...Continued

<<An evolutionist will also never change his view, ever, as they are committed to their philosophy.>>

Some maybe. But Atheists are independent thinkers who don’t have an absolutist doctrine that never changes. So you can’t just categorise them all like that.

Now, if Darwin had proclaimed that he was the son of a God and his theory was the absolute truth, and that rejecting both him and his theory carried the penalty of eternal damnation, then you might have had a point here. But he didn't, so you don't.

I thought it was very revealing too, the way you used to word “authority” in: “authority of Scripture”. You're not supposed to question Authority, but you can question Evolution.

<<Even if they dragged Noah’s ark down from Mt Ararat into Main Street, an explanation would be found…>>

One way or the other, yes. But by using rigorous scientific testing - not an unproven authoritative scripture.

<<That we could deny the creative qualities apparent within biology and then try and emulate them is hypocrisy, or at the very least, counter-intuitive.>>

It would only be counter-intuitive if God could be proven with more than an old book with murky origins. There are also some species with qualities that don’t fit the 'design' theory too, like the Halibut.

Complexity doesn't necessarily imply design. There are simple things that are designed, and complex things that originate naturally. On the contrary, simplicity is a goal in most designs.

<<By the way, the website http://www.creationontheweb.com has hundreds of pages and is very comprehensive. If you say you cross referenced them all, you must not have searched it properly.>>

Firstly, I said that I cross-referenced MANY of them - not all.

Secondly, there are only 12 chapters, with approximately 125 pages that actually refute evolution.

But if you can show me a substantial amount of points that aren’t explained by the link that I provided, then I’ll start to take Creationism a bit more seriously. I did a bit more cross-referencing and still couldn't find anything.

AJ

You said..
For the umpteen-millionth time: Creationists are the fundamentalists, not Evolutionists.

You seem to be equating Biblical Literalism with Fundamentalism. Fundamentalists are those who attempt to restore the religious forms and practices of the earliest church. While they are often also Biblical Fundamentalists that is not necessarily always the case. The converse is more interesting that Biblical Literalists are not necesarily fundamentalists. Many Evangelical and Pentecostal Churches are not fundamentalist.

You also asked for examples of evolutionist/atheists committing crimes of war and terror. Stalin was an atheist/evolutionist and committed crimes against humanity on a massive scale persecuting the church in particular. Your imploication that all wars and all terrorism are committed in the name of religion is most ingenuous.

Waterboy,

<<Fundamentalists are those who attempt to restore the religious forms and practices of the earliest church.>>

And hence my whole point about Creationists, in regards to science.

If you read through my responses to Dan, you'll see that all I'm arguing against, is the lazy tactic of Creationists to label staunch Evolutionists as somehow being just as 'fundamentalist' about their beliefs as they are.

This is patently wrong, as Evolutionists are more likely to change their views on the science of the origins of life, since they are not bound by a rigid and absolutist doctrine; No matter what the new theory proves to be.

I cannot make this anymore clear than what I already have in all my previous posts.

<<You also asked for examples of evolutionist/atheists committing crimes of war and terror.>>

No, I asked for examples of evolutionist/atheists committing crimes of war and terror IN THE NAME OF Atheism. There's a very big difference.

In regards to Stalin et al - I've already answered that in the first of my last two posts to Dan above.

<<Your imploication that all wars and all terrorism are committed in the name of religion is most ingenuous.>>

At no point have I ever implied any such thing!

As I said in my last response to Dan, I was simply using extremes to help illustrate a point; The point that Creationists are the scientific fundamentalists, in the the sense that their stance on the issue of the origins of life are immovable.

Religion may not be the cause of ALL wars and terrorism, but when there's nothing left to divide people enough to incite violence, like race or tribalism, then religion makes quite a nice fit.

AJ,
It’s a strange point you are trying to make about atheists not starting wars ‘in the name of atheism’. I don’t suppose you are meaning that it is okay for atheists to start wars against whoever so long as they don’t mention the ‘A’ word.

But roughly, I agree. It’s largely religious people that have started all wars, since it’s people that have started wars and most people are by and large religious. (It is pretty easy to make big generalisations if we are allowed to play fast and loose with the definitions.)

“For the umpteen-millionth time: Creationists are the fundamentalists, not Evolutionists.” Sorry, but repeating something often, doesn’t make it true.

I think your point is about what atheists believe in. Well, they often say there is no such thing as god. To be an intellectually satisfied atheist, you need a good creation myth to try and explain how come we are all here discussing everything. That’s where Darwin helped out. He gave us a pitch at reading the world without making reference to God. (Although by suggesting that we are all evolving, perhaps at different rates, with some of us being more evolved or superior to others, didn’t do a lot for slowing down the rate of wars in the 20th Century).

You say, “Atheists start with a blank sheet.” This gets to the heart of this thread. Of course they don’t start with a blank sheet. I’ve seen their book shelves. They often start with Darwin, then move through to Sartre, O’Hare, and often have a solid collection of Dawkins. We are all to some degree constrained by our upbringing and education.

I said back on December 26, dare challenge the story of evolution, and see what fury of hell breaketh asunder from those fundies who hold such faith so dearly. The result was the longest debate on onlineopinion in months.

AJ,
Earlier I directed you to Romans chapter 8 to help get a feel for the psychology of a Christian. For you were suggesting that Christians were motivated by fears of hell. Though I must say to start with that it is wise to be aware of eternal consequences, and the reality of being on the wrong side of a God of absolutes.

Let’s think through this for moment. Christians (at least the ones I’ve met) are not motivated by fear. Fear is obsolete against perfect love. The analogy in Romans chapter eight is of someone adopted into a new family. A Christian is one who has sensed the love of Jesus, and knows that they have been adopted into his family. Imagine a family where you are continually loved and affirmed. There is no thought of ‘dropping out’, and so there is no thought of the consequences of such.

So Christians are not living in fear, for fear is what they have left behind. They are sure of their position. They know Jesus didn’t go to the trouble he did of dying and rising again just to give them a half baked promise of salvation.

Rather it is those who are not sure who maybe in a more urgent state of fear.

If I was to play the psychologist, I would suggest that it is those who have rejected the idea of God who have the more pressing need to create a satisfactory explanation for how we all came to be here without God. Hence, the theory of evolution.

A J Philips "Fundamentalists are those who attempt to restore the religious forms and practices of the earliest church."
That is not so. The earliest church was still a Jewish sect. Fundamentalists remain Christians.
Fundamentalists
1.maintain the inerrancy of scripture and reject higher criticism. [during the earliest church the New Testament was not yet written.]
2. defend the main Christian doctrines. (God, revelation, the incarnation, the atonement, the resurrection, the Holy Spirit, inspiration)
3. characterize those who do not accept their views as non-Christian (Catholics, Christian Scientists, Mormons, rationalists, Darwinists, socialists)
4. emphasize evangelism and missions
5. have personal testimonies by people telling how Christ worked in their lives.