Follow up with Jason

First I would like to thank Jason for the follow up found here. I am making this blog response in a hurry, since I do not have long before I have to head off. I will put the finishing touches in by Sunday, so Jason if you reading this hold on until then please.

The first and foremost thing I would like to point out is Jason's continuation of everything is based on presumptions. He continues to claim that God created the universe and " only the Christian can provide a rational explanation for the presuppositions" when he bases this completely on assumptions without providing empirical data, making this last statement rather comical. If you replace the "Christian" worldview in his reasoning with Jewish or whatever, you get the same result for a "orderly universe", so Jason's particular view does not only belong to christians.

Jason, when I said that we are not looking at the same evidence, I meant it. Here is why: Creationists pretend that certain evidence does not exist, which is evident when the willfully distort the facts we present while they rely on propaganda. You claim we are looking at the same evidence, when why do creationists distort the definitions, ignore it and repeatably state they do not exist, or flat out deny it? I have evidence of such lying behavior, even a federal judge pointed this out this obvious fact. No matter what, creationists will not admit that anything we ever find can fulfill Darwin's theory. They further try to distort what he theory actually explains (example, by repeatably claiming evolution is a random process. You, Jason, yourself said it was.) which shows they are not really interested in the truth, no matter where the evidence points to.

This is why creationists demand only monstrous absurdities or issue challenges they know still couldn’t be satisfied no matter how true evolution may be; because they know already that whatever they insist on seeing today we may show them tomorrow, and if that happens, they’ll have to make up new excuses for why it still doesn’t count. So they won’t request to see anything evolution actually requires, and they usually won’t define any criteria they would accept either, because they already know they won’t accept anything even if we show them everything they ever ask for. Even when I asked you Jason to define "kinds" and "information" you skipped it.

When addressing assumptions and presuppositions, which you imply that science is based on, shows me you do not quite understand science. It is a method that removes assumptions, as I described. The difference between science and creationists is that creationists are the only ones with a presupposition, the bible is literally true., they have nothing more than that. They openly make this clear.

“By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.”

--Answersingenesis.org

“verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological.”

--Institute for Creation Research

“[this school]…stresses the Word of God as the ONLY source of truth in our world.”

--Canyon Creek Christian Academy, Richardson TX.

“We believe that the autographs of the 66 canonical books of the Bible are objectively inspired, infallible and the inerrant Word of God in all of their parts and in all matters of which they speak (history, theology, science, etc.).”

--Mark Cadwallader’s “Creation Moments.org”

“The Bible is the divinely inspired written Word of God. Because it is inspired throughout, it is completely free from error--scientifically, historically, theologically, and morally. Thus it is the absolute authority in all matters of truth, faith, and conduct. The final guide to the interpretation of the Bible is the Bible itself. God's world must always agree with God's Word, because the Creator of the one is the Author of the other. Thus, where physical evidences from the creation may be used to confirm the Bible, these evidences must never be used to correct or interpret the Bible. The written Word must take priority in the event of any apparent conflict.”

--Mark Ramsey’s “Greater Houston Creation Association.”

“Revealed Truth: That which is revealed in Scripture, whether or not man has scientifically proved it. If it is in the Bible, it is already true without requiring additional proof.

…Fallacy: that which contradicts God’s revealed truth, no matter how scientific, how commonly believed, or how apparently workable or logical it may seem.”

--Bob Jones University, Biology Student Text (3^rd ed. – 2 vol.)

When I pointed out that creationists look for evidence to fit their particular views, you ignored that one too. You say that certain evidences we find today may not be the same in the future, but provide nothing to support this. For many years, tests have been consistent.

You also claim that the Bible is consistent and God makes the past consistent with the future. Again, this is based just on assumptions, but this is also incorrect since the Bible, as I explained is not consistent. Future events cause changes in the Bible, such as the last verses of Mark (which I pointed out at the Promenade, but you curiously were quick to put the bible away and move on to a separate subject). Pieces of the bible have been removed, altered, or added in.

"...Bible as your starting point to understand the world around us, you find that it is perfectly consistent with our experience and with reality" not quite, since we have no proof of any supernatural beings. And the bulk of the bible you read that seems consistent with the natural world is because it was written by men in the natural world, and the natural has not changed at all.