Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 25 Jan 2001 02:42:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1145 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:
> > > Bob and Joe are twins. They share exactly the same... ...faith...
> > >
> > > Both Bob and Joe die at the same exact time, in the same exact manner.
> > > Can God condemn Bob to eternal damnation and Joe to... ...heaven?
> >
> > No - God always keeps his promises. According to your example, both
> > Bob and Joe repented of their sins and accepted Christ as their Savior.
>
> Before I say 'Aha!' I'll say you can take this back and rephrase it if you
> wish to... Can God condemn either Bob or Joe to a different fate than the
> other? And your answer is no?
> ...For if He DID, he would be breaking his promise...
God always keeps his promises. Are we agreeing again? :-)
> > > Fundamental question: What is it about the subjective ideals
> > > held by the Bible (I.E. X is right because the Bible says so)
> > > vs some other text?
> >
> > The Bible is the Word of God. [1] You can't seriously be telling
> > me that you don't see the difference between the Bible and the
> > words of Bob or Joe or me.
>
> Honestly? No, I don't. Lemme tell you what I think-- and bear in
> mind it's just what I think...
You said you wanted me to correct your assumptions; Here's a
biggie - perhaps your most fundamental. The Bible was penned
by men, but the author is God. Your assumption to the contrary
makes all the other aspects of this "debate" difficult if not pointless,
as we lack a common reference standard.
> > > Assumption 1 - People will only act insofar as they perceive
> > > that their actions will benefit themselves.
> > > Assumption 2 - People learn over time, realizing different things
> > > that are perceived as self-benefiting.
> >
> > Well I don't agree with either,
>
> I can't figure out whether you either aren't examining my assumptions
> in full, not understanding them, or just plain HATE agreeing with me
> and are doing so out of spite. At least the three times now I've presented
> options to you that you first say you disagree with and then later choose
> to agree with, while still holding that I was wrong, or implying such...
Certainly not knowingly or intentionally. Can you be more specific?
It's quite possible in my desire to prune this rapidly growing tree
that I neglected explanation(s).
> Anyway, that was more of a minor rant-- You're free to disagree with
> both those assumptions. However, I really never expected you to
> disagree with the 2nd one at all...
I guess it's more of a definition thing again - realizing, perception,
self-benefiting...
> ...What I'd like from this discussion (regarding my moral theory)
> A. What objections my theory will rise, and are these objections
> EXACTLY what I'd predict the objections are?
> B. Can anyone convince ME that I've made a mistake? Might I have
> logical flaws which might convince me to re-think or abandon my theory?
> C. Can I convince other people that my theory has value or that it's
> actually right?
A. Don't know if I can address that one.
B. Convince you? Probably not. Logical flaws? Again I say
it's more a matter of starting points and assumptions.
C. It has value and is reasonable within the scope you have defined.
<snipped Darwinism due to rapid growth elsewhere>
> > > Here's where I won't let you off the hook. But before I go on,
> > > I'll say I think you've opted for the better choice for yourself...
> >
> > Glad you approve. :-) If there's a "hook" you'd like me to
> > address I don't see it - please restate the question.
>
> Ok. The theoretical situation. You see someone about to be
> chopped up into tiny bits by a threshing machine. With a touch of
> a button, you can stop it. I'll assume you do. Now why'd you do it?
<snipped various feel good about saving him stuff>
I'm not saying those feelings aren't there - I'm saying my
motivation (your term IIRC) is my love for my fellow man
referred to in the Bible as Agape. (The original Greek uses
five different words for the different "kinds" of love.)
> > Oh - Well in that case I would say you quite early on showed there to be
> > an error in the "Bibo". Such a fundamental error is not present in the Bible.
>
> Wow! That was an unexpected opening you left for me. At what point is such
> a fundamental error readily apparent? Was it apparent at phase 1 of my
> example? Maybe to YOU it was, but that's because you already know that
> feathers DO come from brids. In the example, you wouldn't know that at phase
> 1. What if we're only at phase 1 of showing evolution over Darwinism? Do you
> KNOW that there are no such fundamental errors in the Bible?
Yes. Do you have a verse or two you would quibble with? :-)
> > I don't know how common it is, but I certainly don't support the notion
> > that "God created the world via evolution over millennia." It's a cop-out.
>
> I tend to see it a lot... Therefore *I* think it's pretty common, but as
> I'll admit, I could be mistaken. And for the Bible's sake, given the
> progression of evidence pointing to evolution, I hope it's not a cop-out.
> But personally, I agree with you. If I stuck as strictly to the Bible as you
> did, I'd call it a cop-out too.
> > > The question becomes, though, at what point are you "forced" to
> > > actually change your interpretation of the Bible? And at what point
> > > is that interpretation changed sufficiently such that it is no longer what
> > > it once was? And at what point is it no longer salvageable?
> >
> > In all our 6000 years, I've not seen an instance of such a change.
> > There have been situations where us fallible humans have realized
> > that we've miss-interpreted the Bible, but God's Word is infallible
> > and will always remain so. [2]
>
> As I'm told they say in Law School-- Interpretation is EVERYTHING. Right? :)
> The question now is, what would you think if there WERE such a change? Can
> you fathom something which would actually go so far as to invalidate the
> Bible? Basically, is the Bible falsifiable? What would it take?
Good question - Nothing's occurring to me.
> > > > That's the theory for which I say there is no evidence,
> > > > and it's the other main branch I referred to.
> > >
> > > Like I said, only bits of evidence to support the theory have been
> > > found. Not enough to 'verify' it by any scientific method I know of.
> >
> > Yet "your cohorts" present a theory for which there is scant
> > evidence as though it has been scientifically established as fact.
>
> I can only answer for me. My 'cohorts' are nothing of the kind,
> and I won't hold myself accountable for their actions.
OK - Fair enough - I'll try to be more focused.
> > 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, (using
> > instructions created by their staff) but rather that a truck carrying ABS
> > pellets crashed into a UPS van with some rubber bands and other
> > items outside my office and the firemen found it amongst the rubble,
> > you would (rightly) call such a statement absurd. In the next breath
> > however, "you" posit the same thing about the earth - something far
> > more complex and intricate - and don't see why _I_ say absurd?!?
>
> No no-- I think the problem here is your understanding of chaos theory.
> Hmmm... I'm really not sure of the best example. But the basic point is that
> systems will behave in various ways. The system of Lego pieces being in a
> box inside a truck being hit by another truck is NOT the same system as life
> on Earth. I've seen Lego pieces fly through the air after a collision, and I
> wouldn't expect such a result from that particular system. BUT, I would
> expect a different KIND of complex system to result from such a collision.
> And sure, it would look pretty random to us, but really such a collision was
> done under very strict, complex, and yet simple laws of motion, time,
> energy, quantum physics, and the like. But I honestly don't think I can
> explain it very easily. If you're really interested (and I doubt you will
> be-- it's only very rarely that people go reading other people's suggested
> reading [when not online] from an o-t-debate thread) go check out _Chaos_ by
> James Glieck. It doesn't go in depth in any PARTICULAR field, but goes in
> partway into MANY fields. It's really very interesting. Also check out
> fractals and random fractal generation techniques. Meanwhile, I'll try and
> think up a good way of explaining it.
Actually, I like fractals. I wouldn't consider them evidence for evolution.
> > > By all means you may try and show why the theory of evolution
> > > as it stands doesn't hold up under scientific analysis-- but I'll most
> > > likely argue that your objections either say nothing concrete or are
> > > subject to similar critique by the scientific method.
> >
> > 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. I would of course say that the evidence there
> > is supports creation - You would (I expect) say the opposite.
>
> Quite so. And also, as you pointed out, it's rather unnecessary for
> continued discussion of my moral theory if that's what you're interested in
> discussing. I'm perfectly happy disputing either, although I think there's a
> lot less plowed ground on my thoery than there is on Darwinism-- just look
> at the flurry of replies so far :)
Hiakarumbas - You ain't kidding - I'm busy at work for a few days and
when I get back there's well over a hundred dots spawned from my post.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> 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...
You're not expecting 100 replies from me are you? :-)
While I admit I haven't read the flurry of posts, I doubt any of them
answers my basic point about Darwinism - Show my ANY solid evidence
for it OR admit that you follow it on faith. You're free to choose
Darwinism as your religion - just don't say it's fact instead of faith
when the evidence for the theory is either non-existent or faked. Doesn't
the purveyors of a theory faking their evidence for it tell you something?
Before you fire off a rebuttal, remember that I am referring to evolution
OF species not evolution WITHIN a species. Sure you can have different
breeds of cats, (although the breeders controlling everything kinda
negates "natural selection") with varying characteristics - the absurd
part is to say that cats evolved from dogs (or whatever the actual
"tree of life" sequence is supposed to be).
______________________________________________
Way back somewhere in this tree someone asked "What would it take to
convince you?" (or words to that effect). Sometime in the future (IMO
the not too distant future) I and millions of others around the world
will vanish "in the twinkling of an eye". If what we refer to as the
Rapture doesn't convince you, I can't imagine what would. (It certainly
fits Larry's definitions). The Bible (written by men under the inspiration
of the Holy Spirit - not by themselves Tom) predicts this event and many
others that will take place during what's called the Tribulation - the
seven years when God judges mankind. I mention this (and was reminded
of the "What would it take"? question) because this weekend I got to see
a movie that's to be released in about a week called "Left Behind".
It is an exciting and entertaining portrayal of how the Tribulation
prophecies could be fulfilled. I invite you to watch it and LMK what
you think of it. No doubt it will raise many questions - I'll start
a separate thread when it opens and do my best (Prophecy is my
favorite area of Biblical discussion) to answer them.
SRC
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) Dunno, are we? Are you actually saying that God needs to be fair? I certainly hope so-- but my personal interpretation from your side would be that God IS fair, not in a descriptive sense but in an equating sense. Part of what defines your God (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) Before I say 'Aha!' I'll say you can take this back and rephrase it if you wish to... Can God condemn either Bob or Joe to a different fate than the other? And your answer is no? Then aren't you arguing my point that God MUST be fair on this (...) (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
|
|
|
|
