Falsification of Biblical Creation

It would be very odd to witness to someone using a position you yourself don't endorse. Also, since RR has already come to the conclusion that evolution is incompatible with God (which fundies believe too), how is it any kind of witness to try to talk him out of that? Wouldn't it make more sense to build on what he already thinks? Especially if you are a fundie yourself?But when Iano comes back I'm sure he will enlighten us.

When you say 'supernatural events' what supernatural events are those? If there are no measurable variables how do we know they took place?

That does rather presopose that there is a god (and only one god at that). Is there any evidence at all that there is a god of any kind?

Faith I have to say I really admire you.I get very cross at watered down christianity for turning their back on the bible (essentially the history and precepts of their faith) to allow their faith to co exist with science without rocking the boat (so to speak).I don't agree with you in most cases but you do stick to your guns in that (I hope I read you right) the bible IS evidence.Fair play to you.

Thank you, Larni, you read me right.

Steady on sis! I put it there for Robin due to his recent showing in a thread arguing that belief in ToE and God are incompatible. It was intended to provide an argument he sought but didn't seem to get in the thread. This is not to say I believe it myself.Robert Schneiders argument seems to give priority to evolution as fact and then of necessity deals with what that means for Adam (for example) w.r.t to him being a historical figure. Naturally enough, the conclusion is that he must be dispensed with. Instead 'Adam' is to be seen as some kind of allegorical representation of a state of mankind.As you've pointed out many times, this means assuming the Science and getting the Bible to fit it, which is the wrong way around. Doing as he does cannot achieved without throwing all kinds of spanners into the intricately woven parallels and types which can be drawn between Adam and Christ. Evolution is a bull in a Biblical China shop and if there is conflict then science must lose. I would hope Robin might enjoy the argument as it is presented reasonably well - but see the problems with it. When I arrived at EvC I didn't have a fixed view on things evolution - I hadn't thought about it much one way or the other - I was too busy learning about God to worry about it. My time here has included me realising that the basis for atheistic belief in Science-uber-alles is a philosophical one and the repeated (if understandable) failure of many to give any credence to this only serves to highlight for me the extent to which people can be blinded (please: no offence to those who feel commented upon here - I am speaking to Faith about an issue we both are familiar with). I understand the strength of the enemy all the better for the experience.The theistic-based acceptance of evolution seems to me to be a case of a person holding firm to worldliness even though they might well be in Christ. Like I pointed out above, it will involve wrenching scripture out of shape in order to maintain the position.So Faith, can you forgive my transgression and let me be your favorite fundi again? You're right. It is flawed. We've tried a few different video based courses: "Exploring Christianity" "Journeys" but find that of them all, Alpha is about the best as a way of getting people thinking and talking about basic issues. This is about where we have to meet folk - get folk discussing and thinking about God - at all. Ireland, for all its Saints n'Scholars history, is a very secular country. And what it did have for many years by way of God, was rampant Roman Catholicism. We're starting from a long ways back with the typical raw material that crosses our threshold.A general criticism of Alpha is that it is a bit weak and soft. And it is. Based on gospel-lite, it tries to go straight to conversion during the Holy Spirit module and so we cut this one out altogether. Consider it as a sort of pre-evangelism, an introduction, a God for beginners.This message has been edited by iano, 24-Mar-2006 03:24 PM

Actually, quite the opposite is true. You arrived here with a prior intellectual committment to believing this no matter what; but in the course of your stay here you were completely unable to substantiate an argument supporting your position. If anything your support became weaker as the intellectual basis of your position was demolished. Of course you're perfectly free and able to believe what you do on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, but let's not try to rewrite history, shall we?I continue to await your example of a methodology that produces more accurate results than the scientific method. You're several months overdue, or had you forgotten?Oh, by the way - don't be offended. I'm just speaking to others about an issue we're familiar with.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-24-2006 09:59 AM

Hello, iano. Glad to see that you still come around once in a while.

quote:

---

My time here has included me realising that the basis for atheistic belief in Science-uber-alles is a philosophical one....

---

It is true that a "science-uber-alles" basis would be a philosophical one; but since no one here, to my recollection, has ever stated that they use this as a basis for their "atheistic beliefs" I'm not sure why it took time here to come to this realization. Especially since it is cleary a philosophical matter without even having to spend time anywhere. But maybe I am not reading you clearly?-

quote:

---

...the repeated (if understandable) failure of many to give any credence to this only serves to highlight for me the extent to which people can be blinded

---

What? Somebody has denied that this is a philosophical matter? I admit that I haven't read all the threads in which you have participated, but I have a hard time believing that.No, wait, from some of my debates, I can easily believe that some people here would not recognize this as a philosophical matter. (Sigh)

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

How could I be? Your mild post comes within a nats whisker of telling me that you love me. Your getting soft Crash...

OK I guess nwr was right that you didn't intend it to represent your own views. I await RR's comments then, to see what he made of it all.You are on probation now as my Favorite Fundie, but may be restored upon continued good behavior. You also did a good job of defending your use of the Alpha course. It could provide opportunities to give the unvarnished gospel by its ability to generate discussion.About Ireland. I found out not too long ago that the island was one of the very first outposts of Christianity -- as far back as the 2nd century if I remember rightly -- I will have to look it up but I'm rushing right now -- a monastery that sent out evangelists to the continent as a matter of fact, and its doctrine was very pure. In fact it resisted the corruptions of Roman Catholicism for quite some time before the whole nation gave in. Do you know anything about that period in your history?This message has been edited by Faith, 03-24-2006 10:40 AM

I didn't make much of it. I haven't read it all-- a lot of it is just a summary of the basics of evolutionary theory. What I was looking for was a discussion of the Fall--and I didn't find it. That's the important issue.

---

"Headpiece filled with straw, Alas!"--T. S. Eliot

Well, I found this: That doesn't make much sense to me. I don't see what "allowing evolution" has got to do with "love."

---

"Headpiece filled with straw, Alas!"--T. S. Eliot

My dearest Faith,I recognise that what I wrote Robin in that single sentence may have caused a degree of frustration and not a little anguish for you. The apparent treachery of one considered a brother can be expected to do nothing else. You have your hands full enough in the fight and don’t need such apparent stabbing in the back. I say apparent in both cases because that is not what it was in fact - which I am sure you by now appreciate. However, had I had even the merest inkling that you would have read it that way then be assured that the sentence would not have passed my lips without qualification for your benefit.To answer your query more fully.There is any amount of advice given to those who have a heart for sharing their faith with a lost and needy world. In employing such techniques the goal is to a) protect ones own heart so as to remain focussed on Christ and to point to him - avoiding sinful self getting in the way b) understanding so as to circumvent the obvious obstacles that a person who is, as yet, blind, can erect.One piece of advice which strikes me as sensible when engaging the lost is not to deny the truth contained within their world view. Many world views contain, after all, many elements of truth - as they well could be expected to: the father of lies and deceit knows as well as anyone, that a lie which lays close to the truth has a better chance of being accommodated than a barefaced untruth. Engaging with a person and following their line of reasoning and acknowledging the truths nested within the lie might allow one to arrive at a point where the logical conclusions of their worldview are permitted examination and the problems associated with the rotten core may be brought into the light. Harder to do on the web, but sound advice which I, for one, have less-than-often followed. I’m sure you would concur with the principle however.My link to Robin is a kind of modified, inverted shade of this. He holds the view that Evolution and God are mutally exclusive ideas. He has ideas as to why this might be and that is good. But I see little harm in arming him with yet more reasons.In placing the link I did, I was taking into account the one to whom I was addressing. Robin is no fool. His intellectual (if not heart) worldview is, as far as I can gather, nihilistic. That being the case, he resides in the next best place one can be in if it not be in Christ. In a soul vacuum. A place where there is no rest for the God-shaped hole that we all, outside Christ possess. Others are prepared to attach to themselves some kind of quasi-objective sense of soul or self-determined sense of self. But not Robin. He is prepared to face the agony of eternal skies and raging seas and, like his more famous predecessors Nietzsche and Satre, the logical consequences of his world view. And face them head on. To look it in the eye and have the knowledge that “there is nothing” etch lines around his eyes. A person such as that will not, I would contend, ever be satisfied by another false promise. They have already sunk to the very peak of false promises - that there is no promise at all.I believe that the only possibility for one such as Robin is to be in Christ or to remain where he is. No half measures will do him. No loose ends. No more intellectual wonderings. The only thing left for Robin, I think, is to know for sure. And if a person is in the process of nailing doors shut then I see little (considered) problem in handing them more nails. My sincere hope, as I know yours is, is that all the doors get nailed shut and that Robin finds himself unable to escape. Escape from Christ.LoveIanNote to Robin: My apologies for making you the subject of discussion in clarifying my action to a beloved in an effort to assuage a hurt. I gather you love her too and so hope and trust you will take it on the chin.

It is evidence, it just isn't very good evidence.Brian.

Sweet post, Iano, but alas, I'm not sure I understand it. Are you saying you posted the link specifically because you expected Robin to be able to criticize the argument there?And it just dawned on me that we're nowhere near the topic any more, are we?How to falsify Biblical Creation?How do you falsify a declaration from the Creator anyway?This message has been edited by Faith, 03-24-2006 07:13 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 03-24-2006 10:14 PM