Creationists:: What would convince you that evolution has happened ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:
I would find it difficult to conceptualize that this existance is all that there is and that there is no afterlife.

---

But what does "difficulty imagining" have to do with reality? Quantum physics is difficult to conceptualize but the math works and test after test confirms it.

quote:

---

... the crimes against little children, kidnapped, raped, and then brutally murdered, their bodies discarded like yesterdays trash. If that is the kind of world that you, or anyone else, truly desires to put your faith in then I pity your kind most above all creatures.

---

This is not the world I desire, but you can't kick out the facts because they are unpleasant.It is interesting to me that you seem to consider God or religion to be a kind of bulwark against evil, yet it seems to me to be more often the source of violence and destruction than protection against it.And by pushing judgement into the afterlife you actually work against justice. Ideas like "kill them all and let god sort them out" come to mind.

​

[This message has been edited by John, 06-12-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:
John says:
What you consider facts, are in reality, fantasy and fabrication, IMHO. For additional comments, please refer to post #108.***

---

Statements do not make facts-- or arguments, and all I've seen from you is a series of statements and a great many insults.I did refer to post #8. Why do I feel like I am trying to debate an immature elementary school student?------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:
....insult deleted....
I have no intention of spelling things out
.... insult deleted.....

​

Jet

​

---

Sorry, Jet, but spelling things out is exactly what debate requires. You cannot simple say "Well, you should already just know! (insert tongue sticking out)"The only people who should have a problem with this are people who CANNOT spell things out. Of course a very practical side effect of refusing the spell things out is that you can never be wrong. It is impossible to evaluate an argument that is never SPELLED OUT.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:
That was post #108, not #8. Please pay attention if you expect to continue to be responded to.

---

oooo.... harsh aren't we... ?Typo... I went to #108 and followed the thread all the way back.But actually, unless you plan to say something meaningful, I'd rather you not respond.You can look down on us poor school kids from your obviously wiser perch, but the fact remains that you are NOT SAYING ANYTHING.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
Dyed-in-the-wool naturalists are incapable of changing their minds except in very rare instances.

---

Pretty sweeping generalization. The history of science is riddled with ideas which, at first, no one wanted to take seriously. Eventually, the evidence catches up though, and the ideas get accepted. Hardly the behavior you'd expect from people incapableof changing thier minds.

quote:

---

This is because people very rarely base their perspectives on primarily empirical data.

---

Granted, which is why so many people believe in God.

quote:

---

The net result of an incorporation of actual empiricism upon the thinking of a population (of philosophically naturalistic individuals, for example), would be that they would regard such naturalistic philosophy and its inevitable implications, with at least the same dubiety as that group (of naturalists) has historically displayed toward creationism.

---

You are forgetting one thing--- evidence. Evidence is critically important in empiricism. Are you sure that you are using this term properly?------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
Creationism or Evolutionism not the only two possibilities?

​

What could be posited as an answer to origins other than the two contending philosophies which assert either that an omnipotent Creator is responsible for existence, or that existence came about through purely naturalistic means?

---

hmmm..... the Greeks, the Sumerians, the Babylonians all had possible options. There are multitudes of tribal religions all over the world which don't fit neatly into your one-or-the-other scheme.Or, as per the Hitchhiker's Guide, the universe is a figment of its own imagination.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
What could cause me to consider the theory of evolution more seriously?

​

Some credible evidence that comes across as something more than a no-option-evolutionist's attempt to support a philosophy with scientific-sounding rhetoric. For example, if fossils could be found that shows fins gradually developing bones and then gradually extending to transform the creature into a land animal.

---

How about the other way around? May's Scientific American has an good article about whale evolution. www.sciam.com------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
If you don't believe that the physical material required for "evolutionary" or "creationistic" scenarios existed from the infinite past, then it either popped into existence without cause or the omnipotent Creator caused it, right?

---

Or its just always been there...Or it popped into existence with cause and that cause wasn't a Creator...Or it was a creator who isn't omnipotent...------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
Or it popped into existence with cause and that cause wasn't a Creator...
____________________________

​

Yes, of course: as per Stephen Hawking mythos--excellant sf/fantasy writer!

---

I wasn't really refering to Steven Hawking in particular, just offering an option. The point was to break your either/or duality.If you want to snipe at Hawking start a thread in the cosmology section. I'd be happy to chat about it.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
I guess we just disagree about the duality thing--it is either/or.

---

Interesting that you still maintain this opinion after having admitted that the god of the bible is not omnipotent. That brings you up to three options. Another option-- that of arose with cause but without creator-- you dismissed with quip but without argument. Have you no argument?------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
At least for the sake of those who might only be reading this portion of our discussion, my admission that (c'mon!)the God of the Bible is not omnipotent is due to the fact that he cannot lie or do anything else that is inconsistent with his nature.

---

Martin, if there are more than two options it is NOT either/or. Maybe this strikes you as trivial but logically it isn't.

quote:

---

I'll procede under the assumption that you do not ascribe to the notion that physical matter existed for an infinite amount of time throughout the eternal past.

---

.... not sure I believe in an eternal past. If time did in fact start at the big bang along with space, there is no such thing as an eternal past.

quote:

---

I could join your side of the argument for fun and come up with some wild ideas about possible ways to explain the coming-into-being of physical matter from universal non-existence, so, being the man who is as full of concessions as I am, I yield again.
Pray (pun intended), what naturalistic cause could spring from universal non-existence?

---

The problem with joining in for fun is that you'd actually have to deal with evidence. Quantum mechanics suggests that particles can do exactly what you insist can't happen.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
The difference is that particles are already present now

---

No, they are not. Quantum mechanics allows for the popping into and popping out of existence of particles. This effect is called the Casimir effect, as has been noted already. It can be measured. It is not the measuring of particles that are already here. It is the measuring of particles getting here-- popping into existence.

quote:

---

Do you think it is the same thing to appeal to particle phenomenon now in existence as the answer to how all of the particles came into being in the first place?

---

The quantum effects we are discussing are noticable at only at extremely short distances. The starting point of our universe is about as small as you can get. Ergo--- pop.

quote:

---

Even Hawking admits that these GUT-type scenarios

---

This isn't really a Grand Unified Theory type of problem. This is quantum fluctiation. It can be observed and studied, at least a little bit.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
response:
Since all humans are fallen below the level of being able to redeem themselves, I find it incredibly fulfilling to realize that an avenue of help has been availed. My gauge for judging the worth of the plan of salvation is, "Does it work?" If the accurate answer is "yes," I'll climb aboard regardless of whether or not it fulfills some faulty humanistic need to think that I earned it.

---

If we were discussing any other plan would you argue the same way?Pretend that you are in Germany during the last World War. You are given the option to save yourself by killing Jews. It works. So by your criteria you'd kill Jews.Or you could save yourself from a sinking ship by abandonning your children (if you have them, if not, pretend). Would you? By these criteria, you must.

quote:

---

To the universally fallen human perspective, it is entirely expected.

---

That Christianity is responsible for this universally fallen perspective tilts the scales back to the side of the sick and twisted.

quote:

---

But the MOST loving and kind people are not the non-Christians.

---

If this were the case, I may have never walked away from the religion.

quote:

---

The worst-behaving carnal Christians are one thing, but those Christians who have spent their lives in an effort to discipline themselves to honor God, walk in the highest form of love and goodness. Their love is enhanced in a way that no-one elses "love" could be. It's empowered by the presence of God's Holy Spirit in the life of the individual.

---

But if Christ indwells in the believer there shouldn't really be any worst-behaving carnal christians. In other words, it seems that the religion has failed to create the love you profess.Ever heard of the parable of the fig tree? Remember the part about 'if it bears bad fruit year after year, cut it down'?------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
[b]Boy, it's an exercise in patience to deal with a request to quote a reply and the only thing that comes up is the last portion of it, so I'll respond to your concerns out of sequence.[/QUOTE][/b]I know what you mean.

quote:

---

It's clear that Christian behavior is not governed entirely by the presence of God's Spirit that results from a person's spiritual rebirth.

---

But Christianity promises just such a thing in the Gospels. You probably know some verses so I'm not going to quote any. Problem is that it rarely ever happens. Only a few people really seem to find this sort of 'spirit of Christianity' -- Saint Theresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, Meister Eckhart come to mind. This makes me think that the effect really hasn't much to do with the religion at all but has instead something to do with the psychology of these very self-reflective individuals. To be honest, the best track records of any 'religion' goes to the Jewish Kabbalists (not the modern wanna-be's but people like Maominides- sorry really should look up that spelling, Isaac Luria, Ba'al Shem Tov, Ari) [QUOTE][b]But you're right in your reference to the fig tree; people who repent and receive Jesus, and certainly those who conytinue living for many years after their conversion, must bear fruit.[/QUOTE][/b]But there is no punishment for failing to bear good fruit. Once saved, your in forever.But to be blunt, I meant the fig tree analogy to be applied to the entire religion as it so very consistently bears bad fruit.

quote:

---

Biblical morality would not allow for killing the Jews or abandoning one's children. No, I would never do those types of things.

---

But it does indeed. Jesus is quoted as telling one inquisitor to leave his family without even saying goodbye. In the old testament misbehavior is punished via a curse upon the sinner and his FAMILY for several generations. THe OT is full of slaughter easily on the scale of the Nazi holocost, if the tales be believed.

quote:

---

Christianity is responsible for the universally fallen human perspective.

​

How is it responsible for it? Its the remedy for it.

---

Responsible in that the mythology upon which it is based, and which is important to believers, introduced the concept; creating a market for the product so to speak.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
That may be true to the Baptists down the street but I don't believe it. You can fall from grace. Easily. I think that much of Christianity, perhaps even a majority, has. {/quote]Interesting that you mention the Baptists. This is the cult I was raised within-- Southern Baptist no less.What is your faith? Humor me. [quote][b]He is also quoted as telling people that they cannot be his follower without being reconciled with his family first. What you may have here is a Biblical mistranslation or fragment of an allegory.[/QUOTE][/b]I'll have to look it up then. I'll get back to you on this.

quote:

---

War stories can be exaggerated by the victor. Also, sometimes slaughter is necessary. It is better that some die now rather than many dieing later.

---

No argument. [QUOTE][b]It is a nasty reality that on the borders of Israel were the enemies of Israel.[/QUOTE][/b]And the reverse as well. Israel is often the agressor not the defender. I am not buying this glossy-print version.

quote:

---

Enemies who might have happily driven the Jews to extinction a couple of generations later were supposedly cut down preemptively in retribution for their wickedness, just punishment for the lot of them.

---

Again a gloss on the fact that the Israelites are the agressors.

quote:

---

As for the children who had not yet reached accountability, they are automatically saved by the Atonement, they were presumably killed as well but would have died of exposure anyway.

---

More gloss, at least adopt the kids.

quote:

---

The whole point of this that you need to come to grips with is that the world of the Middle East was particularly nasty. God's chosen lived in a miserable neighborhood and the rules then are different from the rules today ... Back then you would have been trained to fight from a young age and your home town would have had a wall around it to keep your neighbors from sacking it on a weekly basis.

---

And the same for the other non-chosen nations. Still God commanded his chosen to DO THE ATTACKING, and the land stealing and the plundering.

quote:

---

Now, does this mean God rejoices in plunder?

---

Numbers 31:7, 17-18--- soldiers got to take virgins to rape and marry.Deuteronomy 21:10-14--- the same as above------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com