Yeah...that's what's happening...lol...

THIS is precisely why I BEG you to have a real email conversation, so that we can not derail on things like this....and hurl elephants that take 20 postings to unravel, and have arguments that jump from point to point without ever resolving anything...

But I suspect that's why you CAN'T allow a real "one on one" email exchange...because you couldn't stand the focus.

But...my offer still stands...you can throw out grandiose accusations and claim that I don't answer or that I misread you...or you can email me and we can have a real conversation.

He wrote the the words in the bible through men, and yes, all things that transpire in time are "preordained" as by definition, if God is Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent, they cannot logically be otherwise.

But of course your idea that if God controls all things that I cannot choose things or have no choice...is just that...your idea.

I have no problem with that...I wouldn't expect you ( who rejects anything to do with God as your "a priori" starting point) to get it.

That offer still stands...email me and have a real conversation.

rpavich wrote:
rpavich wrote:
Blah blah blah..you know what I meant...but as I said...you can play semantics games..that's fine. It makes the same point.


You're doing it once again. You're reading what you want to read and have a ready answer for. Your arguments against evolution are, in part, based on the assumption, that evolutionists believe that the statement, "Man has evolved from monkeys", to be true. I have pointed out to you, that evolutionists, actually believe the statement to be false. You then dismiss by saying that the difference between true and false, is just semantics.

rpavich wrote:
You agreed that we all have our presuppositions in the first statement, then you went on to talk about how Evolution is "fact"...the two don't coexist...in case you haven't noticed.

Either we "interpret" based on presuppositions, and we see the same evidence differently, OR....Evolution is a done deal and Creationists are wrong about the "slam dunk" evidence.


When did I agree that we all have presuppositions, (I do actually agree on this, but haven't yet said so)? And when have I said that evolution is a fact? I have said that the observable evidence supports evolution.

rpavich wrote:
Not sure why you call God account of history "failed experiments" but be that as it may...what exactly does this have to do with anything?

God made land animals (including dinos) on the same day of the creation week.

Why would dinos be "failed experiments" exactly?

I'm not calling god's account of history a failed experiment. Although the bible does admit to one incidence, where the results were no what he was expecting, and so he wiped out the subjects that did not conform. I was refering to his failed experiment with the dinosaurs, where he failed to to report his findings. Perhaps the dinosaurs didn't worship him enough, and so he sent a giant meteor to destroy them, or perhaps that's just what happens in a universe that works according to the natural laws of physics. You decide.

rpavich wrote:
Yeah...that's what's happening...lol...

THIS is precisely why I BEG you to have a real email conversation, so that we can not derail on things like this....and hurl elephants that take 20 postings to unravel, and have arguments that jump from point to point without ever resolving anything...

But I suspect that's why you CAN'T allow a real "one on one" email exchange...because you couldn't stand the focus.

But...my offer still stands...you can throw out grandiose accusations and claim that I don't answer or that I misread you...or you can email me and we can have a real conversation.


I have in the past given my reasons. But just to recap: This is precisely how religion works. It says, "just listen to what I have to say. Don't listen to anyone else. Ignore everything you see or hear around you. Accept that everything I tell you is the truth, and eventually, you will believe.). This is why children are indoctrinated into religion at an early age, whilst they still believe what they're told, without question.

rpavich wrote:
He wrote the the words in the bible through men, and yes, all things that transpire in time are "preordained" as by definition, if God is Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent, they cannot logically be otherwise.

But of course your idea that if God controls all things that I cannot choose things or have no choice...is just that...your idea.

I have no problem with that...I wouldn't expect you ( who rejects anything to do with God as your "a priori" starting point) to get it.

That offer still stands...email me and have a real conversation.


If all things that transpire, are preordained, how can you possibly have any choice?
This may seem like nit picking. But it may well prove to be a pivotal point in understanding, between the reigious and the non religious viewpoints..

Careful what you say, and I quote:
"True...but keep in mind that mutations (the process of change in the Evolutionary guess) always leads to a "LOSS of genetic information or at best...a rearrangement."

Look up Insertional Mutagenesis. HIV (a retrovirus) does it all the time, and retrovirus elements have been found replete throughout the human genome and they have been acquired eons ago, and even today.

Even bacteria can receive novel genetic sequences from a virus (bacterial virus/bacteriophage) and infection by this virus does not necessarily kill the bacteria, but instead makes them immediately resistant to antibiotics.

These examples are not loss of genetic information but acquisition of new genetic information, and from outside.

Fundamentalist here...if what you mean by that is "someone who sees this "observable evidence" differently than you"...

Evolution observable?....interesting.

Interesting that you used the word observable because "Evolution" isn't observable.

Natural selection is observable and "Fundy's" would be right there observing right alongside you!

But...that's not the same as "monkey's-to-men" Evolution.

Operational (Observational) Science: a systematic approach to understanding that uses observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable experimentation to understand how nature commonly behaves.

You are describing "Operational science" when you talk about observing things.

Operational Science is:

the type of science that allows us to understand how DNA codes for proteins in cells. It is the type of science that has allowed us to cure and treat diseases, put a man on the moon, build satellites and telescopes, and make products that are useful to humans.

Biblical creationists believe that God has created a universe that uses a set of natural laws that operate consistently in the universe.

Understanding how those laws operate is the basis for scientific thinking.


This is quite different than Historical (Origins) Science, which is:

interpreting evidence from past events based on a presupposed philosophical point of view.

The past is not directly observable, testable, repeatable, or falsifiable; so interpretations of past events present greater challenges than interpretations involving operational science.

Neither creation nor evolution is directly observable, testable, repeatable, or falsifiable.

Each is based on certain philosophical assumptions about how the earth began.

Naturalistic evolution assumes that there was no God, and biblical creation assumes that there was a God who created everything in the universe.

Starting from two opposite presuppositions and looking at the same evidence, the explanations of the history of the universe are very different.

The argument is not over the evidence—the evidence is the same—it is over the way the evidence should be interpreted.

Where you see "Evolution" I see God's creation.