Thread:TheSquidychicken/@comment-31308946-20170525193032/@comment-26347028-20170530191012

TheSquidychicken wrote: Here we go time for some better grammar :P

Ok so it seems almost paradoxical at first that both creationists and evolutionists would appeal to the very same evidence in support of opposing positions. We might be inclined to think that creationists would use line of evidence, and evolutionists would use another but this just s not the case. Both sides appeal to the fossil records and genetics. Both appeal to rock layers and canyons. Both appeal to the methods and procedures of science. In some cases, the two camps may appeal to exactly the same evidence in support of their competing positions. What is going on here?

Obviously, the origins debate cannot be about different lines of evidence, because we all observe the same evidence. Creationists and evolutionists have the same fossils the same rock layers and access to the same genetic code. In other words we have the same world. The difference is how the two sides interpret that evidence. Thy disagree on what the evidence ''means. ''The evolutionist takes similarities in DNA of different kinds of organisms to be indicative of common ancestry; whereas the creationist takes those same similarities to be evidence of their common Creator and similar purpose. Creationists and evolutionists do not disagree on the evidence itself. (Both agree that organisms have similarities in DNA); rather they disagree on how evidence should be'' interpreted. ''They have different views of the world.

The origins debate therefore is really a debate over competing worldviews (if you dont know this means copeting ways of understanding the world . The biblical creationist uses the history recorded in the Bible to help understand the evidence. The evolutionist rejects biblical history, and uses other standards instead. Often the evolutionists standard is naturalism (the belief that nature alone can account for the origin of the universe and life) Putting it another way the creationists and evolutionists use a different ultimate standard by which they judge  various claims. Consequently they come to different conclusions about the same evidence.

Therefore, scientific and historical evidence--by itself-- cannot logically settle the origins debate. Each party will interpret the evidence in light of his or her worldview. The creationist will honestly believe that the evidence confirms creation whereas he volutionistwill honestly believe that the very same evidence is consistent wth evolution. Consider this example

C-14 is an unstable isotope of crabon created in the upper atmospheere which naturally with time spontaneously decays ("changes") into nitrogen with time. this happens on a timescale of thousands of years. Now, C-14 has been found deep down in rock layers  that evolutionists believe to be millions of yers old, they should not contain even one atome of C-14, because it would have all decayed into nitrogen. This certainly seems to support the biblical historical claiim that the earth was made thousands  (not billions) of years ago, and that many of the upper rock layers were deposited during the global flood described in "Genesis 6-8".

But an evolutionist will not necessarily be persuaded by such evidence. He can invent a "rescuing device" to explain such evidenc in light of his worldview. He says, "Perhaps there is an unknown processdeep in those rock layers which produces deep in those rock layers which produces new C-14 as quickly as it decays. Although such a process has not been discovered, the evolutionist is free to postulate that it could be discovered in the future. And of curse, creationists are also free to invoke a rescuing device to account forany alleged evidence for evolution or vast ages. Since each side interprets the evdence in light of his worldview, how then can we logically prove on worldview over the other?

How to Resolve a Worldview Issue.

How can the origins debate be rationally resolved? With each side interpreting the scientific and historical evidence in light of his respective worldiew, it may seem that there is no way to settle the debate. But in fact, there is. We can logically demonstate that the biblical worldview must be true by showing the absurdity of the contrary view. What we are going to do is an internal critique. of the evolutionary worldvie. The idea is to show that a worldview cannot be true because it "self destructs" on its own terms.

If I were to argue that my opponents position was wrong on the basis of a particular line of evidence that I interpret according to my worldview, then that would be unfair (and irrational). Such an argument is unsound because it merely assumes that my way of interpreting evidence is the right way--but of course that is the very claim at issue. It begs the question. It would be like saying, :my opponents world view is wrong because it contradicts my worldview which is right." Such an argument proves nothing. Rather than evaluating an opponents worldvie by our own, we must evaluate an opponents worldview by our own, we must evaluate the opponents worldview on its own terms (this is what I want you all to do)

I will be looking for internl defects. Specifically, there are three things we look for in a worldview: arbitariness, inconsistency,and preconditions of knowledge. If a worldview is defective in any of those areas then it is not a rational hold. We will see that evolution fails all three of these tests, but creation passes spectacularly.

1.Arbitrariness.

2.Inconsistency

3. Preconditions of knowledge.

Should I finish this "essay"? Yes! No! Was this "essay" better than the last? Yes! No! Was this one more interesting than the last? Yes! No! Are you considering each side of the debate fairly? Yes! No! Here goes.

So you accept there is no conclusive evidence for creation? Well that's a step forwards. On the other hand, you're also trying to claim there is no conclusive evidence for evolution. It would still be a hypothesis were there no good evidence, my friend. And if I'm indeed not mistaken, it does say theory not hypothesis. There is more than enough evidence. Whether or not you want to work your theism around evolution, maybe claim God caused it, is not up to me. But I shall say that refusing to accept it isn't noble, or good, it's just ignorant.

Please cite your claims, also, I would like to point out, as I said earlier, that the radioactive decay of carbon-14 is fairly unpredictable beyond a certain point, which is why they don't, so it's definitely not unreasonable to say that there could be such atoms down there.

I like how you consider yourself a moral guide. This isn't about morals, this is about evidence. I could natter on all day about how unreasonable theism is, but I won't - because this is about evolution. And evolution, unlike the Great Debates of our time, has far more than enough evidence for it.