Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Design evidence # 177: male & female
wehappyfew
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 101 (31180)
02-03-2003 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by DanskerMan
01-30-2003 9:40 AM


Let me see if I can follow the theological logic here (sorry, I'm not very good at theology, being devoutly agnostic)...
1. Humans not being animals is evidence that we are the product of the Designer, not evolution.
2. But the only unique evidence cited so far indicating that humans are NOT animals is the Word of Ecclesiastes that humans without God are merely animals.
3. Is not the assumption of a God or Designer required in step 2?
4. Therefore the presumed existence of God is used as "proof" of the existence of that God... also known as begging the question.
Is this actually allowed in theological arguments?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by DanskerMan, posted 01-30-2003 9:40 AM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by DanskerMan, posted 02-03-2003 10:57 PM wehappyfew has replied

  
DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 101 (31192)
02-03-2003 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by wehappyfew
02-03-2003 6:57 PM


quote:
Let me see if I can follow the theological logic here (sorry, I'm not very good at theology, being devoutly agnostic)...
1. Humans not being animals is evidence that we are the product of the Designer, not evolution.
Correct.
quote:
2. But the only unique evidence cited so far indicating that humans are NOT animals is the Word of Ecclesiastes that humans without God are merely animals.
Incorrect, you must've missed some posts.
other evidence included:
- ability to control fire
- we bury our dead
- we make and use tools (not rocks like the apes)
- our creativity (art, engineering, etc)
- we think about life after death and our mortality
- we think about our brain
- we use speech and communicate many ways (spoken, written, sign language, etc)
- we have dominion over the animals (this aint no "planet of the apes")
Regards,
S
------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by wehappyfew, posted 02-03-2003 6:57 PM wehappyfew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by John, posted 02-03-2003 11:12 PM DanskerMan has not replied
 Message 49 by wehappyfew, posted 02-03-2003 11:15 PM DanskerMan has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 101 (31194)
02-03-2003 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by DanskerMan
02-03-2003 10:57 PM


quote:
Incorrect, you must've missed some posts.
And they've all been addressed.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by DanskerMan, posted 02-03-2003 10:57 PM DanskerMan has not replied

  
wehappyfew
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 101 (31195)
02-03-2003 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by DanskerMan
02-03-2003 10:57 PM


sonnike writes:
Incorrect, you must've missed some posts.
other evidence included:
[snippity list]
You must have missed the reponses to your list which point out that those same qualities exist to one degree or another in many other animals besides humans.
And that many humans do not possess all those qualities... are they animals and not human by your definition?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by DanskerMan, posted 02-03-2003 10:57 PM DanskerMan has not replied

  
lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 101 (31203)
02-04-2003 1:46 AM


wehappyfew:
2. But the only unique evidence cited so far indicating that humans are NOT animals is the Word of Ecclesiastes that humans without God are merely animals.
Worse, I've read that part of Ecclesiastes, and there is no "without God" qualification -- we will end up like the animals, no matter what.
Furthermore, nobody really knows who that book's Preacher really is; like most of the rest of the Bible, its author(s) is/are anonymous.

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 101 (31206)
02-04-2003 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by DanskerMan
02-03-2003 11:55 AM


FYI the first guy which says that humans are primates was a Swedish creationist by the name of Carolus Linnaeus.
yes, I think evos agree on that. Some creationists also. Ask Michael Behe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by DanskerMan, posted 02-03-2003 11:55 AM DanskerMan has not replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 101 (31207)
02-04-2003 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by DanskerMan
02-03-2003 2:18 PM


I wonder if the footnotes are also the Word of God...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by DanskerMan, posted 02-03-2003 2:18 PM DanskerMan has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 53 of 101 (31365)
02-04-2003 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by DanskerMan
02-03-2003 2:18 PM


Sonnikke, I want to walk you through this carefully.
You encouraged people to reject ToE and read the Bible which (according to you) says that humans and animals are not the same. Number 1 on your list of differences is that animals don't have spirits.
Then someone quotes a passage from the Bible (Ecclesiastes 3) which refutes that humans and animals are different (other than in the obvious physiological ways).
Your reply was that "you have to read the book in context, what he is actually saying is that without God life is meaningless and we are no different than the animals."
So I went to the Bible and read the entirety of Ecclesiastes and found that there was nothing in the Bible to put that passage "into context" as you said. In fact, it was worse for you because that passage clearly states that animals have spirits.
When I pointed this out, your response was that I shouldn't have read the Bible (written by God or men inspired by God)in order to understand what God's message was. What I was supposed to do was read a FOOTNOTE written by some unknown person and added to one specific edition of the Bible.
This footnote puts Ecclesiastes "into context" by saying the wiseman is erroneous and only exists to show what happens when man's worldly wisdom replaces god's wisdom. Such wisdom is false and leads to ruin, apparently implying that the person who took this man's advice fell into ruin because of it.
Please address the following problems posed with that footnote:
1) Given that men and their "worldly wisdom" (which is all men can offer)are fallable, why are we supposed to trust MEN like the footnote maker to modify or "qualify" God's wisdom (as written in the Bible) using only their own judgements as criteria (remember he points to nothing within the Bible which overtly states that Ecclesiastes is incorrect)?
2) If we posit that some men COULD have enough "worldly wisdom" to offer modifications to the "greatest story ever told", how are people to distinguish which men are right when they offer competing bits of wisdom (how can we tell one of them is not inspired by the devil)??
3) Indeed this particular notemaker seems mistaken... He claims the wiseman speaks of "worldly wisdom" as contrary to "god's wisdom", yet other than the paragraph on animals and a few non-PC attitudes, what statements are made in Ecclesiastes which are not in accordance with current Xtian belief???
4) As it is he doesn't even agree with you. In your first statement regarding this passage you said the wiseman was telling people what life is like without God. But the footnote writer implies the wiseman is simply telling us what life is like (which was my contention), and it is only through inference (if you believe the writer) that we learn how man's wisdom fails compared to God's wisdom. Was your first response wrong and his interpretation takes precedence????
5) Let's assume the Footnote writer's opinion is superior to your own as well as the Bible. Since he instructs us to reject the wiseman's "worldly wisdom", we must necessarily reject the wiseman's conclusion which YOU YOURSELF quoted as something to be followed! Don't you remember his admonition to fear God and keep his commandments? Since this was the wiseman's crowning advice is the footnote maker saying others who followed that advice were ruined?????
6) If you are going to tell me the footnote must be put in context and realize not all of the wisdom in the footnote is true, then how are we supposed to determine anything from the Bible??????
These problems are pretty weighty, but they don't even exist if you take a look at Ecclesiastes without the mental baggage.
In a nutshell, Ecclesiastes is about a wise man recounting his experiences in life to show that nothing in life should be taken too seriously. In the end we shouldn't worry ourselves too much seeking things like justice,riches,pleasure,and knowledge. This is because our inability to fully understand the world, our impotence to correct what we see as wrongs, and our inevitable death render such things meaningless.
As part of this monologue he observes that holding ourselves above animals is one of those meaningless activities. It may be true that God gave us dominion over animals, but that does not make us any different from them. For example we can give a dog dominion over a flock of sheep, does that make the dog less an animal than sheep? We all live and die the same way and our spirits may very well do the same thing after death.
His conclusion is that--- given the meaninglessness of all these pursuits--- the wisest course of action is to be content with one's lot in life (the simple pleasures of food, drink, work, and love) and to follow God's commandments (which is man's sole duty) so that one will be judged good by God.
To be honest, I don't see where any of that is contradictory to Xtian philosophy and sets one on the path to ruin, unless one assumes beforehand that people cannot be animals and that "the Bible doesn't say otherwise." Only then are we required to FOOTNOTE the passage into oblivion.
Think about this carefully Sonnikke. Wouldn't it be easier, and make more sense, to give up the dogma that humans aren't animals (and that animals have no spirits)? That not only makes the Bible more coherent and correct internally, it then finds support in scientific evidence.
Personally, I'd think Xtians would be jumping for joy at this passage and saying "see the bible said man is an animal, and lives through the same natural processes as they do centuries before Darwin did."
After all, it's the same thing Xtians did with Genesis and the bigbang theory. Initially biblical lame-os tried to stamp out astronomy as evidence coming from that corner posed a threat to earth-centered ideas which they felt had to be right or the Bible was undermined.
After enough evidence came in they reluctantly gave up the struggle and the world realized that THEIR FOOTNOTE had been wrong. Of course, once the bigbang theory came along, things didn't look as dark as they had predicted and Biblical sholars could rejoice in pointing out genesis had said it all along.
Do you see the irony here? If the lame-os had WON their fight, Biblical scholars would never have gotten this piece of scientific evidence supporting Biblical scripture (the opening text nonetheless).
Doesn't this look like the same case now?
Couldn't it be that long ago some people got it into their heads that men and animals can't be the same and simply wanted to support their bigotry through scripture? And unfortunately ended up having to denounce a portion of the very scripture from which they were hoping to gain support?
I don't have a telescope but it looks pretty clear from where I'm standing.
Why not accept at least a portion of ToE, and in so doing embrace a greater portion of the Bible AS IT IS WRITTEN, as truth? I think it's called a win-win situation.
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by DanskerMan, posted 02-03-2003 2:18 PM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by DanskerMan, posted 02-06-2003 12:32 PM Silent H has replied

  
DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 101 (31542)
02-06-2003 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Silent H
02-04-2003 6:18 PM


Holmes, I appreciate your long dialogue. You still don't get it though. If you really did read the whole book, you would have seen that the context is that without God life is meaningless and we are like the animals. However, that is looking at it from a worldy human point of view. In the end the writer recognizes that what makes man unique and whole, is to fear God and keep His commandments.
With God in our lives, we realize who we are, children of the Most High, the Creator of the cosmos, Maker of heaven and earth. Made in HIS image (the animals are NOT).
These excerpts from the full document (which I recommend you read) explain it much better.
quote:
Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible
So it is quite possible to "prove" all kinds of utterly false things by quoting the Bible. because in that sense the Bible is filled with error. But the Bible always points out the error which it presents and makes it clear that it is error, as in the case with this book. Because of its remarkable character Ecclesiastes is the most misused book of the Bible. This is the favorite book of atheists and agnostics. And many cults love to quote this book's erroneous viewpoints and give the impression that these are scriptural, divine words of God concerning life.
But right away in its introduction this book is very careful to point out that what it records is not divine truth. It presents only the human view of life. You'll find that over and over, throughout the whole course of Ecclesiastes, one phrase is repeated again and again: "under the sun," "under the sun." Everything is evaluated according to appearances alone---this is man's point of view of reality and is utterly exclusive of divine revelation. As such, Ecclesiastes very accurately summarizes what man thinks.
Ecclesiastes views God as men in general view God---as a not very vital concern of life. sort of a high-calorie dessert which you can take or leave. There is no understanding of God as a vital, living Lord, an authority in life with whom one can have a personal relationship.
Then in chapter 3 he views life from what we might call the existential viewpoint. That is a popular term today. It is fashionable to believe in existentialism and it is, of course, thought to be something new on the stage of world ideas. But it is nothing new at all. It is as old as the thinking of man. Actually, we might call this viewpoint fatalism, because there is always a fatalistic element in existentialism.
Now this writer says, "I tried that. I discovered that I reacted to events, that I had certain inescapable experiences in life." We read that there is:
A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted; a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;a time to weep...(3:2-4),
...and so on. The writer sees that all these events come upon us. And he sees also that man has a desire for something deeper, for finding significance, for finding meaning in life:
He has made everything beautiful in its time; also he has put eternity into man's mind. (verse 11)
In other words, man can never rest with simply external explanations of things. He has to look deeper. Eternity is in his heart. And this writer says he saw all this. He saw that events of life are inescapable and are experienced by all men---but he saw that all men go to one place when it is all over. All turn to dust.
And there is nothing better for man than to enjoy his work,
For that is his lot; who can bring him to see what will be after him? (verse 22)
He sees futility. hopelessness. What's the use?
You see? He has proved his case hasn't he? All the way through it is the same thing. Life lived apart from God all comes out to the same thing.
At this point comes the change in viewpoint, the recognition that life is meaningful and significant when the person of God is enthroned in it. This is Solomon's true conclusion to all of his findings, and it begins this way:
Rejoice, O young man, in your youth, and let your heart cheer you in the days of your youth; walk in the ways of your heart and the sight of your eyes. But know that for all these things God will bring you into judgment. (11:9)
That doesn't mean punishment. It means examination: God will bring you into an examination of your life. But "Rejoice!" (That is Solomon's very word!) The Debater's final conclusion is thus directly opposite his previous conclusion. Six times in this account you find him playing one string on his violin, over and over again. The only thing he has to say to the man who approaches life without a genuine commitment to God, is this: "Eat. drink and be merry. for tomorrow you must die."
There is nothing better for a man than that he should eat and drink, and find enjoyment in his toil. (2:24)
So I saw that there is nothing better than that a man should enjoy his work, for that is his lot; who can bring him to see what will be after him. (3:22)
What I have seen to be good and fitting is to eat and drink and find enjoyment in all the toil with which one toils under the sun the few days of his life which God has given him, for this is his lot. (5:18)
And I commend enjoyment, for man has no good thing under the sun but to eat, and drink, and enjoy himself, for this will go with him in his toil through the days of life which God gives him under the sun. (8:15)
Go, eat your bread with enjoyment, and drink your wine with a merry heart; for God has already approved what you do. (9:7)
And yet again:
Bread is made for laughter, and wine gladdens life, and money answer everything. (10:19)
Practical isn't it? And devilish. Do you see? When you hear people talking this way today, when you see worldly man thinking and acting on the basis of "Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die," don't blame him. What else can he say? This is the inevitable conclusion of any approach to life that erases God from the picture. And there is nothing more descriptive of utterly blind pessimism than those words. Think of it. Eat, drink and be merry. In other words, live like an animal. This denies the glory of manliness and manhood. It reduces man to the level of the animal. It is the most hopeless statement one can ever make. "What is life? Nothing at all. Utterly insignificant. Without any meaning. Utterly futile. All that we can do, therefore, is to make the best of it. Eat, drink and be merry. Life goes out like a candle flame in the end." Utter pessimism rules in a life that is lived without God.
Now contrast that with what the writer says in the last chapter:
Remember also your Creator in the days of your youth...(12:6)
And he goes on to describe in a beautiful, poetic passage what death is:
Before the silver cord is snapped, or the golden bowl is broken...(12:6)
And he teaches this final conclusion:
The end of the matter; all has been heard.
What is his final advice?
Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole of man. (12:13)
"Wait!" you protest. "You left out a word! It says, 'this is the whole duty of man.'"
No, I didn't leave it out. The translators put it in. That word doesn't belong there. The Hebrew says, "this is the whole of man" or "this is what makes man whole," if you like. "Fear God." Now that doesn't mean that you are to be afraid of him, but to have a loving respect that obeys him.
Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole of man.
This is what makes man whole. And the secret is to enthrone God in the days of your youth. If you want to find the secret of living so that the heart is satisfied and the spirit is enriched and fulfilled according to God's intention for you, then "Remember also your Creator in the days of your youth, before the evil days come."
Enthrone God in the center of your life and you will discover all that God has intended your life to be. And you will be able to rejoice all the days of your life. I can remember well when as a teenager I would wonder from time to time whether these Christian ideas that I knew were right, and would feel allured and enticed by other ways of thinking. And I felt the awful uncertainty, of not knowing which was right. What is the answer to life's questions? Looking back upon that time I have great sympathy for young people; I see their deep inner desire, just as I felt it then, not to waste their lives but to live significantly. Every young person feels that. But now, from the perspective of more than thirty years, I can say that God in grace led me to commit myself, as it says in Proverbs:
Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not rely on your own insight. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths. (Prov. 3:5, 6)
Copyright (C) 1995 Discovery Publishing, a ministry of Peninsula Bible Church.
Regards,
S
[This message has been edited by sonnikke, 02-06-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Silent H, posted 02-04-2003 6:18 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Silent H, posted 02-06-2003 7:50 PM DanskerMan has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 55 of 101 (31577)
02-06-2003 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by DanskerMan
02-06-2003 12:32 PM


[QUOTE] by sonnikke+++++
Holmes, I appreciate your long dialogue. You still don't get it though. If you really did read the whole book, you would have seen that the context is that without God life is meaningless and we are like the animals.
+++++
Who says I haven't read the whole book? Who said I never went to church during my childhood, went through confirmation classes, attended a private religious college and took a course specifically in Biblical literature?
Only you.
I do get it and, much like the majority of Xtians who have accepted ToE, understand that people don't have to reject useful scientific inquiry in order to accept the Bible. You (much like Dembski) are clinging to an outmoded and worthless style of thinking, both rejecting knowledge we have gained since the enlightenment and the methods improved during that time, unless they support the "old theories."
Clearly the Bible states that life without God is meaningless (as Ecclesiastes says), and that we are in some manner superior to other animals (as Ecclesiastes indicates), however it never says we are made of and exist in a totally different manner than animals (in fact Ecclesiastes... a part of the Bible... points to the opposite).
You simply refuse to accept the fact that "dominion over", does not necessitate "wholly different from and unconnected to."
[QUOTE] by sonnikke+++++
However, that is looking at it from a worldy human point of view. In the end the writer recognizes that what makes man unique and whole, is to fear God and keep His commandments.
+++++
I agree that he is saying that this is all man can know. Even the WISEST MEN cannot say that men and animals are different, since they live and die in exactly the same way, and so speculation to the contrary is meaningless (though he does posit that they have souls like men... which is contrary to your opinion).
It is due to the meaninglessness of worldly pursuits, including such speculations, that life should be kept simple and that one should follow God's laws.
I don't see how any of that needs to be rejected (or portions "qualified"), unless you want to make the claim that this guy is wrong simply because he says man and animals live the same way and are of the same material nature. To do so is to hinge your whole faith in God on whether man is wholly different from an animal, which is a statement NEVER MADE IN THE BIBLE, ONLY BY MEN.
In fact I find it interesting that the wiseman's wisdom is being rejected (by people like you) based on the latter part of his observation, despite the fact that he starts by saying it is God that tests man repeatedly to show he is the same as animal. He doesn't say "this is all we can see without God", but says outright that God is instructing us to observe this fact.
One would think the Flood story indicates such a lesson. Man's lot was tied in with those of the animals and could die out just the same. Man was made responsible for preserving life, but shown how he is just as vulnerable as they are.
All I see is picking and choosing and circular logic on your part. Prove me wrong.
[QUOTE] by sonnikke+++++
With God in our lives, we realize who we are, children of the Most High, the Creator of the cosmos, Maker of heaven and earth. Made in HIS image (the animals are NOT).
+++++
That is a correct conclusion (assuming a faith in Xtianity).
We were made in his image and have been given dominion over the animals, as God has dominion over us. This was the point of my analogy with the sheepdogs. Just because we trained them to be like us (created in our image as master) and put them in charge of the sheep, does not mean the dogs have become something other than animals.
[QUOTE] by sonnikke+++++
These excerpts from the full document (which I recommend you read) explain it much better.
+++++
And so it continues.
Without addressing the points I made regarding the "worldly wisdom" of men interpreting and modifying the bible, you give me another singularly placed "footnote" by some man to correct the Bible.
Please address the problems I laid out in my previous post. They apply to this reference as well.
In fact, your problems only get worse with this new reference. Did you read your new reference thoroughly? I recommend you do.
This "footnote" has contrary statements to the first "footnote" which happened to contradict your first statement. Whose interpretation am I supposed to believe?????
How can you ever tell someone to "go read the Bible" when in fact everyone has to read all sorts of other authors, who tell you not to believe the bible and believe them instead (and each of them with conflicting arguments)?
I would also like a defense from your own hand, and not another reference, why this situation couldn't be the same as what happened with the Xtian rejection of astronomy, and why rejecting a biblical passage as erroneous (especially one that concludes one should follow God's law) is better than accepting it as true and embracing the fruits of rational scientific inquiry?
In conclusion, I recommend you do something which if you have done before, you have not done well. Read some books on philosophy and logic. How arguments are constructed properly. Read some basics of chemistry, geology, and archeology (why not throw in some biology too). Then construct logical arguments using science based evidence to advance your theory.
In fairness, I DO read the Bible to keep up on my end of the debate. In fact I seem to be way ahead of these knuckleheads you reference, since they can't even keep their interpretations straight (except to conclude you should reject the wiseman's "worldly wisdom" in Ecclesiastes).
holmes
{Chopped down lines of +'s a bit, to narrow page width - AM}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-07-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by DanskerMan, posted 02-06-2003 12:32 PM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by DanskerMan, posted 02-07-2003 12:02 AM Silent H has replied

  
DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 101 (31612)
02-07-2003 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Silent H
02-06-2003 7:50 PM


quote:
Holmes: Who says I haven't read the whole book? Who said I never went to church during my childhood, went through confirmation classes, attended a private religious college and took a course specifically in Biblical literature?
I didn't say you didn't. It's sad that (assuming you once had faith) you "lost" your faith....unless of course you are going to tell me that you are now a theistic evolutionist. Either way, you sound to me like you are still very close to not being the typical evolutionist.
quote:
How can you ever tell someone to "go read the Bible" when in fact everyone has to read all sorts of other authors, who tell you not to believe the bible and believe them instead (and each of them with conflicting arguments)?
You are clearly misunderstanding me, no one is telling you not to believe the bible. The bible is inspired by God, inerrant. If you read ecclesiastes and don't come away with the fact that everything is meaningless WITHOUT God, then you didn't understand it (or chose not to understand it). The commentaries were suggested to complement the reading for those who didn't understand.
quote:
I would also like a defense from your own hand, and not another reference, why this situation couldn't be the same as what happened with the Xtian rejection of astronomy, and why rejecting a biblical passage as erroneous (especially one that concludes one should follow God's law) is better than accepting it as true and embracing the fruits of rational scientific inquiry?
Christian rejection of astronomy??? Have you lost your mind?
Nobody's rejecting ecclesiastes, it is part of God's inspired word, to show us how futile MAN's thinking is.
quote:
In conclusion, I recommend you do something which if you have done before, you have not done well. Read some books on philosophy and logic. How arguments are constructed properly. Read some basics of chemistry, geology, and archeology (why not throw in some biology too). Then construct logical arguments using science based evidence to advance your theory.
Thank you for the advice.
A question for you in closing, and this is actually for all evo's...I've always wanted to know what you will say that day, when you stand before Christ at the judgement seat, and you realize that you were wrong, but now it's too late. What will you say?
Regards,
S.
------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Silent H, posted 02-06-2003 7:50 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Andya Primanda, posted 02-07-2003 12:52 AM DanskerMan has not replied
 Message 60 by shilohproject, posted 02-07-2003 1:46 PM DanskerMan has not replied
 Message 61 by Silent H, posted 02-07-2003 2:51 PM DanskerMan has replied

  
lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 101 (31616)
02-07-2003 12:16 AM


(Sonnikke on various human behavioral features)
These could easily be side effects of having very big brains for our body size. To see why, consider the history of artificial "brains" -- computers. As they get faster and more capacious, their users do more and more with them. To name just one example, the graphics of the computers I've used has gone from ASCII art to almost-photorealistic 3D in only 20 years (I had started out on Intimidating Big Machines, as I like to call them).
Some numbers:
Human: body: 50-100 kg, brain: 1300 g
Chimp: body: 40-60 kg, brain: 400 g
Wolf: body: 40-60 kg, brain: 120 g
Jaguar: body: 60-120 kg, brain: 160 g
Sheep: body: 60-100 kg, brain: 140 g
Alligator: body: 150-250 kg, brain: 8.2 g
Nurse Shark: body: 250 kg, brain: 32 g
Though:
Bottlenose Dolphin: body: 190-260 kg, brain: 1500 g
A case of independent evolution of a very big brain.
[This message has been edited by lpetrich, 02-07-2003]

  
lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 101 (31625)
02-07-2003 12:45 AM


Sonnikke quoting someone:
But right away in its introduction this book is very careful to point out that what it records is not divine truth. It presents only the human view of life. ...
Except that the whole Bible is supposed to be the "Word of God". And why should one have to go through a whole lot of detective work to figure out the Bible's true meaning? Especially when an omnipotent being could communicate his/her/its full message directly to the consciousness of every human being who has ever lived.
You'll find that over and over, throughout the whole course of Ecclesiastes, one phrase is repeated again and again: "under the sun," "under the sun." (...)
So what? That might be taken as evidence of divine inspiration, since only an omnipotent being could presumably be confident in hypothesizing that "there is nothing new under the sun".
The bible is inspired by God, inerrant.
Including the Book of Ecclesiastes, our mortality and animal-like nature and all.
If you read ecclesiastes and don't come away with the fact that everything is meaningless WITHOUT God, then you didn't understand it (or chose not to understand it).
Except that it does NOT explicitly state any such thing. And I'm serious about the "explicit" part.
The commentaries were suggested to complement the reading for those who didn't understand.
Why should a revelation need a commentary?
Christian rejection of astronomy??? Have you lost your mind?
Remember what happened to Copernicus and Galileo. The Church had thought it OK to present heliocentrism, but only as an unsupported theory. Copernicus published his book only at the end of his life, and his friend Osiander penned an "only a theory" preface for it. Galileo, however, when warned that he ought to present heliocentrism as "only a theory", published a book which followed the letter, but not the spirit, of that approach. Which got the Pope's goat, for whatever reason. And Galileo was forced to recant heliocentrism.
Early Protestants were no better. Martin Luther pointed out which heavenly bodies Joshua told to stop moving, and John Calvin pointed out that the Bible states that the Earth is stationary in some cosmic sense.
Nobody's rejecting ecclesiastes, it is part of God's inspired word, to show us how futile MAN's thinking is.
First, we are carbon copies of the Almighty, and then we are evil worms who can never do anything right. Which is it, O Sonnikke?
A question for you in closing, and this is actually for all evo's...I've always wanted to know what you will say that day, when you stand before Christ at the judgement seat, and you realize that you were wrong, but now it's too late. What will you say?
Pure Pascalian merde de taureau.
In the language that Pascal had spoken.

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by DanskerMan, posted 02-13-2003 12:52 AM lpetrich has replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 101 (31626)
02-07-2003 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by DanskerMan
02-07-2003 12:02 AM


quote:
A question for you in closing, and this is actually for all evo's...I've always wanted to know what you will say that day, when you stand before Christ at the judgement seat, and you realize that you were wrong, but now it's too late. What will you say?
Exclude me from your question. My belief is that Christ is not the judge in the afterlife, Almighty God is. And He accepts no substitutes for him, not even Jesus.
Should my acceptance for evolution in this life proved to be wrong, then I can't be responsible for it, because if God decides that the world He made is a grand trick to His creations, then we've been worshipping a deceitful God. I only follow what evidence He had put in nature. And His evidence leads to evolution, not special creationism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by DanskerMan, posted 02-07-2003 12:02 AM DanskerMan has not replied

  
shilohproject
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 101 (31665)
02-07-2003 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by DanskerMan
02-07-2003 12:02 AM


Hey hey,
Any comments on my post #43, this thread? (Now that I've corrected the spelling...sorry, again.)
-Shiloh

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by DanskerMan, posted 02-07-2003 12:02 AM DanskerMan 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