Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 Jan 2001 13:29:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1157 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > The only answer it gives is that Steve doesn't WANT
> > to debate the matter further, or if he DOES, he wants to debate other issues
> > first. As to WHY, we can inferr, but the fact that he doesn't answer doesn't
> > invalidate creationism by any means.
>
> It may mean he can't back up his claims. That doesn't mean others might not
> be able to, granted.
Exactly. It MAY mean he can't back up his claims. But he might also be able
to. Can't say one way or the other... As science would be so keen to point
out, lack of evidence does not prove a theory :)
> Absolutely not. Science is a process for observing and explaining the
> universe. The scientific process seems to be the most accurate way of doing
> this - because of that I find value in it, not out of any blind faith.
Check out the other sub-thread on this-- Honestly I don't know if I've got
time to write out again what I've said there... I'd be interested in your
comments on the issue...
> Scientists do not have faith in your senses - that's why they test your
> experiments: to see if they can duplicate your work. Lack of faith is the
> safest course, in fact.
Exactly. Scientists have faith in THEIR senses. BUT, the odd thing is that
although we know it's a no-no, we still DO have faith in other people's
senses. Have you done ALL the research necessary for modern science, because
you didn't believe it when it was presented to you? No, but you take it on
faith, with the exception, however, that you are not as adamant about that
which you take on faith as that which you do not. If you were a
paleontologist (sp?) you'd be a lot more certain of evolution than you would
be of, say, nuclear fission. This is also based off of other things that
have been touched on in the other sub-thread as well, like society defining
the strengths of your particular faiths via confirmation...
> > But that's exactly the problem for creationists. Evolution DOESN'T address
> > God.
>
> That's why it drives them nuts, though I don't think they realize that at a
> conscious level.
Not all do-- many just refute the theory itself without knowing why they
have such a knee-jerk reaction to it. I don't presume that of Steve, however...
> > He didn't start out with a 'divine' faith-- moreover, he
> > DERIVED a divine faith FROM his faith in himself. And as a result, most
> > prominent Christians had a hissy fit over it. Basically, by NOT addressing
> > God, it violates creationist theory. Your mother may be an anthropologist
> > who believes in the theory of evolution, and at the same time is Christian,
> > but is she actually a CREATIONIST?
>
> Who said she was a creationist? You lost me on that one. The point was
> that that you don't have to be a creationist to be a Christian.
Exactly! BUT, as Steve would argue (I think), if you're not a creationist,
you're not a "perfect" Christian. In his own words, succumbing to the
evolutionary theory for a Christian is just a 'cop-out'; assumedly because
it showed that your faith wasn't strong enough in God, or even in your own
self. But I don't know. I'll have to let Steve complete that one for me...
DaveE
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) But do you really experience life in this fashion? Either doubting everything that you haven't perceived personally, or equating the acceptance of another's testimony with the kind of Faith necessary to believe in a supreme being? The flaw in (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) If he runs on about evolution being bankrupt without addressing the other points, I think we have an answer through a non-answer. If he simply drops the subject, we probably have an answer, but can't be sure of it. Anyway, a non-answer can be (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) No answer can be an answer when one side finds itself overmatched - slinking away quietly is an answer (I'm not saying that this is necessarily the case here). (...) It may mean he can't back up his claims. That doesn't mean others might not (...) (23 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
|
|
|
|
