From a closed thread (found here), I wanted to continue the discussion:
Unfortunately, my side makes the opposite claim, and an article was written to that effect. Worth the read, I think.
And I could make the opposite claim.
So instead of just question begging, how about reasoning out your argument?
Yes they are. Was knowledge of darwinia--- evolution required to make any of them?
So that's one that did not require knowledge of evolution. Now how about the rest of those inventions? Did the rest of the inventors of those items require knowledge of evolution in order to invent them?
Yes, that's my point. Yet you made the following claim:
Are you hereby retracting that claim, since, as you claim, Darwinian beliefs and evolution, and inventing things like the cotton gin, have nothing to do with each other?
Or are you going to continue to assert that they do, by claiming the following?:
Correct. Thank you for at least partially conceding my point, UN.
Supra.
https://kgov.com/crispr-explained-bel-style
https://kgov.com/bel/20040603
https://kgov.com/wave-particle-duality-is-a-triality
Well, no, "assumption of a 6,000 year old universe" would be called question begging, and would lead to bias.
Go where the evidence leads.
I think you'll find that the evidence, when you actually consider and examine it, leads to a young universe.
And even worse for your position, I assert that such things CANNOT be explained by the old earth/universe position or by evolution, because information is not physical, and information cannot arise from non-information, and life cannot arise from non-life.
You mean like Spike Psarris, who is a former engineer with the US Military space program, and his video, What You Aren't Being Told About Astronomy: Our Created Solar System, and a volume two titled Our Created Star and Galaxies?
Or maybe Dr. Jerry Bergman or even Dr. Jonathan Sarfati.
Or perhaps you mean these doubters, or countless others who might be fired or lose their tenure, or at the very least, be discriminated against if their beliefs about origins were known to their (potential) employers.
I think your unstated claim, that if one rejects darwinism or evolution or an old universe/earth, one cannot be a "good" scientist, falls flat on its face when you actually consider how many accomplished scientists there are who reject it. (Note: I'm not trying to appeal to popularity here, just pointing out that there are scientists who are accomplished in their work and yet reject your overall position.)
Which is why I also listed scientists who lived AFTER Darwin as well.
Special pleading won't get you very far, UN.
So? Scientists today are being persecuted (see above) by the "church" of evolution and Darwinism for their views. So what's your point?
What, specifically, are you referring to?
And even if so, just because someone has erroneous beliefs about something doesn't mean everything they believe is incorrect. It doesn't follow logically.
It is a fact that Newton rejected the claim that the solar system formed naturally, and defended the historical accuracy of Scripture.
Aron Ra attempted to make the same claim you made, that Newton wasn't a YE creationist, when in fact he was.
You're right, I should not have called Lord Kelvin a YEC.
I will point out, however, that he still rejected naturalistic origins of life and the universe.
https://kgov.com/fathers-of-the-phys...ciences#kelvin
Unfortunately, my side makes the opposite claim, and an article was written to that effect. Worth the read, I think.
And I could make the opposite claim.
So instead of just question begging, how about reasoning out your argument?
Yes they are. Was knowledge of darwinia--- evolution required to make any of them?
So that's one that did not require knowledge of evolution. Now how about the rest of those inventions? Did the rest of the inventors of those items require knowledge of evolution in order to invent them?
Light bulb, vacuums, pasteurization, railway, typewriter, electric motor, carburetor, loudspeaker, telephone, phonograph, microphone, photographic film, seismograph, solar panels, punch cards, cars, combustion engine, AC transformer, contact lens, tractor, ballpoint pen, cinematography, wind energy, zipper, escalator, X-ray, remote control, tape recorder, air conditioning, fire fighting foam, neon lamp, EKG, airplane, seismometer, sonar, radio, TV, rockets, radar, sliced bread, transfusion (think Harvey here), EEG, steel, radio telescope, jet engine, computer, Velcro, transistor, atomic clock, nuclear reactor, fiber optics, hard drives, satellites, spandex and spam, lasers, digital photography, optical disc, 3D holography, LED, mouse, lunar lander, Venus lander, video games, video cassette, space station, e-mail, karaoke 
|
Yes, that's my point. Yet you made the following claim:
| Atheistical Darwinialistic evolutionalists have been at the forefront of all scientific advancements for the past century or more. |
Are you hereby retracting that claim, since, as you claim, Darwinian beliefs and evolution, and inventing things like the cotton gin, have nothing to do with each other?
Or are you going to continue to assert that they do, by claiming the following?:
| Atheistical Darwinialistic evolutionalists have been at the forefront of all scientific advancements for the past century or more |
Correct. Thank you for at least partially conceding my point, UN.
Supra.
https://kgov.com/crispr-explained-bel-style
https://kgov.com/bel/20040603
https://kgov.com/wave-particle-duality-is-a-triality
Well, no, "assumption of a 6,000 year old universe" would be called question begging, and would lead to bias.
Go where the evidence leads.
I think you'll find that the evidence, when you actually consider and examine it, leads to a young universe.
And even worse for your position, I assert that such things CANNOT be explained by the old earth/universe position or by evolution, because information is not physical, and information cannot arise from non-information, and life cannot arise from non-life.
You mean like Spike Psarris, who is a former engineer with the US Military space program, and his video, What You Aren't Being Told About Astronomy: Our Created Solar System, and a volume two titled Our Created Star and Galaxies?
Or maybe Dr. Jerry Bergman or even Dr. Jonathan Sarfati.
Or perhaps you mean these doubters, or countless others who might be fired or lose their tenure, or at the very least, be discriminated against if their beliefs about origins were known to their (potential) employers.
I think your unstated claim, that if one rejects darwinism or evolution or an old universe/earth, one cannot be a "good" scientist, falls flat on its face when you actually consider how many accomplished scientists there are who reject it. (Note: I'm not trying to appeal to popularity here, just pointing out that there are scientists who are accomplished in their work and yet reject your overall position.)
Which is why I also listed scientists who lived AFTER Darwin as well.
Special pleading won't get you very far, UN.
So? Scientists today are being persecuted (see above) by the "church" of evolution and Darwinism for their views. So what's your point?
What, specifically, are you referring to?
And even if so, just because someone has erroneous beliefs about something doesn't mean everything they believe is incorrect. It doesn't follow logically.
It is a fact that Newton rejected the claim that the solar system formed naturally, and defended the historical accuracy of Scripture.
Aron Ra attempted to make the same claim you made, that Newton wasn't a YE creationist, when in fact he was.
You're right, I should not have called Lord Kelvin a YEC.
I will point out, however, that he still rejected naturalistic origins of life and the universe.
https://kgov.com/fathers-of-the-phys...ciences#kelvin
| * Lord Kelvin's Proof of God vs. AronRa's Two-word Quote Mine: Evolutionists wrongly accuse creationists of quote mining. In an RSR debate, popular atheist AronRa committed a record-breaking "quote mine" of only two words! Ra wrote that in Kelvin's opinion, the concept of evolution was "not unscientific." For a more accurate assessment of this old-earth creationist's views, in the Address of Sir William Thomson [Lord Kelvin], President, at the Forty-First Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Kelvin concluded his lengthy report with these words: "But overpoweringly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie all round us; and if ever perplexities, whether metaphysical or scientific, turn us away from them for a time, they come back upon us with irresistible force, showing to us through Nature the influence of a free will, and teaching us that all living beings depend on one ever-acting Creator and Ruler." -Lord Kelvin In the same speech, Kelvin also defended the experimentally established law of biogenesis and rejected abiogenesis, which is the popular claim of naturalistic origins for life itself, unsubstantiated by evidence but believed by virtually all atheists, as a matter of unquestionable dogma and blind faith: "A very ancient speculation, still clung to by many naturalists... supposes that... dead matter may have run together or crystallized or fermented into 'germs of life,' or 'organic cells,' or 'protoplasm.' But science brings a vast mass of inductive evidence against this hypothesis of spontaneous generation, as you have heard from my predecessor in the Presidential chair. Careful enough scrutiny has, in every case up to the present day, discovered life as antecedent to life. Dead matter cannot become living without coming under the influence of matter previously alive. This seems to me as sure a teaching of science as the law of gravitation." -Lord Kelvin Such words from Kelvin "incited a great flutter amongst the dovecots of science of the shoddy kind" remarked a John Buchanan. Still though, Kelvin was not a young-earth creationist and he proposed in his speech that perhaps life that was originally created by God on another planet and may have come to Earth via meteorites. And then, while specifically disavowing the mechanisms of Darwinism, Kelvin wrote, "if evolution there has been," then that life would have been guided to diversify by intelligent design. And ultimately Kelvin observed that even if all this did happen, it does not imply however that mankind evolved from animals! And Kelvin would always reject efforts to provide a maximum age for the earth as older than 40 million years, which age is far too young, even if evolutionary mechanisms could theoretically create vital organs, for Darwinian mechanisms to explain the diversity of life. For as widely observed, natural selection can explain the survival, but not the arrival, of the fittest. |
Last edited:
