dfitzo53 Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 I see the militants are out looking for a scrap again... Zguy, do you really buy most of the items on that list? They're the same kind of sweeping, generally erroneous generalizations that irk you, techboy and others when directed as creationists. Maybe your entire point was the show the uselessness of making such mischaracterizations, but I don't see it as productive. Intra-species evolution is quite obvious, inter-species evolution is a differnt beast altogether:silly: . Sorry, my sense of humor has yet to evolve... When you really study evolution it becomes clear that "intra-species" and "inter-species" evolution to use your terms are the same thing. It's all a matter of natural selection acting on genetic variation present in a population. My guess is because the best defense is a good offense. Which also explains the War in Iraq! If I can somehow work in homosexuals, one of China's weird news stories and a Mickalino thread, we'll have summed up the entire Tailgate right here and we can all go home. Maybe China can find a story about somebody who gets lost under a glacier and gets rescued by a five-legged goat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 It's very curious to me why some Christians, mainly among evangellical Protestants in the US, feel that attacking evolution is an important battleground for their faith in the 21st centruy. They refuse to embrace the inevitable scientific truth that evolution occurs. Many CHristians are perfectly content a consider that a creator of the universe might well use evolution to spawn the incredible diversity of species seen on Earth. Of course, those attacking evolution do so, not because of any problems with the scientific merit of the enormous body of knowledge, but because it conflicts with a literal reading of the Bible. And yet a literal reading of the Bible suggests a geocentric Universe. Why is this not an important area of argument? It seems to have been abandoned by those taking a literal interpretation of the Bible? Well ... other than these folks: http://www.geocentricity.com/ Because many in the evangelical church are spiritual infants who are taught watered down theology. Anywho, I refer back to my previous post which I love: You love to castigate Christians for being "anti-science" if they deny evolution from goo to you via the zoo, and to preach that they should adapt their thinking to the "science" of our day. But you also castigate the Church of 400 years ago for being anti-science, when it DID adapt its thinking to the science of ITS day, i.e. Ptolemaic cosmology, then joined with the Aristotelian scientists of the universities in rejecting Galileo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted March 26, 2007 Author Share Posted March 26, 2007 Of course, those attacking evolution do so, not because of any problems with the scientific merit of the enormous body of knowledge, but because it conflicts with a literal reading of the Bible. I agree that rejection of evolution comes from conflicts with existing belief systems, but I do not think it conflicts directly with Bible interpretations. It seems the conflict is actually with other sources, sources that are otherwise considered credible. Those sources may in turn be grounded in the Bible, but it is an important distinction to make because revising credibility of secondary sources is easier. Recent developments of Evangelicals' stance on Global Warming is a good example of that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 Zguy, Maybe your entire point was the show the uselessness of making such mischaracterizations, Yes it was. Watch this thread long enough, you will begin to see it coming from Sysiphus, Chomerics, and Alexey and the rest. Eventually it will devolve (pun intended) into "creationists are stupid sheep who are anti-science" statements.I'm going to take Techboys advice and not post in here anymore, because it seems people expect evangelicals to have knowledge of evolutionary science equal to a PHD to be considered intellectual. But hey, since we evolved from apes, I shouldn't be expecting to not be treated like one. Perhaps they would like to debate/discuss theology seriously with me (can't speak for Techboy or Rebornempowered)? - Z out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted March 26, 2007 Author Share Posted March 26, 2007 Yes it was. Watch this thread long enough, you will begin to see it coming from Sysiphus, Chomerics, and Alexey and the rest. Eventually it will devolve (pun intended) into "creationists are stupid sheep who are anti-science" statements. It's a good thing you decided to leave before the above mentioned names requested quotes of "creationists are stupid sheep who are anti-science" statements. (btw, I do not appreciate to be lumped together with those two extremists hmm well i guess Sysiphus is alright... but you may have a hard time finding "stupid sheep" statements from him as well, that's all Chom ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 Obedience and saving faith are two different things. Its known as sanctification and justification. Seems like if He knew you were faithful, He would know that you are obident. If that is true there is no need to put someone through the torture of thinking he had to kill his own son. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 Because many in the evangelical church are spiritual infants who are taught watered down theology. Anywho, I refer back to my previous post which I love: You love to castigate Christians for being "anti-science" if they deny evolution from goo to you via the zoo, and to preach that they should adapt their thinking to the "science" of our day. But you also castigate the Church of 400 years ago for being anti-science, when it DID adapt its thinking to the science of ITS day, i.e. Ptolemaic cosmology, then joined with the Aristotelian scientists of the universities in rejecting Galileo! The anti-science comes from three things: 1. Not understanding what science is and demanding that scientist prove something that can't be proven (as I stated before chemistry and biology are not math; it is not possible to prove something just to disprove the likely alternatives). 2. Demanding that Creationism or intelligent design be taught in a Science class (you want it taught teach it in philosophy) where it has no value because it has no real predictive value in terms of what can be tested. 3. The reaction of the Church, and I am Catholic. The Church did not engage Galileo in a debate. They did not say, well you can believe what you want, but we are right because God is on our side. They used force/threats to make him say what they wanted. They burned Bruno at the stake for his belief that the Sun was the center of the solar system. These things are "anti-science" because science above all else is about reasonable (at least fairly reasonable) debate about the facts and ideas. Not threats and demands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander_N_Chief Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 I've never actually commented in any of these threads due to the arguements that normally break out...but work is slow today. I'm more of a evolutionism by creation believer. Why is it impossiable to believe that there's a greater being that set the process in order? The bible states God created the Heaven's and the Earth in six days. Also in the same bible it states a day for God is that of 1000 days for us if not more. Both scenarios could be right, working together. Just both sides are to arrogent to swallow their pride and realize there's more possibilities than just hot or cold. Not that any of that has anything to do with insulting each other's opinions whether Evolution or Creationism so I'll return you to your normally broadcasted bickering on a subject we may never have a deffinitive answer to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 I've never actually commented in any of these threads due to the arguements that normally break out...but work is slow today.I'm more of a evolutionism by creation believer. Why is it impossiable to believe that there's a greater being that set the process in order? The bible states God created the Heaven's and the Earth in six days. Also in the same bible it states a day for God is that of 1000 days for us if not more. Both scenarios could be right, working together. Just both sides are to arrogent to swallow their pride and realize there's more possibilities than just hot or cold. Not that any of that has anything to do with insulting each other's opinions whether Evolution or Creationism so I'll return you to your normally broadcasted bickering on a subject we may never have a deffinitive answer to. I believe what you are describing is formally called directed evolutoin. From a completely scientific stand point, there is nothing wrong w/ this line of thinking. It is also impossible for science to prove or disprove it. If somebody tells you this is against evolution, then they are wrong and being guided by something other than science, but I think most people really in science (i.e. myself) are fine if that's what you want to believe and is in fact similar to my own beliefs, but in terms of teaching, practicing, and talking science, the fact that evolution might be directed has no real relevance (i.e. it does not change the predictions that can be made or add any testable experiments). From a philosophical stand point, it is an interesting possiblity, which is why all of this, if it is to be taught belongs in a philosophy class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 I've never actually commented in any of these threads due to the arguements that normally break out...but work is slow today.I'm more of a evolutionism by creation believer. Why is it impossiable to believe that there's a greater being that set the process in order? I don't think it's impossible at all. I think that's quite reasonable and I fully accept that as a strong possibilty. What I can't understand is denying all the evidence of evolution because the year's in the bible don't add up or because "I didn't come from a dirty, stinkin ape". To me, they're separate issues. All the evidence we have suggests evolution takes place. What we do not have is good evidence of what put it in place or got the ball rolling. God is as good an explanation as any for that and I don't see why the two ideas, an omnicient creator and his use of evolution, can't go hand in hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 Yes it was. Watch this thread long enough, you will begin to see it coming from Sysiphus, Chomerics, and Alexey and the rest. Eventually it will devolve (pun intended) into "creationists are stupid sheep who are anti-science" statements.I'm going to take Techboys advice and not post in here anymore, because it seems people expect evangelicals to have knowledge of evolutionary science equal to a PHD to be considered intellectual. But hey, since we evolved from apes, I shouldn't be expecting to not be treated like one. You're the one making insults in this thread. :doh: A knowledge of evolutionary science equivalent to a PhD is not required for a polite discussion. But if you want to learn something you'll need to bring a better frame of mind than repeating inane slogans ... "goo to you via the zoo". Sorry if that came across as an insult, but I don't know how else to characterize it. Of course I can't speak for every creationist on whether they are anti-science. But the movement to get creationism and intelligent design in schools is demonstrably anti-science. Its strategy includes attacking the scientific method, miss-characterizing the current body of knowledge on evolution and undermining it so that a religious point of view can be imposed in a science class. Evolution is not anti-religion. Evolution provides a compelling explanation for the origin of species and the diversity of life on Earth. That's it. Evolution does provide any commentary on which religions are true and which religions are false. A theist can look at evolution and note that it is inconsitent with his faith, but reconciling that discrepancy is outside the scope of the science of evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 It's very curious to me why some Christians, mainly among evangellical Protestants in the US, feel that attacking evolution is an important battleground for their faith in the 21st centruy. I actually agree. I think some Christians are fighting the wrong battles. It is logical to believe in Christianity. If one is already a Christian, it is logical to then believe in Creationism. That's the order that should be followed. Trying to fight evolution directly seems a little silly, given that even if I could convince chomerics (for example) that evolution isn't a correct theory, it wouldn't make him a Christian. It'd just make him a confused atheist (at best). I can sort of understand helping Christians who feel challenged by evolution to see that there are alternatives, but I don't really get the rest. It's fighting a battle on the wrong front. I think the other reason is an attempt to refute people who seem to think that evolution is a weapon against faith (like Dawkins), but really, it's not the best refutation of these people by a long shot. And yet a literal reading of the Bible suggests a geocentric Universe. Some of it. Suggests is a good word. There are passages that imply a geocentric universe (or a flat Earth, and there're still a few Flat Earthers out there too), but nothing that outright states it. There are also passages that imply a round Earth and the like. The Bible really isn't very specific, and people have gotten into a lot of trouble trying to read more into it than is actually there. The Church dispute with Galileo, though, wasn't really about the Bible. It was about the Aristotlean and Platonic influence on Christianity. The Catholic Church at the time was heavily influenced by these philosophers, to the point where it incorporated many elements into it's theology, and objected when those traditions were challenged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headexplode Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 Man, I like Zguy and you guys had to scare him off. I hope not for good. Can't you just admit that the Bible is true and God created everything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 Man, I like Zguy and you guys had to scare him off. I hope not for good. Didn't he scare himself off .. fearing what he thought we might say? Surely it's unbecoming of a Christian soldier to "cut and run" like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander_N_Chief Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 I believe what you are describing is formally called directed evolutoin. From a completely scientific stand point, there is nothing wrong w/ this line of thinking. It is also impossible for science to prove or disprove it. If somebody tells you this is against evolution, then they are wrong and being guided by something other than science, but I think most people really in science (i.e. myself) are fine if that's what you want to believe and is in fact similar to my own beliefs, but in terms of teaching, practicing, and talking science, the fact that evolution might be directed has no real relevance (i.e. it does not change the predictions that can be made or add any testable experiments). From a philosophical stand point, it is an interesting possiblity, which is why all of this, if it is to be taught belongs in a philosophy class. I don't think it's impossible at all. I think that's quite reasonable and I fully accept that as a strong possibilty. What I can't understand is denying all the evidence of evolution because the year's in the bible don't add up or because "I didn't come from a dirty, stinkin ape". To me, they're separate issues. All the evidence we have suggests evolution takes place. What we do not have is good evidence of what put it in place or got the ball rolling. God is as good an explanation as any for that and I don't see why the two ideas, an omnicient creator and his use of evolution, can't go hand in hand. I always tried avoiding these threads because it's a never ending arguement with no real winners, and it turns out most people accept my justification on the topic...go figure *shrugs shoulders* who woulda thunk' it? I normally catch a lot of grief from the church(which happens to have my father/brother as the ministers) members because I believe God used evolution as opposed to things just appearing as they are now. Which doesn't make sense because if you disect the fact a day in God's eyes aren't like ours plus in Genesis you could decipher a form of adaptions taking place in verse 20 ch 1 where it talks about fish swiming through the waters and birds flying in the air and walking on ground as they were made. Seems simple enough to me I wont get why I catch so much crap for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 I always tried avoiding these threads because it's a never ending arguement with no real winners, and it turns out most people accept my justification on the topic...go figure *shrugs shoulders* who woulda thunk' it? I normally catch a lot of grief from the church(which happens to have my father/brother as the ministers) members because I believe God used evolution as opposed to things just appearing as they are now. Which doesn't make sense because if you disect the fact a day in God's eyes aren't like ours plus in Genesis you could decipher a form of adaptions taking place in verse 20 ch 1 where it talks about fish swiming through the waters and birds flying in the air and walking on ground as they were made. Seems simple enough to me I wont get why I catch so much crap for it. I think the abundance of evidence makes it very clear that evolution is true: from the geographic distribution of species today, the fossil record and DNA. It's also clear that evolution has absolutely nothing to say whether a supernatural being 'designed' the process where evolution works, whether the being started the process off with the first living organisms, or indeed if occasionally the supernatural being tweaks some of the parameters to keep the whole stew bubbling along nicely. You can hold any or all of those beliefs and still recognize evolution as a compelling explanation for the natural world we see today and the fossil record we have uncovered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headexplode Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 Didn't he scare himself off .. fearing what he thought we might say?Surely it's unbecoming of a Christian soldier to "cut and run" like that? He didn't cut and run. He's going to get God to come back and smite your ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 He didn't cut and run. He's going to get God to come back and smite your ass. Ah ... a strategic withdrawl, in military parlance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 oh-oh, here comes the Theory of Devolution Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted March 26, 2007 Author Share Posted March 26, 2007 As a programmer I like the idea behind Creationism because it would mean God believes in re-usable components Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 It is logical to believe in Christianity. If one is already a Christian, it is logical to then believe in Creationism. That's the order that should be followed. . I'm a Christian. As such, I believe in Creationism. However, I also believe in Evolution. I've never understood the debate. Unless you're a Bible literalist. In which case I think you're incapable of reason to begin with. (I view the OT as almost entirely allegorical) And another point... where are the fundamentalist Jews in this whole debate? We never hear from them... even though they believe the universe is only 5000 years old. Maybe more Christians should follow their lead to your point. ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 I actually agree. I think some Christians are fighting the wrong battles.It is logical to believe in Christianity.[/quOTE] Why is it logical to believe in Christianity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 Why is it logical to believe in Christianity? I can show you, but you'll need a duck, a witch, and a scale... and about 3-4 hours of free time. ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 I can show you, but you'll need a duck, a witch, and a scale... and about 3-4 hours of free time.... Well she turned my into a newt! :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 I can show you, but you'll need a duck, a witch, and a scale... and about 3-4 hours of free time.... "Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science?" :laugh: My favorite line from the movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.