ID is not a cult - simply says that life is too complex too 'evolve' out of nothing. I agree. The YEC make the most sense to me when you apply true scientific methods to each. I've studied all 3 - creation, evolution, and intelligent design as well as criticisms of each.
You can drive a truck through most of the holes in the evolution theory. The more evolutionists have 'learned' the more time and complexity the theory needs to be even remotely plausible.
Maybe your time would be better spent reviewing the holes in the evolution theory or even better disproving the Bible. Two very simple questions from John MacArthur.
1.) How did the rule of law evolve w/o the Bible?
2.) How did the 7-day week evolve w/o the Bible?
Could you please clarify if you are saying that the rule of law would not exist without the Bible?
Maybe your time would be better spent reviewing the holes in the evolution theory or even better disproving the Bible. Two very simple questions from John MacArthur.
1.) How did the rule of law evolve w/o the Bible?
2.) How did the 7-day week evolve w/o the Bible?
Yes, that's the nice thing about unfalsifiable "theories" like creationism; they never have to adapt to new information because the answer is always "God did it".
1.) How did the rule of law evolve w/o the Bible?
Huh? Look at Hammurabi, for example.
2.) How did the 7-day week evolve w/o the Bible?
Apparently via pagan astrologists. Good Moon Day to you.
This is what passes for logical arguments from creationists?
Sure it is. Check its history.
- simply says that life is too complex too 'evolve' out of nothing.
And astrologers say that the stars influence the daily events of our lives.
I agree.
Lots of people agree with astrology too -- and for very similar "reasons", including gross ignorance of the actual processes, wishful thinking, and being snowed by the propaganda of the practitioners who have something to gain by suckering people.
The YEC make the most sense to me when you apply true scientific methods to each.
ROFL!!!!!!! Gosh, then why do actual scientists overwhelmingly reject the YEC's conclusions?
Sorry, but Young-Earth Creationism is based on gross distortions of the actual evidence. But hey, feel free to "enlighten" us and show us how "true scientific methods" actually lead to a YEC conclusion. This should be fun!
I've studied all 3 - creation, evolution, and intelligent design as well as criticisms of each.
Translation: You've read the YEC propaganda on all 3, and made the mistake of believing it.
You can drive a truck through most of the holes in the evolution theory.
Gosh! Such as? Take your best shot.
The more evolutionists have 'learned' the more time and complexity the theory needs to be even remotely plausible.
Ah, *another* YEC propaganda misrepresentation! Nope, sorry. But feel free to "support" your falsehood with citations to any peer-reviewed science journal article which actually supports your assertion. Go for it!
Sorry, but you're spewing a blatant falsehood. The age of the Earth hasn't been revised appreciably in more than half a century, and back when it *was* being revised, it was revised due to discoveries in physics which allowed the age to be more accurately measured, and in no way due to any considerations from or for biology or in order to accomodate any aspect of evolutionary biology. Even from the time of Darwin, evolutionary biology has worked to fit the theory to the facts (including the best estimates of the age of the Earth at the time), and not vice versa.
Please try to learn something about science before you make any more false claims about it. Oh, wait, you're a YEC -- you don't *need* no education before you spout off on a topic!
In the 1700's many lines of evidence led to widespread doubt about the Bible's 6000-year chronology for the age of the Earth. By the mid 1850's estimates of millions of years were suggested, and the Earth has been known to be on the order of a billion or more years old since at least 1911. Calculations of the age of the Earth were converging on the true age as long ago as the 1920's -- for example: 4.0 billion years (Russell, 1921), 3.4 billion years (Rutherford 1929); 4.6 billion years (Meyer 1937); and 3 to 4 billion years (Starik 1937). The number hasn't changed appreciably since the 1940's, when it converged to 4.5 +/- 0.1 billion years due to advances in analytical equipment (thanks to the Manhattan project).
Maybe your time would be better spent reviewing the holes in the evolution theory
Been there, done that, found the vast majority of them to be false creationist claims, and the rest to be just areas where research is continuing -- not any kind of "problem" for evolutionary biology.
or even better disproving the Bible.
Why? Do you think it needs disproving?
Two very simple questions from John MacArthur.
1.) How did the rule of law evolve w/o the Bible?
Because people living in groups had to devise ways to get along. Duh!
2.) How did the 7-day week evolve w/o the Bible?
Because the lunar cycle is roughly 28 days, and that number is most handily divided into 7-day segments. Duh!
And *both* of your "examples" existed in pre-Biblical cultures. OOPS!
You YECs just don't bother thinking anything through at all, do you? You just *presume* that everything "must" have roots in the Bible, and that nothing could possibly have come about by non-Biblical means -- and you never bother to actually learn anything at all about the real roots of the things you wave around as "proof". You guys are funny!
I am not sure if you believe the rule of law could not exist without the bible or not so I will answer as best as I can. You know the Romans were exceptionally big on law (and lawyers unfortunately), as were the ancient Chinese. Some of the earliest writing were laws. To even be considered a civilization you had to set down some form of laws, right? Yet the Bible had nothing to do with any of them. Zippo... nil. No influence whatsoever. So... the rule of law certainly existed before the bible became a large influence in the world, right?
2.) How did the 7-day week evolve w/o the Bible?
Um... well gee I don't know... what does this have to do with anything? Ok the bible made the 7 day work week... what does it mean on the grand scale of things and how does this apply to an evolution vs. creationist thread?
You can drive a truck through most of the holes in the evolution theory. The more evolutionists have 'learned' the more time and complexity the theory needs to be even remotely plausible.
Let me restate your hyperbole. There are unanswered questions that Evolutionists have not been able to completely answer. These are not the theory itself but some of the more intricate details. Does this throw the whole theory out? Nope... what ID'ers like to conveniently forget is that science is about the study of the unknown. That is why we study it, not make up fairy tales about it. The same can be said for so many other branches of the physical and social sciences. Economics theory has a lot of unanswered questions but does that mean I throw Adam Smith and capitalism out the window? Oh Marxists and Communists would love for me to do that... but I don't think so.
Now... since you talk about driving a truck through loop holes... what proof is there of ID since you are so well read in the matter? Do you propose the Earth is young like a number of your cohorts? How would you answer for what Radiometric dating? All lies I suppose? Or do you propose like some more intelligent ID'ers that microevolution is real but macroevolution is not? If so, go to my post at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1623421/posts?page=312#312. That is one small piece of evidence that is based not on just fossils but DNA evidence.
I will repeat myself for you why I call ID a cult. Instead of going the normal route that scientific theory travels, from scientific papers and peer review and finally some form of acceptance, ID'er attempt to push their brand of science another way, through the public school system. Gee, how many scientific theories travel that "route"? None. Also how many scientific theories that exists state that it happens because "some invisible intelligence" did it.
Oh... that's science alright. Hmmm why does a bird fly... to heck with studying aerodynamics... teach that an invisible intelligence is holding it up. Why does an apple fall to the ground? Hmmm... must be an intelligent being pushing (or pulling... the debate continues) us down.
You see my point? To use an invisible intelligence as the answer for all phenomena would be a really... really... really bad idea.
So ID'ers are either: a)stupid, b)just plain evil, or c)a cult whose members just can't think for themselves. That is why I call ID a cult, because the other alternatives are much worse.
I thought every school kid learned about The Code of Hammurabi.
Circa 2000 years BC the Lawgiver Hammurabi gave Babylon, what is now part of Iraq, codified laws without the benefit of the Bible.
8. If any one steal cattle or sheep, or an ass, or a pig or a goat, if it belong to a god or to the court, the thief shall pay thirtyfold therefor; if they belonged to a freed man of the king he shall pay tenfold; if the thief has nothing with which to pay he shall be put to death.
Even "Lothar, Chieftain of all the Hill People" could create rules for everyone
to obey. Well, maybe that is a bad example.