Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution != Atheism (re: the Rejection of Theism in Evolution)
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 91 of 178 (175836)
01-11-2005 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Tal
01-11-2005 9:20 AM


Re: Evolution vs. creation
The first sentence clearly indicates that they are not comparing like with like
quote:
The seven Hanukah ELSs appear within a 1,123 letter long section of text, which is somewhat smaller than the 1,584 letter long section that is crossed by all of the Isaiah 53 ELSs that are at least as significant as the Hanukah finds.
The Hanukah ELS's appear WITHIN 1,123 letters (i.e. the entire word or phrase is within the section). The Isaiah 53 "codes" CROSS a section of 1,584 letters (i.e. only one letter of the word need be WITHIN the 1,584 letters). The longest example has 20 characters - and a skip of 45,646 letters - so the whole thing occupies 867,275 letters (19 * 45,646 + 1). Perhaps you can explain why these results should be compared ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Tal, posted 01-11-2005 9:20 AM Tal has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 92 of 178 (175871)
01-11-2005 12:41 PM


Topic Please
As interesting as all of this is can we not bring down the Admin's wrath on my topic. I don't want to abandon the hope of the OP spawning an actual on topic discussion just yet.
If it is not related to the the rejection of Theistic Evolutionism by Biblical Creationists then please kindly start a new topic.

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 93 of 178 (176462)
01-13-2005 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by PurpleYouko
01-10-2005 9:22 AM


Re: Evolution vs. creation
PurpleYouko responds to me:
quote:
Who said God had to create the universe?
DUH! Creationists!
All of them? Every last one of them? Just because you aren't clever enough to figure out how to have a god that didn't create the universe doesn't mean everybody else suffers from the same problem.
quote:
If God found the universe then this discussion is pretty much moot since the whole point is to rationalize a beleif in both creation (ie. God) and evolution.
Incorrect. The whole point is to rationalize a belief in god and evolution.
Thus, my original question: Since when was god required to have created life and/or the universe?
quote:
A kind of universal consciousness that developed as the Universe formed?
That's one way, but not the only way.
quote:
However I seriously doubt that Creationists would accept that it is.
Why are you focusing on creationists? We're talking about theists. When was it agreed that god had to have created the universe?
And who said that the creator of life had to be the same one as the creator of the universe? The Ancient Greeks certainly didn't believe that.
quote:
In a hypothetical situation where a child is brought up to analyze everything (s)he sees, hears, smells and draw logical scientific conclusions about it without ever hearing of religion then it is highly unlikely that that child is ever going to spontaineously start to beleive in something that has no reason to exist, just for the heck of it.
But that's precisely what children do. It's called "magical thinking" and it is a well-recognized stage that children go through. Where do you think imaginary friends come from? Surely parents didn't teach their children such. It is simply what children do.
quote:
You don't need a reason not to beleive but you do need one to beleive as it is an afirmative action.
Incorrect. You don't need a reason not to have a belief. Absence of belief is different from belief in absence.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by PurpleYouko, posted 01-10-2005 9:22 AM PurpleYouko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by PurpleYouko, posted 01-13-2005 9:18 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 94 of 178 (176467)
01-13-2005 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Tal
01-11-2005 9:20 AM


Re: Evolution vs. creation
Tal responds to me:
quote:
I couldn't get your Moby Dick link to open, however I'm fairly certain it is out of date.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you? Since when does math go "out of date"? Since when does a person's fraud somehow become legitimate simply by the passage of time?
quote:
Can you provide me another link so we can see what it says and what the odds of the statement appearing in random text?
Here's a thought: Why don't you look it up for yourself? There's this wonderful thing called "Google" and you can use it to research stuff! If you had simply looked up "codes in Moby Dick," the very first link would have been mine.
It "foretells" the assassinations of Indira Ghandi, Rene Moawad (twice), Leon Trotsky, Martin Luther King, Jr., Engelbert Dollfuss, Robert Kennedy by Sirhan Sirhan (four times), John F. Kennedy (three times), Abraham Lincoln, Yitzhak Rabin, and Princess Diana.
quote:
Here are some odds of the codes that are found in Isaiah 53 alone.
Irrelevant. You are confusing the odds of getting a specific outcome with the odds of getting any outcome.
Suppose I have a standard deck of 52 cards and draw a card?
What is the probability of me drawing the Ace of Spades?
What is the probability of me drawing an Ace?
What is the probability of me drawing a Spade?
What is the probability of me drawing a black card?
What is the probability of me drawing a card?
You are confusing the probability of drawing a card with the probability of drawing the Ace of Spades.
Every long text NECESSARILY has these things in them due to the nature of randomness. Even in a completely random string of letters, you will find skip patterns.
Plus, your data is fraudulent. It requires complete rewriting of the text in order for the specific codes to show up. That is, the text that produces one particular string is not the same text as the one that produces another particular string.
It would be akin to claiming that you found skip patterns in "the Bible" but neglecting to mention that used the KJV as well as the NIV and treated all patterns found as if they were from the same, singular text.
This was published in the same source that Drosnin originally published his claim in.
Statistical Science publishes Bible Codes Refutation
From the abstract:
A paper of Witztum, Rips and Rosenberg in this journal in 1994 made the extraordinary claim that the Hebrew text of the Book of Genesis encodes events which did not occur until millennia after the text was written. In reply, we argue that Witztum, Rips and Rosenberg's case is fatally defective, indeed that their result merely reflects on the choices made in designing their experiment and collecting the data for it. We present extensive evidence in support of that conclusion. We also report on many new experiments of our own, all of which failed to detect the alleged phenomenon.
Now, of course, you have another problem: You're saying that god endorses Isaiah. But Isaiah calls the Torah an abomination. So why is god endorsing a book that is an abomination?
Note, there's a reason why Moby Dick was chosen: Drosnin challenged doubters specifically on that text:
When my critics find a message about the assassination of a prime minister encrypted in Moby Dick, I'll believe them.
And, interestingly, Moby Dick's description of the death of Rabin is much more detailed than the Bible's. It details that "Igar Amil," a student at "Bar-Ilan" University and associated with "Eyal" (which is based upon the terrorist group "Lehi") would be the one to kill "Rabin" (who would be "shot dead") over the "Oslo" accords.
It would appear that god really loves Moby Dick.
Here's the original link for you to try again:
Assassinations Foretold in Moby Dick
Oh, some more shocking things in Moby Dick:
"Drosnin," himself, is going to be murdered in either "Cairo" or "Athens" by an assassin "driving a nail into his heart" (which "slices out a considerable hole") on "the first day" of his visit to those cities because he is "a treasure hunter" and "liar" who spouts "lies" about the "Torah" (letter 812845 with a skip of -25936).
The Demise of Drosnin

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Tal, posted 01-11-2005 9:20 AM Tal has not replied

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 95 of 178 (176505)
01-13-2005 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Rrhain
01-13-2005 2:22 AM


Re: Evolution vs. creation
Rrhain writes:
Why are you focusing on creationists? We're talking about theists. When was it agreed that god had to have created the universe?
Because that is what this thread is supposed to be about. Check this exert from the OP.
You can be both an Atheist and an Evolutionist.
You can be both a Creationist and an Evolutionist.
You can be a Christian, a Creationist, and an Evolutionist.
You can be both a Christian and a Biblical/Genesis Creationist.
The discussion does not include any form of God that isn't Creationist and possibly (but not necessarily) Christian. I am just trying to stick to the thread subject matter as any other visualization of God is off topic. Maybe this is why we have been disagreeing over this all along.
quote:
If God found the universe then this discussion is pretty much moot since the whole point is to rationalize a beleif in both creation (ie. God) and evolution.
Incorrect. The whole point is to rationalize a belief in god and evolution.
No that isn't the point. The point is to rationalize a beleif in a "Christian" "Creationist" style Creator and evolution.
Thus, my original question: Since when was god required to have created life and/or the universe?
Because that is what we are supposed to be talking about here. It is completely irrelevent that Zeus and Odin may still be squabbling over who gets to be head god. They ain't "the Creator" in the Christain sense.
quote:
You don't need a reason not to beleive but you do need one to beleive as it is an afirmative action.
Incorrect. You don't need a reason not to have a belief. Absence of belief is different from belief in absence.
All you have done is paraphrased what I wrote in the first place. I said "not beleive", you said "not have a beleif". They are exactly the same thing! Not beleiving certainly isn't beleiving in absence!
The way I see it, you weigh up the evidence for both sides and see where you come out. The Christian, Creationist God is either Guilty of creating life, the universe and everything or he isn't. There is no grey area here. No room for finding the universe or coming from outside of it or any number of other god ideas.
Either he created it all or the whole myth is false and he doesn't exist.
PY

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Rrhain, posted 01-13-2005 2:22 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Jazzns, posted 01-13-2005 12:08 PM PurpleYouko has replied
 Message 99 by Rrhain, posted 01-15-2005 2:07 AM PurpleYouko has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 96 of 178 (176536)
01-13-2005 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by PurpleYouko
01-13-2005 9:18 AM


Re: Evolution vs. creation
I am going to agree with you on the focus of the topic. It is possible to have a belief in "a god" and rationalize that belief with evolution. This thread in particular is asking why do some people, Biblical Creationists in particular, reject the ability for their fellow believers to accept evolution. Another type of belief system, while interesting, isn't necessarily being disputed by a specific group of people. Theistic evolution is being disputed either directly or indirectly by the quotes I listed in my OP.
The way I see it, you weigh up the evidence for both sides and see where you come out. The Christian, Creationist God is either Guilty of creating life, the universe and everything or he isn't. There is no grey area here. No room for finding the universe or coming from outside of it or any number of other god ideas.
This I am going to go ahead and disagree with. Most Theistic Evolutionists I know take Genesis and other parts of the OT as very much a borrowed mythology. While it may have some spiritual signifigance, it is no way is an accurate description of creation or God's role in creation. Given that it is our only insight into creation given in the Bible, it is only speculation as to how much God was or was not involved with the different aspects of creation. Personally, I believe that God created the entire universe with all of its properties which includes free will for the life and matter therein. I believe that God can intervene on our behalf when he wishes but for the most part lets us exercise the gift of our free will as he has given it to us.
You seem to be saying that I am forced to believe that God did it all or that there is no God. Why is this so? Given that we can point to Genesis and show its borrowed nature why should Christians be forced to have ANY particular view on the creation event whatever it was. So what if I believe that God is an entity that exists within the universe or is the universe or is outside the universe in some kind of cloudy extra dimension. The criteria for being a Christian is believing that God, from wherever he exists, came down and decided to be a man in order to save us from our sins.
Now. How can we get Biblical/Genesis Creationists to stop demeaning their other brothers and sisters in Christ who don't believe that Genesis was written by the hand of God?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by PurpleYouko, posted 01-13-2005 9:18 AM PurpleYouko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by PurpleYouko, posted 01-13-2005 12:19 PM Jazzns has replied

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 97 of 178 (176543)
01-13-2005 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Jazzns
01-13-2005 12:08 PM


Re: Evolution vs. creation
Hi Jazzn's
Now. How can we get Biblical/Genesis Creationists to stop demeaning their other brothers and sisters in Christ who don't believe that Genesis was written by the hand of God?
I admit that I have been hitting the subject from a biblical creationist point of view. I had to start somewhere and this is the position that I am most familiar with after being brought up as a Jehovah's witness for the first 15 years of my life.
I always thought of the bible (OT and NT) as being indivisable. If you freely admit that bits of it aren't correct then how can you tell which bits are? Is it just a matter of picking and choosing whit bits you like and which bits you don't?. Who makes that call? Each person themselves or some higher religious leader?
It was this kind of inconsistency and lack of any kind of unified position that first made me doubt the entire bible in the first place. That and the fact that I could never get any real answers no matter how many people I asked.
I will try to put some thought into problems from an NT based point of view and see what I come up with.
PY

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Jazzns, posted 01-13-2005 12:08 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Jazzns, posted 01-13-2005 1:33 PM PurpleYouko has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 98 of 178 (176564)
01-13-2005 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by PurpleYouko
01-13-2005 12:19 PM


Re: Evolution vs. creation
I always thought of the bible (OT and NT) as being indivisable. If you freely admit that bits of it aren't correct then how can you tell which bits are? Is it just a matter of picking and choosing whit bits you like and which bits you don't?. Who makes that call? Each person themselves or some higher religious leader?
I try to use healthy skepticism when it comes to the Bible. If there is a particular book of the Bible that history shows to be a borrowed myth from another culture then I have reason to be skeptical of that book.
Basically everything has to stand up on its own. For a lot of the Bible I have no reason to reject or affirm it based on the history that I know so I make up my own mind about it. I don't pick and choose because if I did there would be a whole bunch of stuff that I would toss out that I do not necessarily like. Children often do not like the rules of their parents but they still (hopefully mostly) follow them.
There is good reason to doubt Genesis which is why I do. People can splice it up however they like but the creation and the flood are both borrowed myths with a twist. It takes quite a huge mental contortion to not acknowledge the similarities to other mythologies that pre-date the Bible and that they are not 2, often contradictory, stories of both the creation event and the flood. I simply take Genesis for what it is; a historically innacurate mythology maintained in the Bible for historical reasons.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by PurpleYouko, posted 01-13-2005 12:19 PM PurpleYouko has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 99 of 178 (177190)
01-15-2005 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by PurpleYouko
01-13-2005 9:18 AM


Re: Evolution vs. creation
PurpleYouko responds to me:
quote:
The discussion does not include any form of God that isn't Creationist and possibly (but not necessarily) Christian.
No, the discussion also includes all forms of god that aren't creationist because that is the flaw in your argument. You are overlooking those gods that aren't creationist. You are assuming that god => creation. When did that become agreed upon? The entire point is that you are inappropriately ignoring an entire category that countermands your argument.
quote:
I am just trying to stick to the thread subject matter as any other visualization of God is off topic.
Incorrect. It is precisely on topic. You have made a claim and are now trying to say that the evidence that shows your claim to be invalid is "off topic." I'm sorry, but reality doesn't work that way.
quote:
The point is to rationalize a beleif in a "Christian" "Creationist" style Creator and evolution.
And what makes you think it cannot be done? The Catholic church does it. Therefore, your claim that it cannot be done is shown to be false by simple inspection.
The problem is that you are assuming that "creation" means "created everything" when that is not supported. That is the Catholic's position: Evolution created the body. God created the spirit. Just because god creates does not mean god creates everything.
To claim otherwise is to say that god necessarily causes everything and you've just done away with free will.
quote:
They ain't "the Creator" in the Christain sense.
And what is "the creator" in the Christian sense? There's two billion of them splintered into dozens of different sects. The single largest group, counting for more than half, seems to think that god and evolution are completely compatible, according to official dogma. It would seem that "creation" does not mean "everything."
quote:
All you have done is paraphrased what I wrote in the first place.
Incorrect. What you wrote was not specific enough, at best, and actually said what I claimed it said at worst. "Not believe" is most commonly understood to mean "disbelief." But atheists don't have "disbelief" for disbelief is a belief, too. Instead, they don't have any belief. Belief in absence is not the same as absence of belief.
quote:
The Christian, Creationist God is either Guilty of creating life, the universe and everything or he isn't.
Since when was it decided that the Christian concept of "creation" meant "life, the universe, AND everything"? You act as if god needs must be involved in all of the above in order to be considered god.
But not even Christianity believes that. God doesn't create everything.
Does the word "or" mean nothing to you? Does the phrase "some of" mean anything to you? Why is it all or nothing with you?
quote:
There is no grey area here.
Yes, but you are committing the logical error of complex question. The question of god creating the universe does not tell us anything about the question of god creating life. And neither of those answers tells us anything about the question of god creating humans.
God could have created one, two, all three, or even none of the above and still be considered a creator and even Christian.
quote:
No room for finding the universe or coming from outside of it or any number of other god ideas.
Logical error: Excluded middle.
There is a third option and your refusal to consider it is the source of your error.
quote:
Either he created it all
Why does god have to create it all? Why can't he have only created some?
Why does he need to create at all? Just because you are not clever enough to figure out how to be Christian and have god not create everything doesn't mean the rest of Christianity hasn't managed to do so. You have admitted you aren't a Christian. Have you considered the possibility that this affects your ability to analyze the situation?

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by PurpleYouko, posted 01-13-2005 9:18 AM PurpleYouko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by PurpleYouko, posted 01-18-2005 3:13 PM Rrhain has replied

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 100 of 178 (178233)
01-18-2005 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Rrhain
01-15-2005 2:07 AM


Re: Evolution vs. creation
Rrhain writes:
No, the discussion also includes all forms of god that aren't creationist because that is the flaw in your argument. You are overlooking those gods that aren't creationist. You are assuming that god => creation. When did that become agreed upon? The entire point is that you are inappropriately ignoring an entire category that countermands your argument.
There you go again. The topic of this thread is "Christian" and or "Creationist" images of God and their consistency or inconsistency with the TOE. There is absolutely NO reason to extend the interpretation of God to anything beyond that yet you stubbornly keep trying to pull it in that direction.
Too right, I am ignoring a whole catagory of (totally off topic) gods which don't countermand my argument in the slightest because my argument isn't aimed at them.
It is precisely on topic. You have made a claim and are now trying to say that the evidence that shows your claim to be invalid is "off topic." I'm sorry, but reality doesn't work that way.
Total crap! I never claimed anything whatsoever about these non-Christian Gods. Maybe your reality is somewhat different than mine. Perhaps in yours I actually did say something like that but it sure as hell wasn't on this thread.
And what makes you think it cannot be done? The Catholic church does it. Therefore, your claim that it cannot be done is shown to be false by simple inspection.
OK then. Now we are back on topic.
let's take a look at this statement
"The Catholic church does it"
Does it? Are you so sure? Are you saying that the present Pope IS the Catholic church? Because I will show you that a good sized chunk of the Catholic Church does no such thing.
check this intersesting little site out. It contains just about every evolution/geology/palaentology bashing argument that I have ever seen. Where did I find it? Here!. A site more commonly known as "Learning The Faith! Catholic High School Theology online"
Please excuse that this is very close to breaking the "bare links" rule but there is way to much stuff there to even paraphrase it.
Or how about this nonsensical doubletalk that I found on a Catholic web site where people write in with questions for the priest?
quote:
"Dear father,
I have read articles about evolution and how the Catholic Church regards it as a scientific theory and not a philosophy. How would our belief of the human soul fit in with evolution? Since when did we have a soul?
Thank you,
Rafael"
"Dear Rafael, Yes, the Catholic Church regards the various theories concerning evolution as theories, since they have not been porved."
"You ask, Since when did we have a soul? Human beings had a soul since the first human being was created by God."
"But a human being, that is, one with a human body and a human soul, cannot possibly evolve from an animal"
This is apparently the "official" Catholic position on evolution as I understand it. The Church policy is to "allow" ordinary Catholic people to make up their own minds provided that they remember the following.
"While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution." Pope Pius V 1950
Later (1996) Pope JohnPaul II anounces to the world that Darwin was right.
But there are still limitations on this. Catholics cannot beleive that "the soul" evolved from an "animal soul" (whatever that might be) they define evolution in two separate camps. Theistic evolution and Atheistic (materialistic) evolution. The former is OK but the latter isn't.
Catholic encyclopedia. Still claims that the soul was created by God and put into man at some point.
It is certainly not a whole hearted acceptance of TOE, just their own version of it.
You even make this point yourself and that is fine as long as you accept that this is "theistic evolution" with limitations and not the full blown deal.
Here is another Catholic website.? Obviously these Catholics don't see eye to eye with the Pope.
quote:
"Evolution undermines the Catholic doctrine of original sin which the church knows can't be tampered with without undermining the purpose of Christ's death on the cross."
Anyway, that settles the question of "The Catholic Church" as an entity. They don't agree with the Pope at all times. One man does not a religion make!
It would seem that "creation" does not mean "everything."
At least you are correct here. It seems to me that creation can mean pretty much anything at all as long as there are little wiggles holes for the supposed "soul" to escape through.
quote:
All you have done is paraphrased what I wrote in the first place.
Incorrect. What you wrote was not specific enough, at best, and actually said what I claimed it said at worst. "Not believe" is most commonly understood to mean "disbelief." But atheists don't have "disbelief" for disbelief is a belief, too. Instead, they don't have any belief. Belief in absence is not the same as absence of belief.
Have you ever heard of boolean logic? "NOT believe" is inherantly defined as the complete absense of "believe".
The programming code...
IF NOT beleive = TRUE THEN
perform some action
ENDIF
proves that, assuming that "believe" has been defined as a boolean variable.
Therefore I was completely correct to say that "not believe" does not imply any kind of belief at all, let alone a belief in the absence of something. That is just word twisting and is totally inaccurate and ilogical to boot.
But not even Christianity believes that. God doesn't create everything.
Maybe some branches of Christianity don't believe that, however Christian Creationists do and that was the exact definition used in my previous reply. Why don't you try actually reading my answers before making out-of-context replies to them.
Does the word "or" mean nothing to you? Does the phrase "some of" mean anything to you? Why is it all or nothing with you?
Completely irrelevent for the reason noted above. "or" doesn't come into it when referring to absolute creationism.
There is a third option and your refusal to consider it is the source of your error.
No there isn't! In the context of my position (and this thread), there is no room for a Non-Christian or Non Creationist God. There can be a Christian God who didn't create everything (but this is still a somewhat limited field) OR there can be a Creationist God who DID create everything but need not necessarily be Christian. Any other type, kind or variation of God belongs on a different thread.
Why can't you seem to grasp that fact?
I am arguing from a very specific viewpoint which I am trying to keep precisely to the original topic proposed in the OP.
Why does he need to create at all
Because that is the entire point of this discussion. If you want to discuss a God who just happened to come across a nicely furnished universe without an apparent owner then please feel free to start another thread on that subject. But stop trying to drag this one off in pointless directions.
You have admitted you aren't a Christian. Have you considered the possibility that this affects your ability to analyze the situation?
But I used to be one though. Have you stopped to consider why I'm not any more? My ability to see clearly enough to analyze the situation and ask pertinent questions, to which the best answer I ever received was "You shouldn't ask those things! God doesn't want us to ask them! We aren't meant to know!", are the exact reason why I'm not one now.
If the answers weren't there then I was looking in the wrong place!
PY

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Rrhain, posted 01-15-2005 2:07 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Rrhain, posted 01-22-2005 4:52 AM PurpleYouko has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 101 of 178 (179558)
01-22-2005 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by PurpleYouko
01-18-2005 3:13 PM


Re: Evolution vs. creation
PurpleYouko responds to me:
quote:
The topic of this thread is "Christian" and or "Creationist" images of God and their consistency or inconsistency with the TOE.
No, it isn't. It's "Evolution != Atheism (re: the Rejection of Theism in Evolution)" When did "theism" become equivalent to "Christian"? And when did "creationist" become equivalent to "Genesis literalism"?
You're engaging in the logical error of the excluded middle. There is a third option.
But even if we accept your claim, are you saying that Catholics aren't Christian? That they don't believe god created?
The mere existence of Pope John Paul II disproves your thesis. Why do you keep clinging to it?
quote:
Does it? Are you so sure?
Yes. Please read the Magisterium (JPII) and the Encyclical (Pius XII). The official position of the Catholic Church is that evolution is the only scientific theory we have to explain the diversification of life on this planet.
quote:
Are you saying that the present Pope IS the Catholic church?
No, I'm saying over fifty years of Catholic cogitation upon the subject has come to the conclusion that there is no other scientific theory to explain the diverisifcation of life on this planet other than evolution.
But to get to your subtext, are you seriously saying that the head of a religion isn't the head of a religion?
quote:
This is apparently the "official" Catholic position on evolution as I understand it.
Then you misunderstand.
The Pope overrules the bishops. That's one of the perks of being the Pope. You're the head of the group.
Does the leader not get to be the leader?
As JPII said, in reiterating the statement of Pius XII and agreeing with it, "there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation."
Doesn't the leader get to be the one with the final say? There will always be those who disagree, but doesn't the leader get to be the one with the final say?
What is the point of being the leader if you don't get to lead?
quote:
Still claims that the soul was created by God and put into man at some point.
I never said it didn't.
Since when has evolution ever said anything about a soul? To do that, it would have to perform experiments upon souls and so far, we have never been able to detect one let alone stick it in a box and poke it to see what it does.
Remember what I said: The diversification of life. I chose that phrasing for a reason. Actually, for many reasons. It points out that evolution is not about the origin of life but rather about what happens to life after it comes into existence just as chemistry is not about the origin of atoms but rather about what happens to atoms after they come into existence. It also points out that it is about how life changes from one form into another and not about such metaphysical concepts as a "soul" and "vocation."
That's how Catholicism gets away with it. Evolution created the body. God created the soul.
And since evolution doesn't even know what a "soul" is, there is no reason to deny the Catholic position.
quote:
One man does not a religion make!
Yes, he does. That's what "ex cathedra" means. I'm not saying that the statements from Pius XII and JPII regarding evolution were made ex cathedra. I'm simply pointing out that your statement is directly contradicted by the existence of the Pope. He does have the power to define the religion all on his own.
That's why there are different catholic religions (such as the one Mel Gibson follows as well as the Polish National Catholic Church and the Greek and Russian Orthodox churches...they all disagreed with the Pope over something and thus splintered off.)
quote:
Have you ever heard of boolean logic?
Of course.
Since when did language follow the rules of Boolean logic? Take a look at the use of "or." In standard English, it really means "XOR," but that's not what we say. When someone asks if you would like the soup or the salad, you are not being offered the option of having both.
In logic, a double negative is a positive and while that is a supposed "rule" in English, it is routinely broken. And in many other langauges, you have to have a double negative or you aren't following the rules correctly of how to construct a negative. In Spanish, a negative statement is made by negating everything: "Yo no conozco nada" and not "Yo no conozco cualquier cosa."
If you're going to use English, you must be cognizant of the way in which stock phrases are interpreted. If you are going to use an unusual interpretation, then it is best to indicate that you are doing so or perhaps recasting your sentence to avoid the use of the stock phrase that might be misinterpreted.
quote:
quote:
But not even Christianity believes that. God doesn't create everything.
Maybe some branches of Christianity don't believe that, however Christian Creationists do and that was the exact definition used in my previous reply.
Then there is no such thing as free will. And among the most fervent Christians such as those that advocate a literal reading of Genesis, they most certainly do not claim that god creates evil.
God does not create everything.
quote:
"or" doesn't come into it when referring to absolute creationism.
But "creationism" does not mean "absolute creationism" (whatever that means...I think you mean "literal Genesis.") This is why you keep erring. Logical error of the excluded middle.
Read the topic. Where do we find any statement that we're talking only about a literal reading of Genesis and only such? While such certainly is a theistic framework and a foundation for a certain type of creationism, it is by no means the only one.
quote:
If the answers weren't there then I was looking in the wrong place!
But you are assuming that there are only two options. There are at least four.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by PurpleYouko, posted 01-18-2005 3:13 PM PurpleYouko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by PurpleYouko, posted 01-24-2005 11:48 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 102 of 178 (180218)
01-24-2005 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Rrhain
01-22-2005 4:52 AM


Re: Evolution vs. creation
Rrhain writes:
quote:
The topic of this thread is "Christian" and or "Creationist" images of God and their consistency or inconsistency with the TOE.
No, it isn't. It's "Evolution != Atheism (re: the Rejection of Theism in Evolution)" When did "theism" become equivalent to "Christian"? And when did "creationist" become equivalent to "Genesis literalism"?
And again I say YES IT IS!
Here is the most relevent section of the OP which says so.
Jazzns writes:
I want to focus a discussion on why some Biblical Creationists feel the need to make this assumption that Evolution = Atheism, why to some is being a Christian Evolutionist invalid, and what this has anything to do with what is at stake for the EvC debate.
This is the question I have been responding to. Anything outside of this context would be irrelevent.
But even if we accept your claim, are you saying that Catholics aren't Christian? That they don't believe god created?
Excuse me! Where the heck did I say that Catholics aren't Christians? What I actually said was that not ALL Catholics believe in evolution, no matter what the Pope tells them to do. I believe (oops better not use that word or you will try to twist that too ) that i gave you plenty of references to back up this claim.
The mere existence of Pope John Paul II disproves your thesis. Why do you keep clinging to it?
What exactly does this disprove? There is a guy called John Paul who happens to be the Pope. So what?
quote:
One man does not a religion make!
Yes, he does. That's what "ex cathedra" means. I'm not saying that the statements from Pius XII and JPII regarding evolution were made ex cathedra. I'm simply pointing out that your statement is directly contradicted by the existence of the Pope. He does have the power to define the religion all on his own.
Only within reasonable bounds. And even then the masses of people who make up the Catholics of the world don't necessarily give more than lip service to those rules and dictates. The average Joe on the street is free to make up his own mind what to believe or not and if he thinks that Evolution is bogus then he will keep right on thinking that Evolution is bogus no matter what the Pope says. He can't force people to beleive stuff if they don't want to. Does that make them bad Catholics? or maybe not Catholics at all? Who cares? The point is that the Pope doesn't control what people think even if he would like to.
I gave you plenty of evidence that some supposedly mainstream Catholics still refute the TOE. I got plenty more if you want them. I only used a small fraction of all the websites that I found in less than 30 minutes of googling.
If you want to tell me that anyone who doesn't think and feel exactly what the Pope tells them to, is not a Catholic then that is fine. It only helps to strengthen my point and to weaken your statement that the world's largest group of Christians believe in TOE.
There is just no way that you can say that Catholics, as a body, accept TOE when a whole lot including certain Catholic high schools, clearly don't.
That's how Catholicism gets away with it. Evolution created the body. God created the soul.
And since evolution doesn't even know what a "soul" is, there is no reason to deny the Catholic position.
Yes I agree with you here. The TOE doesn't deal with souls or the origins of life in any way and since modern day Catholicism officially denies that Genesis is factual and literal then they don't even have a place in my argument at all.
I have only ever argued that biblical creationism is incompatable with TOE. If they chose to disbeleive parts of their own Holy book then that is their business.
But "creationism" does not mean "absolute creationism" (whatever that means...I think you mean "literal Genesis.") This is why you keep erring. Logical error of the excluded middle.
I am not interested in the middle ground at the moment. You are the one who keeps trying to pull it in that direction. I am only trying to defend a narrow position here. If you get me to admit that you are right in that a "middle ground" can exist then it will not be a victory to you since I have never denied it in the first place. What is the point of trying to drag me in that direction all the time? Why not address the points that I have actually tried to make?
I don't deny that some of the points you make about Christian evolutionists in the vane of the Catholic "official" stance are irrefutable evidence that some people do beleive in both sides. That just isn't the point I have been getting at.
I have learned a whole lot more about Catholics from this discussion and I still get the impression that the official line is not that Darwin was right (in fact they specifically refute "Darwinism") but that anyone who wants to, is free to believe the TOE (but not Darwin).
So basically there is no "official" beleif. Just a relaxed definition of what you can beleive.
If you're going to use English, you must be cognizant of the way in which stock phrases are interpreted. If you are going to use an unusual interpretation, then it is best to indicate that you are doing so or perhaps recasting your sentence to avoid the use of the stock phrase that might be misinterpreted.
I can't believe (Oh no! There is that word again) we are still quibbling over gramatical phrases.
The way I see it, "Not believe" does not in any way imply any kind of belief. That is the crux of the issue. In fact it does the exact opposite by specifically denying the existence of belief.
How can saying "I do not believe in anything" equate to "I believe in nothing". Even though gramatically, the second statement could be somewhat ambiguous, the first cannot.
I can't comment on the Spanish as I have never studied it and can't speak a word of it.
PY

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Rrhain, posted 01-22-2005 4:52 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
ProfessorR
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 178 (203761)
04-29-2005 5:40 PM


My position is perhaps very close to Trixie's (from Edinburgh). I am a practicing Christian (Presbyterian, but with some Eastern Orthodox "streak" as I grew up in Ukraine), and a biologist (researcher in immunology and a biology teacher in college). I accept the theory of evolution as a valid scientific theory, and I fail to see, just how in the word can that be at odds with my belief in Christ. --Richard

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Andya Primanda, posted 04-30-2005 10:44 AM ProfessorR has not replied
 Message 105 by Siguiendo la verdad, posted 06-09-2005 12:01 PM ProfessorR has not replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 178 (203934)
04-30-2005 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by ProfessorR
04-29-2005 5:40 PM


Greeting Professor Richard,
I guess your position reflect most believing scientists' views. Not just Christians.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by ProfessorR, posted 04-29-2005 5:40 PM ProfessorR has not replied

  
Siguiendo la verdad
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 178 (215623)
06-09-2005 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by ProfessorR
04-29-2005 5:40 PM


What did Christ think?
Jesus the Christ is quoted in the New Testament as quoting the Old Testament literally, which shows us that he had a literal interpretation of the Old Testament and to believe in the Christ is to believe in the Jesus written about in the Old and New Testaments, which would require belief of what He said and did. So why would you hold a belief contrary to a literal belief in the very book that shows us the accounts of what God has done, who He is, and what He is going to do?
It would be equivelent to saying: "I accept murder as a valid action, and I fail to see, just how in the world that can be at odds with my belief in Christ", even though murder is forbidden in the bible.
This is the crux: Evolution (in all it's supposed splendor) says, among many other things, directly or indirectly, as I understand it, that the God of the Old and New Testament either does not exist or did not do and/or does not do what those two books say He did and does.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by ProfessorR, posted 04-29-2005 5:40 PM ProfessorR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by jar, posted 06-09-2005 12:07 PM Siguiendo la verdad has replied
 Message 107 by Silent H, posted 06-09-2005 2:40 PM Siguiendo la verdad has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024