What we must accept if we accept evolution Part 2

All this stuff about who believes what is absolutely irrelevant to the logic involved here.Premise: A God who created a Nature in which in which it is natural for living things to suffer and die is not a good God.It doesn't matter for the sake of this discussion whether this is the "traditional" or nontraditional Christian position.Another premise: The Fall says it was not God but sin that brought death and suffering to the Creation.It doesn't matter for the sake of this discussion whether this is the "traditional" or nontraditional Christian position.Any God who created a Nature in which in which it is natural for living things to suffer and die is compatible with the ToE.It doesn't matter for the sake of this discussion whether this is the "traditional" or nontraditional Christian position.The God who created Nature without suffering and death is not compatible with the ToE.It doesn't matter for the sake of this discussion whether this is the "traditional" or nontraditional Christian position.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-31-2006 05:39 PM

Well, the Logic Challenged are hulking their way to victory by trampling down all the delicate operations of reason as usual. THAT's the way debates are won at EvC.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-31-2006 05:55 PM

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.

Sure. I know what they think. How is this relevant?

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

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.

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

Imagine that. Happens to me 99.999999% of the time.

Just curious. What do you think your contribution amounts to anyway? I mean you have merely joined your voice with oh six seven eight others in condemning my posts. My strange entourage, my anti-groupies. Maybe I should be flattered. You may have the right, but what's the value? I'm thankful to Modulous for recognizing some part of my argument as valid despite his being on the other side, and Robin, who originated this topic, though he and I disagree on probably 90% of what is argued here at EvC. Iano's my brother of course, but he hasn't been in on the argument. And Phat, but I wasn't sure what his point was. Otherwise everybody else is in lockstep. But hey, welcome to the entourage. Please move to the back of the bus.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-01-2006 09:36 AM

How is this possible? I thought I showed pretty clearly that it isn't.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-01-2006 12:19 AM

I'm content with that. That has been traditional Christianity, the religion of the West, until the last 150 years or so, when Liberal Christianity came along, which is what those 10000 on jar's list represent -- including Deism, which is basically an earlier form of Liberal Christianity. Until that recently there hasn't been any other concept of God and Creation to think about in the West. Darwinism was a major influence in the overall rejection of God in the West, the atheism that is so common now. It's really academic at best to include all these other conceptions of God in this discussion. The Deist or Liberal idea of God and Creation is the only real contender, and that conception denies the Fall {abe: and the creation of human beings} and is compatible with evolution. But the traditional "literal" belief isn't.So it comes down to having to accept either atheism or the watered-down God of Liberal Theology if you accept evolution.I couldn't follow your scenario in the linked message. It makes no sense to me. You'll have to explain better.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-01-2006 08:09 AM

I don't follow much of Randman's arguments, and can't judge their validity, but I am very sure his motives aren't anything like what you are saying. Most believers are intrigued by what we see outlined and hinted at in the Bible, and what the creationists have made of it, and how it conflicts with the Establishment point of view.Belief in the God of the Bible comes with a whole new perspective on Absolutely Everything, especially in this age of evolutionism and other anti-Biblical philosophies. The possibilities the Bible opens up are exciting and new and apparently endless.For many of us, and I'm sure Randman is one, there is no *need* to pursue these things, certainly not as far as our own faith goes, but it looks like it could possibly be useful for making a case for God to others, and it's also just fun to think about them -- up to the point that the sense of certainty on the opposing side gets rude anyway.It is also felt to be a duty, to do what we can to contrast God's revelation with the world's understanding. I know some lose or compromise their faith on encountering the aggressive certainties of Science, and that's too bad, and that's another reason for those with strong belief in the Biblical revelation to do what we can. It's sad to see faith stolen by such stuff.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-01-2006 08:26 PM

Well, you said that faith is irrational and unprovable. It appears that your own is not irrational although it is unprovable by empirical tests. No faith is irrational. There are always reasons for it.Irrationality describes a misreading of reality, a misinterpretation of perceptual clues and that sort of thing. But the observation that the universe is consistently rule-driven, and that that fact implies a Ruler who made it, is a rational assessment. Although I disagree that Evolution is compatible with the Creator, I can appreciate that a sincere belief in its lawfulness could be part of the assessment that led you to belief in a Creator. The lawfulness of nature is a strong evidence for God. There is nothing irrational about it.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-01-2006 08:34 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 02-02-2006 08:30 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 02-02-2006 08:30 AM

I don't think so. Again, the assessment that the lawfulness of nature strongly implies a Creator is not irrational at all. True, but irrelevant to this discussion as far as I can see. Now THAT is an irrational statement. There is no such thing as a mere belief. Liberal Theology made up the idea of a "blind leap of faith" because they couldn't cope logically with the assault of Darwinism on the faith. But nobody who *truly* believes, believes without rational grounds. {abe: I agree with Iano that true faith is a gift of God, as long as that doesn't imply that it exists somehow apart from everyday practical observation and experience}.To the extent you are right, that there are many who do have a groundless belief, then that belief will not sustain them when it comes to a test. If "they" shackled you in a dark place with sewage up to your waist and rising, and rats nibbling at your exposed flesh, would you deny Christ to be set free? How many who have this "irrational belief" do you think would? The observation of a lawful universe supports it just fine. Evolutionists certainly seem to believe that a lawful universe could simply have happened without such a cause, or a designer, or a mind that brought it about, but THAT's the irrational belief. Lawfulness implies a law-maker; design implies a designer. All this means is that you have given up trying to defend your belief.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-02-2006 10:54 AM

I thought it possible you would say something like this but found it hard to believe anyway, that anyone would deny the martyrs. So you think those who refused to deny Jesus when the Caesars demanded it, and went to the lions and suffered being burned as torches, and all the other martyrdoms down the centuries thereafter, were just laughable fools. And those all over the world now, who refuse to deny Christ in the face of imprisonments and torching of their villages and beheadings and other atrocities, likewise just fools.