I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution

[Stripe]

Ha ha
Do you believe the Earth is a globe?

Thanks for officially making the conversation utterly nonsensical. :up:

 

[Right Divider]

Thanks for officially making the conversation utterly nonsensical. :up:

It's inevitable. They are so invested in the false idea that they eventually start spouting frantic nonsense when confronted with clear facts that refute their belief system.

 

[chair]

The point is- and you know this perfectly well- you don't believe in something that just plain is. There are no such people called "evolutionists" who believe in a religion called "evolution". The fossil record is not a question of belief. It's just there. Nor is a round earth a thing one needs to believe in. Or global warming for that matter- either the Earth is warming up, or it's not. It's a number, not an item of belief.


There are a few YEC's who take their thoughts seriously, and unfortunately many, at least here, who will just batten down the hatches and pour insults on anybody who disagrees with them. Maybe deep inside they know they are wrong, but can't afford to face the facts.

 

[ok doser]

There are a lot of distinguished historians that reject the holocaust.

Which holocaust?

The indigenous peoples of the Americas?

The Armenians?

The Rwandans?

 

[genuineoriginal]

The fossil record is not a question of belief. It's just there.

Can you understand that the fossils found in rock layers around the earth are just there?
Can you understand that evolution (all species are descended from common ancestor) is not there at all?

There are no such people called "evolutionists" who believe in a religion called "evolution".

Of course there are.
Evolution is a scientific theory that is used by evolutionists to explain many things that are just there, but that scientific theory makes a lot of assumptions that are based on nothing but faith.

 

[chair]

Can you understand that the fossils found in rock layers around the earth are just there?
Can you understand that evolution (all species are descended from common ancestor) is not there at all?


Of course there are.
Evolution is a scientific theory that is used by evolutionists to explain many things that are just there, but that scientific theory makes a lot of assumptions that are based on nothing but faith.

Yep, just like those stupid Round-Earthist keep insisting that the Earth isn't flat. Not much to do about their unreasonable faith.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Yep, just like those stupid Round-Earthist keep insisting that the Earth isn't flat. Not much to do about their unreasonable faith.

I may be misunderstanding your statement, but it appears that you are saying that believing in Evolution is the same as believing in a flat earth.

 

[Right Divider]

The point is- and you know this perfectly well- you don't believe in something that just plain is.

That you cannot see the difference between the "things that are" and the belief that all life descended from a SINGLE common ancestor is indicative of your type of blindness.

There are no such people called "evolutionists" who believe in a religion called "evolution".

Yes, there are. It's one of those things that "just are".

The fossil record is not a question of belief. It's just there.

The belief about the fossil record by folks like yourself is indeed just that.

Nor is a round earth a thing one needs to believe in. Or global warming for that matter- either the Earth is warming up, or it's not. It's a number, not an item of belief.

The belief about "global warning" is not that it happens, but what causes it.

There are a few YEC's who take their thoughts seriously, and unfortunately many, at least here, who will just batten down the hatches and pour insults on anybody who disagrees with them. Maybe deep inside they know they are wrong, but can't afford to face the facts.

Oh. we love the irony of that.

 

[7djengo7]

Do you believe in the sun?

Yeah. Do you believe in the sun?

Do you believe in your table?

Yeah. Do you believe in my table?

Doe it make any difference if you do?

Please try to explain what (if anything) you mean by "make any difference".

 

[7djengo7]

The point is- and you know this perfectly well- you don't believe in something that just plain is.

So, when you say something like, for instance, "The sun just plain is", you don't believe what you are saying?? You don't believe that the sun "just plain is"?? If you're saying that--merely saying that--while you do not believe it, then you are a liar in saying it.

And, when you say to somebody, "The sun just plain is", what (if anything) do you expect them to do in response to your saying that? Obviously, you've cornered yourself into not being able (without embarrassment to yourself) to tell us that you expect your audience to believe what you are saying to them--viz., that the sun "just plain is". So, what do you expect your audience to do when you say to them, "_______ just plain exists"?? Are you just saying words, purposelessly, just because you like to make noise?

Man, those Darwin cheerleaders like yourself, who start railing against believing, have taken a hike so far off the map....I mean, it's astounding how abjectly, irrationally stupid it is for you to try to pretend that you don't believe anything.

Guess what: if you believe nothing, you know nothing.

Even one of your own, fellow Christ-haters, Matt Dillahunty, knows that to know X is to believe X. In a debate with Sye Ten Bruggencate, Dillahunty says:

What does it mean to say somebody believes something? In simplest terms, it means that we become convinced that the proposition is true. Philosophers have toiled over the definition of knowledge, and while there are many unresolved issues, there are two things that are generally conceded. The first is that knowledge is a subset of belief. One of the most common definitions of knowledge is "justified, true belief", and this is because Plato argued that nothing counts as knowledge if it isn't believed, isn't true, and isn't justified--which makes knowledge a subcategory of belief.

You don't believe that the sun exists? Then you don't know that the sun exists.

Do you believe the Earth is a globe?

If you do not believe the Earth is a globe, then you do not know the Earth is a globe. And, were I one who thinks the Earth is not a globe, then I would say, "If you do not believe the Earth is not a globe, then you do not know the Earth is not a globe."

If you disdain all belief, you disdain all knowledge. And so, it's no surprise that you have not the slightest interest in even trying to think coherently (if at all) regarding elementary epistemological questions.

 

[Stripe]

The point is- and you know this perfectly well- you don't believe in something that just plain is. There are no such people called "evolutionists" who believe in a religion called "evolution". The fossil record is not a question of belief. It's just there. Nor is a round earth a thing one needs to believe in. Or global warming for that matter- either the Earth is warming up, or it's not. It's a number, not an item of belief.


There are a few YEC's who take their thoughts seriously, and unfortunately many, at least here, who will just batten down the hatches and pour insults on anybody who disagrees with them. Maybe deep inside they know they are wrong, but can't afford to face the facts.

How about instead of asserting the primacy of your preferred set of beliefs, we conduct a rational discussion. :up:

 

[chair]

Remember Galileo?
E pur si muove

I'll take a break from this foolishness now.

 

[Idolater]

Sigh...

Spoiler

, you don't seem to be getting what I'm saying. I think exodus is not necessarily referring to a literal event, not that the Exodus text itself is metaphorical. It's making a plain statement about how to count the weeks. But it doesn't HAVE to be referring to a 100% literal historical event to make sense. Much like our modern reference to sunset and sunrise. We know the sun isn't literally setting or rising, but we often refer to that symbolic phrase in other contexts. Six days is a way of making the creation story simple and easy to remember for an oral culture. It's not a science textbook or a detailed news report. Mind you my church is going through the book of Genesis currently and just said exactly that from the pulpit. And no it's not a liberal church that rejects miracles or the resurrection.

How do you know that those memories aren't fabricated then if

... you think the universe was created with the appearance of age. ...

Spoiler

Did Adam and eve have belly buttons and were they able to speak after creation? Fabricated memories then. Once you go down this particular road there's no guardrails.

If creation was actually over six days but the universe looks and acts like it's 13 billion years old ...

Spoiler

, why would six days be anything more than symbolic in that case anyway?

Science acts based on the evidence available so,

... if what you're proposing were true it wouldn't matter as far as science is concerned.

The question of whether or not the universe was created in six days with an appearance of age (but that is real physical maturity), cannot be answered by science but must be addressed philosophically instead, philosophy being one branch of human work concerned with knowledge, with sifting facts from fiction, through different means than those science employs, namely experimentation and observations and measurements of the universe.

These are the same experiments and observations and measurements that indicate that the universe is over 13 billion years old in terms of its maturity as a physical object.

Whether the universe actually is 13 billion actual years old, is something that can only be addressed, if not answered, with philosophy. And since your OP indicates that you believe in God, then it is also theological, and not a matter of science, nor a matter that science can even address, let alone answer.

 

[7djengo7]

Remember Galileo?
E pur si muove

I'll take a break from this foolishness now.

That must mean you're going to quit being a Darwin cheerleader. It'll be interesting to see what (if anything) you have to say once you've left off saying the foolish things you've hitherto been wont to say on TOL.

 

[7djengo7]

Six days is a fairy tale and just a theory, Stripe.

Hahaha. You think something can be BOTH a fairy tale AND a theory?!

 

[7djengo7]

Evolution doesn't need anybody to "believe in it". It just is. As Terry Pratchett puts it in Small Gods:

"Sir, surely only things that exist are worth believing in?" said the enquirer, who was wearing a uniform of a sergeant of the Holy Guard.
"If they exist, you don't have to believe in them," said Didactylos. "They just are."​

To a rationally thinking mind, it would be astounding, were somebody willing to say, "Evolution is true", and then, to turn around and say, "...but I don't believe evolution", or "...but there's no point in believing evolution!"

:mrt: says: "I pity the fool who can, in all seriousness, say 'It's true that it's raining, but I don't believe that it's raining!'"

But, again, you are, at least, right to say that nobody believes what you call "evolution"--not even you, nor Darwin, nor Dawkins. You are right to say that, because what you call "evolution" is nonsense, and it's impossible to believe nonsense.

Don't get me wrong: I am not saying that everything you, as a Darwin cheerleader, say, is nonsense, for, indeed, in addition to much nonsense, every Darwin cheerleader also says many things that are not nonsense, but that are false--like, for instance, that all life has a common ancestor. That's not nonsense; it's meaningful. It's false, but it's meaningful. But, as we've seen on TOL, at least a few Darwin cheerleaders seem to get a bit irate whenever someone says something like, "Evolution is the idea that all life descended from a common ancestor". At that, Darwin cheerleaders bark back with something like:

Again, you are presenting something "i.e., common descent from a single common ancestor" that isn't the actual theory of evolution, but rather a conclusion one can reach from the theory.

Your problem is that, by the phrase, "the theory of evolution", you're not even referring to a theory--no, not to any theory, whatsoever; rather, what you're calling "the theory of evolution" is nothing more than a smokey cloud of nonsense. And, the false proposition of common descent from a single ancestor does not even follow from what you call "the theory of evolution", because nonsense does not entail propositions--not even false ones. Nobody has ever concluded, from what you call "the theory of evolution", that all life has descended from a common ancestor, because what is not entailed is not concluded.

 

[Arthur Brain]

So, you acknowledge that Jesus has the ability to speak life into existence and yet deny He performed the miracle of speaking life into existence at creation. Seems to me that if you truly love the Biblical Jesus you would acknowledge that it was His creative power exercised in creation and you would do so enthusiastically. The Bible tells us specifically that it was Jesus who created everything by His word, and that He created the earth and everything in it in six days. Seems to me that you might love a Jesus (a hayzoos that just crossed the US border illegally) but deny even the existence of the Biblical Jesus for you deny what the Bible clearly says about Him. You deny His authority and power, and claim feeble human beings are wiser and more knowledgeable than Jesus is for Jesus quoted the OT constantly and said that Moses testified of Him. As it was Moses who wrote the creation story, and Jesus took the OT literally, your supposed loving of Jesus rings extremely hollow.

It only "rings hollow" if you demand that everyone who professes Christian faith has to adhere to a rigidly literal understanding of the Genesis account. It seems pretty obvious that it's poetic and symbolic narrative and what Alate is showing is that there's no necessity for a schism between an acceptance of established science and also having faith.

 

[Arthur Brain]

When you say "well supported", what (if anything) do you even mean? By "well supported", do you not simply mean "true"?

I call no idea "nonsense". I call nonsense "nonsense", though. Why do you refuse to call nonsense "nonsense"? Why do you call nonsense "science"?

What challenge do you have to undermine the theory of evolution? I'm assuming you have an understanding of what a theory means in the world of science as opposed to its general vernacular as a term? Essentially that it's supported by a plethora of evidence that's been stringently and continually tested in order for it to become one?

 

[Stripe]

It only "rings hollow" if you demand that everyone who professes Christian faith has to adhere to a rigidly literal understanding of the Genesis account.

Christianity is founded upon the confession of Jesus Christ as Lord and saviour. Nothing else matters.

It seems pretty obvious that it's poetic and symbolic narrative.

Ah, the poetry gambit. Will the Darwinists ever explain why "poetry" dictates that "six days" cannot mean what it plainly says?

What Alate is showing is that there's no necessity for a schism between an acceptance of established science and also having faith.

And what she did in OP and what you do here is assert the truth of your theory — the essence of anti-science bigotry.

1. There is no such thing as "established" science. If it is not actively being disestablished, it's not science.

2. YEC is a scientific theory. The sooner the Darwinists allow a seat at the table for the ideas they hate, the sooner a sensible dialogue can begin.

 

[Right Divider]

What challenge do you have to undermine the theory of evolution? I'm assuming you have an understanding of what a theory means in the world of science as opposed to its general vernacular as a term? Essentially that it's supported by a plethora of evidence that's been stringently and continually tested in order for it to become one?

Indeed, the "theory of evolution" is unfalsifiable, making it an unscientific belief system.