Quote:

Don't get me wrong: What I've posted was my personal opinion of the reasons and motivations of creationism. It was not meant as an argument against creationism. It's clear that you as a creationist have a different opinion.



I would love to say, "Fair enough," but I can't. If I point out realistic reasons why your theory is bunk, and you respond by telling me your opinion of my theory, is that really fair?

Quote:

For argumenting against a "creationism theory" I'd need to know that theory first. I didn't find it on any creationist website, therefore my suspicion that such a theory does not exist at all.



Let's look at what creation has to say about life. "All animals were created by a mysterious unobserved power. They are allowed variation, including speciation, but there is a limit to how much they can vary."

Here's evolution's theory. "Life sprung up from non-living chemicals by some mysterious unobserved process. This original cell (or life) accounts for all of the biodiversity on earth by some mysterious, unobservable kind of mutation or other equally mysterious and unobservable process."

Its pretty easy to tell what both theories are. You're a smart enough guy, you should be able to figure out what the creationist theory is. We may not have put it in a handy-dandy definition (as most evolutionists also don't), but I've read creationist sites and they definately seem to agree on this basic idea of creation. So does that help?

If you want specifics, I can give them. For example, the impact of hybridization on creation theory, the impact of genetics on creation theory, so on and so forth. I just figured you could extrapolate it for yourself.

Quote:

I'm definitely interested - also in looking for some more stuff for my website - in finally learning about the creationism theory. But a little more than the few commonplaces that you've posted. Sure, I already knew that creationists believe that species were supernaturally created. But if that's all, it's not a theory - that's still superstition.



So then I can start calling evolution superstition? Because your supernatural process of accounting for life and biodiversity is just as mysterious as mine.

Except, creationists don't waste time trying to trick people using junk science to say there is empirical proof of evolution. Why evolutionists find this to be so important, I'll never understand and I think its unimportant to speculate, although I have a few guesses.

Quote:

you'll need a consistent model about how and when this creation should have happened, and how it can be verified or falsified in observations, and how it fits into the theory system of science: mathematics, physics, astronomy, chemistry, etc.



Dare I mention that evolution has been at odds with genetics almost since its adoption into the mainstream? Why don't I just do what evolutionists do. Talk about ACTUAL science, and then mix my religion into it to brainwash people. "These monkeys are adept at social interaction. Just like people are. We're very similar." "These fish were created by God to be very adaptable to harsh environments." Your theory hasn't integrated into science, it has to ignore science (or be taught inspite of proof along side science) in order to be taken seriously. The blade cuts both ways.

Quote:

please don't take my remarks about superstition as an insult.



Don't worry about it.

Quote:

Religion is consistent with science, superstition isn't.



Precisely, which is why creationists want evolution out of our schools. Let's stick to science, not superstition.

Quote:

(its based on miracles, i.e. supernatural events).



We haven't observed life being created. But we also haven't observed it arising randomly. If anything we've only discovered why it CANT rise randomly. What's the difference?

Quote:

From your remarks about Dark Matter and the Hubble Constant I see that you know less about astronomy than I thought before. You have some very wrong ideas of physics, and of the meaning of scientific theories in general. I don't have the time now, but when I'm back next week I'll post a specific answer to that topic, including a brief introduction in astronomy.



Oh, c'mon! You should know how it works by now. I make my narrow, over generalized, or sometimes outright incorrect remark, and you respond and we go from there. I won't claim to be right until I hear your refutation. Like I said, I don't believe anything until I've tested it against opposing opinions. This is just my initial remark.

Like with the peppered moths. I start with the fact that they 'forced' a lot of information about it, but its not until after that that the discussion really gets started.

See you soon.

Quote:

How? Society changes, so christians themselves are different (they do after all live in society) but our beliefs have always been based on the infallible word of God. So really, we have not.

So easy to claim, but both modern and ancient literature combined with some common sense tells us otherwise really.



No, what you're saying is easier to claim than it is to back up. Let's have it then, explain to me what you believe. Not that this isn't just a distraction from the abyssmal state of evolution, and the impossibility of defending it. Actually, if you don't feel like backing it up, then whatever. I'm really not concerned about changing your mind. You've rejected God, so for you its a matter of finding evidence to back up what you believe. I'm not going to pretend that I'm in any position to intervene.

Quote:

Science doesn't simply assume something.



The origin of life? The Big bang? There is little to no evidence of either of these events, but they're assumed to be true.

Quote:

Definately, and as a result, science doesn't go with guarantees.



That's BS. Evolutionists (not scientists, so technically you may be right) guarantee we were evolved, they guarantee the universe is an accident, they guarantee life is an accident. There's a whole lot of guaranteeing going on.

Quote:

I guess that's what you keep telling yourself, but there are plenty of religious sects who feel very different about this.



Let me ask this then. Let's say we left out one or two (out of the myriad of obsviously corrupted texts) out. Does that change the validity of the ones we've included. You seem to think that the exclusion of a handful of texts is proof enough of the fallibility of the Bible. Doesn't make sense to me.

If you were truly interested in hearing the other viewpoint, there are many websites out there that refute these claims. These claims against the bible are old news.

Quote:

It's obviously clear that the bible has been used in the past as an instrument of control, it had it's political power, wether you'd admit it or not, but religious texts are never politically neutral (or useless for that matter).



If you're arguing that man is corrupt (which it seems you are, because the bible can't control who misuses it) then you're preaching to the choir.

Quote:

Not changed ? So you still believe in the pope as god's spokesperson?



So this is still the tired and worn out argument that since christians disagree about meaningless details, we've completely changed? I thought you guys were talking about significant, relevant change.

Quote:

Most apologists seem to favor the idea of a cosmic personality test. If god was to provide clear guidance then this limits a person's choice for/against religion.



I disagree. I think if God himself came down and in an impressive display convinced everyone in the world at once that he existed, it would only take a matter of days before people started to lose their faith. The problem isn't having blind faith, in spite of evidence, but having faith in spite of our defiant wills. That's the point. Since we've 'fallen' the difficult choice isn't in believing in God without evidence (though I disagree that there's a lack of evidence), its believing in God despite our inclination not to believe in Him. Why would God care why we believe in him? If we come to him because we've read a tract, or we come to him because we've heard a song on the radio, or we come to him because we recognize his signature on his creation, I don't think he really minds. I think he'd be happy just to see us return to him. I also think this whole idea of 'blind faith' was just planted by an atheist to make christians more complacent. But that's just my opinion.