you posted a series of links to creationist webpages, none of which addressed the contents of the papers I posted. I took that as a concession that you didn't bother to read the papers I linked to, nor were you at all interested in what they had to say. But rather than admit that, you tried to deflect by posting links to a bunch of irrelevant creationist websites.

I also pointed out that based on your earlier definition of "genetic information" ("the set of instructions contained within a cell in order to build an organism") the evolution of "new genetic information" is a repeatedly observed fact (since we see the evolution of new genetic instructions that code for new phenotypes).

So at this point, I concluded that this issue is settled. By any logical definition of "genetic information", the observed evolution of functional genetic sequences that weren't previously present, and that result in new beneficial traits, is the evolution of new genetic information. We see it happen all the time. It's a fact.

Then you surprised me. You responded to that in post #131 that "it isn't evolution of new genetic information unless you can show that population B is can no longer be classified in any of the biological classifications to which that organism belongs".

To me, since your criterion is now centered on how the organism is classified, and since classification of organism is the field of taxonomy, I read that as what I described in post #133, "whether or not a change to a genome constitutes "new genetic information" is primarily dependent on the taxonomic classification of the organism". Seems pretty straightforward, right?

Nope. When I stated ""Genetic information" is primarily determined by taxonomic classification", you surprised me by disagreeing and saying "No. I didn't say that, so please don't put words in my mouth."

At this point UD, I was truly stunned. I wasn't sure what the heck was going on. You had just said that it's not the evolution of new genetic information unless there is a change in classification, i.e., taxonomy, but when I repeated it back to you, you denied it. That's why I posted back, "If you're honestly going to say that's not a clear statement that the primary factor in determining if something is "new genetic information" is taxonomy, then we are most definitely done because I have zero interest in trying to converse with someone like that." I said that because to me it looked like you were trying to deny something you had most definitely said, and if you were going to start doing something that dishonest, I didn't wan't any part of it.

It was at this point that I started to get a sense that you were getting angry and were just going to reflexively argue with everything I posted, no matter what it happened to be. In your post #145 you actually disputed whether I have posted examples of the evolution of new species, and did so by stating "That's what I would call "embarrassingly stupid and ignorant"." And you even repeated your denial of your argument about genetic information being dependent on classification.

I'm suspecting that's why Aspen intervened and said "This topic has been beaten into a corner" and said it looked like I was just trying to make you guys look ignorant. Our discussion was getting really strange and appeared to be getting increasingly heated.

That's why I posted in #148 that it didn't seem possible for us to carry on a reasonable discussion any more. I again summarized the specific reasons why I felt this way (disputing that I have posted examples of speciation, denying ever saying that genetic information is determined by classification).

Finally, to put the cherry on the sundae, you seemed to get even more upset and reflexive in your post #166. You claimed I was referencing other threads (re: speciation) even though I not only linked to a post in this thread, but specifically said "in this thread"; you seemed to go back to owning your argument about genetic information and taxonomy ("If you just want to stick your fingers in your ears and pretend that any kind of change at all is "new information", and that such changes support evolution without involving taxonomic classification"); and finished by declaring that you will "blow holes in your infantile pretending games."

All that is why I described your posts as "angry, extremely defensive, and highly irrational". It looked to me like you weren't even really reading and thinking about what I post. I concluded that based on how you complained about me posting links to other threads, even though I linked to a post in this thread and even said "in this thread". That, plus how you went back and forth on the whole "genetic information is dependent on classification" thing, made me figure our window for reasonable discussion was closed.

I think this is a pattern you and I repeat over and over. A lot of times when I think you're saying something, and I repeat it and try and address it, you get all upset and say "I never said that". Ok, I understand that I might be mistaken, so I start asking you to clarify what you mean and/or define your terms. But then you seem to get all irritated and accuse me of "trying to obfuscate the issue"!

Do you see the problem I'm facing? If I take what you post and address what I think it says, you accuse me of misrepresenting you. But when I try and ask questions to get a better understanding of what you're saying, you accuse me of playing word games and trying to confuse the issue. Unless you and I can overcome this obstacle, we'll likely never be able to carry on a reasonable discussion. And the first step in resolving this issue is to recognize it. So maybe in the future when I ask you to clarify what you mean or define the words you're using, you'll take that as a genuine attempt to make sure I understand what you're saying. And I'll try and be more careful about making sure I fully understand your posts. Ok?

 

[Wormwood]

River, I already responded to these questions above. See post #170. I'll paste the section that relates to those questions.

I have no problem with those in the scientific community establishing the curriculum for students. I have no problem with the issues we have discussed in this thread (that you label "evolution") being taught in classrooms. Lets teach kids how bacteria can manipulate, mutate, transfer, transmute DNA, etc. Lets teach them how we study bacteria and viruses to produce antibiotics and other medicines to help the body deal with the effects or to help the body fight against these invaders. Lets teach kids about the nucleus, ribosomes, DNA, mRNA, construction of proteins, cell walls, etc. Lets teach them how cells replicate, develop specific functions, mutate, become cancerous, and die. This is all great, important information. If you want to call these things, "evolution" then I am all for teaching "evolution."

But to say that a bacteria becoming immune to antibiotics is the same process by which amoebas turned into fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals and human beings is pure conjecture and is not based on science. Its not part of science, but is an assertion based on presuppositions that are neither observed or provable. This is where the line is crossed from teaching "science" to teaching the religion of secular naturalism. We can study animals without teaching kids that they all derived from protozoa millions of years ago. Those who want to teach it should do it in a private school just like Christians who want to teach their kids that God created it in 6 days or 6 ages or whatever.

 

[River Jordan]

Wormwood,

But as I noted earlier, those two paragraphs are descriptions of what you believe, most of which I already know (because you've made yourself pretty clear in earlier posts). My questions are quite specific.

1) Do you disagree with the process for setting science curricula I described above? If so, how would you change it?

I described how public school science curricula are set. They generally go with what the scientific community considers to be the current state of scientific understanding. Would you change that process? If so, how?

2) Given the level of agreement within the scientific community on this issue, can you give some objective reasons why evolution shouldn't be taught?

Regardless of what you or I believe about this subject, the fact remains that the vast majority of the world's scientists recognize evolutionary biology as valid science (and if we just focus on those in the life sciences, it's near unanimous). So if you aren't proposing any changes to the process by which schools set their science curricula, do you have an objective reason why we should reject the outcome of that process?

 

[Wormwood]

1) Do you disagree with the process for setting science curricula I described above? If so, how would you change it?

I have no problem with those in the scientific community establishing the curriculum for students.


Regardless of what you or I believe about this subject, the fact remains that the vast majority of the world's scientists recognize evolutionary biology as valid science (and if we just focus on those in the life sciences, it's near unanimous). So if you aren't proposing any changes to the process by which schools set their science curricula, do you have an objective reason why we should reject the outcome of that process?

I have no problem with the process as we observe it today (which is telling). Lets not trace it back through history and teach origins based on very limited and questionable evidence for such origins. Way too much speculation and it is not a science...but a theory laden with presuppositions.

 

[River Jordan]

I have no problem with those in the scientific community establishing the curriculum for students.

Ok, thanks.

Lets not trace it back through history and teach origins based on very limited and questionable evidence for such origins. Way too much speculation and it is not a science...but a theory laden with presuppositions.

This is the disconnect I'm trying to get to. You're fine with relying on the scientific community to set public schools' science curricula. The scientific community overwhelmingly advocates teaching evolution (including common ancestry). Given that, one would think you'd accept the outcome of the process you agree with.

But you don't. Here you basically argue that we should go against what the scientific community has advocated. So I'm asking...why? What objective reason would you offer in support of your position that we reject the scientific community's position?

 

[UppsalaDragby]

In post #123 you stated, "In order to accept evolution as the best explanation, we need to envision a mutation that adds a functional sequence in a manner that doesn't destroy another functional sequence that was put in place there in order to secure survival."

In response I posted a link to several papers that describe exactly that...the evolution of genetic sequences that were not in the parent population, and that result in new traits that confer a selective advantage.

Well that is definitelyt not what I asked for. "Sequences that were not in the parent population and that confer a selective advantage" does not show that anything "evolved", and since "evolution" is the word you chose to use here then I expect you to demonstrate that it actually is evolution, rather than adaption.

And since the cell of, say, an amoeba is genetically different than the cell of a human being then you need to do what I asked you to do in the comment you quoted - to show how distorting something in a cell doesn't destroy the functional sequence that was put there in place in order to ensure survival. You might argue that it is conceptually possible, but where is the scientific evidence that it actually occurs? Or are we going to take things by faith?

In your post #127 you posted a series of links to creationist webpages, none of which addressed the contents of the papers I posted. I took that as a concession that you didn't bother to read the papers I linked to, nor were you at all interested in what they had to say. But rather than admit that, you tried to deflect by posting links to a bunch of irrelevant creationist websites.

I explained exactly why I posted those links. Why are YOU trying to deflect this discussion by ignoring what I said? If you want to backtrack and have another discussion about posting links then sure, we can, but don't pretend that my point in posting those links is anything else than the one I provided.

I also pointed out that based on your earlier definition of "genetic information" ("the set of instructions contained within a cell in order to build an organism") the evolution of "new genetic information" is a repeatedly observed fact (since we see the evolution of new genetic instructions that code for new phenotypes).

I have written a great deal more than that, as I think you know, so why are you quote mining me? I have repeatedly asked you to show how distorted information is evidence of evolution, which is the *MAJOR* issue here - not playing around with definitions! If I scratch your hard drive with a screw driver and just blurted out "There, I've just given you some 'new information'", would you be satisfied with that? I don't think so...

So at this point, I concluded that this issue is settled.

No, it isn't. Issues concerining two parties are not "settled" by one of those parties declaring it settled. If you want to settle it then just point out how distorting genetic sequences can cause transitions that cross all available phylogenetic classifications.

Then you surprised me. You responded to that in post #131 that "it isn't evolution of new genetic information unless you can show that population B is can no longer be classified in any of the biological classifications to which that organism belongs".

Surprising you isn't hard, and neither does it impress me when you claim that you are surprised. In fact, all this melodramatic gasping for air every time you are confronted by someone who criticizes your stance is getting a little worn out. So why don't you make things exciting and respond to my point rather than putting on a show.

To me, since your criterion is now centered on how the organism is classified, and since classification of organism is the field of taxonomy, I read that as what I described in post #133, "whether or not a change to a genome constitutes "new genetic information" is primarily dependent on the taxonomic classification of the organism". Seems pretty straightforward, right?

What I think would be "pretty straightforward" is you showing me how evolutionists make their claims *WITHOUT* the use of taxonomic classifications. Here's your opportunity River, explain it to me.

Nope. When I stated ""Genetic information" is primarily determined by taxonomic classification", you surprised me by disagreeing and saying "No. I didn't say that, so please don't put words in my mouth."
At this point UD, I was truly stunned. I wasn't sure what the heck was going on. You had just said that it's not the evolution of new genetic information unless there is a change in classification, i.e., taxonomy, but when I repeated it back to you, you denied it. That's why I posted back, "If you're honestly going to say that's not a clear statement that the primary factor in determining if something is "new genetic information" is taxonomy, then we are most definitely done because I have zero interest in trying to converse with someone like that." I said that because to me it looked like you were trying to deny something you had most definitely said, and if you were going to start doing something that dishonest, I didn't wan't any part of it.

You do realize that what we are discussing is evolution and what evolutionists are claiming, don't you? I am not saying that the definition of new information is dependant on taxonomy, I am saying that what is meant by new information in the context of this discussion is such information that supports the claims made by evolutionists! Why else would we be having this discussion?

Look, I could send you an message that gets distorted along the way. Is that new information? It depends on how you look at it and what the context is! We could ignore the context and agree that any change in information is "new", but what purpose would that serve? What are we trying to achieve here?

The point of contention in this discussion is something more along the lines of sending you one email containing information that isn't distored, and then following up with another email. THAT would be an example of new information since the original information remains intact.

It was at this point that I started to get a sense that you were getting angry and were just going to reflexively argue with everything I posted, no matter what it happened to be. In your post #145 you actually disputed whether I have posted examples of the evolution of new species, and did so by stating "That's what I would call "embarrassingly stupid and ignorant"." And you even repeated your denial of your argument about genetic information being dependent on classification.

The words "That's what I would call "embarrassingly stupid and ignorant" were yours, not mine! I was merely quoting YOU! And you use this as evidence that I am the one who is angry?

I'm suspecting that's why Aspen intervened and said "This topic has been beaten into a corner" and said it looked like I was just trying to make you guys look ignorant. Our discussion was getting really strange and appeared to be getting increasingly heated.

Well, obviously I'm not the one who started calling anyone ignorant, or looked ignorant, or used arguments that were based on ignorance, so I don't see why you are complaining.

That's why I posted in #148 that it didn't seem possible for us to carry on a reasonable discussion any more. I again summarized the specific reasons why I felt this way (disputing that I have posted examples of speciation, denying ever saying that genetic information is determined by classification).

If you want to have a reasonable discussion that doesn't get heated then try this: don't imply that anyone disagreeing with you is using arguments that are "embarrassingly stupid and ignorant", drop all the silly rhetoric, stop repeatedly pretending to be "surprised", and be nice about this dispite disagreements. It's not that hard, and I guarantee that with me it will work perfectly.

And if you think that I am the one guilty of inciting discord in these discussions then I challenge you to go back and look at all our exchanges and see who it is who is the first one to provoke. I make it my business not to be the one initially causing offence.

Finally, to put the cherry on the sundae, you seemed to get even more upset and reflexive in your post #166. You claimed I was referencing other threads (re: speciation) even though I not only linked to a post in this thread, but specifically said "in this thread"; you seemed to go back to owning your argument about genetic information and taxonomy ("If you just want to stick your fingers in your ears and pretend that any kind of change at all is "new information", and that such changes support evolution without involving taxonomic classification"); and finished by declaring that you will "blow holes in your infantile pretending games."

My mistake, your are correct, one of the links there was to this thread. But on the other hand the other link was to a thread containing over 50 links, which is probably why I couldn't be bothered to check which thread the other link pointed to.

But ignoring that, why do you consider this to be the "cherry on the sundae?

And what did I say in that comment that supports your claim that I was getting "even more upset"? Did I call your arguments "stupid and ignorant"?

All that is why I described your posts as "angry, extremely defensive, and highly irrational". It looked to me like you weren't even really reading and thinking about what I post. I concluded that based on how you complained about me posting links to other threads, even though I linked to a post in this thread and even said "in this thread". That, plus how you went back and forth on the whole "genetic information is dependent on classification" thing, made me figure our window for reasonable discussion was closed.

I do read what you post and I also think about what you say, which is why I take the time to respond to practically every single thing you write, (unless of course it points to a page containing a huge amount of links). And part of what you say is fine whereas other parts I find extremely hypocritical, especially when you quote your own words as evidence that I am "angry". But it is also obvious that from my perspective you are just as "extremely defensive" as anyone else here. I don't mind you complaining about my conduct here, but don't do so as one throwing stones in a glass house. You entered this forum declaring that creationists were ignorant liars, or something to that effect, and then you start complaining about how "upset" we supposedly are, despite the fact that I don't see myself getting particularly upset at all. I have ignored many of your provocations in the past, and will continue to do so, because I respect what the scriptures say about these things, but sometimes I think it is fitting to give a few jabbs back so things don't get out of hand. However, I would much rather have a civil, respectful discussion than squabble and invent clever, rhetorical ways to offend people.

I think this is a pattern you and I repeat over and over. A lot of times when I think you're saying something, and I repeat it and try and address it, you get all upset and say "I never said that". Ok, I understand that I might be mistaken, so I start asking you to clarify what you mean and/or define your terms. But then you seem to get all irritated and accuse me of "trying to obfuscate the issue"!

Saying "I never said that" is not evidence of getting upset or angry. It is simply an attempt to correct faulty conclusions and defend oneself from misrepresentation. I don't really understand why you take offence at me saying so. If I was the one distorting, or misunderstanding your arguments then what exactly do you say?

Do you see the problem I'm facing? If I take what you post and address what I think it says, you accuse me of misrepresenting you. But when I try and ask questions to get a better understanding of what you're saying, you accuse me of playing word games and trying to confuse the issue. Unless you and I can overcome this obstacle, we'll likely never be able to carry on a reasonable discussion. And the first step in resolving this issue is to recognize it. So maybe in the future when I ask you to clarify what you mean or define the words you're using, you'll take that as a genuine attempt to make sure I understand what you're saying. And I'll try and be more careful about making sure I fully understand your posts. Ok?

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. When I feel you misrepresent me then I usually do my best to explain why I think you are. And if I think you are playing word games then similarly, I do my best to explain why I see it that way.

But thanks for making an effort. Hopefully we can start over, put all the rhetoric aside and simily discuss the issues.