Yes, and the written record you appeal to appeals to miracles. Inconsistency.

<Do you insist we have a written record from Adam himself to document the Creation? In fact, that sort of wouldn't qualify since Adam himself was not there in the beginning. The floor is yours to explain how we could have a witness statement on that matter.>

You are flipping things around. Why do you place the burden on me to explain how we could have a witness for creation, when all along I have been stating that there are NO witnesses to creation. YOU are the only one who makes appeals to eyewitnesses!

<But taken as a whole, those witnesses we do have to the entire history of mankind and God's dealing with them is ample evidence to realize that those who teach of the creation are trustworthy witnesses and have some knowledge far beyond the capacity of any human. That is, they show they have in fact been given some knowledge by a supernatural being.>

Okay, for the sake of discussion, let's assume this is true -- if you are willing to respect someone else who disagrees with your conclusions.

<And finally, even if there was some way for an eyewitness to the Creation to record the event, it would still be..........a miraculous event! One more occasion you a priori out the possibility it could happen.>

Again, I have never ruled out the possibility that a miracle could happen! Why, I even proposed a possible miraculous theory of creation myself (my YouRangism religion).

My point is -- and please grasp the distiction -- that the *Field of Science* rejects miraculous explanations. They reject miraculous explanations because they are seeking only natural explanations. In some cases, YOU don't want them to find natural explanations, and you get offended when they do!

As I've explained over and over, science by necessity rejects miracles because accepting them is to admit that there is no natural way to understand it. When science makes that admission, then it stops making progress.

<And the thrust of my argument continues to be not only the rejection of the Biblical record, but the fact Science as a whole runs as far from that record as possible. That is, if they ONLY ignored it, they wouldn't show so much bias as they do in purposely running from it.>

~~~~

Regarding the comparative honesty in the history of religion vs. science battles:

<This is ridiculous. Honesty in Piltdown Man, Archaeoraptor, Lucy, yada yada yada?>

Again, you rattle off this list of names, evidently assuming that everyone dwells in the same creation-science websites that you trust. I replied to this here: OhioChessFan chessforum, and pointed out that far from being examples of dishonesty, they (at least the ones that actually do involve fraud or mistakes) were disproved by evolutionists -- the very people you think would benefit from these cases.

But if you like, we can take this discussion in the direction of dishonesty on the part of creation-scientists. Perhaps you don't think there is any?

~~~~

<Per the not responding, I have noticed when the rubber meets the road you have ignored my points. Here's the last one, which you have conveniently ignored as you sign off on the discussion.

<As for the evolutionists, why should they believe in it? They admittedly can't provide witnesses. They admittedly can't produce life from non-life or show the first suggestion it ever happened. They admittedly didn't see it themselves. They admit it's unconfirmed by science. And for all that, these bastions of Scientific integrity insist this is the prevailing king of theories, and only the uneducated/deluded believe otherwise. You don't see any innate dishonesty in that? I do.>>

At least evolutionists are honest enough to admit that they don't have witnesses. At least they have enough honesty to admit that there are parts they don't understand.

Also, the "theory of evolution" is not a take-all-or-nothing proposal. That it explains variations of species is one thing, that it explains the origin of life is another.

I don't personally understand it well enough myself to argue strongly for or against it, but I do accept that it is the best *natural* explanation so far. Nobody, including creationists, have proposed a better *natural* explanation.

Accepting it as the best natural explanation is not the same as saying that must be true, nor is it the same as saying that a miraculous explanation is not true. This is the point that keeps eluding you (or you are eluding it).

~~~~~

It's a small point, but in my explanation of your view, I said: <Therefore, you have accepted the whole of the Bible as true -- parts by reason, and the rest by faith.> and your response was <All by reason, but that's pretty well stated otherwise.>

Here is where I see the difference:

<You think there are good reasons to believe the Bible is true, for example on the historical testimony concerning Jesus and prophetic evidence. Also, you believe in God, and that the Bible is his unified product. You see that later books of the Bible refer to older books, and older books are in harmony with newer ones.> -- This is reason.

<And somehow, the testimony of these eyewitnesses about those events also constitutes testimony confirming events that they did not see, and did not even say they saw, such as the creation. > -- This is faith.

<whatthefat: Irrelevant - he was supposedly at the last supper. He should therefore know whether it was a passover feast or not. He even states that they are buying food for the feast the <next> day in 13:29,

"Since Judas had charge of the money, some thought Jesus was telling him to buy what was needed for the Feast, or to give something to the poor." >

I'm still not seeing your point about which day is under discussion.

<It also occurred to me that if you do take every word of the Bible to be a literal truth, then I suspect you're going to Hell.>

We need to examine them with as much objectivity as is possible.

<So you instead claim that scientists are rabidly anti-Christian, keeping the Bible in the back of their mind at all times, and rejecting any theories that happen to be in accord with it>

However, I see that you are finally reponding to the points I raised. Why you waited until after I left the room is interesting. :-) In any case, I think this gives me just cause to pop back in for a moment... >

It's hard to bow out. I felt the same way about your claims of inconsistency.

<YouRang: Yet I have never claimed that science gives 100% confidence to evolution -- YOU are the only one making that claim.> <whatthefat: Darwinian evolution has been observed in real time in the laboratory and in the field, so it is a <fact>. >

<Why do you place the burden on me to explain how we could have a witness for creation, when all along I have been stating that there are NO witnesses to creation.>

So they reject the miracle of life arising from nonlife because there's no indication it ever happened, it can't be repeated, it has no scientific basis? Oh wait, they don't reject that miracle. Never mind.

<I'm curious about what you call faith.>

D Gates

I guess I'll have to live with that. I'm rather amused by your claims of how science works except when they can't show the first suggestion life ever came from nonlife so they just assume it in on faith or something, and they'll work out the details later, and that counts as science?

<operative: Again, if you truly believe the Bible is the word of God, then there's no problem in the fact that God dictated the account of the Creation to Moses, as he did.>

<whatthefat: Yeah, but God told me Moses was lying. >

On its face, this is a legitimate rejoinder. The crucial point is in the credibility of Moses and whatthefat in their claim.

<John says the last supper was not a passover feast, >

I'll take a swing at it.

<We are made of atoms.> Yes.

<Everything is made of atoms.>

Some things are made of parts of atoms. Neutron stars are made of neutrons. Ions are atoms missing one or more electrons. Beta rays are free electrons.

<When we die, atoms are still there... they just arrange themselves differently, no?> Yep.

<Do atoms continue indefinitely?>

Almost. Free neutrons decay in about 15 minutes into a proton and electron. Theoretically, protons decay also but they take virtually forever to do that.

<They can be split to release energy, but don't they in turn release more atoms as this energy is released>

Some atoms like uranium can split to form lighter elements. Some radioactive elements emit electrons when neutrons decay into protons. Others emit helium nuclei which is called alpha decay. In all these cases, different elements are created in the process.

Why not?

I pretty much have the same views on this topic as you do, but this unsettles me a little bit. I am wondering if you decline to take a definitive stance on it so that you don't offend those who do believe in miracles? If so, then that would explain it. If you are an agnostic, that would make sense, too. Although this would mean that we now only share 99% of the same views (on this topic), as opposed to 99.9%.

I beg to differ about "all along". Until a day or two ago, you hadn't raised the issue of an eyewitness to the creation.>

You're kidding?

<Mar-31-10 YouRang: ...There were NO eyewitnesses at all.>

<Mar-31-10 YouRang: ...when in fact, there are no witnesses>

<Apr-05-10 YouRang: ...the obvious truth that there are NO eyewitnesses to speak about cosmology or evolution>

<Apr-06-10 YouRang: ...You ignore that there are no eyewitnesses in reality.>

<Apr-07-10 YouRang: ...its a moot point because there are no eyewitnesses to testify about the issues of cosmology or evolution.>

<Apr-08-10 YouRang: ...There are NO eyewitnesses to attest to matters of natural science, let alone 100>

Why not? >

1. Simply because miracles can't be proved or disproved. I can't even disprove YouRangism! ;-)

Alleluia.
“The right hand of the LORD is exalted;
the right hand of the LORD has struck with power.”
I shall not die, but live,
and declare the works of the LORD.
Though the LORD has indeed chastised me,
yet he has not delivered me to death.
I will give thanks to you, for you have answered me.

Alleluia.
Open to me the gates of justice;
I will enter them and give thanks to the LORD.
This is the gate of the LORD;
the just shall enter it.
I will give thanks to you, for you have answered me
and have been my savior.