The evilutionists have made a terrible mistake, too bad Man gave himself the ability to distuingish between right and wrong “like Gods”, eh?

Eric, could you show me some quotes from anyone stating that? You claim this assertion is made by ‘many’, so it shouldn’t be hard for you to produce such a quote.

As for the quotes you offer.

1) Popper recanted that quote: “I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation” (Dialectica 32:344-346).

2) “I suppose the reason why we leapt at the Origin of Species was that the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores.””

Can you explain how this quote is showing that Huxley didn’t accept evolution?

3) Finally, you claim that Sir Arthur Keith made this claim in 1959. The poor man died in 1955! How did you come by this quote? A ouija board? Google suggests to me that this quote is in fact completely fabricated – it’s impossible to find an original source for it, only other creationist sites repeating each other.

Surely if so many thousands of scientists rejected evolution you wouldn’t have to rely on quotes that are either a) fabricated or b) don’t even demonstrate the rejection of evolution?

chaos, hmm
if you want it to squirt, it’ll stop-up (corrode) and spray
if you want it to spray, it’ll stop-up and squirt?

i wonder if evolutionists have considered if humans are more or less evolved than animals?

if evolution were true…
there would be life everywhere that chemical reactions are possible.

In your last post you make a sweeping statement about the role of beneficial mutations in long term development, but in the process you have glossed over one of the biggest problems facing the theory of evolution.

DNA molecules are incredibly long and complex. Human DNA alone has as many as 3 billion base pairs. The theory of evolution requires that these molecules started out much smaller and simpler and that, over time, the information for such things as eyes, ears, blood vessels, etc. has been added. So the beneficial mutations you speak of must, at some stage, explain how coherent information is added to the DNA.

To explain the huge variety and complexity of life on Earth there must have been many billions of billions (and more) of these mutations, and they must still be happening today. Unfortunately scientists have been unable to find an example of a single one!

Now let’s see…

Amount of evidence that “trusting in Christ” affects the likelihood that you’ll end up in Hell: NIL
Amount of evidence that anyone has ever ended up in hell: NIL

You might as well suggest that I go looking for a blue tomato in order to avoid being abducted by an alien spacecraft.

I have to admit, I am slightly amazed at your response. I scincerely do not mean any of this in a derogartory way but you’ve made quite the many assumptions in your last statement. As I have mentioned to Joakim Rosqvist, I know what I beleive and how I came to beleive it but I enjoy good thought provoking conversations with others of differnt world views, and this is what my purpose in my previouse posts and this one is.

I have to admit, I find it interesting that in a dialogue such as this there is so much hostility. With respect Mr. Napper (and I do truly say this with respect for you), I was amazed how a person you’ve never met is assumed to be a creationist and unlearned in philosophy after reading one simple post. And in fact, your statements assume that creationists are by virtue of their world view, unintelligent or unlearned in philosophy (history and the present show this assumption incorrect).

However, in the spirit of conversation I would like to adress the points in your last post. First, you mentioned this is a new fad argument of creationists used to argue for the existance of God or the falshood of evolution. I have to admit, I had no idea creationists were using such an argument and I did not hear the argument from a creation scientist.. Using the formal post-secondary training I have had in philosophy, phylosophy of religion and world veiws (that you assumed I did not have), I was simply taking the logic of a naturalistic world view to it’s final end regarding human free will as per the comments of Joakim Rosqvist. (Although if creation scientists are using reason in such a way I’m glad to see their marriage of scientific interpretation and philosophy).

Second, I never made the claim from my original post on the subject that strict determinism from atheisitc evolution results in the falsification of the theory/world view. That is a discusion i’m willing to engage in. (I am intersted to know how you came to that conclusion however). Rather my purpose was to show that atheistic evolution, despite what many may beleive, does not allow for free will within humanity or the individual.

However, I did notice that you stated my conlusion, and apparently the conclusion of creation scientists (that if atheistic evolution is true then there is no free will) was one of the problems when creationists’ use such an argument, but you did not elaborate. In essence, you did not falsify the conclusion but merely stated that such a conlusion is incoreect. I am interested in your reasoning becasue it does contradict the logical conlusion of many a professor of philosophy christain, atheist or other.

I truly and honestly do not mean this in a rude manner, but your post that you intended to use as a refutation against a logical argument did not make use of logical argumentation but merely made statements without support.

Finally, from your post, I do assume that you have studied philosophy to some degree and are interested in the topic of world views (why else would you be on a creationist site and responding to creationist blogs while holding a differnt world view if you weren’t?), If youare interested in further study of variouse world views I recommend “The Universe Next Door A basic World view Catalog Fourth Edition” By: James W. Sire.

Thanks and I hope we ahve the chance to talk again

‘Stop inventing a little bitty god…’ – again, a true unbeliever does not ‘invent’ or believe in any deity, of any strength, at any level.

It is you who invents any ‘god’ – to excuse yourself from responsibility and ultimately as a tool for power and control over the weak.

First, I would like to thank you for your civil reply to my previouse post regarding cause and effect and natuaralistic determinism. I’m new to these blogs, and although I know what I beleive and how I’ve come to beleive it, I view these types of discussions as an opportunity to continually learn, (especially more about the world views of others). I’ve found that many poeple in similare conversations become very defensive or even hostile without actually listening to what is said, ..so thank you for the conversation!

However, in the spirit of conversation, I still find the conclusion in your last post (concerning cause and effect working together with randomness to produce a level of free will in humanity) puzeling. This is mainly because if atheisitc evelotion occured in a natuaralistic universe, the observed randomness of the universe can not be devorsed from the chain of cause and effect as you have proposed. In fact, that was my original point, that athesitic evelotion requires a chain of cause and effec that is based on the random movements of attoms begun from the big bang..which in turn results in complete determinism and therefore no free will. in atheisitc evolution, randomness can not exisit outside of the chain.

On a note of clarification, in your last post, I felt as if you thought I wanted to be free from the chain of cause and effect. I don’t, I too enjoy a universe where outcomes are predictable based on our growing understanding of it. Rather the point I was originally making, is that logic dictates strict determinism from an atheistic evolution of the universe and life regardless of whether we percieve the causes and effects as random or not in their essence