Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 Jan 2001 16:26:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1186 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> 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 :)
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 an answer.
>
> > 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...
I read your various thoughtful and interesting comments, but I felt the
above mostly addressed them. Tell me which message and I'll try for a more
detailed response.
>
> > 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.
No, they have faith in their own senses only so far as it goes, and know
that other scientists are going to question theirs. Question your senses,
question your instruments, question your methods, question your data,
question your results. I repeat: lack of faith is the safest course.
> 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.
Actually, no. I don't take it on faith. I didn't take "cold fusion" on
faith, for example. I usually adopt a wait and see attitude to see what
research supports or doesn't support an issue. I don't always agree with a
scientist's findings.
> If you were a
> paleontologist (sp?) you'd be a lot more certain of evolution than you would
> be of, say, nuclear fission.
Being less certain doesn't mean you simply are accepting things on faith.
> 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...
They feel threatened by it (and to skip qualifying everything over and over,
not everyone and not necessarily Steve)..
>
> > > 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.
Hubris.
> In his own words, succumbing to the
> evolutionary theory for a Christian is just a 'cop-out';
More hubris. "You're only a Christian if you walk lock-step with me" - and
everyone is saying that and they all walk different. John Cleese disciples?
:-)
> 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
I regard it as a lack of faith on the fundamentalists part, but then I walk
different, too, but I don't presume to deny their Christianity.
Bruce
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) The issue that I'm bringing up elsewhere is in faith of perception. Not in the scientific method, per se, but with the data it examines being based on faith-- as for a SPECIFIC post... I dunno... if you've read them all (and the new ones since (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) 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 :) (...) Check out the other sub-thread on (...) (23 years ago, 19-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
|
|
|
|
