User Tag List

Page 33 of 34 FirstFirst ... 233031323334 LastLast
Results 481 to 495 of 497

Thread: If Evolution

  1. #481
    Over 5000 post club 6days's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    5,186
    Thanks
    890
    Thanked 2,655 Times in 1,641 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1059300
    Quote Originally Posted by Veritas veritate
    After all, somebody has to start cleaning up all the hay around here.
    That was funny.

    Too bad Hunter doesn't get your humor.
    Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

  2. #482
    Over 5000 post club The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    5,928
    Thanks
    65
    Thanked 861 Times in 584 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    226031
    Quote Originally Posted by Veritas veritate View Post
    Given the insight you have provided, and inferring from what I read, he is basically going to explain how ultra-Darwinism is nothing but a religious belief that must be rejected by orthodox Christianity as a heresy. That makes complete sense.
    And thus must be also rejected by scientists as no being no more scientific than "intelligent design."

    At least ID has faith in something. After all, one has to ultimately accept God on faith. But how does one accept the absence of God on faith?

    Are you familiar with the views of IDer Michael Denton? His idea that things of this world are formed by natural processes, but that those are teleological processes, is challenging to both creationists and scientists alike.
    Let's say that I suffer from a delusion. I will call this delusion "Fact-check Syndrome." I respond by citing facts.

    Most people online don't want to be corrected. They do not care about anything that does not agree with them.

  3. #483
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    126
    Thanks
    20
    Thanked 48 Times in 36 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    11745
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    And thus must be also rejected by scientists as no being no more scientific than "intelligent design."

    At least ID has faith in something. After all, one has to ultimately accept God on faith. But how does one accept the absence of God on faith?
    One cannot accept the absence of God on faith; one must believe there is no God not accept it. You cannot be an atheist without God... this is a little rabbit trail, but it bothers me when someone asks if I accepted Jesus Christ as my Savior. You donít accept Christ, you acknowledge him. He is your Savior whether or not one believes it. In fact, I Believe the apostle Paul when he tells Timothy that Jesus Christ is the Savior of ALL men.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    Are you familiar with the views of IDer Michael Denton? His idea that things of this world are formed by natural processes, but that those are teleological processes, is challenging to both creationists and scientists alike.
    I canít say that I am, but I am familiar with teleological processes and arguments.


    Sent from my iPhone using TOL

  4. #484
    Over 5000 post club The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    5,928
    Thanks
    65
    Thanked 861 Times in 584 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    226031
    From Denton's Nature's Destiny:

    ...it is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science--that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school." According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving God's direct intervention in the course of nature, each of which involved the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world--that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies.

    In large measure, therefore, the teleological argument presented here and the special creationist worldview are mutually exclusive accounts of the world. In the last analysis, evidence for one is evidence against the other. Put simply, the more convincing is the evidence for believing that the world is prefabricated to the end of life, that the design is built into the laws of nature, the less credible becomes the special creationist worldview.


    I don't see anything here that would conflict with Darwinian theory or any subsequent modification of it. Darwin, after all, supposed that God just made the first living things, and made a world in which everything else evolved from them.

    Nevertheless, Denton appears to still think that evolutionary theory has a crisis. I don't understand why.
    Let's say that I suffer from a delusion. I will call this delusion "Fact-check Syndrome." I respond by citing facts.

    Most people online don't want to be corrected. They do not care about anything that does not agree with them.

  5. #485
    Over 4000 post club Caino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,251
    Thanks
    106
    Thanked 316 Times in 285 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    186337
    "The argumentative defense of any proposition is inversely proportional to the truth contained."

    The overwhelming evidence for old earth evolution is self evident in the earth itself. Young earth creationism is itself a very young religious speculation by priests and found only in the writings of the priesthood.

    "Mortal man was never the property of the archdeceivers. Jesus did not die to ransom man from the clutch of the apostate rulers and fallen princes of the spheres. The Father in heaven never conceived of such crass injustice as damning a mortal soul because of the evil doing of his ancestors."UB

  6. #486
    Over 5000 post club 6days's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    5,186
    Thanks
    890
    Thanked 2,655 Times in 1,641 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1059300
    Quote Originally Posted by Caino
    Young earth creationism is itself a very young religious speculation by priests and found only in the writings of the priesthood.
    Actually Caino... from the oldest manuscripts we see believers defending the truth of God's Word. Old earth beliefs is a compromise between the plain understanding of God's Word and secularism. In Scripture we see various people arguing against old earth evolutionism. We can also see most of the early church fathers arguing against old earth, rooted in paganism. Even those who argued the creation days were allegorical, (A sudden creation) they still argued the Biblical view... a young earth. (And contrary to your claim, some of these people were certainly not in the priesthood.


    Jesus also thought this was an important issue. After all, He went to Calvary based on the foundations of the literal history of "first Adam", and a creation not subjected to entropy / corruption, until after man sinned.
    Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

  7. #487
    Over 4000 post club Caino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,251
    Thanks
    106
    Thanked 316 Times in 285 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    186337
    Quote Originally Posted by 6days View Post
    Actually Caino... from the oldest manuscripts we see believers defending the truth of God's Word. Old earth beliefs is a compromise between the plain understanding of God's Word and secularism. In Scripture we see various people arguing against old earth evolutionism. We can also see most of the early church fathers arguing against old earth, rooted in paganism. Even those who argued the creation days were allegorical, (A sudden creation) they still argued the Biblical view... a young earth. (And contrary to your claim, some of these people were certainly not in the priesthood.


    Jesus also thought this was an important issue. After all, He went to Calvary based on the foundations of the literal history of "first Adam", and a creation not subjected to entropy / corruption, until after man sinned.


    From the oldest manuscripts we see the faith in God that men have had down through the ages.

    Believers have been persuaded by a priest class of ignorant, fallible men, that their own writings came down from God. The motive was to maintain control.

    Supporters of the false doctrine of the inspiration of the scriptures have been mistreating every new prophet of spiritual truth as well as facts that conflict with their misapplied faith.

    You have been dedicated almost exclusively to the denial of the reality of the facts of the earth, real scientific investigation and the ridiculous claims of religious men, the same kind of flawed humans who rejected the Son of God. The effort that you have put into belligerent denials is proof of the overwhelming truth that you are in denial of.


    Jesus knew the scripture was flawed, it was not his mission to reform Judaism.

    After Jesus left, a new religion ABOUT Jesus evolved and became a replacement for the religion OF Jesus, his original gospel taught before the rejection. It was the religion he had hoped that your fellow pig headed scripture worshipers would have adopted.

    "Mortal man was never the property of the archdeceivers. Jesus did not die to ransom man from the clutch of the apostate rulers and fallen princes of the spheres. The Father in heaven never conceived of such crass injustice as damning a mortal soul because of the evil doing of his ancestors."UB

  8. #488
    Over 5000 post club 6days's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    5,186
    Thanks
    890
    Thanked 2,655 Times in 1,641 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1059300
    Quote Originally Posted by Caino
    From the oldest manuscripts we see the faith in God that men have had down through the ages.
    That is true. However that has nothing to do with the false assertion you made earlier. Did you want to try again to back up your statement, or address my reply to It?
    Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

  9. #489
    Over 4000 post club Caino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,251
    Thanks
    106
    Thanked 316 Times in 285 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    186337
    Quote Originally Posted by 6days View Post
    That is true. However that has nothing to do with the false assertion you made earlier. Did you want to try again to back up your statement, or address my reply to It?
    Iíve adressed your faith replies before. You believe in the false doctrine of the inspiration of the scripture. Your replies are self hypnotizing statements of faith and refutations of facts in defense of erronious speculations and conjecture concerning the meaning of certain events in the distant past.

    The Israelites created one of many creation stories by appropriating Mesopotamian lore and connecting it to their own exaggerated place in the world. Christian theology exploits Hebrew theology, they put the new wine into the old wine skins

    The world is full of people who believe religious narratives that are untrue. You would do well to get honest, face reality and revise your theology.

  10. #490
    Over 5000 post club 6days's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    5,186
    Thanks
    890
    Thanked 2,655 Times in 1,641 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1059300
    Quote Originally Posted by Caino View Post
    I’ve adressed your faith replies before. You believe in the false doctrine of the inspiration of the scripture. Your replies are self hypnotizing statements of faith and refutations of facts in defense of erronious speculations and conjecture concerning the meaning of certain events in the distant past.
    That can also be an interesting discussion Caino. But, there is no purpose if you just try move goal posts when you are slightly challenged.
    Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

  11. #491
    Over 4000 post club Caino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,251
    Thanks
    106
    Thanked 316 Times in 285 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    186337
    Quote Originally Posted by 6days View Post
    That can also be an interesting discussion Caino. But, there is no purpose if you just try move goal posts when you are slightly challenged.
    If YEC and other historic claims in Genesis were true then we could easily observe those claims in the archeological strata.

  12. #492
    Over 5000 post club 6days's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    5,186
    Thanks
    890
    Thanked 2,655 Times in 1,641 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1059300
    Quote Originally Posted by Caino
    If YEC and other historic claims in Genesis were true then we could easily observe those claims in the archeological strata
    Yes... that is true. And we can discuss that. But you keep jumping from one assertion to the next. Did you wish to defend the claim you made that I replied to... or will you just keep posting your talking points.


    Your claim that 'Young earth creationism is itself a very young religious speculation'... was false. Did you want to defend that? Admit you mis-spoke? Or, try move the goal posts again?
    Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to 6days For Your Post:

    Right Divider (December 8th, 2017)

  14. #493
    Over 4000 post club Caino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,251
    Thanks
    106
    Thanked 316 Times in 285 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    186337
    No! And I didnít move any goal post! Young Earth Creationism is only 2,500+ years old. It dates to Babylon in Genesis. Itís speculation by the ignorant holy men who wrote the Old Testament books. Human history spans 1 million years. Life evolved for 550 million years on our 4.5+ billion year old planet.

    You are defending a very young claim made by religious people.

  15. #494
    Over 1500 post club Silent Hunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Somewhere out there beneath the pale moonlight.
    Posts
    1,664
    Thanks
    91
    Thanked 101 Times in 88 Posts

    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    13727
    Quote Originally Posted by Silent Hunter View Post
    Good idea. It prevents you from having to confront being wrong... again.
    Quote Originally Posted by Veritas veritate View Post
    Feel free to post in another appropriate thread and I will gladly continue our conversation. I am not dodging anything.
    Who said you were dodging?

    I said...

    ... you're wrong about goddidit.

    ... you're wrong about boiling water.

    ... you're wrong about "the argument from contingency".

    ... you're wrong about "goddidit" being more of a problem for atheists than for theists.

    ...you're wrong about scientific theories.

    ... you're wrong about what scientists "believe".

    ... and ....

    ... you're wrong about who's "cleaning up all the hay around here".

    Did I miss anything?

    This thread has pretty much blown itself out, most do after 500 posts. If you'd like to continue we can do it here or you can start a thread or find one appropriate. PM me the thread.
    "The more scientifically literate, intellectually honest and objectively skeptical a person is, the more likely they are to disbelieve in anything supernatural, including god."

  16. #495
    Over 1500 post club Silent Hunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Somewhere out there beneath the pale moonlight.
    Posts
    1,664
    Thanks
    91
    Thanked 101 Times in 88 Posts

    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    13727
    Quote Originally Posted by Veritas veritate View Post
    I must point out however that when you invoke the "goddidit" fallacy whenever someone opposes your position it creates more problems for atheists than it does for theists...
    It isn't the atheist invoking the "goddidit fallacy"...

    Quote Originally Posted by Veritas veritate View Post
    ... let me simplify it a little. When we talk about existence there is only two kinds: contingent or potential existence, and necessary or perfect existence. These two kinds of existence are analogous in that they both communicate being. We know that contingent existence cannot produce a necessary existence or the necessary existence wouldn't be necessary to begin with. Neither can it produce contingent existence, this is known because of the fact that matter can neither create nor destroy itself. We also know that necessary existence cannot produce necessary existence. Again, if it could, it would not be necessary to begin with. Furthermore, we know for a fact that nothing cannot produce something and neither can something produce nothing. Therefore contingent existence must have an origin within or caused by a necessary existence. Because we exist (we potentially and actually exist) we know that a necessary being must exist. All it does is prove that a necessary being must exist, nothing more. In order for anyone to show that their specific claim of who or what that necessary being is correct, the information must come from something other than the logical argument for the existence of a necessary being.
    ... it's the theist.

    Please elaborate on how your explanation above differs from "goddidit" in any meaningful way.
    "The more scientifically literate, intellectually honest and objectively skeptical a person is, the more likely they are to disbelieve in anything supernatural, including god."

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us