Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why is Evolution at odds with Christianity?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 46 of 56 (49978)
08-11-2003 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by paul nicholson
08-11-2003 9:21 AM


Dont you fear God?
Who fears what does not exist?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by paul nicholson, posted 08-11-2003 9:21 AM paul nicholson has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 56 (50002)
08-11-2003 5:14 PM


Doesn't it say, in the New Testament, that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of GOD." Does this do away with Original Sin, and therefore the need for a literal Adam and Eve? Comparing the Old Covenant with the New seems like a shift in paradigm, a move from actions (Sabbath, dietary practices, sacrifices) to having an intermediary (Jesus, or the saints if you're Catholic).

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 48 of 56 (50009)
08-11-2003 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Yaro
07-12-2003 2:23 AM


Biblical literalism has always seemed self-defeating to me. I'm sure most Christians do not expect the Bible to educate them concerning science. Examining Genesis for clues about cosmology and ancient biology is more coldly materialistic than any scientific investigation.
Jesus is quoted as telling his disciples (don't ask me for the citation) that they are in this world, but not of this world. Let's be honest, the hypothesis of common descent makes it quite explicit that humans are most certainly of this world in that we share our genetic heritage with every living creature in it. Anyone repulsed by such a prospect shows contempt for the wonders of the world they attribute to the creative powers of their God.
I don't feel that acknowledging the facts of the history of life on Earth constitutes a denial of realistic religious faith. I don't think the existence of a naturalistic mechanism that explains biological complexity refutes the existence of God. Above all, I don't expect science to find anything other than natural causes for natural phenomena.
------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerto es el Rey.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Yaro, posted 07-12-2003 2:23 AM Yaro has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 49 of 56 (50017)
08-11-2003 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by paul nicholson
08-11-2003 9:21 AM


You are a mere speck on this earth. Dont you fear God?
I know that I'm a mere speck, and that bothers me not at all.
Don't you fear the Invisible Pink Unicorn? She can get pretty irritable sometimes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by paul nicholson, posted 08-11-2003 9:21 AM paul nicholson has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 50 of 56 (50064)
08-12-2003 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by paul nicholson
08-11-2003 9:21 AM


Dont you fear God?
I fear God.
But that's not why I'm writing. I was curious why most everyone else warranted a response, but you ignored my post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by paul nicholson, posted 08-11-2003 9:21 AM paul nicholson has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 51 of 56 (50090)
08-12-2003 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by paul nicholson
08-11-2003 8:53 AM


paul nicholson writes:
quote:
So has man in his wisdom,ever created anything that reproduces itself again and again?
Yes. Do a search for "self-replicating molecules." While you're at it, look up "autocatalyzing" and "homochiral," too. Here's one reference to get you started:
A chiroselective peptide replicator
quote:
No Man would like to but cannot.
But that simply isn't true.
Now that you know differently, what are you going to do about your statement?
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by paul nicholson, posted 08-11-2003 8:53 AM paul nicholson has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by truthlover, posted 08-13-2003 4:24 PM Rrhain has not replied
 Message 56 by truthlover, posted 08-13-2003 4:27 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 52 of 56 (50109)
08-12-2003 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by paul nicholson
08-11-2003 9:01 AM


Paul N,
Hi Mark 24, You may not take my argument seriously but you will take God seriously when you face him one day.
You are going to get testicular cancer & die horribly if you don't accept my argument, if you are married, your wife will suffer horrific ovarian cysts that will explode in slow motion.
Do you see why I'm not taking your vile threat seriously? But since you bring up Pascals wager, it's only reasonable to point out that an appeal to force is yet another logical flaw in your reasoning.
Do you really have nothing substantive to respond to message 28 with?
You purported to to have refuted evolution based on odds, that argument is flawed, it is based upon a misrepresentation of the ToE.
Mark
------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."
[This message has been edited by mark24, 08-12-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by paul nicholson, posted 08-11-2003 9:01 AM paul nicholson has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 53 of 56 (50111)
08-12-2003 8:55 AM


Moving This Topic
Rather than continue to fruitlessly attempt to keep discussion here from diverging onto theological topics, I'll move this thread to a more appropriate forum.
------------------
--Percy
EvC Forum Administrator

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 54 of 56 (50112)
08-12-2003 8:55 AM


Thread moved here from the Evolution forum.

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 55 of 56 (50404)
08-13-2003 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Rrhain
08-12-2003 6:27 AM


Rrhain,
I don't think your link (A chiroselective peptide replicator)says that anyone "made" this peptide replicator. The wording of the paragraph on that page is terribly complicated, so maybe I'm missing something, but the most it appears to say is:
"Here we report that a 32-residue peptide replicator, designed according to our earlier principles, is capable of efficiently amplifying homochiral products from a racemic mixture of peptide fragments through a chiroselective autocatalytic cycle."
That doesn't say they, anyone else, or even nature made it. It just says that if someone (or nature) did make it, it is capable of replicating peptide fragments (I think).
Do a search for "self-replicating molecules."
I did that, too, but after going to a couple sites, I still didn't have anything real solid. The first hit was EVCforum! Actually, that wasn't a bad link (http://EvC Forum: Self Replicating molecules -->EvC Forum: Self Replicating molecules).
I'm not arguing that no one has created anything self-replicating. If no one has, I'm sure someone eventually will. However, those links didn't work very well for me, and I'm not even an opponent.
I guess if you're asking paul nicholson to do a lot of research through those links, they'll do. I just thought since you chose an example, maybe you could have picked a better one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Rrhain, posted 08-12-2003 6:27 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 56 of 56 (50405)
08-13-2003 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Rrhain
08-12-2003 6:27 AM


This one would appear to work pretty well for us non-scientific types, and it gives links to Ghadiri's peptides if people want more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Rrhain, posted 08-12-2003 6:27 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024