Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 18 Jan 2001 03:31:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1173 times
|
| |
|
|
Steve: You seem to be set on directing your posts only toward a single
recipient rather than answering questions and rebuttals from the readership at
large. If this is the case, I urge you to pursue your discussion via email, or
at the very least to answer some of the refutations of your claims here on
LUGNET. Otherwise, you seem to be taking a head-in-the-sand approach to
debate, and nothing constructive can come of that.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:
> Yet "your cohorts" present a theory for which there is scant
> evidence as though it has been scientifically established as fact.
You're equivocating on the definition of fact. In science a fact is something
which can be accepted per se because it has been utterly and clearly
demonstrated to be consistent with an overwhelming body of evidence in
preference to other interpretations. Evolution fits this criterion. Thus the
theory can be invoked as a fact because it is no longer necessary to prove (by
which I mean to demonstrate to be consistent with an overwhelming body of
evidence in preference to other interpretations) the theory each time it is
invoked. It is taken as a foundation piece of science.
However, this is not to say that the theory is immutable or impervious--far
from it, in fact; the point of science is to advance constantly our
understanding, ever modifying our theories to describe an ever-increasing body
of information. That is why evolution is accepted as fact, and it is why, even
if evolution as a theory is supplanted by some larger, more complete theory,
until that time it is still sufficiently verifiable to be accepted for all
intents and purposes as fact.
> A complex creation doesn't require an intelligent creator? That's one of
> the things that truly baffles me about people who believe in Darwinism.
> If I told you that the <set:8002> sitting (assembled and functional) on
> my desk wasn't created by me out of parts created by TLC...
**SNIP OF AN ABSOLUTELY EXHAUSTED AND FALACIOUS "REFUTATION" OF EVOLUTION**
One identifies set 8002 as an intelligent design because it adheres to
recognized systems already present in our consciousness, which are themselves
acknowledged to be the products of intelligent design. Outside of our
conventions of culture and the strictures imposed upon us by our brain
chemistry, can you definitely point to something necessarily requiring an
intelligence to have arisen? I have no doubt that you can, because you've
stated outright that you reject evolution (and, by extension of your stated
assumptions, science) as a system of explanation. You have further
demonstrated your--perhaps willful--misunderstanding of science by claiming it
to be based on faith, which is so flatly untrue that no conceivable explanation
can possibly convince you of your error.
> Meaning that you are believing Darwinism based upon faith in the
> same way I believe Creationism - that there isn't much evidence
> for either of them.
That's total nonsense. There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER other than notions of
faith and a highly disputable book (by the way, which doctrine should we
swallow as the truth? What about the cosmic egg theory? Or the notion that a
great dragon belched forth the land in its death throes? Why is your
interpretation correct? Can you cite ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER other than
notions of faith that your account is correct?) In contrast, evolution as a
phenomenon is borne out by every branch of science, and the disciplines of
geology, zoology, nuclear physics, and cosmology--among many others--depend on
a universe far older than creationism allows. If you insist that the world was
created whole cloth to resemble a billions-of-years-old universe down to minute
detail, then you must of necessity throw out all the aforementioned branches of
science. I'm not advocating blind adherence to dogma (of which I would be
guilty were my acceptance of evolution or science based solely on "faith") but
rather rational and critical examination of the evidence overwhelmingly
apparent in the universe.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) Just to jump in for Steve on this one, I think the present course was somewhat diverted from Steve's original intent. I think (correct me if I'm wrong Steve) that Steve's intent has been to dispute the moral theory I presented. In so doing, he (...) (24 years ago, 18-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) There were a fair number of responses, that may be daunting in their scope or time involved. But yes, it was more than a comment in passing and he invited debate on the subject of evolution. If he doesn't want to pursue it further, I don't (...) (24 years ago, 18-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) No - God always keeps his promises. According to your example, both Bob and Joe repented of their sins and accepted Christ as their Savior. (...) Interesting - It seems to ME every time I try and correct one of your false assumptions, you (...) (24 years ago, 18-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 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
|
|
|
|
