Upon reflection, weareunique, I've demonstrated how Darwinian Evolution accounts for difference in (a) species. Perhaps you would be so kind as to reciprocate? How do Creationists explain such things?
Were there just 2 dogs on the Ark, or were there 2 of each variety of dog?
2 great danes, 2 pekinese...
2 Australian cattle dogs...
If you believe these varieties were deliberately 'evolved' by Humankind, surely your God must be just as capable?

i agree with trav

yet quote aj/""i said,
“Applied reasoning based on logical absolutes""

a logical absolute is by itself absolute
untill spoiled by reason..

logical[lol]..absolutes..."" is the only reliable method"'

i think you just made
a noun into an adjective?

by method..[lol]..re-lie-able/meth head..
..""we have of arriving at the truth
given what we currently know.”

if oignoring the rational of a cold blood critter mutating[evolving..lol step by step into a warm blood mammal

SHOW ME THE SCIENCE....*fact
this erant thopught [THEORY]..is based on

THEN MAKE BUT ONE YOURSELF

ie REPLICTE or cease and disist
from gross verbalisations
of spin masked as science[lol]..fact

GRIM/spin...""there are so many wonders
and unexplained facts about this earth..from an evolutionary perspective.""

not just from wevolution
[although i note you go on to use/AB-use
micro evolution WITHIN species...[micro-evolution]..
as some sort of proof..of macro evolution...*creating new genus

[when science has never recorded..
nor witnessed..let alone replicated..such a form of 'evo-lution'

lets recall trav's words

""when in actual fact..it's their own faithful idolatry
of rationality..which often needs to be called into question.""

HEAR HEAR...!
show me the science

"Reason isn't infallible.
It can't be.
Never has been and never will be.""

evolution is within *species
cannot move beyond *genus..[learn the language]

ahhh-men

oops that was we are uniques quote
anyhow here is the grim quote...""Upon reflection,..weareunique, I've demonstrated how Darwinian Evolution accounts for difference in..(a) species.""'

oh good so you recognise
the egsample quoted is SPECIES limited..!

""Perhaps you would be so kind as to reciprocate?
How do Creationists explain such things?""

its not beyond us creationists to think of it as god
making us the beastrly nature we deserve to be
[yearn by our works to be]

pigs love being pigs
lions love being lions
god meets all our needs

but thats our excuse
NOW WHATS YOUR REASONing?

if evolution
thats a flawed theory
that has NEVER bred a pig from a goat[so to speak]
indeed matuings accross time..[or at least since the advent of writing]

SPEAK ONLY OF LIKE BREEDING LIKE
dogs bred dogs/cats bred cats..rats breed rat's

""Were there just 2 dogs on the Ark,
or were there 2 of each variety of dog?""

thats absurd..[all dogs come from cannus
/canine[dog][ie wild type[+] wolf

so no doudt you can replicte
a wolf making a cat?
[evolution claims it did]

""If you believe these varieties
were deliberately 'evolved' by Humankind,"'

yes they were

""surely your God must be just as capable""'

most certainly
jesus said see the things i do
we shall do greater...[we are in the image of our creator]

just wait and see the greater things
we ALL shall do...[in time]

essentially we each..have god[good]..within

infinite possability
once we realise what we all are to become..

BPT
" I have little time for atheists who stalk and seek out Christians and other self-identified people of faith."

One could equally argue against those Christians who stalk and seek out children in schools.

In what way do atheists stalk and seek out Christians?

The problem is simple. The Christians who are pushing Chaplaincy or RI in schools are not willing to admit the motivations behind these programs. It is about indoctrination. While Christians believe their motives to be pure and the work of 'God' they fail to respect the validity and privacy of other people who don't share their faith.

This is not stalking but defending basic human rights. I would also defend the right for Christians and other faiths to be able to practise their faith and would rally equally as hard against calls to ban religion.

Blind dogma sometimes makes people irrational, try and separate your own beliefs, which are personal, and be generous in recognising that it is not only Christians who have rights.

Grim,
I did science at school and up to tertiary level and was never satisfied with the secular science version based on Darwin's theory (loosely - fish become reptiles, fins drop off and become legs, legs drop off and become wings. etc...over time.)
Neanderthal Man and missing link stuff- the link is still missing. Science like this gave me a headache. Was I presented with an alternative view NO.

In my 30's I started to search and in Genesis God created the fish of the sea, the birds of the air and then man in God's image.
Then in Noah's flood Noah ,his wife and Noah's 3 sons and their 3 wives were the only ones to survive. Noah's sons were Ham, Shem and Japheth. Genesis 9 Many children were born to Noah's sons. Perhaps looking quite different from each other hence we have Asians, Africans and Caucasians.
What is interesting is: The 3 sons went in 3 different directions. One son settled towards Asia, one son headed south to African areas and another settled North towards Norway, Europe UK. This blew my mind with the the fact that I heard a different option as to the way things might have started. This was refreshing knowledge and I have actually settled with that view now and guess what no more headaches when thinking about origins in science. I don't hate science either.

Trav,

If there’s anything I can say about your apparent need to find flaws in my arguments, that don’t exist, it’s that I really must’ve hit the nail on the head.

<<I still think you've failed to face the full force of my objections merely by the convenient fact that you've chosen to ignore them.>>

Yes, I certainly did choose to ignore them because, as I said, your strawman premise rendered them irrelevant to my points.

<<They do not rely on whether or not we agree on the semantics of what "absolute" means.>>

No, they don’t. And I never said or even implied that they did. The relevancy of your arguments do, however, rely on whether or not I was “treating reason as an absolute”.

<<Fundamentally, my objections show that unaided reason and evidence alone cannot actually get us very far...>>

Yes, and that’s why we aid them with the one thing I mentioned that you have conveniently ignored throughout all this: logical absolutes.

Is this where you were going to slot religion in? I’d like to see you demonstrate that!

If not, then what?

<<Personal experience, intuition and background presuppositions all play a part in our use of reason...>>

Agreed.

Which is why we base them on logical absolutes: to help filter out the garbage that may come along with presuppositions, etc.

<<Any time anyone proclaims the greatness of reason, these things must be mentioned.>>

Forgetting for a moment that my pivotal re-introduction of “logical absolutes” to the discussion renders this fairly meaningless, I’d point out that the necessity to mention these things fades significantly until someone can point to another reliable method.

<<Reason isn't infallible.>>

I never said it was.

<<It can't be.>>

Agreed.

<<Never has been and never will be.>>

Agree, agreed, agreed.

Acknowledging that applied reasoning based on logical absolutes is the most reliable method of arriving at the truth is not idolising or praising reason. You’re spouting pure hyperbole.

Why do you insist on punching at shadows and seeing things that aren’t there?

What is it about what I’ve said that scares you so much?