Evolutionists Appropriating ID?

Originally posted by KellyJay
What standard of evidence do you think is good enough if there is no way to
prove your point wrong? It doesn't matter what the evidence is if you cannot
be shown your wrong, even if your right who would know?

So it is your claim that one cannot prove something wrong unless there is a written record?
Or are you saying that any claim about the past can never be proven wrong?
Or are you saying only my claims about the past can never be proven wrong?
Why?

So going on and on about things you cannot prove and cannot know is right up with with "once upon a time" it is between your ears only.
So now you have switched from 'cannot prove wrong' to 'cannot prove'. How did you make that switch? Why do you think that I cannot prove my claims? I say that the earth is over 3 billion years old and that it has been proved. You simply don't accept the proof. It is not "once upon a time", nor is it between my ears only, it is backed up by mountains of solid scientific indisputable evidence.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not 'going after you personally'. I am restating your claims in a different way. If you feel I am stating them wrong then you are free to clarify. If you just feel that it makes your claims look ridiculous then that is because they seem ridiculous to me. It is only personal in as far as you are the only person I know who would always take human writt er a persons written statement. When would you do so? What standard of evidence is required?

I think you are getting away from the point. The written record in the Holy Bible is believed by Christians to be historical accounts of what happened. It is not believed to be a mythical story made up by man to explain how things might have come into existence, but a true account, from the Creator of the heavens and the earth and all life forms, as related to Moses, who wrote it down.

On the other hand, the theory of evolution is known to be speculation and guess work by men as to how the heavens and the earth with all life forms might have come into existence without the aid of a Creator.

Those on the side of evolution gather evidence and attempt to interprete it in a way that they think proves their stories to be most likely. The side believing in creationism interpret the evidence to agree with their point of view.

This is where the lines are drawn between the two viewpoints. So to state the claim in a different way that has no bearing on the main point under discussion gets us nowhere. Don't forget that the subject is about evolution and creation or intelligent design.

Originally posted by RJHinds

On the other hand, the theory of evolution is known to be speculation and guess work by men as to how the heavens and the earth with all life forms might have come into existence without the aid of a Creator.

so tell me, imposter christian. do you think, if you were a real christian, that jesus would approve of your willful lying?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So it is your claim that one cannot prove something wrong unless there is a written record?
Or are you saying that any claim about the past can never be proven wrong?
Or are you saying only my claims about the past can never be proven wrong?
Why?

[b]So going on and on about things you cannot prove and cannot know is right up with with "once upon a ...[text shortened]... n my ears only, it is backed up by mountains of solid scientific indisputable evidence.

I'm saying that not having a written record doesn't help, but no if you cannot prove
your point wrong what does it matter what you bring to the table?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm saying that not having a written record doesn't help, but no if you cannot prove
your point wrong what does it matter what you bring to the table?
Kelly

My points can be proved wrong if they are wrong. They cannot be proved wrong if they are correct.
Equally written records can often be proved wrong (eg when they contradict other evidence). In fact written record is often taken to be the least reliable record there is. As in my example of a cities location, I am sure that you would in fact go against your own claims and take the rubble of an ancient city as solid evidence and discard any written evidence that contradicts it.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
so tell me, imposter christian. do you think, if you were a real christian, that jesus would approve of your willful lying?

If I am an imposter Christian, it doesn't really matter what I say.

Originally posted by twhitehead
My points can be proved wrong if they are wrong. They cannot be proved wrong if they are correct.
Equally written records can often be proved wrong (eg when they contradict other evidence). In fact written record is often taken to be the least reliable record there is. As in my example of a cities location, I am sure that you would in fact go against yo ...[text shortened]... ubble of an ancient city as solid evidence and discard any written evidence that contradicts it.

I think KellyJay means that if you are not going to accept evidence that proves your points wrong, it does not matter what is presented.

Originally posted by RJHinds
If I am an imposter Christian, it doesn't really matter what I say.

it doesn't matter what you say because you lost your integrity a long time ago.

that's okay though. you don't have to answer the question if it shames you too much.

Originally posted by twhitehead
My points can be proved wrong if they are wrong. They cannot be proved wrong if they are correct.
Equally written records can often be proved wrong (eg when they contradict other evidence). In fact written record is often taken to be the least reliable record there is. As in my example of a cities location, I am sure that you would in fact go against yo ...[text shortened]... ubble of an ancient city as solid evidence and discard any written evidence that contradicts it.

True records can be a mess, but I'd still take recorded history over the muse of
someone who was not there and is just guessing as to what happened.

Your points can be proven wrong if we can test your points now and show them
to be wrong, if that isn't possible then you are not correct.
Kelly

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
it doesn't matter what you say because you lost your integrity a long time ago.

that's okay though. you don't have to answer the question if it shames you too much.

Yes, I am ashamed. I am a sinner just like you. Only Christ can save me from my evil ways. I believe Christ is my only hope, for otherwise I am fit only to be thrown in the lake of fire.

"But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death."
(Revelation 21:8 NKJV)

Originally posted by KellyJay
True records can be a mess, but I'd still take recorded history over the muse of
someone who was not there and is just guessing as to what happened.

That's all well and good, but I am not 'just guessing as to what happened' so it is hardly relevant. Instead, I have solid evidence that is far more reliable than the written record.

Your points can be proven wrong if we can test your points now and show them
to be wrong, if that isn't possible then you are not correct.
Kelly
That makes no sense at all. Are you saying that my points must necessarily be wrong?
If I am wrong then yes, it should be possible to show that I am wrong. But if I am right, then obviously you cannot show that I am wrong. Can my points be tested? Of course they can.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That's all well and good, but I am not 'just guessing as to what happened' so it is hardly relevant. Instead, I have solid evidence that is far more reliable than the written record.

[b]Your points can be proven wrong if we can test your points now and show them
to be wrong, if that isn't possible then you are not correct.
Kelly
That makes no se ...[text shortened]... then obviously you cannot show that I am wrong. Can my points be tested? Of course they can.[/b]

You don't have a clue what happened billions of years ago, let alone if there
was even a billion years ago to have something happen in! You have your beliefs
where you think you know how everything started and within your beliefs you think
things fell out a certain way and your very sure about that...GREAT FAITH! That
only shows your constant in your belief system NOT that your belief system is
what truely happen! Since you are only able to guess about how things started,
where everything began all your work is built upon those BELIEFS and that is a
house of cards. If the universe started out quite differently than how you paint it
then next to nothing of what you've been saying would be true.

With respect to basing your beliefs on evidence, that is like saying a movie based
upon true events are always true in every detail, and that is not true. What you
think occured maybe based upon evidence yes, but that assumes that what your
viewing the evidence for what it really means, and that too is not something you
can be 100% sure about when it comes to billions of years ago. Of course you
cannot be shown wrong, so chock it up to faith and beliefs on the story telling
about the distant past based on things we see in the present.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
That's all well and good, but I am not 'just guessing as to what happened' so it is hardly relevant. Instead, I have solid evidence that is far more reliable than the written record.

[b]Your points can be proven wrong if we can test your points now and show them
to be wrong, if that isn't possible then you are not correct.
Kelly
That makes no se ...[text shortened]... then obviously you cannot show that I am wrong. Can my points be tested? Of course they can.[/b]

That's all well and good, but I am not 'just guessing as to what happened' so it is hardly relevant. Instead, I have solid evidence that is far more reliable than the written record.

A blanket statement that is not true.
Records just because they are records are not more/less solid than evidence, that
would simply be true based on what records and what someone calls evidence it
isn't always going to be true statement about what is more reliable. I think your
reaching here just to win a point.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
If the universe started out quite differently than how you paint it
then next to nothing of what you've been saying would be true.

That is simply not true. It is not required to know the start of something in order to know something about its later years.
I do not need to know when or how a city started for me to know that the city existed and even when it existed based on the rubble left behind.

With respect to basing your beliefs on evidence, that is like saying a movie based
upon true events are always true in every detail, and that is not true.
No, it is not.

What you think occured maybe based upon evidence yes, but that assumes that what your
viewing the evidence for what it really means, and that too is not something you
can be 100% sure about when it comes to billions of years ago.
It is something I can be absolutely sure about. Sometimes the evidence is significant enough that it is indisputable and there is only one reasonable explanation for the evidence.
Simply repeating that I cannot know does not make you right and me wrong. It just makes you good at repeating stuff. You have to actually come up with an argument as to why I cannot know.

Of course you cannot be shown wrong,
Why not?

Originally posted by KellyJay
A blanket statement that is not true.

Then explain why it is not true. Simply saying it isn't doesn't make it so.

Records just because they are records are not more/less solid than evidence,
Sounds like you are contradicting your earlier claims that records are more reliable.

that would simply be true based on what records and what someone calls evidence it
isn't always going to be true statement about what is more reliable.
And I didn't claim otherwise. You did.

I think your reaching here just to win a point.
Not at all.