Evolution

[Ronin]

Where are the fossil records of the animals that we see today? If all living things evolved to something different then how they started, where are their fossils? In museums today there are billions of dinasour bones that we have collected, yet there is not one transitional fossil. For example if we all evovled what did a lion look like before it became what it is today? There should be examples of all the animals that are alive today. And there should be several examples for every animal. Darwin himself admitted if we can't find transitional fossils,for they should be everywhere, then evolution is wrong!
So where are the fossils?

[Wyvern]

Good to see you are following Van Til's arguments to their circular conclusions.

As Van Til shows, all reasoning is circular in logical structure since the conclusion of any argument rests on and is derived from the presuppositions and preconceptions upon which the premises of the argument are based. For instance, Descartes ontological axiom contains its conclusion in the presupposed premise of his own existence.

Why do you keep omitting the word christian when speaking of Van Til? He wrote, a christian theory of knowledge, not as you have been trying to say repeatedly a comprehensive theory of knowledge. Within his version of apologetics every argument is circular since you have to presuppose god, however this is not a universal concept and it should not be used as such, which is exactly what you have been doing. BTW Descartes axiom is not circular except when put within your falsely universal filter, now Popeyes axiom," I am what I am", that's circular.

It's cute really, you have to presuppose god in order to argue against the existence of god.

In addition, you have to believe and have faith in your preconceived presuppositions.

But if it's a science as you like to claim it has to have evidence not faith, you have never come up with any evidence that your claims are true. Prove conclusively that the supernatural exists and I can nearly guarrantee you will get a Nobel prize not to mention cause all of science to reevaluate itself.

Strangely enough how can the ability to think for one self be autonomous and independant if it derives from god?

Because the mental concept of the metaphysical idea of autonomy and independence originated in the eternally self-existing and omniscient Mind of the Ontological Trinity.

Exactly my point, you are reliant on god so by definition you cannot be truly autonomous.

Terribly sorry but cognitive science does not deal with the soul since such a thing has as yet not been proven to exist.

The so-called autonomous and independent mind of cognitive scientists is self-evidential of the soul in which it thinks, having the power of self-cognition, reflection and self-realization, by which the soul expresses and communicates its perceptions of itself in relation to the world around it.

If the soul is self evident as you say it should be simplicity itself to prove it exists. All you have done so far is little more than sophistry.

As I have stated before Van Til's field of expertise was christian apologetics and even in that he was borderline heretical.

By what rational system of cognitive science are you able to come to that personal conclusion?

I read his bio.

See your problem is that you want unsubstantiated claims of christianity to be considered unchallenged truth without any evidence to support it, this is not how science works.

Since the biblical claims of Christianity are a rational system of organized perceptions and thought, "science," in order to work in an organized and systematic fashion must adhere to the laws and principles of reality which were originally created by God.

Thank you for pointing out why christianity is not a science.

In other words anyone that does not agree with you needs to be silenced.

The methodologies, philosophies, ideologies and politics of atheists and secular scientists must of logical necessity remain silent regarding any possible knowledge of God or their own souls since they presuppose the ontological non-being of such supernatural phenomenon when they preconceive and define the limitations of science at the outset of their so-called "scientific" investigations.

This has been stated more simply by many people, if you don't believe in god you can't talk about god. Nothing could be more ridiculous. Additionally this argument negates Van Til's basic premise that to argue about god you have to presuppose god, pick which way you are going but you can't have it both ways.

They tried that with Galileo and all it did was buy them some time before the knowledge became too commonly known to refute any longer.

That should be a lesson to all who would deny or suppress Galileo's experience and knowledge of the self-evident powers of his own mind and soul.

But it was your own christianity that did so, after all he stated flat out that the bible was in error and was nearly excommunicated for speaking the truth.

[micatala]

jcrawford continues to insist that there is no difference between real scientists and the fake scientists presenting the oxymoronic creation science other than the real scientists exclude the supernatural and God and the fake creation scientists accept the supernatural and God.

When the issue of testability comes up, jcrawford offers nonsensical statements like the following:

My theories are as good as those of Marx, Darwin and Freud, since the only way such theoretical predictions may be tested, demonstrated or falsified is by the utter collapse of any faith in them as has been historically demonstrated to be the case except in the eyes of true believers in such abstract theories and propositions.

It is hard not to read this statement without coming to the conclusion that it is meant both to obfuscate and to imply a sort of 'guilt by association.' Marx did not pretend to be a scientist, and even Freud would allow, I think, that what he was doing was not science in the sense of Darwin. Further, the statement hearkens to those of many disingenuous creationists who pretend that our current knowledge of evolution is to be equated with Darwin's work.


I will also point out the the continued rhetoric concerning coginitive science is irrelevant to the thread.


To the next point:

The methodologies, philosophies, ideologies and politics of atheists and secular scientists must of logical necessity remain silent regarding any possible knowledge of God or their own souls since they presuppose the ontological non-being of such supernatural phenomenon when they preconceive and define the limitations of science at the outset of their so-called "scientific" investigations.

jcrawford confuses methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism.

An analogy:

Following jcrawford's line of thinking, we would have to conclude the engineers at General Motors, BMW, and Toyota are atheistic because they don't include 'supernatural steering systems' or 'miraculous motion modules.'

Following (as well as one can follow any of jcrawford's rhetoric) the line of jcrawford's arguments, it appears he would have us believe that the engineers are only excluding God from their design process because they are prejudiced against God and are seeking to promote atheistic car-manufacturing values. He would have us believe that the assumptions they make concerning car design are arbitrary, and that they just as easily could have incorporated 'supernatural design mechanisms' into the process.


These arguments ignore the fact the car manufacturers are really just trying to design cars which function properly for as reasonable a cost as they can.

The implication of these arguments is that we should believe that cars that run on 'God gasoline' using 'teleological transmissions', 'Christian carburators', and 'creationist cam shafts' are superior or at least equal to those designed by the ordinary real engineers. From his statements, jcrawford seems to believe that the real engineers must be Marxist, Darwinist, Freudian, atheistic, souless, secularists who live in fear that their brains are nothing more than "impersonal masses of pulsating grey matter".

He seems to imply that the only reason the real engineers use basic physics, chemistry, and engineering principles and do not bring God into the design process is because they

presuppose the ontological non-being of such supernatural phenomenon when they preconceive and define the limitations of engineering at the outset of their so-called "design" process

(changes for the analogy in red)


To see whether cars designed by the real engineers work or not, we are told the only way they "may be tested, demonstrated or falsified is by the utter collapse of any faith in them as has been historically demonstrated to be the case except in the eyes of true believers in such abstract theories and propositions."



In other words, it would seem that when people stop believing in the underlying science and engineering principles that actually make the cars run, then the cars will stop running.

[jcrawford]

I don't think you even in the same class as Marx, Darwin or Freud. They had insights that shed light on human behaviors while you make it more obscure and less useful. Even your idea of "true believers” lacks relevance or definition.. How do you test what you fail to explain? Marx, Darwin and Freud are not needed to make a case against you as you have yet to make a case. You being a “poor theoreticians and inadequate or incompetent scientists” stands on its own and does not need help from your imaginary comparison to powerful insights provided by others to your boastful unexamined opinions and beliefs.

That is all well, good and easy for you to say since it is only based on what you think or don't think, and not predicated on any scientific evidence or theory of knowledge at all.

[jcrawford]

Why do you keep omitting the word christian when speaking of Van Til?

You should know that he was a Christian by now.

He wrote, a christian theory of knowledge, not as you have been trying to say repeatedly a comprehensive theory of knowledge.

His Christian theory of knowledge is comprehensive in the sense that it accounts for all other forms of rational thought. Why do you seem to be having a problem with a Christian theory of knowledge?

Within his version of apologetics every argument is circular since you have to presuppose god, however this is not a universal concept and it should not be used as such, which is exactly what you have been doing.

It is more of a universal concept than an evolutionary concept which limits knowledge to the confines of one's own brain or mind, which the best any theoretical account of universal knowledge can be expected of evolutionary psychologists or cognitive scientists.

BTW Descartes axiom is not circular except when put within your falsely universal filter,

Of course it is, since in order to cognize his own existential being, Descates simply presupposed his own ontological existence and based his conclusion on his premise.

now Popeyes axiom," I am what I am", that's circular.

It's linear, since the subject is predicated on itself. Being and thinking are two different categories.

But if it's a science as you like to claim it has to have evidence not faith, you have never come up with any evidence that your claims are true.

You just refuse to consider the written evidence which my own soul is expressing as evidence of its being and existence. You probably think that my brain is communicating with your brain and that all which is mental is just an illusion.

Prove conclusively that the supernatural exists and I can nearly guarrantee you will get a Nobel prize not to mention cause all of science to reevaluate itself.

Van Til and Rushdoony have already proved that the supernatural exists, and even I can prove it by showing that there is nothing natural about human thinking feeling and willing, since thoughts, emotions and willpower are neither quantifiable entities nor measurable objects within the human science and practice of physics.

Exactly my point, you are reliant on god so by definition you cannot be truly autonomous.

While it is true that my soul can neither be autonomous nor separated from God, those who strive to deny and separate themselves from the created reality of God, must of necessity assert their autonomous independence from all knowlege of God in order to mentally establish their own ontological independence and autonomy.

[jcrawford]

If the soul is self evident as you say it should be simplicity itself to prove it exists. All you have done so far is little more than sophistry.

No sophistry is necessary when one simply identifies and cognizes one's essential being as that of a living soul. Since you seem to have lost the cognitive faculty and ability to do this, a little sophistry is inevitable.

By what rational system of cognitive science are you able to come to that personal conclusion?

I read his bio.

You created a rational system of cognitive science just by reading someone's bio? That certainly qualifies as a stupendous cognitive feat.

That should be a lesson to all who would deny or suppress Galileo's experience and knowledge of the self-evident powers of his own mind and soul.

But it was your own christianity that did so, after all he stated flat out that the bible was in error and was nearly excommunicated for speaking the truth.

The church which Galileo remained committed to for the rest of his life is the same church which actually did excommunicate Martin Luther and John Calvin for simply expounding upon biblical truth in ways that Galileo's church refused to re-cognize as legitimate.

Nowdays, Christians are similarly excommunicated from the inner circles of the elite scientific faithful for simply developing a universal and comprehensive Christian Theory of Knowledge and subsequently applying it.

[micatala]

The church which Galileo remained committed to for the rest of his life is the same church which actually did excommunicate Martin Luther and John Calvin for simply expounding upon biblical truth in ways that Galileo's church refused to re-cognize as legitimate.

You should study your history better.

Decades before Galileo was tried by the Catholic church, the biblical truth that Martin Luther and John Calvin expounded on included a flat rejection of Copernicus, and thus, Galileo. Calvin said "what fool would venture to put the word of Copernicus over that of Holy Scripture". Luther had some rather unkind things to say about Copernicus as well, who died only three years before Luther. If Luther had had the capacity to excommunicate anyone, it is likely Copernicus and Galileo would have been first in line.



Would you have us go back to the Biblical truth of Calvin and Luther and the days of an earth-centered universe?

Which is it, are going to stand with Luther, Calvin, and their understanding of the Bible, or are you going to stand with scientists like Galileo, Darwin, and Einstien who brought us the truths of the sun-centered solar system, evolution, and relativity?

[jcrawford]

Marx did not pretend to be a scientist, and even Freud would allow, I think, that what he was doing was not science in the sense of Darwin.

Both Freud and Marx acknowledged that evolutionary theory provided the scientific foundation upon which their own theories were theoretically substantiated and scientifically confirmed, if not based on entirely. Since Freudian and Marxist thought has collapsed due to the imponderable nature of Darwin's fantasies, it is both rational and logical to assume that the psychological nature of Darwin's own theories are as delusional as Marx and Freud's were.

Further, the statement hearkens to those of many disingenuous creationists who pretend that our current knowledge of evolution is to be equated with Darwin's work.

Since the concept of possible mutations and survival of the fittest by "natural selection," are still the two main pillars of neo-Darwinist theory, no evolutionist in his politically correct evolutionary mind would ever dare denounce Darwin in the same terms of disaffection which modern creation scientists do, and keep his reputation as a "reputable" scientist amongst his peer-reviewers for long.

[jcrawford]

I will also point out the the continued rhetoric concerning coginitive science is irrelevant to the thread.

Cognitive science is as relative to the thread as any interpretive cognition of the fossils are, since without a valid theory and system of knowledge by which to intelligently analyze and penetrate the epistemological presuppostitions contained in the so-called "scientific" method of attaining to or ascertaining the validity of knowledge, how do we know that what you believe about the fossils is not just a modern form of myth, albeit a "scientific myth?"

jcrawford confuses methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism.

The usage of such metaphysical terms is confusing in itself if you have no theory of knowledge whereby to explain the meaning of what you mean by the employment of such big words and meaningless terms when considering the fossilized remains of former living organisms as evidence of human evolution.

[micatala]

Marx did not pretend to be a scientist, and even Freud would allow, I think, that what he was doing was not science in the sense of Darwin.

Both Freud and Marx acknowledged that evolutionary theory provided the scientific foundation upon which their own theories were theoretically substantiated and scientifically confirmed, if not based on entirely. Since Freudian and Marxist thought has collapsed due to the imponderable nature of Darwin's fantasies, it is both rational and logical to assume that the psychological nature of Darwin's own theories are as delusional as Marx and Freud's were.

This is nonsense.

According to jcrawford's thinking, since the KKK and David Koresh base their moral theories on Christianity and the Bible, therefore other Christians are also murderers and delusional suicidal maniacs.

[micatala]

The usage of such metaphysical terms is confusing in itself if you have no theory of knowledge whereby to explain the meaning of what you mean by the employment of such big words and meaningless terms when considering the fossilized remains of former living organisms as evidence of human evolution.

This is obfuscation again. jcrawford seems unwilling or unable to address the issue.

Since there seems to be some confusion on the part of jcrawford, here are some links to explain the difference between metaphysical and methodological naturalsim.

Metaphysical naturalism is any worldview in which nature is all there is and all things supernatural (which stipulatively includes as well as spirits and souls, non-natural values, and universals as they are commonly conceived) do not exist. It is often simply referred to as naturalism, and occasionally as philosophical naturalism or ontological naturalism, though all those terms have other meanings as well, with naturalism often referring to methodological naturalism. This article presents only a basic outline of the definition and history of metaphysical naturalism and the major arguments for and against it.

Some scientists would be metaphysical naturalists, but certainly not all. Scientific theories themselves take no position on their being a God or not being a God. To assert otherwise is to misunderstand the nature of science.

Methodological naturalism, by contrast, is defined as follows:

Many modern philosophers of science use the terms methodological naturalism or scientific naturalism to refer to the long standing convention in science of the scientific method, which makes the methodological assumption that observable effects in nature are best explainable only by similarly natural causes, and with irrelevance to the assumption of the existence or non-existence of supernatural elements, and so considers supernatural explanations for such events to be outside of science. They contrast this with the approach known as ontological naturalism or metaphysical naturalism, which refers to the metaphysical belief that the natural world (including the universe) is all that exists, and therefore nothing supernatural exists.