|
Author
|
Topic: For percy: setting the record straight on Charlie Rose interview
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 125 of 231 (287369)
02-16-2006 3:12 PM
|
Reply to: Message 124 by randman
02-16-2006 3:08 PM
|
|
Re: substantiation, percy?
Either way, he is fundamentally wrong to make either claim, correct? And I was fundamentally correct to point that out, correct?
No, he's fundamentally right to make such claims.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 124 by randman, posted 02-16-2006 3:08 PM | | randman has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 126 by randman, posted 02-16-2006 3:13 PM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 127 of 231 (287371)
02-16-2006 3:14 PM
|
Reply to: Message 126 by randman
02-16-2006 3:13 PM
|
|
Re: substantiation, percy?
It's fundamentally right to assert that Darwinism does.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 126 by randman, posted 02-16-2006 3:13 PM | | randman has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 128 by randman, posted 02-16-2006 3:50 PM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 129 of 231 (287386)
02-16-2006 4:20 PM
|
Reply to: Message 128 by randman
02-16-2006 3:50 PM
|
|
Logical implications of Darwinism
How so? Does Darwinism run a test for God's existence and it came back negative? No, but Darwinism logically excludes God--except for some off-beat Pagan variety. It excludes the God of Western tradition.
I thought God was off-limits to science according to you guys. This idea is my own and is philosophical, not scientific. For an extensive discussion, see the thread entitled "What we must accept if we accept evolution." This message has been edited by robinrohan, 02-16-2006 03:21 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 128 by randman, posted 02-16-2006 3:50 PM | | randman has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 141 of 231 (287546)
02-17-2006 8:00 AM
|
Reply to: Message 134 by ramoss
02-16-2006 8:31 PM
|
|
Re: Logical implications of Darwinism
but does not exclude God. It excludes an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 134 by ramoss, posted 02-16-2006 8:31 PM | | ramoss has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 142 by ramoss, posted 02-17-2006 10:21 AM | | robinrohan has not replied | | | Message 143 by PaulK, posted 02-17-2006 10:34 AM | | robinrohan has replied | | | Message 144 by nwr, posted 02-17-2006 10:56 AM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 145 of 231 (287617)
02-17-2006 11:08 AM
|
Reply to: Message 143 by PaulK
02-17-2006 10:34 AM
|
|
Re: Logical implications of Darwinism
As I have pointed out before it is not evolution that is the issue. There is more to evolution than the fact of suffering. It is also a naturalistic explanation of the origin of man.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 143 by PaulK, posted 02-17-2006 10:34 AM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 148 by PaulK, posted 02-17-2006 11:10 AM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 147 of 231 (287619)
02-17-2006 11:09 AM
|
Reply to: Message 144 by nwr
02-17-2006 10:56 AM
|
|
Re: Logical implications of Darwinism
The Old Testament already excludes that kind of God. Who cares about the Old Testament? Except for Genesis, that's a tribal god.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 144 by nwr, posted 02-17-2006 10:56 AM | | nwr has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 155 by Faith, posted 02-17-2006 12:12 PM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 149 of 231 (287629)
02-17-2006 11:16 AM
|
Reply to: Message 148 by PaulK
02-17-2006 11:10 AM
|
|
Re: Logical implications of Darwinism
Your argument is that it is suffering and death that exclude an "all good", "all knowing" and "all powerful" God, not that such a God has to directly create humans. That's not my whole argument. Before evolutionary ideas came along, there was no other way to explain how we got here except by invoking Gods. So the problem of suffering had to be explained away as an illusion--that suffering was not really suffering or that suffering created a greater good or something of that sort. With evolution such explanations are unnecessary. And the YEC's have their Fall.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 148 by PaulK, posted 02-17-2006 11:10 AM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 150 by PaulK, posted 02-17-2006 11:20 AM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 151 of 231 (287640)
02-17-2006 11:35 AM
|
Reply to: Message 150 by PaulK
02-17-2006 11:20 AM
|
|
Re: Logical implications of Darwinism
One that would requires us to ignore a good deal of evidence. That's a long way short of what you claimed. No, TOE is much more significant than just that--because it's scientific, not just philosophical.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 150 by PaulK, posted 02-17-2006 11:20 AM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 152 by PaulK, posted 02-17-2006 11:48 AM | | robinrohan has not replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 156 of 231 (287670)
02-17-2006 12:47 PM
|
Reply to: Message 155 by Faith
02-17-2006 12:12 PM
|
|
Re: Logical implications of Darwinism
the God of the Old Testament is the same as the God of the New Testament Do you deny that in those oldest parts of the Bible, God comes across as rather tribal?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 155 by Faith, posted 02-17-2006 12:12 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 158 by Faith, posted 02-17-2006 12:57 PM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 160 of 231 (287695)
02-17-2006 2:15 PM
|
Reply to: Message 158 by Faith
02-17-2006 12:57 PM
|
|
Re: Logical implications of Darwinism
Yes I deny that. From the beginning of the Bible He is clearly THE God of all things. How can you deny it? Didn't you see the movie "The Ten Commandments"? This god was the god of this tribe of Hebrew goat-herders. He lived up in the mountains. Moses went to see him.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 158 by Faith, posted 02-17-2006 12:57 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 161 by Faith, posted 02-17-2006 2:18 PM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 162 of 231 (287698)
02-17-2006 2:19 PM
|
Reply to: Message 161 by Faith
02-17-2006 2:18 PM
|
|
Re: Logical implications of Darwinism
ok.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 161 by Faith, posted 02-17-2006 2:18 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 169 of 231 (288199)
02-18-2006 6:50 PM
|
Reply to: Message 168 by Modulous
02-18-2006 6:44 PM
|
|
Re: respond to my post, thanks.
They don't do this. They say things like "I don't believe it" and "It seems whacko". Clearly subjective. My original post addresses this in some detail. What is this distinction you are making? Are you suggesting that their knowledge of science has nothing to do with their "subjective" belief that the concept of God is not necessary? That they have their scientific beliefs, and that these are completely separate from their other, "personal" beliefs?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 168 by Modulous, posted 02-18-2006 6:44 PM | | Modulous has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2