Description of site

Welcome with open arms fellow believers who don't see things the way you do.
And don't jump all over them every time they do or say something you don't agree with
- even when it seems that they are strong on opinions but weak in the faith department.
Remember, they have their own history to deal with. Treat them gently. Romans 14.1: The Message

Page 6 of 10 < 1 2 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#630163 - 05/05/13 05:34 AM Re: The World According to Darwin [Re: Bravus]
Twilight II Offline


Registered: 06/15/11
Posts: 1513
Originally Posted By: Bravus
Quote:
Will Igakusei and Bravus continue avoiding Walter Veith's actual argument?

We have not avoided it, we have refuted it. Repeatedly.

He claims evolution is a purely chance process. It is not. Refuted.


If evolution is not a purely chance process, then it must be intentional.

Who intended and how do you know that?

Top
.
#630165 - 05/05/13 05:37 AM Re: The World According to Darwin [Re: Planey]
Twilight II Offline


Registered: 06/15/11
Posts: 1513
Originally Posted By: Planey
Originally Posted By: Q.E.D.
I took science in high school and made great grades so I am completely qualified to make that statement.


LOL LOL

Q.E.D., I taught science at senior high school and I definitely do not consider myself evenly remotely qualified to make that statement.

And it does not really help your cause when, in referring to Sir Karl Raimund Popper, generally regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century, you call him "pooper".

Graeme


The ability to think logically is the only requisite for entering a discussion on origins.

By the logic that you and Bravus have suggested, ie:

"You don't know science"

I would assume that you both know everything about all science to make that judgment...

If you do not, according to your arguments, then you should not be commenting on any branch of science that you do not know everything about...

Top
#630166 - 05/05/13 05:40 AM Re: The World According to Darwin [Re: Igakusei]
Twilight II Offline


Registered: 06/15/11
Posts: 1513
Originally Posted By: Igakusei
Originally Posted By: Planey
Q.E.D., I taught science at senior high school and I definitely do not consider myself evenly remotely qualified to make that statement.

And it does not really help your cause when, in referring to Sir Karl Raimund Popper, generally regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century, you call him "pooper".

Graeme


I have my name on published, NIH-funded medical research and I feel the same way. I've been doing this all afternoon since I saw QED's post:



So how does that qualify you to discuss physics, abiogenesis and even evolutionary theory?

How about philosophy?

Are you expert in all those areas.

If not, then by your own argument, you need to shut up and stop offering your own unqualified opinion.


This "don't know science" argument is self refuting, so I wouldn't advice you using that if you want anyone to accept your point of view as valid in the discussion...


Edited by Twilight II (05/05/13 05:40 AM)

Top
#630167 - 05/05/13 05:43 AM Re: The World According to Darwin [Re: Bravus]
Twilight II Offline


Registered: 06/15/11
Posts: 1513
Originally Posted By: Bravus
On 'humor', the response to the 'joke' of calling Popper 'pooper' was *not* one of indignation or outrage on Popper's behalf, it was simply astonishment at the sheer level of willful - indeed gleeful - ignorance on display.


Still running the old:

"You are ignorant and I am not argument."


Once you enter this type of claim to authority you have to prove you are that authority.

Do you know all things about all things Bravus?

If not, you should not be appealing to ignorance as the defence of your argument...

Top
#630168 - 05/05/13 05:46 AM Re: The World According to Darwin [Re: John317]
Bravus Offline
Husband and Father


Registered: 09/05/04
Posts: 15454
Loc: Gold Coast, Australia
Several posts in a row. Each of them missing the point pretty much entirely. Perhaps read back and have another try. I don't have time right now to set you straight on things that have already been expressed pretty clearly.
_________________________
Truth is important

Top
#630175 - 05/05/13 06:24 AM Re: The World According to Darwin [Re: Bravus]
Twilight II Offline


Registered: 06/15/11
Posts: 1513
Originally Posted By: Bravus
Several posts in a row. Each of them missing the point pretty much entirely. Perhaps read back and have another try. I don't have time right now to set you straight on things that have already been expressed pretty clearly.


I was addressing the general tone of your arguments Bravus, which usually present the position that those that do not agree with you tend to be "ignorant", Iga does the very same thing.

To present that argument, is to claim absolute knowledge in that area.

As you cannot do that, you should not present that argument.

How about I pull you up on it next time you do it?

Then you might be willing to discuss this point.

Top
#630177 - 05/05/13 06:26 AM Re: The World According to Darwin [Re: Twilight II]
Twilight II Offline


Registered: 06/15/11
Posts: 1513
Originally Posted By: Twilight II
[quote=Bravus][quote]Will Igakusei and Bravus continue avoiding Walter Veith's actual argument?

If evolution is not a purely chance process, then it must be intentional.

Who intended and how do you know that?


Can you answer my question here Bravus?

You have stated that evolution is not purely chance, which implies intentionality.

It is either random or intentional, which is it?

Top
#630201 - 05/05/13 08:47 AM Re: The World According to Darwin [Re: John317]
Bravus Offline
Husband and Father


Registered: 09/05/04
Posts: 15454
Loc: Gold Coast, Australia
No. Those two things are not antitheses or antonyms of each other.

Natural selection is natural, therefore not intentional, but is selective, therefore not chance.

That is, evolution occurs through the selection of favourable traits, and is therefore not random.

If I go through a deck of cards and select random cards, note what they are and replace them, that's random. If I go through a deck of cards and select all the spades and keep them, that's not random.

In this case it's an intentional selection, so let's think of a different process. If waves grade the stones on a beach so that the small ones collect in a different area from the larger ones, that is a purely natural, unintentional process of selection. It is not chance: chance would lead to a homogeneous mixture. It is natural selection.
_________________________
Truth is important

Top
#630202 - 05/05/13 08:50 AM Re: The World According to Darwin [Re: John317]
Bravus Offline
Husband and Father


Registered: 09/05/04
Posts: 15454
Loc: Gold Coast, Australia
On your other point, no-one here has ever claimed that someone must know *everything* about a topic in order to make a statement about it. Knowing *something* about a topic is better than knowing *nothing* about it.

But even that is not what we are saying - there is no shame at all in ignorance. We are all ignorant of many things.

What there is shame in is *wilful* ignorance, *cherished* ignorance, *celebrated* ignorance.

Everyone can learn - but only if they choose to.

No-one is claiming complete knowledge of anything. That would be foolish.
_________________________
Truth is important

Top
#630207 - 05/05/13 09:43 AM Re: The World According to Darwin [Re: John317]
Igakusei Offline


Registered: 03/08/11
Posts: 1817
I just wanted to throw this in since a couple people are tossing around the "nobody was there" argument.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/10/03/dear-emma-b/
_________________________
I believe in life before death

Top
#630224 - 05/05/13 10:50 AM Re: The World According to Darwin [Re: Igakusei]
Tom Wetmore Offline
Latitudinarian


Registered: 06/21/00
Posts: 6838
Loc: Silver Spring, MD, USA
Very thoughtful response... Thanks.

I also considered the earlier post about God only being here when it all happened which concluded that means you should then take His word for it. As one who does accept that source as reliable, I still think saying so as a triumphal discussion stopper is no different than the Ken Ham prompted question of the little girl about the moon rock. We also have to recognize that the means by which we learn of God's word on the matter are actually words written by men long ago before our time and a number of human generations long after God was there and did what He did. Telling that to anyone that is not familiar with that source or who clearly does not accept it as a reliable, complete, or authoritative source is just as unhelpful as the Ken Ham question.

The bottom line for me is that God said he did it. But He doesn't give much detail of how he accomplished it. The gaps in the creation story are just as big as the gaps in scientific theories of evolution and abiogenesis.
_________________________
"Absurdity reigns and confusion makes it look good."
"Sinless perfection is such a shallow goal."
"I love God only as much as the person I love the least."
*Forgiveness is always good news. And that is the gospel truth.
(And finally, the ideas expressed above are solely my person views and not that of any organization with which I am associated.)

Top
#630233 - 05/05/13 11:26 AM Re: The World According to Darwin [Re: Twilight II]
RLH Offline
Mr. Murphy's daddy


Registered: 07/07/09
Posts: 22226
Loc: North Carolina
Originally Posted By: Twilight II
Originally Posted By: JoeMo

No one can know beyond a shadow of a doubt whether creation or evolution is true, because nobody was there but God.


You have just settled the debate yourself...

If only God was there, then only Gods version of the event can be accepted.

So here is your choice, believe God who was there and explicitly states how He supernaturally created man.

Of believe man, who cannot know what happened because he was not there...


That is really as simple as it gets, now it is up to you to choose who you will believe...



thumbsup

Excellent reasoning!

You can't go wrong with that. "Man was not here, God was." Why would anybody look to man's version of what happened? Especially when it is diametrically opposed to God's version, and assumes that the Bible cannot be trusted.

Top
#630235 - 05/05/13 11:41 AM Re: The World According to Darwin [Re: Bravus]
RLH Offline
Mr. Murphy's daddy


Registered: 07/07/09
Posts: 22226
Loc: North Carolina
Originally Posted By: Bravus
Several posts in a row. Each of them missing the point pretty much entirely. Perhaps read back and have another try. I don't have time right now to set you straight on things that have already been expressed pretty clearly.


I think he hit the point right squarely on it's noggin, each time. But I'll be glad when you have time to set us straight though. I always look forward to that.

Top
#630237 - 05/05/13 11:46 AM Re: The World According to Darwin [Re: John317]
fccool Offline


Registered: 01/15/08
Posts: 4015
Quote:
You have just settled the debate yourself...

If only God was there, then only Gods version of the event can be accepted.


So, why wouldn't God tell us the story right here right now? Why tell it by means of oral and written tradition of stone-age people for whom a wheelbarrow would be an incredible piece of technology, and a TV would be outright miracle?

The people believed just about anything. If they did not believe in Hebrew God, they would just pick another deity and adhere to that version of creation story.

Saying that "God was there" is a self-defeating argument, because according to your logic... you were not there to test "who was there", so your claim in that sense is absolutely null... since all you have is ancient myths written by people thousands of years ago. And, circling around to my premise, how do you know God told them, and they did not merely make it up like all of their contemporaries?

Quote:
So here is your choice, believe God who was there and explicitly states how He supernaturally created man.

Of believe man, who cannot know what happened because he was not there...


That's not a choice... that's a false dilemma. In reality there are plenty of choices, and one of them is honest "I don't know". That choice actually allows us to weigh various theories based on evidence, rather than circular logic.

Quote:
That is really as simple as it gets, now it is up to you to choose who you will believe...


The only person that you really believe is your own self :).

I would highly recommend this book by Ray Kurzweil, who breaks down the processes going on in your head fairly well.

http://www.amazon.com/How-Create-Mind-Thought-Revealed/dp/0670025291

Human brain is a recursive pattern-making and pattern-recognition device. You form your own beliefs, which then drive your worldview as a base-pattern.

You only believe your own self in that sense, and no-one else. Other ideas either align with your beliefs, or these don't. Even when you add new information, it is filtered through existing patterns and creates modified version of your overall pattern.

The ignorance that Bravus is talking about is a choice of making the pattern too narrow to recognize the appropriate information as valid or invalid. Thus, no matter what wider range of information you get to filter through... it goes through the same type of narrow filter that's self-imposed... just like the false dilemma of "either human version, or God's version" that you propose here without realizing a possibility that "God's version" can in fact be a merely another "human version" rooted in ignorance and denial.

Top
#630242 - 05/05/13 12:20 PM Re: The World According to Darwin [Re: fccool]
RLH Offline
Mr. Murphy's daddy


Registered: 07/07/09
Posts: 22226
Loc: North Carolina
So fccool, are you just believing your own self also, or are you above all that, since you are aware of the recursive pattern-making of the brain?

Do you believe someone other than yourself?

Top
#630279 - 05/05/13 04:50 PM Re: The World According to Darwin [Re: Bravus]
Twilight II Offline


Registered: 06/15/11
Posts: 1513
Originally Posted By: Bravus
No. Those two things are not antitheses or antonyms of each other.

Natural selection is natural, therefore not intentional, but is selective, therefore not chance.

That is, evolution occurs through the selection of favourable traits, and is therefore not random.

If I go through a deck of cards and select random cards, note what they are and replace them, that's random. If I go through a deck of cards and select all the spades and keep them, that's not random.

In this case it's an intentional selection, so let's think of a different process. If waves grade the stones on a beach so that the small ones collect in a different area from the larger ones, that is a purely natural, unintentional process of selection. It is not chance: chance would lead to a homogeneous mixture. It is natural selection.


So your argument is that "natural" is equal to "ordered".

Do you want to clarify how you equate "natural" to "ordered" rather than to "random"?

You have made a claim but have not explained it clearly.

Top
#630280 - 05/05/13 04:51 PM Re: The World According to Darwin [Re: Bravus]
Twilight II Offline


Registered: 06/15/11
Posts: 1513
Originally Posted By: Bravus

No-one is claiming complete knowledge of anything. That would be foolish.


I am pleased you realise that frail humans cannot know anything absolutely.

And that to appeal to personal authority on these matters is indeed foolish.

Top
#630282 - 05/05/13 04:53 PM Re: The World According to Darwin [Re: Igakusei]
Twilight II Offline


Registered: 06/15/11
Posts: 1513
Originally Posted By: Igakusei
I just wanted to throw this in since a couple people are tossing around the "nobody was there" argument.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/10/03/dear-emma-b/


Before I bother to click on your link, are you going to be able to prove that someone empirically observed the claims or are you going to argue that forensically justifying a claim is equal to empirical evidence.

I will only accept evidence from an observer of the event.

And as the only observer of that event was God, then twisted and illogical forensic evidence from men who were not even there has to be refused at the table...


Edited by Twilight II (05/05/13 04:54 PM)

Top
#630284 - 05/05/13 04:57 PM Re: The World According to Darwin [Re: Tom Wetmore]
Twilight II Offline


Registered: 06/15/11
Posts: 1513
Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore


The bottom line for me is that God said he did it. But He doesn't give much detail of how he accomplished it. The gaps in the creation story are just as big as the gaps in scientific theories of evolution and abiogenesis.


What gaps?

God spoke.

You are confusing an inability to comprehend the Creation event, with the idea that there is missing information...

Do you think you could comprehend how God spoke Creation into being if He took the time to explain it to you?

Top
#630285 - 05/05/13 05:05 PM Re: The World According to Darwin [Re: RLH]
Twilight II Offline


Registered: 06/15/11
Posts: 1513
Originally Posted By: RLH
Originally Posted By: Twilight II


You have just settled the debate yourself...

If only God was there, then only Gods version of the event can be accepted.

So here is your choice, believe God who was there and explicitly states how He supernaturally created man.

Of believe man, who cannot know what happened because he was not there...


That is really as simple as it gets, now it is up to you to choose who you will believe...



thumbsup

Excellent reasoning!

You can't go wrong with that. "Man was not here, God was." Why would anybody look to man's version of what happened? Especially when it is diametrically opposed to God's version, and assumes that the Bible cannot be trusted.


This is the fundamental way to deal with all of atheism and its pet doctrines.

Essentially it goes like this:

1. To know something absolutely, you need to know everything absolutely.

2. As man cannot know everything absolutely, he cannot know anything absolutely.

3. God knows everything absolutely, so God is the only one who can reveal anything absolutely.


So when an atheist claimes to "know" ANYTHING, they have to explain how they can know anything, as they need to know everything to know anything.

A Christian can know something, because the one who knows everything has revealed it to him and is quite capable of revealing that to Him.


The absurdity of atheism and all its pet doctrines is exposed with this simple logic.


The atheist cannot make ANY knowledge claims as he does not have access to "knowledge" without God...

Top
#630286 - 05/05/13 05:08 PM Re: The World According to Darwin [Re: fccool]
Twilight II Offline


Registered: 06/15/11
Posts: 1513
Originally Posted By: fccool
Quote:
You have just settled the debate yourself...

If only God was there, then only Gods version of the event can be accepted.


So, why wouldn't God tell us the story right here right now? Why tell it by means of oral and written tradition of stone-age people for whom a wheelbarrow would be an incredible piece of technology, and a TV would be outright miracle?

The people believed just about anything. If they did not believe in Hebrew God, they would just pick another deity and adhere to that version of creation story.

Saying that "God was there" is a self-defeating argument, because according to your logic... you were not there to test "who was there", so your claim in that sense is absolutely null... since all you have is ancient myths written by people thousands of years ago. And, circling around to my premise, how do you know God told them, and they did not merely make it up like all of their contemporaries?

Quote:
So here is your choice, believe God who was there and explicitly states how He supernaturally created man.

Of believe man, who cannot know what happened because he was not there...


That's not a choice... that's a false dilemma. In reality there are plenty of choices, and one of them is honest "I don't know". That choice actually allows us to weigh various theories based on evidence, rather than circular logic.

Quote:
That is really as simple as it gets, now it is up to you to choose who you will believe...


The only person that you really believe is your own self :).

I would highly recommend this book by Ray Kurzweil, who breaks down the processes going on in your head fairly well.

http://www.amazon.com/How-Create-Mind-Thought-Revealed/dp/0670025291

Human brain is a recursive pattern-making and pattern-recognition device. You form your own beliefs, which then drive your worldview as a base-pattern.

You only believe your own self in that sense, and no-one else. Other ideas either align with your beliefs, or these don't. Even when you add new information, it is filtered through existing patterns and creates modified version of your overall pattern.

The ignorance that Bravus is talking about is a choice of making the pattern too narrow to recognize the appropriate information as valid or invalid. Thus, no matter what wider range of information you get to filter through... it goes through the same type of narrow filter that's self-imposed... just like the false dilemma of "either human version, or God's version" that you propose here without realizing a possibility that "God's version" can in fact be a merely another "human version" rooted in ignorance and denial.


You have made a lot of knowledge claims above.

To make those knowledge claims, you have to know everything and as you are not God, then it is clear you do not, therefore without God you cannot know ANYTHING.


Please explain how you can know ANYTHING without God giving you the capacity to know SOMETHING.

Please give us all an example of SOMETHING you know to be absolutely true and explain how you know that to be absolutely true...


Edited by Twilight II (05/05/13 05:09 PM)

Top
#630287 - 05/05/13 05:18 PM Re: The World According to Darwin [Re: Twilight II]
pkrause Offline


Registered: 03/24/00
Posts: 55791
Loc: Worcester, MA
Originally Posted By: Twilight II
Originally Posted By: JoeMo

No one can know beyond a shadow of a doubt whether creation or evolution is true, because nobody was there but God.


You have just settled the debate yourself...

If only God was there, then only Gods version of the event can be accepted.

So here is your choice, believe God who was there and explicitly states how He supernaturally created man.

Of believe man, who cannot know what happened because he was not there...


That is really as simple as it gets, now it is up to you to choose who you will believe...


I agree 100%. While attending PS and being taught evolution, that's exactly what it came down to.
_________________________
phkrause

Romans 5:8: But God demonstrates his own love for us in that the Messiah died on our behalf while we were still sinners.

Top
#630289 - 05/05/13 05:36 PM Re: The World According to Darwin [Re: pkrause]
Twilight II Offline


Registered: 06/15/11
Posts: 1513
Originally Posted By: pkrause
Originally Posted By: Twilight II



You have just settled the debate yourself...

If only God was there, then only Gods version of the event can be accepted.

So here is your choice, believe God who was there and explicitly states how He supernaturally created man.

Of believe man, who cannot know what happened because he was not there...


That is really as simple as it gets, now it is up to you to choose who you will believe...


I agree 100%. While attending PS and being taught evolution, that's exactly what it came down to.


The atheistic response to this, is that God could not have revealed that to man.

You will see the phrase "stone age" or "goat herders" bandied about when this argument is used by athiests, usually followed by a demand that God should reveal His revelation to them, as they are much more intelligent than stone age goat herders.

But if you press an atheist or a demi-atheist (one who claims to be something else whilst promoting atheism), if it would be possible for a God who knows all things and made all things to communicate the facts of some of those things to man, they have to admit that it is indeed possible.

God isn't prevented from granting revelation to someone based on their occupation...

And they have to admit this if they are honest.

But consider their argument:

Can you imagine this conversation in heaven amongst the angels:

Angel 1: "We need to communicate Gods Creation to humanity."

Angel 2: "Well there is this guy called Moses..."

Angel 3: "Does he have a phd?"

Angel 2: "Don't think so."

Angel 3: "Is he an atheist?"

Angel 2: "No."

Angel 1: "Well that is a real problem, because only atheists with phd's are intelligent enough to receive revelation from God."

Angel 3: "Oh dear, but aren't they at enmity with God, aren't they at war with God and serving in the enemies ranks?..."

Angel 2: "Yes."

Angel 1: "Well thats torn it then, no revelation for mankind..."


I hope you get the point. :-)


Edited by Twilight II (05/05/13 05:44 PM)

Top
#630292 - 05/05/13 06:01 PM Re: The World According to Darwin [Re: John317]
Igakusei Offline


Registered: 03/08/11
Posts: 1817
I have to assume that you're either trolling or not bothering to read either Bravus' or my posts, because you are arguing against a position that neither of us is or ever has advocated.

It seems like you have all of these ideas in your head about what other people believe, and when those very people tell you that you're misrepresenting their actual beliefs, you just repeat the same old arguments against what you think they believe instead of actually bothering to understand them and reply to their actual beliefs in any meaningful way.

I'm tired of linking the wikipedia article on epistemology, so I'll do the one on uncertainty this time. I have no expectation that anyone will bother to read either it or any of our past posts in an effort to figure out where they might be misunderstanding our positions.

Top
#630293 - 05/05/13 06:28 PM Re: The World According to Darwin [Re: Twilight II]
Bravus Offline
Husband and Father


Registered: 09/05/04
Posts: 15454
Loc: Gold Coast, Australia
Originally Posted By: Twilight II
Originally Posted By: Bravus
No. Those two things are not antitheses or antonyms of each other.

Natural selection is natural, therefore not intentional, but is selective, therefore not chance.

That is, evolution occurs through the selection of favourable traits, and is therefore not random.

If I go through a deck of cards and select random cards, note what they are and replace them, that's random. If I go through a deck of cards and select all the spades and keep them, that's not random.

In this case it's an intentional selection, so let's think of a different process. If waves grade the stones on a beach so that the small ones collect in a different area from the larger ones, that is a purely natural, unintentional process of selection. It is not chance: chance would lead to a homogeneous mixture. It is natural selection.

So your argument is that "natural" is equal to "ordered".

Do you want to clarify how you equate "natural" to "ordered" rather than to "random"?

You have made a claim but have not explained it clearly.

No, my argument is that nature *can* lead to order. Nature does not inevitably lead to chance. I'm far from equating the terms.

I think I have explained it pretty clearly. Within a population, those organisms best adapted to the environment will survive and breed with a greater probability than those less well adapted. Over time the best-adapted will come to dominate the population (in numbers, not power). By this mechanism of natural selection traits favourable to survival and breeding are selected, without intention or ultimate goal.
_________________________
Truth is important

Top
#630295 - 05/05/13 06:56 PM Re: The World According to Darwin [Re: Twilight II]
pkrause Offline


Registered: 03/24/00
Posts: 55791
Loc: Worcester, MA
Originally Posted By: Twilight II
The atheistic response to this, is that God could not have revealed that to man.

You will see the phrase "stone age" or "goat herders" bandied about when this argument is used.

But if you press an atheist or a demi-atheist (one who claims to be something else whilst promoting atheism), if it would be possible for a God who knows all things and made all things to communicate the facts of some of those things to man, they have to admit that it is indeed possible.

God isn't prevented from granting revelation to someone based on their occupation...

Can you imagine the conversation in heaven amongst the angels:

Angel 1: "We need to communicate Gods Creation to humanity."

Angel 2: "Well there is this guy called Moses..."

Angel 3: "Does he have a phd?"

Angel 2: "Don't think so."

Angel 3: "Is he an atheist?"

Angel 2: "No."

Angel 1: "Well that is a real problem, because only atheists with phd's are intelligent enough to receive revelation from God."

Angel 3: "Oh dear, looks like we will have to wait a few thousand years..."


I hope you get the point. :-)


Thanks, I do get the point. And if this age actually has more knowledge. Sometimes I wonder if we are not the goat herders. :)
_________________________
phkrause

Romans 5:8: But God demonstrates his own love for us in that the Messiah died on our behalf while we were still sinners.

Top
#630296 - 05/05/13 07:08 PM Re: The World According to Darwin [Re: John317]
Bravus Offline
Husband and Father


Registered: 09/05/04
Posts: 15454
Loc: Gold Coast, Australia
Quote:
But if you press an atheist or a demi-atheist (one who claims to be something else whilst promoting atheism), if it would be possible for a God who knows all things and made all things to communicate the facts of some of those things to man, they have to admit that it is indeed possible.

Of course it's possible. That's not the question though. The question is whether he *did*.

And that question is not easily decidable. It's the question that is ignored in the 'God was there and you weren't' argument.

I *believe* God was there. But that does not, in itself, guarantee that the Old Testament account is God's direct revelation of what happened to humanity. There are myriad creation stories in all human cultures.

'God was there' can be absolutely true without it being the slamdunk leading to 'therefore you must unquestioningly accept *my* brand of creationism' that some here seem to assume it is.

In forensic terms, it's about the chain of evidence.
_________________________
Truth is important

Top
#630297 - 05/05/13 07:10 PM Re: The World According to Darwin [Re: John317]
Bravus Offline
Husband and Father


Registered: 09/05/04
Posts: 15454
Loc: Gold Coast, Australia
Would be nice if people were able to understand that accurately describing evolutionary theory is not at all the same thing as promoting atheism, but maybe that's too much to hope for.
_________________________
Truth is important

Top
#630299 - 05/05/13 07:38 PM Re: The World According to Darwin [Re: John317]
cricket Offline



Registered: 11/11/03
Posts: 6565
All people, or just some?

Top
#630303 - 05/05/13 07:55 PM Re: The World According to Darwin [Re: John317]
Bravus Offline
Husband and Father


Registered: 09/05/04
Posts: 15454
Loc: Gold Coast, Australia
I think many people do understand, so I guess I was speaking of the few who seem not to.
_________________________
Truth is important

Top
#630318 - 05/05/13 11:56 PM Re: The World According to Darwin [Re: John317]
Bravus Offline
Husband and Father


Registered: 09/05/04
Posts: 15454
Loc: Gold Coast, Australia
This has ended up sounding snarkier and more passive-aggressive than I intended, so let me be unsnarky and direct.

Twilight wrote:

Quote:
... demi-atheist (one who claims to be something else whilst promoting atheism)

I presume this was aimed at me, although it may also have been aimed at others.

I am not an atheist. I do not promote atheism. I do promote science. I do describe evolutionary theory and the evidence that supports it, and I do state that I believe it best explains what we observe around us.

There are many Christians who are not recent creationists. There are many theists of other kinds (and I consider myself to be in this group).

It is insulting - but more important from my perspective, it is untrue - to say what Twilight said.
_________________________
Truth is important

Top
#630341 - 05/06/13 09:43 AM Re: The World According to Darwin [Re: John317]
olger Offline


Registered: 12/26/05
Posts: 11618
Loc: Ohio
We have entered a unique era in the history of man. Modern man seeks to create a utopian environment.

Utopianism denies that God exists but holds that man may become a god by conquering his environment. In this worldview, evolution materialism, and pantheism all combine. Spirit and matter combine in this worldview.

We used to think that secularism was the foremost enemy of Christianity. Friends, secularism is on the run today. Secularism is on the run. It is being chased away by a new spiritualism -- a pagan spirituality who's first order of business is to free the human spirit from stasis.



`oG
_________________________
"Please don't feed the drama queens.."

Top
#630360 - 05/06/13 01:43 PM Re: The World According to Darwin [Re: Bravus]
Twilight II Offline


Registered: 06/15/11
Posts: 1513
Originally Posted By: Bravus
Quote:
But if you press an atheist or a demi-atheist (one who claims to be something else whilst promoting atheism), if it would be possible for a God who knows all things and made all things to communicate the facts of some of those things to man, they have to admit that it is indeed possible.

Of course it's possible. That's not the question though. The question is whether he *did*.

And that question is not easily decidable. It's the question that is ignored in the 'God was there and you weren't' argument.

I *believe* God was there. But that does not, in itself, guarantee that the Old Testament account is God's direct revelation of what happened to humanity. There are myriad creation stories in all human cultures.

'God was there' can be absolutely true without it being the slamdunk leading to 'therefore you must unquestioningly accept *my* brand of creationism' that some here seem to assume it is.

In forensic terms, it's about the chain of evidence.


Do you think God is capable of revealing to man knowledge of how He created the universe?

Top
#630361 - 05/06/13 01:44 PM Re: The World According to Darwin [Re: Bravus]
JoeMo Offline


Registered: 01/09/12
Posts: 2277
Loc: Denver, CO
Quote:
Would be nice if people were able to understand that accurately describing evolutionary theory is not at all the same thing as promoting atheism, but maybe that's too much to hope for.


Bravo, Bravus! Excellent point - I agree 100% I appreciate the education I have received in discussing this topic with you and Ig. Thanks!

Top
#630363 - 05/06/13 01:48 PM Re: The World According to Darwin [Re: Bravus]
Twilight II Offline


Registered: 06/15/11
Posts: 1513
Originally Posted By: Bravus
This has ended up sounding snarkier and more passive-aggressive than I intended, so let me be unsnarky and direct.

Twilight wrote:

Quote:
... demi-atheist (one who claims to be something else whilst promoting atheism)

I presume this was aimed at me, although it may also have been aimed at others.

I am not an atheist. I do not promote atheism. I do promote science. I do describe evolutionary theory and the evidence that supports it, and I do state that I believe it best explains what we observe around us.

There are many Christians who are not recent creationists. There are many theists of other kinds (and I consider myself to be in this group).

It is insulting - but more important from my perspective, it is untrue - to say what Twilight said.


Why is it insulting?

Evolutionary theory is not a biblical teaching.

It comes from atheistic naturalism and even many atheists will point this out.

Why would you be insulted by me pointing out the obvious?

Evolution is atheistic in origin, not biblical.

If you want to wave that banner, then expect to get questioned and challenged, especially when speaking to Adventists...


Edited by Twilight II (05/06/13 01:51 PM)

Top
#630364 - 05/06/13 01:49 PM Re: The World According to Darwin [Re: JoeMo]
Twilight II Offline


Registered: 06/15/11
Posts: 1513
Originally Posted By: JoeMo
Quote:
Would be nice if people were able to understand that accurately describing evolutionary theory is not at all the same thing as promoting atheism, but maybe that's too much to hope for.


Bravo, Bravus! Excellent point - I agree 100% I appreciate the education I have received in discussing this topic with you and Ig. Thanks!


You did not address the point aimed directly at you Joemo.

God was there, man wasn't.

Who are you going to believe?


Edited by Twilight II (05/06/13 01:49 PM)

Top
#630366 - 05/06/13 02:00 PM Re: The World According to Darwin [Re: Twilight II]
JoeMo Offline


Registered: 01/09/12
Posts: 2277
Loc: Denver, CO
Oh, I most certainly agree that God was there; and I believe his hand was involved at all times. I'm just not so sure that the details rendered in Moses' description of the Genesis account from a manuscript dated 2,500 years (more or less) after his death renders the story with scientific accuracy and completeness; or if it was even intended to do so.

That "In the beginning, God created ..." has never been in doubt for me.

Top
#630368 - 05/06/13 02:10 PM Re: The World According to Darwin [Re: Twilight II]
Igakusei Offline


Registered: 03/08/11
Posts: 1817
Originally Posted By: Twilight II
Originally Posted By: Bravus
Of course it's possible. That's not the question though. The question is whether he *did*.

And that question is not easily decidable. It's the question that is ignored in the 'God was there and you weren't' argument.

I *believe* God was there. But that does not, in itself, guarantee that the Old Testament account is God's direct revelation of what happened to humanity. There are myriad creation stories in all human cultures.

'God was there' can be absolutely true without it being the slamdunk leading to 'therefore you must unquestioningly accept *my* brand of creationism' that some here seem to assume it is.

In forensic terms, it's about the chain of evidence.


Do you think God is capable of revealing to man knowledge of how He created the universe?


Just how bad is your reading comprehension? Bravus answered this question in the very first four words of his reply, before reiterating once again that it's not the question you need to be asking.

I'll answer it too: yes, of course it's possible that if your particular god existed it could have revealed to humans the knowledge of how the universe was created. But so what? Not only is your preferred source of revelation demonstrably unreliable and of highly dubious origin, but your interpretation of its first few chapters is repeatedly and ubiquitously contradicted by entire libraries worth of experimental and observational evidence.

Top
#630491 - 05/07/13 06:28 AM Re: The World According to Darwin [Re: Igakusei]
Aliensanctuary Offline


Registered: 03/03/05
Posts: 1366
Loc: Northern California
Perhaps popular pro-evolution programs and literature and websites misrepresent the evolution described in this forum by several well-informed posters. Over-simplification unsupported by actual facts can result in straw-men arguments and misunderstandings.

I've seen a few Nova programs characterizing Darwin as a near wonder-God who so brilliantly and graciously presented mankind with the gift of pure knowledge. Hence, my previous, satirical Darwinian post.

With the right technology, I see no problem with an advanced civilization modifying a planet by raising or lowering landmasses, altering the climate, adding water, plants, and the rest, in a matter of just a few days. The author of the Genesis account of origins likely saw a video, then wrote to the best of his ability to describe what he was seeing.

Plants and animals don't normally materialize out of nothing---they had to be transported to the surface from the place of origin...I picture a huge spacecraft/city hovering above the surface of the earth doing just that. So, I would say that our world could have easily been terra-formed and colonized in a relatively short time by beings possessing super-intelligence and super-technology.

To downplay the extreme technology of life by assuming that the first cell must have somehow created itself, which is what some of the literature states, then, through a process of millions of mutations and billions of years resulted in so many diverse life-forms seems logically risky. Our planet and the universe itself may indeed be billions of years old, but it is possible that the origin of the life on it may be much more recent.

Just as the number of ice layers covering several WW2 era planes in Greenland numbered around 260, so it is possible that the fossil-bearing strata was not laid down over billions of years, but that sheets of mud of different compositions from different directions, along with tsunamis and blasts of water from the sky, overwhelmed all life in a matter of months. The evidence of catastrophe would not be uniform everywhere due to the size and topography of the planet, plus different zones would result in characteristic fossils of those life-forms overtaken by sheets of mud.

Of course, there are links posted to websites that demonstrate single-cell-to-plants-and-animals evolution, but I'd like to see some of these transformations described here in print in condensed form rather than target-shooting the unenlightened. If there are libraries of evidence debunking Creation, then perhaps someone could share and explain some of the main points.
_________________________
The Parable of the Lamb and the Pigpen https://www.createspace.com/3401451 Enter pcode NLRFVMSC for 25% discount


Top
#630495 - 05/07/13 07:03 AM Re: The World According to Darwin [Re: Twilight II]
olger Offline


Registered: 12/26/05
Posts: 11618
Loc: Ohio
Originally Posted By: Twilight II


You did not address the point aimed directly at you Joemo.

God was there, man wasn't.

Who are you going to believe?


Olé
_________________________
"Please don't feed the drama queens.."

Top
Page 6 of 10 < 1 2 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >

Moderator:  Bravus 
.
Shout Box

.
Featured Member
Son
Son
Registered: 04/22/14
Posts: 1
Random visitors over the past few minutes
Amazon Store
Top Posters
pkrause 55791
dgrimm60 53605
John317 33718
Woody 32116
Gail 29316
Shane 26566
Robert 23638
RLH 22226
Amelia 20635
Neil D 18264
Bravus 15454
Gerry Cabalo 15383
bonnie 12229
olger 11618
Naomi 11575
LifeHiscost 10494
Gregory Matthews 9400
rudywoofs 9051
news 8578
teresaq(sda) 8415
Nan 8210
skyblue888 7449
CoAspen 6934
Tom Wetmore 6838
BobRyan 6593
Instant upgrade
Newest Members
Son, Bible Jim, BeegeinMS, khumbu, Dave Wing
5455 Registered Users
Forum Stats
5455 Members
98 Forums
51408 Topics
621266 Posts

Max Online: 4163 @ 03/31/12 01:09 PM
INTERnational Christian Education & Relief Society
(Views)Popular Topics
The Law 9469125
Weekly Bible trivia quiz! 6645778
Word of the Day 4574398
Daily Bible Trivial facts 3482943
Today in Jewish History 3438572
Daily Lift by Rabbi Zelig Pliskin 3359415
2012-13 NBA Season 3331605
WHAT IS RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH? 3319128
Today's Bible Reading 3040306
Lily Pads, by John 317 3014760
Top Posters (30 Days)
pkrause 736
dgrimm60 325
LifeHiscost 109
Gail 104
rudywoofs 90
bonnie 84
Gregory Matthews 71
Naomi 68
debbym 64
CoAspen 63
JoeMo 59
Gerhard 50
M. T. Cross 46
Suzanne Sutton 41
Kevin H 39
Aliensanctuary 38
Samie 37
lazarus 33
Tom Wetmore 30
Sojourner 29
Femster 25
Bravus 23
Stan Jensen 22
RLH 15
Ron Amnsn 14
Adventist Dating
Today's Birthdays
M. T. Cross

ClubAdventist, is a division of the Kingdom of Adventistan,
and is not part of, or affiliated with, or endorsed by The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists headquartered in Silver Spring, Maryland or any of its subsidiaries.
Copyright © 1999 - 2014 ClubAdventist