Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Great Compromise
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 16 of 58 (421106)
09-11-2007 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Utrimque
09-09-2007 2:33 PM


Utrimque writes:
The Great Compromise
Allow me to introduce an analogy.
There are people that actually believe in a flat earth. Then there are those of us that believe the earth is more or less a sphere. So, let's compromise and say that the earth is a cube.
See how silly this notion of compromise is when we are talking about facts?

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Utrimque, posted 09-09-2007 2:33 PM Utrimque has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-11-2007 5:31 PM Taz has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 17 of 58 (421239)
09-11-2007 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Taz
09-11-2007 12:59 AM


Allow me to introduce an analogy that actually works. There are people who believe the Earth is round, there are people who believe that the Earth is round and that God in his ineffable wisdom wanted it that way; and there are people who go around saying that they know the world is flat 'cos God says so and everyone who disagrees with them are atheists who will burn in the eternal firey pits of Hell.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Taz, posted 09-11-2007 12:59 AM Taz has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 18 of 58 (421240)
09-11-2007 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Ihategod
09-11-2007 12:35 AM


Re: SICKO
What kind of sick god would use evolution as a mechanism for developing spiritual creatures? Or for the less metaphysic, natural creatures?
I'll tell you: A sick perverted god who enjoys suffering and death and if it is true get ready for the fire cuz we're goin' ta burn!
Could you explain what you find "sick" and "perverted" about a God who permits evolution?
Do bear in mind that if there is a God, then that's the sort of God we've got.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Ihategod, posted 09-11-2007 12:35 AM Ihategod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Ihategod, posted 09-12-2007 6:16 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 19 of 58 (421256)
09-11-2007 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Utrimque
09-09-2007 2:33 PM


Welcome to the fray Utrimque,
In their most basic sense it means that god created the universe, big bang, and all of its/his/her laws are merely tools for making sure that every thing runs smoothly.
Couldn't god use evolution, knowing that humans would be created as a result?
Why stop there? God could also use those laws to ensure that life develops where ever it can in a universe designed for maximum production of life?
Of course the end result doesn't have to be human. It just happens that this has been the result here.
Enjoy.
ps - type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on formating questions when in the reply window.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Utrimque, posted 09-09-2007 2:33 PM Utrimque has not replied

  
Utrimque
Junior Member (Idle past 6041 days)
Posts: 7
Joined: 09-09-2007


Message 20 of 58 (421292)
09-11-2007 9:33 PM


'Theistic evolution' is merely a way of showing that the universe could run in a specific way with god's intent or without. I'm not saying that you need to believe in god in order for life to run smoothly (if that was the case then people would be bursting into flames more often) I am using this as a point to show that creationism doesn't have to mean that the earth was created in the last 6 thousand years, and it doesn't exclude evolution. It's less of a compromise and more of a demonstration. As well as the fact that death isn't a bad thing, it's necessary for the continuation of life, because if nothing dies then all the nutrients become used up and causes a general mess. It is a quiet and simple system that causes change when needed and prevents it when unnecessary. Personally a static list of species would be more cruel, for if the temperature changed a few degrees we would loose all of our diversity.

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 09-12-2007 1:26 AM Utrimque has not replied
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 09-12-2007 10:20 AM Utrimque has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 21 of 58 (421322)
09-12-2007 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Utrimque
09-11-2007 9:33 PM


I am using this as a point to show that creationism doesn't have to mean that the earth was created in the last 6 thousand years, and it doesn't exclude evolution.
I think you'll find that it does; if only because the only single position all the disparate camps of creationism can agree on is that they, universally, deny the scientific consensus of common descent and evolution via mutation and natural selection.
And personally I don't particularly see why there needs to be any compromise at all. Evolution is largely true; it's the scientific, accurate explanation of the history and diversity of life on Earth. Any competing model derived from religion instead of science is necessarily wrong and inaccurate; I don't see the point of "compromising" between good science and bad religion, between the truth (as we understand it) and delusion.
There's a fringe controversy, of course, here where we're in the middle of it; but creationists have never, ever prevented meaningful biology from being done. Most biologists are only distantly aware that there's any sort of public controversy at all.
Why do we need the compromise? Creationists are wrong and impotent. What's worth compromising with, there?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Utrimque, posted 09-11-2007 9:33 PM Utrimque has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 22 of 58 (421360)
09-12-2007 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Utrimque
09-11-2007 9:33 PM


'Theistic evolution' is ...
Also rejected by staunch creationists, especially the YEC types.
See Creationism - Wikipedia and the discussion on types of creationism.
You are expecting all people to be rational.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Utrimque, posted 09-11-2007 9:33 PM Utrimque has not replied

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 6029 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 23 of 58 (421438)
09-12-2007 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Dr Adequate
09-11-2007 5:47 PM


Re: SICKO
Could you explain what you find "sick" and "perverted" about a God who permits evolution?
Do bear in mind that if there is a God, then that's the sort of God we've got.
If God made death and suffering as a mechanism to bring about life, he is reservered words far worse than sick and perverted. However, God is perfect, we humans are not and a woman brought it in and a man tried to save her so were all furked. That's ok, i don't mind living in shit because we were promised much more and better. I'll do my time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-11-2007 5:47 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by nator, posted 09-12-2007 6:27 PM Ihategod has not replied
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 09-12-2007 10:50 PM Ihategod has replied
 Message 31 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-13-2007 2:38 AM Ihategod has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 24 of 58 (421442)
09-12-2007 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Ihategod
09-12-2007 6:16 PM


Re: SICKO
quote:
God is perfect
Says who?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Ihategod, posted 09-12-2007 6:16 PM Ihategod has not replied

  
Utrimque
Junior Member (Idle past 6041 days)
Posts: 7
Joined: 09-09-2007


Message 25 of 58 (421474)
09-12-2007 8:12 PM


Wow! This is like walking into the middle of a paintball match with only a shirt and some shorts. Nobody seems to like me! (you probably do, you just don't agree with me)
Crashfrog, you're as likely to make me an atheist as you're going to make a rock evolve. I'm not saying that my opinions or my science is derived on god. It's like saying the paint is white because it reflects most of the light hitting it or saying it is white because that is the color the artist chose, in some peoples mind only the former is true, and other refuse that light is involved. I'm saying I view both as equally correct statements and that neither negates the other, not that the artist existence affects the fact that white paint reflects light.
I also think YECs are ridiculous,and if I expected people to be rational I wouldn't be posting here!
As well as the fact that if someone knew that god was or wasn't perfect then I want his phone number!

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by arachnophilia, posted 09-12-2007 9:26 PM Utrimque has not replied
 Message 32 by Stile, posted 09-13-2007 10:25 AM Utrimque has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 26 of 58 (421486)
09-12-2007 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Utrimque
09-09-2007 2:33 PM


It's not a Compromise, but Rather the Truth.
I've long known that religion and science do not contradict each other, as have most creationists.
Now careful! Consider this from my website (No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/new_index.html -- I apologize for it ahead of time; I was trying to rewrite it when life events overtook me, so it is somewhat fragmentary):
quote:
Creation science is not creationism.
- Creationism is belief in creation by supernatural beings or through supernatural means. Most of the creation traditions are non-Judeo-Christian-Islamic.
- Even within the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions, there are several different forms of creationism. The form that creation science is tied to is but one of these several different forms and is held by a distinct minority of believers.
- Creation science started out as a legalistic deception designed to circumvent the courts after the overturning of the "monkey laws" subsequent to Epperson vs Arkansas (1968)
So I draw a distinction between general belief in a Divine Creator and the specific claims and theology of "creation science". Therefore, even though "creation science" has usurped the name "creationist" to only mean themselves, it should still apply to all believers in a Creator.
"Creation science" would divide the world between "creationists" and "evolutionists". By "evolutionist", they mean anyone who accepts evolution and they describe "evolutionists" as being atheists. Yet most "evolutionists" are believing theists and even believe in God the Creator. Hence, most "evolutionists" are also creationists. And they see no conflict.
The entire "creation/evolution controversy" is an invention of "creation science". Science does not contradict religion; science cannot deal with the realm that religion does and does not try to. The only way in which the two will conflict is when religion makes claims about the physical world that are just plain wrong; in that case, science cannot help but to show those particular claims of religion are in error. In that case, the fault lies with religion making contrary-to-fact claims.
From my site (rather than rewriting):
quote:
Certainly, a Christian needs to harmonize the real world with his beliefs. But a successful harmonization requires that he deal with the facts of the real world. Creation science's approach to harmonization is to deny the facts and to fabricate contrary-to-fact claims. Contrary-to-fact claims that they insist must be true or else "Scripture has no meaning" and so they must abandon their faith.
So when a believer in creation science finally can no longer ignore that its claims are contrary-to-fact, it should come as no surprise what his next action is -- to abandon his faith.
Yes, a Christian needs to harmonize the real world with his beliefs. But creation science is not the way to a successful harmonization.
Why would a Christian feel that he would need to abandon his faith? Because that is what "creation science" teaches him that he must do!
quote:
When a Christian loses his faith and sides with evolution, it is because of what his religion taught him, not because of evolution. It is creation science, not science, that teaches that you must choose. It is creation science, not science, that teaches that you must throw the Bible away and abandon your faith should evolution turn out to be true.
quote:
- Christians should be expected -- even required -- to believe in a Divine Creator, but they should not be required to believe in creation science, nor even in young-earth creationism. Even Christians belonging to sects that require belief in young-earth creationism should not be required to believe in creation science.
- Opposition to creation science does not constitute opposition to creationism nor to Christianity. Many opponents of creation science are themselves Christians and creationists. It should be viewed as a personal affront to those Christians when anti-evolutionists depict the opponents of creation science as being "atheists."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Utrimque, posted 09-09-2007 2:33 PM Utrimque has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 27 of 58 (421488)
09-12-2007 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Utrimque
09-12-2007 8:12 PM


Wow! This is like walking into the middle of a paintball match with only a shirt and some shorts.
hi, welcome to EvC!
the "pile on" has a habit of happening to new members, especially religious ones. it's a kind of vicious circle. a lot of people come here to preach, but run away pretty quickly, which means that when real debate happens, everybody jumps on it. thus, scaring people away.
i wouldn't worry too much -- a lot of people here DO agree with your position. sort of. "creationism" is a bad choice of wording, but religion and science are not totally incompatible, and a lot of people do consider themselves theistic-evolutionists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Utrimque, posted 09-12-2007 8:12 PM Utrimque has not replied

  
Utrimque
Junior Member (Idle past 6041 days)
Posts: 7
Joined: 09-09-2007


Message 28 of 58 (421490)
09-12-2007 9:41 PM


What a nice change of pace!
Thank you so much for your assurance, it's nice to know that my first post is such a nice argumentative point is wonderful and I will most definitely continue to post.

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by arachnophilia, posted 09-12-2007 10:01 PM Utrimque has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 29 of 58 (421492)
09-12-2007 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Utrimque
09-12-2007 9:41 PM


btw, if you use the "reply" button at the bottom of the post you're replying to, the sub-threads and conversations will be easier to follow, and the person you're replying to will get a notification.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Utrimque, posted 09-12-2007 9:41 PM Utrimque has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 30 of 58 (421498)
09-12-2007 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Ihategod
09-12-2007 6:16 PM


Re: SICKO - as you say
If God made death and suffering as a mechanism to bring about life, he is reservered words far worse than sick and perverted.
How is this different if your god created the same conditions for such life?
If death and suffering are part and parcel of one they are part and parcel of the other.
And of course, we can look to the bible for a source of much death and suffering ...
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Ihategod, posted 09-12-2007 6:16 PM Ihategod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Ihategod, posted 09-16-2007 2:02 AM RAZD has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024