|
Author
|
Topic: Is Evolution a Radical Idea?
|
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4138 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: 06-06-2005
|
|
Message 62 of 195 (350685)
09-20-2006 1:24 PM
|
Reply to: Message 5 by robinrohan
09-19-2006 11:04 AM
|
|
Re: Who or what is the center of attention.
The scientific theory doesn't have anything to do with God, but the ideas suggested by it do. evolution abiogenesis formation of planets There's a similarity in all these ideas, namely the notion of gradual natural change over time. Evolutionism does away with any necessity for God. If there were no evolutionary ideas, we would have to suppose some kind of special creation. I take your point about the human-centeredness, however. i think the problem is fundies don't want to accept other answers than the biblical creation, science has nothing to do with god, but it doesn't conflict with god eather,only with a literal genesis which by the way is unsupportible, but people won't get over this with their black and white views
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 5 by robinrohan, posted 09-19-2006 11:04 AM | | robinrohan has not replied |
|
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4138 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: 06-06-2005
|
What I'm arguing here however is that there is a sense in which the fundamentalists (YEC's) are correct about the dangers of evolution. They recognize full well how devastating evolutionism, suggested by science, is to the religious position. The liberal Christians, I would argue, are incorrect in thinking there can be accomodation. Evolutionism is not science, but its ideas are based on the findings of science, and they are very plausible.
evolutionism sounds like a boogieman to me robin, it sounds like creationists are trying to make stuff up claiming some nasty threat doens't exist in reality evolutionism sound like some origin myth people made up using science and trying to pass it off as evolution combining the BB formation of objects in space, earth life,etc is a pure strawman and made up by the fundies
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 24 by robinrohan, posted 09-19-2006 3:26 PM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4138 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: 06-06-2005
|
Well, the ideas of evolutionism are very plausible, so it's not a very good straw man. It's just a matter of looking at the way nature works as a whole.
well guess what? no one trying to argue for evolution combines the ideas you claim they do. i would rather call this making stuff up than a strawman
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 64 by robinrohan, posted 09-20-2006 3:04 PM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4138 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: 06-06-2005
|
What am I making up? There might be some difficulties, as Nosyned has observed, about the simplicity-to-complexity idea, but the rest of it is based on what the scientists say about biological evolution, cosmology, and so forth.
combing diffenent theories about things and claiming its what everyone believes, when you have no evidence of this thing called "evolutionism" is questionable why not just call a spade a spade and make the ol' "science is athiestic argument" this what i'm reading, maybe you can explain things in a better way?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 67 by robinrohan, posted 09-20-2006 8:30 PM | | robinrohan has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 69 by robinrohan, posted 09-20-2006 8:39 PM | | ReverendDG has not replied |
|
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4138 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: 06-06-2005
|
|
|
Message 158 of 195 (351531)
09-23-2006 4:10 AM
|
Reply to: Message 139 by Faith
09-22-2006 5:17 PM
|
|
Re: evolution and Christianity
I do not treat it as a science text, because it does not present itself as a science text, but I treat it as the truth and it does say things that are not compatible with the ToE. And I treat it as history where it presents itself as history (no, not the way fiction "presents itself as history") which includes Genesis. All other ways of reading it require mental gymnastics that distort the text.
i think its funny you say this given your verson requires just as much mental gymnastics as anyone elses. and how do you tell when the text presents itself as history? i've read the bible at least 50 times now (at least the parts that seem to come up all the time) half of it is impossible and the rest of it reads like mythology from every religion i've ever read about. do you have some magical way of reading it? it reads just like fiction, you just believe it because its yours
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 139 by Faith, posted 09-22-2006 5:17 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4138 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: 06-06-2005
|
|
|
Message 159 of 195 (351532)
09-23-2006 4:14 AM
|
Reply to: Message 140 by Faith
09-22-2006 5:21 PM
|
|
Re: evolution and Christianity
Well I believe much has been said by many creationists that does in fact demonstrate that the ToE is in fact illusion. But I've been astonished to see how people have trouble following the arguments. oh we can follow them just fine, they just arn't very good arguments, in fact they are just plain wrong, whether in understanding of the theory or how parts argued are devasting to the theory
It only "works" because of the hold on certain unsupported assumptions (the catchall explanation that mutation accounts for all the variation we see in life for instance) that are hard to relinquish even for the purpose of thinking through something.
Unfortunately, this claim would require someone to demonstrate that the ToE is in fact illusion. I agree that it's compelling, however. More than that, it actually works in those instances where it can be applied. Which would be odd if it were in fact mere smoke and mirrors. Well I believe much has been said by many creationists that does in fact demonstrate that the ToE is in fact illusion. But I've been astonished to see how people have trouble following the arguments. It only "works" because of the hold on certain unsupported assumptions (the catchall explanation that mutation accounts for all the variation we see in life for instance) that are hard to relinquish even for the purpose of thinking through something.
i'm just not following your logic here, if the theory is used for science in other areas, how can you call it an unsupported assumption?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 140 by Faith, posted 09-22-2006 5:21 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4138 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: 06-06-2005
|
|
|
Message 160 of 195 (351535)
09-23-2006 4:30 AM
|
Reply to: Message 154 by Faith
09-22-2006 11:10 PM
|
|
Many naturalists were Christians inspired by God's creation. It is very possible science wouldn't have happened at all in the West without them.
yes, so what? they are nothing like the Yecs and such today. they never considered adam and eve to be literal, even Augustine didn't think taking the bible literally was a good idea. I highly doubt that people read the bible as literally as Yecs do,though i agree that they where inspired by the world god created. but they did it to learn about whats there in the world, not filter it through the bible as many creationists do now. they found it was just wrong to think ussher was right and the earth is only 6000 years old
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 154 by Faith, posted 09-22-2006 11:10 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4138 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: 06-06-2005
|
|
|
Message 161 of 195 (351536)
09-23-2006 4:30 AM
|
Reply to: Message 154 by Faith
09-22-2006 11:10 PM
|
|
. Edited by ReverendDG, : website slow, can you delete this one
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 154 by Faith, posted 09-22-2006 11:10 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2