|
2 registered members (firecrest, AndrewAMD),
387
guests, and 3
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: evolution vs creation
[Re: jcl]
#69071
05/08/06 12:17
05/08/06 12:17
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
Quote:
I'm afraid what I'm saying now is another proof of the evilness of science for you. But anyway: No, when evolution were disproved by some observation one day, I am very, very sure that science would still not believe in creation. Instead, they would come up either with a modified evolution theory that explains the observation, or with a totally different theory.
Im not sure you understand the conundrum, if you came up with a "modified system of evolution" you would still have a form of evolution. My scenario proves the very definition of evolution false for the explanation of the emergence current biodiversity.
Noone denys evolution as it is defined among most scientists, this would be the definitive meaning of evolution. I dont want to have to teach you your own theory, but here is the DEFINITIVE definition of evolution. And by this definition you cannot just conveniently make up new "modified forms of evolution".Evolution is evolution.
Stunning paper by Dr Larry Moran--or is it Larry Moron??
We can easily prove that evolution is not responsible for the presence of today's biodiversity.
Quote:
I'm afraid what I'm saying now is another proof of the evilness of science for you.
Science and religion are certainly different things, but they are not opposites,and they are certainly not mutually exclusive.
Quote:
What is evil is that scientists prejudice leads them to deny hearing anyone who disagrees with evolution, which is an example of intellectual totalitarianism".
Science can be the new oppression in our world.
|
|
|
Re: evolution vs creation
[Re: NITRO777]
#69072
05/08/06 12:51
05/08/06 12:51
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
Heres yet more information of fossil graveyards: Quote:
Twenty-five therapod dinosaurs have been discovered along with 200 skulls of mammals. There is no evidence of the several million year evolutionary gap or of the iridium boundary that is thought to delineate when the dinosaurs became extinct. "The Gobi Desert of Central Asia is one of the earth’s desolate places. Yet the Gobi is a paradise for paleontologists. ...Our expeditions, jointly sponsored by the Mongolian Academy of Sciences and the American Museum of Natural History, have excavated dinosaurs, lizards and small mammals in an unprecedented state of preservation. Freshly exposed skeletons sometimes look more like the recent remains of a carcass than like an 80-million-year-old fossil. In yet another ironic twist, the rocks of the Gobi appear to be missing precisely those strata that currently hold the greatest public interest: no sections found thus far include the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K-T) boundary, when the dinosaurs became extinct. Whatever cataclysm wiped out the dinosaurs (and many other species then on the earth), its mark on Central Asia seems to have been erased." (Novacek, Michael J., Mark Norell, Malcolm C. McKenna, and James Clark, "Fossils of the Flaming Cliffs," Scientific American, vol. 271, 1994, pp. 60-69, as cited in Morris, 1997.)
Nor is the Gobi unique. Joe Taylor is perhaps the world’s premiere creator of fossil casts for museums and universities. In his fascinating book, Fossils, Facts, and Fantasies, he analyzes several of these sites around the world. In the United States one finds a profusion of skeletons in a hillside dinosaur graveyard in New Mexico, in the famous Bone Cabin Quarry of Wyoming, and at other sites. In Alberta, Canada there is a huge graveyard that stretches for many miles and holds innumerable dinosaurs bones. In Agate Springs, Nebraska a fossil graveyard of around 9,000 animals was found buried in alluvial deposits. The remains of hundreds of rhinos, three-toed horses, camels, giant wild boars, birds, plants, trees, sea shells and fish are mixed and intermingled in great confusion. In Tanzania, Belgium and Mongolia similar massive catastrophes captured vast populations and trapped them in a fossil graveyard of sediments and debris.
One of the most fascinating fossil graveyard of all is located in the southern United States. The Ashley Beds is an enormous phosphate graveyard that contains mixed remains of man with land and sea animals, notably dinosaurs, pleisosaurs, whales, sharks, rhinos, horses, mastodons, mammoths, porpoises, elephants, deer, pigs, dogs, and sheep. This catalogue of fossils from the phosphate beds was given in the records of Major Edward Willis who displayed them at multiple expositions (Willis, "Fossils and Phosphate Specimens," 1881.) Professor F.S. Holmes (paleontologist and curator of the College of Charleston’s Natural History Museum) described the fossil graveyard in a report to the Academy of Natural Sciences: "Remains of the hog, the horse and other animals of recent date, together with human bones mingled with the bones of the mastodon and extinct gigantic lizards." There can be little doubt what extinct gigantic lizard he referenced for he pictured a hadrosaurus on the front of his 1870 book The Phosphate Rocks of South Carolina and captioned it: "Skeleton of a Fossil Lizard eighteen feet in Length." Moreover, on page 31 he wrote, "It was in this Post-Pleiocene age, the period when the American Elephant, or Mammoth, the Mastodon, Rhinoceros, Megathereum, Hadrosaurus, and other gigantic quadrupeds roamed the Carolina forests, and repaired periodically to these Salt-lakes"... (p. 31.) The mixing of these remains was pell-mell throughout the roughly 40 square mile area of this deposit around Charleston, South Carolina. By one estimate, bones made up 65% of the extraordinary phosphate deposits in the region of the Ashley River basin before it was largely mined out. (Keener, J.C., The Garden of Eden and the Flood, 1901, p. 244.) Evolutionists have cast about trying to propose a credible mechanism for mixing creatures from Cretaceous to Holocene in this stratum, but none has been satisfactory and the matter has been expunged from current references to this site. (Watson, John Allen, Man, Dinosaurs, and Mammals Together, 2001, p. 7.)
Fossil graveyards
|
|
|
Re: evolution vs creation
[Re: NITRO777]
#69074
05/08/06 18:55
05/08/06 18:55
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
Pappenheimer
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
|
To continue on "patterns which don't need a creating intelligence":  Quote:
In 1984, George Cowan organized a research group called the Santa Fe Institute, assembled to study what could be one of the most fundamental theories about the nature of our world’s complex systems, and the unifying principles that bind them. Though following relatively simple basic principles, the structural complexity of ant colonies is remarkable. World economies, with individual agents acting in limited capacity, produce exclusively macro-level behavior. The neuronal mess of the human brain produces concepts so liquid and elusive as thought, and consciousness, with no apparent or conceivable physical, cognitive correlate. The most core of these principles is this: that these seemingly inexplicable complex systems manage to form from relatively simple rules and initial, guiding principles. It is inconceivable, yet tempting, and subtle despite ubiquity.
Related to (but distinct from) complexity theory is chaos theory, which explains that small change in initial conditions can bring about dramatic, seemingly disordered effects. This is the theory that brought Edward Lorenz, in 1961, to coin the term “the butterfly effect” (the situation of a butterfly flapping its wings, and that slight effect it creates potentially generating a tornado that otherwise would not have been). Basically, many phenomena are impossibly unpredictable. They are completely chaotic, seemingly random. But, the very fact that a change in initial conditions (sometimes as small a change as a 4th decimal place for an initial value, or smaller) can bring about new results does show a degree of causality.
Chaos theory was developed in large part by Benoit Mandelbrot, who created the term “fractal”. A fractal is a self-similar geometric phenomenon, irregular but with a familiar and consistent pattern. Self-similarity refers to the property whereby no matter how much you zoom into an image, the same fractal pattern is represented. Or, rather, that the figure’s general theme/shape is composed of a number of instances of that exact same theme/shape, and these individual composing pieces are themselves composed of the same number and configuration of parts as the level above. Fractals are generated mathematically, through the use of specific types of self-referential equations. A small change in the initial conditions of a fractal generation produces vastly different large-scale results for the final picture.
Since their discovery, fractals have since been found throughout nature, in swirling seashells, electric bolts, types of broccoli, and are the most accurate description of the trace of coastlines. Fractal mathematics have been used to create complex and often beautiful works of art. The property of self-similarity produces hypnotic swirls, maddening designs of infinite, swallowing complexity.
This is a quotation from this site: http://www.thehumanpurpose.com/
I don't know what's this "human purpose" is about, please ignore it.
What I know is that the quote does explain quite well in short words what this self-referential system is about. Hope, that you can understand it, even if you didn't know much about that before... 
EDIT(it is still too complicating, I try to explain it a bit better):
The main thing is this:
"Fractals are generated mathematically, through the use of specific types of self-referential equations."
The equations are called self-referential because there is a row of equations with the same form and same constants, BUT the result of the first of the row is placed into the second within the row via the variable, and the result of this equation is placed into the third of the row and so on...
This is compared to time, the row is imagined as the time, so each part of the row is a step within the time, the constants are constant conditions, and the results are representing the changes within the conditions.
And, if the changes within these conditions build patterns, then you can speak of a system.
Last edited by Pappenheimer; 05/08/06 20:06.
|
|
|
Re: evolution vs creation
[Re: Pappenheimer]
#69075
05/08/06 19:20
05/08/06 19:20
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
About the fossil fish article, "expunged" means sealed of from public, right? Eventhough this information might not be accessible trough the internet, I'm 100% confident it's far from expunged. Like said in that very same article, scientists haven't found/thought off a satisfactionary explanation. This implies it is or has been open for discussions, obviously others didn't agree with an explanation given. I don't believe in conspiracy theories when it comes to science, and any information that get's expunged should off course not be expunged. What are the arguments from that site to conclude the information isn't open to public? Quote:
Phemox a dichotomy exists(whether anyone likes to admit it or not).
The disproof of evolution necessitates the proof of creation. If evolution is disproven then creation must be valid.
That's only true when you think one excludes the other possibility and when there were only 2 possible options. I don't think science excludes the possibility of a God existing ... yet.
Quote:
if an object is complex, has a purpose and has no plausible physical cause, it implies design.
Well this definition of 'design' here has it's flaws. Complex now or not, life began as something not complicated. Just because we don't know exactly how that first life was created or came to existance or whatever, doesn't directly mean it was designed. Also what's life's purpose then? Just replicating? Why for survival? Why do we need to survive? That 'purpose' part is so relative it makes my head start spinning, just keep asking more questions hehehe.
Besides one could state 'natural selection' and 'survival of the fittest' as some sort of designing factors too. When life would be designed, then it doesn't make much sense to make lifeforms with flaws. Explain that.
Quote:
However, since you already speak three languages fluently (that I know of) dont you think Hebrew and Greek might unnessesarily complicate your life?
Wether I speak those languages or not, doesn't matter at all. It's the translation process that's the problem, irrelevant in which language it occures. Besides Greek and Hebrew are not that complicated, again it's more the contextual interpretations that are questionable based on poor translations.
Quote:
Explain this one buddy. Is this the darwin fish?Umm no just more proof of great catastrophic flood type events: This poor fish didnt even get a chance to finish lunch before he suddenly died.
Right, sure this fish was knocked unconscious during a flood, together with his meal? I don't think so! This fish and his meal must have died within a few splitseconds to be even concerved like this. This smells like a vulcanic erruption or underwater avalanche to me, or something way more swift than a flood would be. Explain to me in detail how you think a flood could cause such a fossil...
Quote:
How? Society changes, so christians themselves are different (they do after all live in society) but our beliefs have always been based on the infallible word of God. So really, we have not.
So easy to claim, but both modern and ancient literature combined with some common sense tells us otherwise really.
Quote:
Religion? No. Superstition? Certainly not. Both of these things are man-made inventions. I won't argue whether or not its good to go to church, but you're missing the point. The only thing we can really be sure of is God. Traditions, imagination, stories are all irrelevant.
Not only is religion a man-made invention, but God is big part of that invention. How can you be sure about that invention then? I definately agree with that last line, traditions, imagination, stories are all irrelevant, yet why do you seem to place the bible outside your very own belief of that last line? It doesn't make sense.
Quote:
I've researched scientific information on dark matter. The only proof I read for it is that it fills in the gaps left by the big bang. That's circular reasoning. It exists because of big bang. Its also caused by the big bang. Once again, did you ever just assume the theory is wrong?
Science doesn't simply assume something. Off course theories can be wrong, and we need to have evidence or other indications (for example, certain things might not make enough sense, well then it's possibly likely that it's unlikely) that a theory is wrong. If you've found some, tell us and we'd have to change our view.
Quote:
I mean, what are you some kind of conspiracy theorist?!
Yes, didn't you know?  I know some interesting things about 9/11, anti-gravity technology, extraterrestrials, elvis and how they all are linked to pluto.  
Quote:
There is a lot in nature that science does not yet know, or does not yet understand.
Definately, and as a result, science doesn't go with guarantees. Religion claims to be able to guarantee quite some things, I wonder when they discussed the conditions with God though. I didn't sign anywhere as far as I can remember either. So how can I not doubt anything that's religious?
Quote:
Evolutionists must have evolved a resistance to this natural human tendancy then. Do you really claim that you're invincible to this sort of reasoning? You're a human just like everyone else, believe it or not. However, this does help put a spotlight on the arrogance of evolutionists in thinking that their way of thinking is the standard for everyone else.
Evolutionist are not any different in this respect, and I never claimed otherwise. I do feel our reason for holding on to our view is more justified, but that's a subjective view, like I've tried to explain earlier.
Quote:
Those other excluded texts were often excluded for good reason. If something is written by an agnostic (and so on), why would we include it? Its couter-point to everything the bible teaches. You're just parroting long-refuted atheist arguments against the bible. Of course, I parrot a lot of creationist ideas, but at least I take the time to understand them and elaborate on them when I'm questioned.
I guess that's what you keep telling yourself, but there are plenty of religious sects who feel very different about this. There shouldn't have been any selection at all, selection means excluding parts of text. This implies that we need to believe the word of the people that selected those texts for them being even true and holy and authentic at all. It's obviously clear that the bible has been used in the past as an instrument of control, it had it's political power, wether you'd admit it or not, but religious texts are never politically neutral (or useless for that matter).
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: evolution vs creation
[Re: PHeMoX]
#69076
05/08/06 20:50
05/08/06 20:50
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
Pappenheimer
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
|
Cause PHeMoX speaks about the uncertainty of making a difference between texts which are included in the bible and that which are excluded. I had another thought: If God wishs to give the humans an idea that he exists and what they shall do, shouldn't he influence ANYthing that is written about him? So, why don't you expect that anything written about God is actually about God, even if it contradicts, so you have to conclude which remains as the truth about God within this contradictions? 
|
|
|
Re: evolution vs creation
[Re: PHeMoX]
#69077
05/09/06 01:00
05/09/06 01:00
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,236
San Diego, CA
Marco_Grubert
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,236
San Diego, CA
|
Quote:
Phemox a dichotomy exists(whether anyone likes to admit it or not).
The disproof of evolution necessitates the proof of creation. If evolution is disproven then creation must be valid.
Unless you add lots of qualifiers as to what type of evolution and what type of creation you talk about this statement is false.
Quote:
I don't think science excludes the possibility of a God existing ... yet.
Science can not exclude the possibility of gods in general. Since science is concerned with natural events only, if there was anything super or subnatural it would be outside of the realm of science. However, specific gods can be excluded.
Quote:
if an object is complex, has a purpose and has no plausible physical cause, it implies design.
You mean like god (complex, purpose and no plausible physical cause) ? 
Quote:
When life would be designed, then it doesn't make much sense to make lifeforms with flaws.
Irish_Farmer has been explaining this as the result of downward evolution. I think that's the only answer that won't get you into theological hot water.
Quote:
How? Society changes, so christians themselves are different (they do after all live in society) but our beliefs have always been based on the infallible word of God. So really, we have not.
Not changed ? So you still believe in the pope as god's spokesperson?
Quote:
I had another thought: If God wishs to give the humans an idea that he exists and what they shall do, shouldn't he influence ANYthing that is written about him?
Most apologists seem to favor the idea of a cosmic personality test. If god was to provide clear guidance then this limits a person's choice for/against religion. (Apparently that was not a problem with people back in the good old days that had their live miracles).
Last edited by Marco_Grubert; 05/09/06 01:06.
|
|
|
Re: evolution vs creation
[Re: Marco_Grubert]
#69078
05/09/06 01:42
05/09/06 01:42
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
Irish_Farmer has been explaining this as the result of downward evolution. I think that's the only answer that won't get you into theological hot water.
Okey, I remember, but why didn't God put a hold to that downward evolution too then, or why did it happen at all? I guess Irish_Farmer will answer that it was because of Adam and Eve's little sin. To me it seems that if this is true, God won't forgive very easily at all, infact isn't it just plain devilish to not forgive Adam and Eve this one mistake, but instead curse them with whatever evil there is now? (death, 'downward evolution', etc.) Again, this still makes little to no sense to me. It's like killing a 3-year old child because it dropped some of his food, which is an inevitable event off course. Besides, what did I (we) do wrong, I (we) never ate that apple.
According to what the bible says, I guess God did make us imperfect, and that's why Adam and Eve couldn't resist the temptation. Perfect beings would have obeyed. Well if God wanted us to have a free will and be imperfect, then he shouldn't be so surprised things went a bit different. Well so much for the claims that God díd create perfect life to start with.
Quote:
Science can not exclude the possibility of gods in general. Since science is concerned with natural events only, if there was anything super or subnatural it would be outside of the realm of science. However, specific gods can be excluded.
I guess you are right, but I meant that there might be a point at which a theological explanation get's impossible to hold on to, without denying a certain amount of scientific evidence that indicates that several things are not adding up within for example the creation theory. It can not exclude maybe, but it could make it very highly unlikely or close to impossible.
Quote:
Most apologists seem to favor the idea of a cosmic personality test. If god was to provide clear guidance then this limits a person's choice for/against religion. (Apparently that was not a problem with people back in the good old days that had their live miracles).
Right, another contradicting explanation.
Quote:
but our beliefs have always been based on the infallible word of God.
'Word of' God and especially 'infallible word of God' implies hearing words from God himself, not reading them in a book written by a lot of different humans. Humans make errors at least, let alone they could easily abuse the power of such a text and change it's content.
Also, I wonder if God has some sort of signature added to 'his' texts to let us know it's authentic? He has not, but I think I know why. Personally I think there's a difference between having free will, and letting us know what's reality. Letting us know that a God exist still wouldn't necessarily mean that we all would suddenly start to pray, eventhough it might be stupid not to, but that doesn't exclude the option we have.
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: evolution vs creation
[Re: Marco_Grubert]
#69079
05/09/06 01:56
05/09/06 01:56
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Don't get me wrong: What I've posted was my personal opinion of the reasons and motivations of creationism. It was not meant as an argument against creationism. It's clear that you as a creationist have a different opinion.
I would love to say, "Fair enough," but I can't. If I point out realistic reasons why your theory is bunk, and you respond by telling me your opinion of my theory, is that really fair?
Quote:
For argumenting against a "creationism theory" I'd need to know that theory first. I didn't find it on any creationist website, therefore my suspicion that such a theory does not exist at all.
Let's look at what creation has to say about life. "All animals were created by a mysterious unobserved power. They are allowed variation, including speciation, but there is a limit to how much they can vary."
Here's evolution's theory. "Life sprung up from non-living chemicals by some mysterious unobserved process. This original cell (or life) accounts for all of the biodiversity on earth by some mysterious, unobservable kind of mutation or other equally mysterious and unobservable process."
Its pretty easy to tell what both theories are. You're a smart enough guy, you should be able to figure out what the creationist theory is. We may not have put it in a handy-dandy definition (as most evolutionists also don't), but I've read creationist sites and they definately seem to agree on this basic idea of creation. So does that help?
If you want specifics, I can give them. For example, the impact of hybridization on creation theory, the impact of genetics on creation theory, so on and so forth. I just figured you could extrapolate it for yourself.
Quote:
I'm definitely interested - also in looking for some more stuff for my website - in finally learning about the creationism theory. But a little more than the few commonplaces that you've posted. Sure, I already knew that creationists believe that species were supernaturally created. But if that's all, it's not a theory - that's still superstition.
So then I can start calling evolution superstition? Because your supernatural process of accounting for life and biodiversity is just as mysterious as mine.
Except, creationists don't waste time trying to trick people using junk science to say there is empirical proof of evolution. Why evolutionists find this to be so important, I'll never understand and I think its unimportant to speculate, although I have a few guesses.
Quote:
you'll need a consistent model about how and when this creation should have happened, and how it can be verified or falsified in observations, and how it fits into the theory system of science: mathematics, physics, astronomy, chemistry, etc.
Dare I mention that evolution has been at odds with genetics almost since its adoption into the mainstream? Why don't I just do what evolutionists do. Talk about ACTUAL science, and then mix my religion into it to brainwash people. "These monkeys are adept at social interaction. Just like people are. We're very similar." "These fish were created by God to be very adaptable to harsh environments." Your theory hasn't integrated into science, it has to ignore science (or be taught inspite of proof along side science) in order to be taken seriously. The blade cuts both ways.
Quote:
please don't take my remarks about superstition as an insult.
Don't worry about it.
Quote:
Religion is consistent with science, superstition isn't.
Precisely, which is why creationists want evolution out of our schools. Let's stick to science, not superstition.
Quote:
(its based on miracles, i.e. supernatural events).
We haven't observed life being created. But we also haven't observed it arising randomly. If anything we've only discovered why it CANT rise randomly. What's the difference?
Quote:
From your remarks about Dark Matter and the Hubble Constant I see that you know less about astronomy than I thought before. You have some very wrong ideas of physics, and of the meaning of scientific theories in general. I don't have the time now, but when I'm back next week I'll post a specific answer to that topic, including a brief introduction in astronomy.
Oh, c'mon! You should know how it works by now. I make my narrow, over generalized, or sometimes outright incorrect remark, and you respond and we go from there. I won't claim to be right until I hear your refutation. Like I said, I don't believe anything until I've tested it against opposing opinions. This is just my initial remark.
Like with the peppered moths. I start with the fact that they 'forced' a lot of information about it, but its not until after that that the discussion really gets started.
See you soon.
Quote:
How? Society changes, so christians themselves are different (they do after all live in society) but our beliefs have always been based on the infallible word of God. So really, we have not.
So easy to claim, but both modern and ancient literature combined with some common sense tells us otherwise really.
No, what you're saying is easier to claim than it is to back up. Let's have it then, explain to me what you believe. Not that this isn't just a distraction from the abyssmal state of evolution, and the impossibility of defending it. Actually, if you don't feel like backing it up, then whatever. I'm really not concerned about changing your mind. You've rejected God, so for you its a matter of finding evidence to back up what you believe. I'm not going to pretend that I'm in any position to intervene.
Quote:
Science doesn't simply assume something.
The origin of life? The Big bang? There is little to no evidence of either of these events, but they're assumed to be true.
Quote:
Definately, and as a result, science doesn't go with guarantees.
That's BS. Evolutionists (not scientists, so technically you may be right) guarantee we were evolved, they guarantee the universe is an accident, they guarantee life is an accident. There's a whole lot of guaranteeing going on.
Quote:
I guess that's what you keep telling yourself, but there are plenty of religious sects who feel very different about this.
Let me ask this then. Let's say we left out one or two (out of the myriad of obsviously corrupted texts) out. Does that change the validity of the ones we've included. You seem to think that the exclusion of a handful of texts is proof enough of the fallibility of the Bible. Doesn't make sense to me.
If you were truly interested in hearing the other viewpoint, there are many websites out there that refute these claims. These claims against the bible are old news.
Quote:
It's obviously clear that the bible has been used in the past as an instrument of control, it had it's political power, wether you'd admit it or not, but religious texts are never politically neutral (or useless for that matter).
If you're arguing that man is corrupt (which it seems you are, because the bible can't control who misuses it) then you're preaching to the choir.
Quote:
Not changed ? So you still believe in the pope as god's spokesperson?
So this is still the tired and worn out argument that since christians disagree about meaningless details, we've completely changed? I thought you guys were talking about significant, relevant change.
Quote:
Most apologists seem to favor the idea of a cosmic personality test. If god was to provide clear guidance then this limits a person's choice for/against religion.
I disagree. I think if God himself came down and in an impressive display convinced everyone in the world at once that he existed, it would only take a matter of days before people started to lose their faith. The problem isn't having blind faith, in spite of evidence, but having faith in spite of our defiant wills. That's the point. Since we've 'fallen' the difficult choice isn't in believing in God without evidence (though I disagree that there's a lack of evidence), its believing in God despite our inclination not to believe in Him. Why would God care why we believe in him? If we come to him because we've read a tract, or we come to him because we've heard a song on the radio, or we come to him because we recognize his signature on his creation, I don't think he really minds. I think he'd be happy just to see us return to him. I also think this whole idea of 'blind faith' was just planted by an atheist to make christians more complacent. But that's just my opinion.
|
|
|
Re: evolution vs creation
#69080
05/09/06 01:57
05/09/06 01:57
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Oops, that last one was me.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
|
