|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: two important questions for Servant | |||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
The large majority of Christian denominations worldwide believe in an old Earth. The largest Christian group in the world, Catholics, are Theistic Evolutionists. An old earth yes, evolution?.... Catholics? --> Seeing how long you can stare at a statue of Mary without blinking - doesn't make you a christian. I remember going to church out of fear of going to hell, I thought if I clocked up enough Sunday visits I would be saved. I also wonder why I was forced to repeat prayers to "mother of God". Also - I took evolution for granted - most christians do, because they haven't heard of creationism. I think when you are christian, you take creationism, in the same way an atheist might take evolution as truth. A+E=Cake and cream, just be honest......you know it. Didn't you yourself come to a Godless conclusion because of evolution?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Perhaps you should discuss this with the 40% of scientists who believe in God? It is YOUR minority, radical religious view that contradicts a particular part of Biological science. That makes your cognitive dissonace YOUR problem, not science's.
quote: Right, a big conspiracy among scientists. Care to provide one of these "valid arguments" that scientists are suppressing?
quote: Evidence, dude, evidence, evidence, evidence. You keep forgetting that it is the EVIDENCE that drives scientific theories. Theories are simply explanations of why the evidnece appears as it does.
quote: Absolutely, completely wrong. Below is a website that provides many evidences in support of macroevolution complete with potential falsifications. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent Scientists generally bend over backwards in their professional papers to show how their conclusions could be wrong. However, just as a research Pathologist is not going to go into great detail about the way their idea supports the Germ Theory of Disease, an Evolutionary Biologist is not going to spend much time on the basis of evolutionary theory.
quote: It has? To whom, and when? [This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-17-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
Absolutely, completely wrong. Below is a website that provides many evidences in support of macroevolution complete with potential falsifications. I think s/he means people do not look for evidence against evolution. As in, they would not look for what something like creation might say. For example, if you now pretend creation happened, what would you then look for? Yes, it may seem un-scientific to assume creation. But if I show that a living fossil could show creation, you would immediately think, "No, because evolution says...". IOW, you then assume evolution has the correct explanation even though there is a possible creationist explanation. Your too busy trying to show evolution and showing creationism as wrong, to actually consider creationism, and the alternative view it might have concerning evidence. SO, there is a possible explanation of creationism, yet because of the "assumption" of creation, as - if you like, the starting point - you reject it because it doesn't fit the man-made way of doing things = evidence then explanation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: And you are somehow the judge of who is allowed to call themselves Christian? Your snide, dismissive comment about staring at a statue is also quite insulting to Catholics, I would say. I should think that someone who calls themselves a Christian, including Catholics, would be considered a Christian.
quote: If any Athiest takes evolution as a Christian takes Creationism, they are believing for the wrong reasons. they are believing through ignorance.
quote: Um, no. I'm an agnostic, but not because of Evolution. I've always accepted the evidence because I've always liked science and have never been forced by my religion to reject it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
My "snide" comment didn't refer to the catholics.
I'm an agnostic, but not because of Evolution. Do you think there is a possibility of God? Yes/no answer please. [This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-17-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 477 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
Mike writes: Lam - you think I am insane right? I once accepted evolution for many years. If I am so closed minded why did I change? Like Servant2thecause also changed. And recently I have came closer to accepting evolution again. I would be insane to listen to anyone who says I am closed minded, that's for sure. I feel a little childish for saying this, but you started it. I do not think you are insane. I just think you are mislead, but that is my personal opinion. I only used the insane thing as an analogy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Exactly. That's because scientists dont go out looking for evidence to support any particular conclusion. They test theories by gathering evidence and THEN seeing if the evidence confirms the theories. If it doesn't, the theory is not supported, if it does, it is.
quote: I don't know, why not ask a Creationist? These are exactly the kinds of questions creationists DON'T ask, because it is dangerously close to setting themselves up to the possibility of being wrong.
quote: Not "seem". IS unscientific.
quote: Nope. I would want to see more evidence.
quote: No. The Creationists don't explain anything adequately. Their explanations have thus far been incomplete; they do not explain ALL of the evidnece, or other evidence contradicts their conclusions.
quote: Mike, I have done nothing on these boards for the last 4 years if I haven't asked, pleaded, and begged Creationists for real scientific evidence to support their claims. I haven't even been able to get a basic testable Theory of Creation from any of them.
quote: No, there isn't. At least, I have never been shown one, despite years of asking.
quote: The man-made way works. The Bible based way doesn't. I like methodology that works, so I use it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Yes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 477 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
Servant2thecause writes: All evolution aside for the moment, that alone is enough to convince me of the existence of God. Now, going to prove that that same God is the Creator of EVERYTHING else I see and is the same God who loves me and sent his Son to die for me is a longer process that requires a perfect balance of logic, faith, reasoning, and growing wisdom which comes from keeping an open mind. I would accept this explanation as a valid argument if the Judeo-Christian God is the only one out there. However, we do not have such a case in reality. We have the Greek creation myth that placed Gaea as the first being in the universe, who begot Uranus and the rest of the Titans. We have the Egyptian creation myth who placed Re Atum as the first God who created the other 3 first Gods and they all created the world as we know it. Besides that, we have the Chinese, Indian, Sumerian, Babylonian, Mayan, etc... who all had a different version of the creation myth. So, how the freaking hell are we supposed to know which one is the right one? I could go outside, look at the trees, and say, "thank Zeus for that wonderful trees!" Tell me why your God is more genuine than the other gods out there. Tell me why I should toss out everything I've learned about the natural world and start believing in your mythological figure. [This message has been edited by Lam, 04-17-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Clark's third law:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Nosy's corrollory: One who posseses that technology would be indistinguishable from God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 477 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
Mike, I have done nothing on these boards for the last 4 years if I haven't asked, pleaded, and begged Creationists for real scientific evidence to support their claims. I, too, have been asking for some kind of real evidence to support the creationist view. All I've gotten are quotes from the bible and the ever famous "you need to believe to see Him." My question is how do you know it is not hallucination when you see something but nobody else could? I can't start saying that because I see a dead girl in my room (but noone else can) then that proves that ghosts exist. I have to have something more solid than that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 477 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
Ned writes: Clark's third law:Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Nosy's corrollory: One who posseses that technology would be indistinguishable from God.
This is something that I occasionally use to present an alternate explanation for all the so-called miracles that were mentioned in the bible. How do we know that they were not the work of some magicians, or illusionists? In fact, how do we know that they were not done by extraterrestrials? The movie Stargate offers just as a valid theory about religion as the bible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1504 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Well the miracle accounts could just be fiction altogether let alone a magic trick. I lump miracle accounts along with virgin birth and parting of the red sea, and burning bush. But saying that doesnt not change the importance of the Bible or change the great things it has to say.
"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I ASSUME you meant non-mobile? No, I meant what I wrote - the word is "non-motile", as in, having no ability to move. (The words are probably synonyms.)
First off, "well-sorted" suggests what, exactly? That, with few or no exceptions, you find simple plants and lichens in the lower strata, ferns above them, then other seeded plants, then flowering plants, and then grasses, etc. There's a very clear progression of complexity as you go up in the strata. This isn't an "interpretation", it's an observation.
Likewise, we do not find in the geologic strata any evidence of gradual accumulation (no evidence that the layers really DO mean different ages). Regardless of how much absolute time the geologic column represents, we know that there's a progression of relative time, simply because you can't deposit strata under other strata - only on top of them. So we know that the bottom layers are older than the newer ones. I've made no particular statements about the absolute age of any of the strata because it's not yet relevant to the argument. The simple fact is that you have simple plants at the bottom of the strata and complex ones at the top, and an observed gradient of complexity in between. What's the cause?
Thus, a Flood in Noah's lifetime would have had catastrophic significance in determining how and where certain organisms would be burried and petrified. Indeed it would - if all plant species represented in the fossil record are in fact contemporaneous, then we would expect the flood to blend them - we would expect the fossils of all plant species to be evenly distributed through the geologic layers. That's not what we see at all. As far as I can tell, the fact that the fossil plant record is sorted by complexity (and that's a fact, not an "interpretation") is evidence that your flood model is wrong. Now, do you have an explanation? Why is the fossil plant record sorted by complexity? Don't just ignore the evidence by telling me that it's an "interpretation", because it's not. It's an observation that I expect you to explain, not dismiss. If you expect creationism to be taken seriously then you have to explain the patterns in the fossil record, not simply claim there's no patterns at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Simple fact is, believe in God and you don't NEED an answer to what gravity is made of, what CAUSES magnetic polarity, why energy decreases in intensity in a closed system, etc. Yeah - in fact, why bother to find out anything if the answer is always "God"? Goodbye, science. Goodbye, technology. Hello, Neo-Dark Ages! We've made a great deal of advancement in centuries past because of the assumption that there's usually a better answer to natural questions than "goddiddit". I guess you'd like to turn back the clock, but maybe the rest of us aren't so keen, you know?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024