Subject:
|
Re: Mormon bashing again
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 3 Mar 2000 05:57:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
737 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
>
> I've read most of the supposedly "scientific" Creationist literature,
> and nowhere is the necessary connection between belief in a director
> or architect ("theistic evolution") and the Christian god. Creationism
> is emphatically *not* science, first of all because dressing up dogma
> in scientific terminology does not make it scientific, and second of
> all because Creation Science (or "Creation Research" or "Theory of
> Spontaneous Origins" or whatever Hank Morris et al are calling it
> this week) operates on the basis of anti-logic. The latter means
> that Creationism depends on disproving evolution to prove itself true.
I disagree, creationism can stand quite aptly on it's own two feet. It doesn't
get it's validation from disproving evolution. There is quite a lot of
geological and biological evidence to support the bible. The fossil record is
not as the evolutionist would like it, for example. Not to mention that there
is no evidence of intermediary life forms necessary to support the THEORY -
only clearly delineated specific and vastly different species that reproduce
"after their kind" just like the primitive bible states. Evolution is
desperately lacking proof. Did you know that the bible states that the earth is
round - long before the days of Cristobol Colon (Christopher Columbus)? I know,
a very basic issue, yet millenia ahead of it's time. Listen, I cannot spar on
your level, having nothing more than a high school education. I can't drop
names and theories like you have. But, one thing I know, and that is that God
is more than a concept of superstitious men to manipulate the behavior of
others. Of course Christianity is a matter of faith, therein lies the virtue.
Where is the virtue in acting upon only that which you can prove with your
senses. None of the great achievements of history would have been realized had
people only believed in what they could prove. Uggghh, Dogma! (I intensely
dislike that word! I'm not trying to be authoritative or arbitrary at all.)
> No other option is seen as possible other than those two--the cyclical
> world of certain Asian religions, for example, isn't even considered,
> nor the theory I just came up with now that a giant pink bunny made
> us all five minutes ago with our memories intact and apparent age.
When are you holding services, all hail the giant pink bunny. Wait, I think I
see his reflection in that window!
> One point of Bill's original post was true: Darwin's theory was wrong.
> But it was wrong in precisely the same way that Newton's theories are
> wrong--they were only adequate to describe what was then known. Only
> the generalities of descent with modification are still present in
> today's evolutionary theory. Interesting side notes: Darwin in fact
> started as a Creationist, and evolution was first posited over a century
> before he wrote! If Creationism is so scientific and correct, how
> did evolution ever get a foothold?
With all the fabricated and mistaken evidence they initially offered, your
guess is as good as mine.
> As to the books mentioned above, give me citations (Author, Title,
> Publisher, Year) and I'll give you reactions. You see, most scientists
> ignore Creationism, figuring like the rest of the world that it would
> simply go away in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Yet there IS no evidence of the actual evolution itself, only theory. There is
no proof. Far from overwhelming - it's non-existant. It has never been
demonstrated. It simply could not have been random, the entire ball of wax is
too complex to be random. Nature yields nothing orderly. A tree never grows
into a complex arrangement of parts becoming something useful or meaningful.
Nature yields chaos. Evolution flies directly in the face of every law of
science and you know it. Evolution cannot, cannot, cannot account for all of
the gazillions of mutations necessary to produce such vastly different and
complex life forms known to have existed. We KNOW that the majority of
mutations are negative or debilitating, yet where are all the fossils of this
inconceivably huge amount of negative mutations necessary to produce the
relatively small number of positive ones that comprise all known life. It
doesn't exist. There is an incredible amount of fossil evidence required to
cover the intermediary life forms and the negative mutations as well. This
evidence should be many times larger than that representing present life. Yet
not even one single solitary piece of it exists. Who is relying more on faith
or fairytales - you or me?
> The two aren't incompatible
> unless you demand a literalist reading of Genesis and a strict
> adherence to Revelations eschatology--which is unscientific.
A bumble bee flying is unscientific - yet it's true. Cliche and tiresome, I
know, but still fact.
> Besides, amino acids are self-ordering--
> primitive self-replicating chains of the sort you cite taking "240
> million years" to develop can in fact be made in a matter of hours
> under mildly controlled conditions with wide variances--wide enough
> to be plausable for a primordial environment.
I was speaking of the amount of time required for the far less common positive
mutation becoming universal to the life form having mutated, such as fins
becoming feet (which would require a bazillion mutations in itself). As far as
"mildly controlled conditions" - isn't that the entire point - there was no
mild control - in fact the environment was extremely harsh and not the least
bit conducive to the formation of life. We know life cannot exist without the
ozone - otherwise why is everyone freaking out about holes in the ozone and the
effects of ultra violet rays.
> > History
> > has proven that powerful people with little or no morals WILL dominate the
> > weak.
>
> It has also proven that the righteous and morally upright (as
> self-defined, naturally) will also dominate the weaker, in the
> name of "civilising" them. It's still going on today in huge
> parts of the world, and it's the reason why much of Africa is
> such a tremendous mess (not to mention parts of Asia and Latin
> America). The belief in moral rectitude unfortunately brings
> with it enormous blinders.
I wouldn't call those valid representations of what the bible teaches. They are
clearly illegitimate contortions designed for personal gain.
> > Morality must originate outside of ourselves -
> > there can be no other source - otherwise everything is a house of cards • easily
> > toppled.
>
> Why can't it exist in the simple tenet, "Do unto others, as you
> would have done unto you?" Do we need the fear of eternal punish-
> ment to keep us in line? I'd like to believe a more altruistic
> and doctrinally neutral alternative is possible.
I don't do right out of fear, I do it because it's right. "Do unto others"
without a higher authority collapses when you consider the Hitlers and Husseins
of the world. Evil always exists among us, yet how does science account for it.
If there is no source of good, then where is the source of human evil. Every
conception of man has consistently been co-opted by evil men. Evil is in fact
an absence of good, just as dark is an absence of light. All evil can be
attributed to a lack of the all elusive Love. No child who has been truly and
sufficiently loved, nurtured and given a sense of significance will become a
Hitler or Hussein. When we lack real love we seek to fill the void with other
things.
>
> Death in most like-animal combat is accidental.
Not in the cases listed above.
> When you start
> making analogies between animals and the horror of Columbine, though,
> things break down--since when do animals kill themselves after
> killing others of their kind?
The analogy was not intended to be taken that far.
> best
>
> Lindsay
The best to you, too. I enjoy the presentation of rational ideas. People on
Lugnet tend to be far more civil than other groups - must be "the Bond of the
Brick."
Bill
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
| (...) Like? (...) Anti-logic. Evolution and biblical Special Creation aren't the only two choices. And evolution does not "like" or "dislike" the fossil record (although we all can dream of having every creature that ever lived preserved somehow, (...) (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
| (I hope this formats OK when I submit it) Toto, I think we're in Kansas... (...) I've read most of the supposedly "scientific" Creationist literature, and nowhere is the necessary connection between belief in a director or architect ("theistic (...) (25 years ago, 2-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
541 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
