Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8950 total)
33 online now:
DrJones*, nwr, Theodoric (3 members, 30 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,268 Year: 22,304/19,786 Month: 867/1,834 Week: 367/500 Day: 66/64 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Specific Cause of the "Evolution vs. 'Creationism'" Controversy, and of the appar
ringo
Member
Posts: 17679
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 8 of 46 (706844)
09-18-2013 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by PaulGL
09-17-2013 12:44 PM


PaulGL writes:

Human beings cannot understand abstract, invisible realities without first learning visible, concrete references.


Mebbe so. I'm rather fond of analogies myself.

PaulGL writes:

Electricity is a good example. Spiritual matters are likewise not amenable to direct mental comprehension.


The difference is that electricity is real. It can be demonstrated reliably, which suggests that we have some understanding of it. "Spiritual matters" can not be demonstrated reliably. One religion thinks it's AC, another thinks it's DC and another thinks it's static.

PaulGL writes:

This is the crux of the reason why the mind alone is incapable of understanding the Bible: some of the accounts are literal, and some are allegorical. Without revelation, you confuse the two and fall into systematized error.


Revelation is the ultimate source of systematized error - different revelations for different folks.

PaulGL writes:

Christ will return and, by all indications, sooner not later.


It has been revealed to me that he will not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by PaulGL, posted 09-17-2013 12:44 PM PaulGL has not yet responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 17679
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 14 of 46 (706987)
09-20-2013 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by PaulGL
09-20-2013 12:16 PM


Re: fine tuning
PaulGL writes:

Again, the characteristics of life have to be observed indirectly.


You're making an incorrect distinction between direct and indirect observation. All observations are inherently indirect. Light is reflected from objects into the eye where it causes chemical changes which cause electrical changes which are interpreted in the brain with reference to other electrical changes that have been stored.

What difference does it make if the light is reflected from a physical object or from a line drawn by a machine that is "looking" at the physical object?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by PaulGL, posted 09-20-2013 12:16 PM PaulGL has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by PaulGL, posted 09-21-2013 10:45 PM ringo has responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 17679
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 20 of 46 (707075)
09-22-2013 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by PaulGL
09-21-2013 10:45 PM


Re: fine tuning
PaulGL writes:

Did you need to use a machine to taste your last meal?


I needed glasses to see it. I needed utensils to eat it. I needed electricity to cook it. The only meal that doesn't require indirect action is the one you strangle manually and eat raw.

Ultimately, everything we do indirectly is based on things that we used to do directly. Why make a distinction between what we can do with our senses and what we can do with the machinery we create with our senses?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by PaulGL, posted 09-21-2013 10:45 PM PaulGL has not yet responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 17679
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 25 of 46 (744663)
12-14-2014 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by PaulGL
12-13-2014 2:16 PM


Re: Why 'Creationism, et. al. is vain babbling
PaulGL writes:

I challenge anyone to dispute the following assertion: "It is completely possible to believe in 'Evolution' and to receive Christ as one's personal Savior, becoming genuinely born again."


Okay, challenge accepted.

It would depend entirely on how one defines "genuinely born again". If one insists on the literal historical truth of Genesis, then that can not be reconciled with evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by PaulGL, posted 12-13-2014 2:16 PM PaulGL has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by NoNukes, posted 12-14-2014 1:54 PM ringo has responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 17679
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 27 of 46 (744678)
12-14-2014 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by NoNukes
12-14-2014 1:54 PM


Re: Why 'Creationism, et. al. is vain babbling
NoNukes writes:

The poster's point is that believing in the literal historical truth of Genesis is not a step in receiving salvation.


I know that. I'm just pointing out that his opinion is just an opinion and has no more value than the opposing opinion.

NoNukes writes:

If you want to accept the challenge you need to provide an argument that the poster is wrong about that point.


The challenge is circular. He can't be proven wrong using his definition of "genuine" because his definition makes him right. He can, however, be proven wrong by using a different definition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by NoNukes, posted 12-14-2014 1:54 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Thugpreacha, posted 12-14-2014 3:19 PM ringo has responded
 Message 29 by NoNukes, posted 12-14-2014 8:51 PM ringo has responded
 Message 39 by PaulGL, posted 12-18-2014 7:39 PM ringo has responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 17679
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 31 of 46 (744767)
12-15-2014 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Thugpreacha
12-14-2014 3:19 PM


Re: Why 'Creationism, et. al. is vain babbling
Phat writes:

ringo writes:

He can, however, be proven wrong by using a different definition.


Objectively or subjectively?

"Proof" implies objectivity.

Edited by ringo, : Fixed quote.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Thugpreacha, posted 12-14-2014 3:19 PM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 17679
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 32 of 46 (744768)
12-15-2014 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by NoNukes
12-14-2014 8:51 PM


Re: Why 'Creationism, et. al. is vain babbling
NoNukes writes:

You claimed to be taking up the challenge, but you actually did not bother to do anything but assert.


The only challenge a bare assertion needs is another assertion.

NoNukes writes:

But it also contained a challenge to disprove his statement.


Sure, he wanted us to disprove the statement to his satisfaction. I don't give a flying @#$% about that. I'm just pointing out to any sensible person reading this thread that his challenge is completely empty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by NoNukes, posted 12-14-2014 8:51 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by NoNukes, posted 12-15-2014 11:58 AM ringo has responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 17679
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 34 of 46 (744776)
12-15-2014 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by NoNukes
12-15-2014 11:58 AM


Re: Why 'Creationism, et. al. is vain babbling
NoNukes writes:

In particular, Genesis says nothing about what is required to be born again....


You make my point. Genesis is not related to being born again, so the "challenge" is empty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by NoNukes, posted 12-15-2014 11:58 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by NoNukes, posted 12-15-2014 4:31 PM ringo has responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 17679
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 36 of 46 (744828)
12-16-2014 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by NoNukes
12-15-2014 4:31 PM


Re: Why 'Creationism, et. al. is vain babbling
NoNukes writes:

Remember that your initial claim was that you could just redefine. Now you are claiming to have agreed with me all along.


You don't have to work so hard at misunderstanding.

I'm not agreeing with you. I'm saying that your "point" is nonsense. You're going in both directions at once and running into yourself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by NoNukes, posted 12-15-2014 4:31 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by NoNukes, posted 12-17-2014 2:23 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

ringo
Member
Posts: 17679
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 41 of 46 (745155)
12-19-2014 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by PaulGL
12-18-2014 7:39 PM


Re: Why 'Creationism, et. al. is vain babbling
PaulGL writes:

My specific point was that a belief in the validity of evolution is not in any way a hindrance to someone receiving Christ as their Savior: by the Father embodied in the Son becoming the life-giving Spirit to enter into and become mingled with their human spirit.


The problem with your point is that evolution is a hindrance to somebody accepting Christ as their Saviour if they believe it's a hindrance. Their belief in the hindrance doesn't have to be any more rational than their belief in Christ, so you can't rationalize it away.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by PaulGL, posted 12-18-2014 7:39 PM PaulGL has not yet responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 17679
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 45 of 46 (825924)
12-19-2017 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by AlexCaledin
12-18-2017 5:43 PM


Alex Caledin writes:

Dead pre-historic bones are garbage and any knowledge derived from them is garbage according to the GIGO principle


Everything you've heard about evolution is garbage. On creationist websites, you'll get nothing but garbage in.

If you have anything to say that isn't parroted garbage from creationists, we have lots of topics here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by AlexCaledin, posted 12-18-2017 5:43 PM AlexCaledin has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019