I have tested Christianity to see if it had any holes . . . it did. Creationism did too.
What sense does it make that only some Roses have thorns? Curse or mutation? Which is the better explanation? Why does it matter that a slug doesn’t live forever? What does God have against slugs? Why do some poisons in plants ONLY affect certain animals and NOT humans? Why did God curse OTHER planets with storms? Why am I responsible for what one man that I never met did? Why don’t the “forgiven” people on this earth live forever? And we are all taught that everyone is given a chance to listen to the gospel to be saved. This clearly does not account for the unborn. And why . . . WHY is a chariot mentioned in Genesis? I thought this was an eyewitness account and during Adam’s time there would NOT have been any chariots or swords.
1. Be based on an explanation that has a high probability of being true
2. Account for ALL evidence
3. Be based on evidence that is accurate and relevant
4. Be testable
5. Be comprehendable within a human mind
6. Be able to change or be falsified based on new evidence
These are some of the very few basic requirements of any good theory. Macro evolution theory and abiogenesis theory fail miserably on the first and second points in particular and in my next post I will prove it.
Atheistic theology – an extremely dedicated belief in atheism much like religious faith .. . often accompanied by a refusal to deeply question it and not requiring any evidence.
It is very clear to me that some people cannot stand people who believe in creationism. It is truly clear that the motive has nothing to do with how much they love science but with how much they hate religion.
I have half a mind to just storm out of a room next time someone tells me evolution true because all they are really trying to do is indoctrinate me.
I made a very clear laymens case that evolution had been elevated above mere science. The result? I get banned from the blog. Its name is the sensous curmugeon and I don’t even care if I spelled that correctly.
It is very clear to me that some people cannot stand people who believe in creationism. It is truly clear that the motive has nothing to do with how much they love science but with how much they hate religion.
I have half a mind to just storm out of a room next time someone tells me evolution true because all they are really trying to do is indoctrinate me.
I made a very clear laymens case that evolution had been elevated above mere science. The result? I get banned from the blog. Its name is the sensous curmugeon and I don’t even care if I spelled that correctly.
First of all . .. every species has a limited range of change to work with. Secondly, a species will not make positive changes simply because it benefits them. There has to be a physical and chemical basis for the change to happen. Thirdly, the experiment mentioned NEVER GENERATED complete strands of working DNA. The more I study evolution . . . the more I realize that it is just as much a religion as Creationism. People believe in evolution because they WANT TO BELIEVE.
We are often told in the modern world that we should choose our own morality. But how wise are we at choosing? What substance is there to morality except in the minds of those beings who enforce or follow it (be they man, God, or whatever)? That is precisely the problem. You can’t go about enforcing any moral law unless you know what else is being enforced and by what or by whom. Until you know that you can’t really be sure whether or not you will be successful at following your own morality. You could certainly follow it anyways just on principle . . . but the obstacles you may face to following it or getting others to follow it could be great or small. Suppose there is a God who is apposed to your morality. You may well try to follow it only to be stopped by this God. Thus your morality would remain only temporarily at best. So your first consideration really should be whether or not their is a God.
Read the first verse of judges 16!!!! What one earth!!!!??? Samson did this?? This hero of faith?!!!!!!!! It sounds more like something from a sick greek myth. You simply must read this verse.
It has come to my attention that creative skeptical thought allows for more possibilities to consider . . . which exposes the task of understanding intelligent design or being able to prove it as being a complex very difficult scientific issue. At the heart of the issue is still what I believe is the nature of matter itself. The problem is information. The creationist has a valid point . . . where does the information in DNA come from? Can such complex information arise from non-information ? (i.e. simple dead matter with no intelligence or memory). Now this is really probably the most significant scientific aspect of creationism . .. . take it away and you have no real argument for intelligent design other than irreducible complexity. Several creation models are actually theoretically “possible” . . some of them may even be a cross between evolution and design . .. . . what if this designer had gradually increases, by intervention, the complexity of species over time? The key . . .. the absolute key . . . .regardless even of micro-evolution . . . is what matter can and cannot do apart from intelligence and a PREVIOUS MEMORY. Thus this issue is broader than merely creationism.
EVOLVING CREATIONIST 