Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire The six days of creation

Headhunter, now you are changing topics. We were discussing evolution, and when you were unable to respond to Brents discussion regarding a specific species, or my examples of extreme change, you changed the subject from Evolution to Abiogenesis. You then switched from Abiogenesis to Cosmology.

If you wish to admit defeat on the subject of evolution, we can then move on to other subjects such as abiogenesis and cosmology.

All evolution can say, scientifically, is this is how we believe life descended from life. Correct

Evolution as Science cannot say how life began nor whether or not the process of evolution was directed. Again you are correct And as soon as "evolution" attempts to dogmatize such things, it is no longer Science but is Metaphysics.' half correct. The science of how life emerged from the available materials and conditions of the early earth is Abiogenesis, and abiogenesis is still science, not metaphysics

And metaphysically speaking, the belief that the material world is all that exists is Philosophical Materialism. A statement that there is insufficient evidence to support the hypothesis of the existence of an afterlife, which does not translate directly into philosophical materialism. As an example Gravity is a non material force, and the mechanism for dark energy is unexplained. Consequently I cannot jump to the main tenant of Philosophical Materialism that "everything is the result of matter." What I can say is there is insufficient evidence to support the belief in the existence of a spiritual world.

In either case, that of Theistic origins and directed creation or Atheistic Materialism, both are based on faith/belief, nothing more. Both positions are, fundamentally speaking, a religion, a world-view. And, believe me, there are fundamentalists in both camps. NO, you are incorrect. Since my position is not bases on faith, but on evidence, my position can chance with the available convincing evidence. Since you position is faith based, it is not free to change as the knowledge of man, as evidence progresses. There is absolutely no parallel between an evidence and a faith based position.


The dispute is irresolvable. To an outsider, the scientific materialist looks like a closed-minded fundamentalist dogmatically (even angrily) asserting the sole primacy and validity of his worldview and on a holy mission to destroy anyone who disagrees. This is a totally unfounded assertion, see above

To a scientific materialist, all others seem like the dogmatists that have clung to old beliefs and inhibited the progress of mankind since time immemorial. Furthermore, scientists are something like psychopathic serial killers nice ad hominem attack in their single-minded and obsessive need to seek out problems and solve them (and thank God for that).

When you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail, you know? And they don't take kindly to people telling them that some problems are immutable, unsolvable, non-rational mysteries. If you make an extraordinary claim, we just want extraordinary evidence It is not only a personal insult but, since most scientists are staunch humanists, it is an insult and challenge issued to mankind from the depths of the universe itself; another defense thrown up as nature attempts to elude its master. Yes, there is something Luciferic If you wish to invoke the devil, please provide your clear and convincing evidence the Bible is true. in all this. And that's OK, too.

PS if you are going to blatantly rip off another forum, please provide proper credit to the original author and a link like this:
http://spengler.atimes.net/viewtopic.php?t=15985&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=60

I don't think you've posted a single original thought in this thread.

Are you?

. . You don't appear to be an actual member of the gun culture, . .

More caps, doubt it.

No, I was not on the Spengler forum.
This has been my primary ID for many years.

to get back on tract, it looks like there's two competing creaton stories? one is a supernatural being who spoke, and the creation occurred. the other is that the evolution Story holds sway?

if so, that is two main competing stories, how we ever resolve our differences> i mean, we all know my Story is better than your Story.

science, metaphysical, divine, there's a lot to discuss here. i feel a lot of heat, but see very little light.

perhaps we'll never know for sure?

Sure you'll know . . just like you know now . . to each his own, it's as simple as that.

As for two stories, they are not divine creation versus evolution, they are Theism versus Philosophical Materialism.

Evolution has nothing to say about creation.

to put the whole thing a bit more succiently, we don't know from whence we came, we don't know where we are, and most certainly, we don't know where we are going next?