Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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:   What we must accept if we accept evolution Part 2
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 136 of 301 (282951)
01-31-2006 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Modulous
01-31-2006 5:55 PM


Re: Traditional Christianity is...?
That's fine, I take it as a good suggestion, but when he starts insisting that HIS apostate version IS the true Christianity I do fall for the temptation of answering him. Mea culpa though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Modulous, posted 01-31-2006 5:55 PM Modulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Jazzns, posted 01-31-2006 6:14 PM Faith has replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 137 of 301 (282962)
01-31-2006 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Faith
01-31-2006 5:56 PM


Re: Traditional Christianity is...?
Can you even begin to to fathom that others think YOUR version of Christianity is the one that is abostate?
Do I get an answer or another glib just like your response to Message 117?

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Faith, posted 01-31-2006 5:56 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Faith, posted 01-31-2006 6:26 PM Jazzns has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 138 of 301 (282963)
01-31-2006 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by PaulK
01-31-2006 5:45 PM


Re: Faith once again makes unsupported assertions.
And if we can't discuss the Biblical idea of the Fall or the Bible-based YEC view without talking about the God of the Bible - that IS the God directly associated with each
We can keep the nature of the God philosophical. I've been thinking about these "cruel God" and "weak God" concepts. I don't think they hold much logical water myself. That's why I didn't mention it originally.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by PaulK, posted 01-31-2006 5:45 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by PaulK, posted 02-01-2006 2:35 AM robinrohan has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 139 of 301 (282967)
01-31-2006 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Jazzns
01-31-2006 6:14 PM


Re: Traditional Christianity is...?
Can you even begin to to fathom that others think YOUR version of Christianity is the one that is abostate?
Sure. I know what they think. How is this relevant?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Jazzns, posted 01-31-2006 6:14 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Jazzns, posted 01-31-2006 9:21 PM Faith has not replied

iamaelephant
Inactive Member


Message 140 of 301 (282970)
01-31-2006 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Faith
01-31-2006 5:55 PM


Re: robinrohan once again makes unsupported assertions.
What makes you think you are the only person here who has a proper grasp of the logic? Let's have a look at some of your logic;
Premise 1
The universe was created by an all-loving, omniscient, omnipotent God who is incapable of creating a universe with death, disease and suffering
Premise 2
We live in a universe with death, disease and suffering
Conclusion
Well It's fairly self explanatory, but I'll say it anyway. You claim your God is incompatable with the theory of evolution. I say your God is incompatible with reality. We live in a world where people die and people suffer. Either your God created this world, or this world doesn't exist.
Premise 1
Death and suffering are the results of sin, not of God
Premise 2
God writes the rules. God is omniscient and omnipotent. God is in charge. God knew the consequences yet he lit the fuse to let it happen
Conclusion
God intended a world with death and suffering, as he knew it would happen.
I could go on forever, but frankly I don't see the point. In the latter half of this thread you have done nothing to argue your point against people who contradict your view, resorting instead to glib remarks and spamming you opinion relentlessly without any refutation or new material.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Faith, posted 01-31-2006 5:55 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by iano, posted 01-31-2006 8:45 PM iamaelephant has replied
 Message 160 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-31-2006 11:38 PM iamaelephant has not replied

Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 141 of 301 (282971)
01-31-2006 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Faith
01-31-2006 3:56 PM


What we must accept if we accept 'no death'
Faith writes:
The God of traditional Christianity made a universe of peace and comfort for His creatures. Suffering and death are alien to His character. They came with opposition to Him by His human creatures. Suffering and death are not natural.
You know Faith, I have a problem with that, a problem of simple arithmetic.
Let's suppose that you are right in saying that God didn't originally include death in his creation. That means that it was his intention that no one would die. Let's further make some assumptions about the rate of human reproduction. Let's, for argument's sake, assume - conservatively - that each human produces two children, and - also conservatively - that humans reproduce at age thirty. Let's also assume that the first humans started reproducing six thousand years ago.
If we assume all that, then we can calculate that, if no one ever dies, the current human population would consist of 2(6000/30) people, which comes down to roughly 1.6 x 1060 souls, or about 2.7 x 1050 times the current world population. Oh, to hell with short notation! That's 270.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 times six billion people. If you pack them tightly, the sphere you need to put them in would be larger than the solar system. And not just a bit larger, but a hell of a lot larger. And please remember that the initial assumptions were conservative.
I ask you, did God have a plan where to put all those people? Let alone all the animals that were born and never died in the past six thousand years? Not to mention the plants needed to sustain all of them?
This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 01-Feb-2006 08:21 AM

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Faith, posted 01-31-2006 3:56 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Faith, posted 01-31-2006 6:44 PM Parasomnium has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 142 of 301 (282972)
01-31-2006 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Parasomnium
01-31-2006 6:40 PM


Re: What we must accept if we accept 'no death'
I don't worry about what God WOULD HAVE done if things hadn't fallen out as they did. It is hard enough to reconstruct what things were possibly like in Eden or before the Flood. So I leave it that He knows what He's doing. He made this universe, He can accommodate anything He chooses. We are on a need-to-know basis with Him.
This message has been edited by Faith, 01-31-2006 06:46 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Parasomnium, posted 01-31-2006 6:40 PM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Parasomnium, posted 01-31-2006 6:50 PM Faith has replied

Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 143 of 301 (282974)
01-31-2006 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Faith
01-31-2006 6:44 PM


Re: What we must accept if we accept 'no death'
Faith writes:
It is hard enough to reconstruct what things were possibly like in Eden or before the Flood.
Well, it wasn't really hard for me to reconstruct the consequences of God's original plan. And it turned out that the earth was going to be ludicrously inadequate.
We are on a need-to-know basis with Him.
I think that's a bit too easy, Faith. That's a cop-out and you know it. I had expected something better from you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Faith, posted 01-31-2006 6:44 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Faith, posted 01-31-2006 6:57 PM Parasomnium has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 144 of 301 (282975)
01-31-2006 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Parasomnium
01-31-2006 6:50 PM


Re: What we must accept if we accept 'no death'
So He gives us the entire universe to populate, how should I know? He creates more universes as needed. All the planets are lush like earth. What do you want me to say? It's hard enough, as I said, to imagine what the environment of the early Earth was like from Biblical clues, without trying to imagine the consequences of what MIGHT have happened IF.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Parasomnium, posted 01-31-2006 6:50 PM Parasomnium has not replied

Funkaloyd
Inactive Member


Message 145 of 301 (282979)
01-31-2006 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Faith
01-31-2006 10:02 AM


Is the concept of a "Fall" not a viable excuse?
Faith writes:
Death and suffering came with sin. That's not God's doing.
Death, suffering, mutation and natural selection (which you have previously accepted as real), right? Then why on Earth couldn't evolution have come with sin?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Faith, posted 01-31-2006 10:02 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Faith, posted 01-31-2006 8:35 PM Funkaloyd has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 146 of 301 (282987)
01-31-2006 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Funkaloyd
01-31-2006 7:31 PM


Re: Is the concept of a "Fall" not a viable excuse?
Death, suffering, mutation and natural selection (which you have previously accepted as real), right? Then why on Earth couldn't evolution have come with sin?
What is called evolution is just normal genetic variation according to us YECs. Death no doubt did act on these normal variations since the Fall and produced particular varieties with fitness for survival in the bloody new world. But this is at most "microevolution" (a term I hate but a necessary evil I guess).
But there's no way to be true to the Bible and hold onto the evolution scenario, putting the earth back millions of years, because you have to believe that humanity was created fully human and did not evolve from anything non-human, and that humanity fell into sin at a particular point in time and that death had not occurred at all until that time. There's no way it fits with evolution.
And yes I know there are other beliefs. But this one is incompatible with evolution, and yes it is the traditional Christian belief for the last 2 millennia.
This message has been edited by Faith, 01-31-2006 10:20 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Funkaloyd, posted 01-31-2006 7:31 PM Funkaloyd has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Funkaloyd, posted 02-01-2006 12:01 AM Faith has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 147 of 301 (282992)
01-31-2006 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by iamaelephant
01-31-2006 6:35 PM


Re: robinrohan once again makes unsupported assertions.
I could go on forever, but frankly I don't see the point. In the latter half of this thread you have done nothing to argue your point against people who contradict your view, resorting instead to glib remarks and spamming you opinion relentlessly without any refutation or new material.
There's a rule somewhere about attacking the argument not the person. We all thread over the line at times, but seldom have I seen such haste. Faith has built up a record of respect amongst many here. Not all agree with her views (most don't in fact) and when they attack her they have usually earned the right to give as good as they get. You haven't.
I'm not Admin, so you can tell me where to go - just registering a personal objection
Premise 1
The universe was created by an all-loving, omniscient, omnipotent God who is incapable of creating a universe with death, disease and suffering
Premise 2
We live in a universe with death, disease and suffering
Conclusion
Well It's fairly self explanatory...
One might pose the biblical argument which indicates that God made the Earth without any disease or death or pain or suffering. He handed dominion of it over to man in that state. A not unimportant issue. And man went messing with programming code - after specifically being warned not to. That the result was a mess is down to man - not God. God being incapable of creating a universe with death (if that so be) clashes not with a perfect world buggered up by by man.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by iamaelephant, posted 01-31-2006 6:35 PM iamaelephant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by jar, posted 01-31-2006 9:01 PM iano has not replied
 Message 149 by iamaelephant, posted 01-31-2006 9:11 PM iano has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 148 of 301 (282995)
01-31-2006 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by iano
01-31-2006 8:45 PM


Really
iano writes:
There's a rule somewhere about attacking the argument not the person.
Guess what????????
In the section your quoted:
quote:
I could go on forever, but frankly I don't see the point. In the latter half of this thread you have done nothing to argue your point against people who contradict your view, resorting instead to glib remarks and spamming you opinion relentlessly without any refutation or new material.
the specific subject is the content of the posts and the general lack of pertinent content.
One might pose the biblical argument which indicates that God made the Earth without any disease or death or pain or suffering.
You might if you totally ignore what's written in the Bible.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by iano, posted 01-31-2006 8:45 PM iano has not replied

iamaelephant
Inactive Member


Message 149 of 301 (283000)
01-31-2006 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by iano
01-31-2006 8:45 PM


Re: robinrohan once again makes unsupported assertions.
Maybe you should ready exactly what I said to Faith - I in no way attacked her personally, but attacked the method she used to argue her case - in this instance, there was no argument. Faiths points have been refuted yet she refuses to either accept that she has been shown to be using false logic or to adjust her arguments accordingly. I did exactly what you said I should do - I attacked her argument (or rather, her method of arguing), but certainly not Faith herself.
I also don't appreciate the fact that just because I'm a new user people like you don't think I have the same rights as anyone here to voice my opinions in a debate on a public forum. Not that it's worth saying it here, but I have been reading these forums for quite some time and decided only recently that it was about time to start contributing. Does this really make my opinions less valid?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by iano, posted 01-31-2006 8:45 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Jazzns, posted 01-31-2006 9:30 PM iamaelephant has replied
 Message 157 by Faith, posted 01-31-2006 10:38 PM iamaelephant has not replied
 Message 158 by AdminNWR, posted 01-31-2006 11:13 PM iamaelephant has not replied
 Message 173 by iano, posted 02-01-2006 7:19 AM iamaelephant has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 150 of 301 (283001)
01-31-2006 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Faith
01-31-2006 6:26 PM


Re: Traditional Christianity is...?
Faith writes:
Jazzns previously writes:
Can you even begin to to fathom that others think YOUR version of Christianity is the one that is apostate?
Sure. I know what they think. How is this relevant?
Umm. It is only just because your whole argument in this thread is based upon the premise that you know the true nature of God and that particular nature of God is incompatable with the ToE. The foundation of everything you have built in this thread, all the "logic", completely crumbles once you realize that starting point is based on pure subjectivity.
Did you actually read my post Message 117? You may not have liked what I had to say in it but I basically said exactly the same thing. Your "logic" only works if you define God to be the one of your subjective belief.
I am not saying you are some lone crazy person inventing weird Gods. I know perfectly well that other people have a similar construction of God. My point is that the ToE implies atheism only based on said construction and not on the objective definition of God.

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Faith, posted 01-31-2006 6:26 PM Faith 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