Originally posted by twhiteheadYou can have the claim laid at your feet that you believe certain things
So would you agree with me that if a person deliberately:
1. lies
2. promotes what he knows to be untruths
3. promotes 'facts' that he personally does not know the validity of or has good reason to doubt
in order to justify his personal belief that evolution did not take place, is not acting in a Christian manner?
about evolution because of your beliefs or lack there of about God/gods
as well. You should see that it isn't your beliefs about God/gods that
matter but the specific claims being discussed. If you simply make
the claim how you view reality because of God/gods you are not giving
the disput a chance, instead you've turned the discussion into a
real discussion about a side issues.
Kelly
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIs the book of Genesis really incompatible with evolution?
if i may impose and answer this question, not only is it incompatible but it is diametrically opposite to what Christ believed and taught, the reference for your perusal if i may,
'And Pharisees came up to him, intent on tempting him and saying: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife on every sort of ground?” In reply he said: “Did YOU not ...[text shortened]... mself taught! advocating evolution and being a christian are therefore completely incompatible!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe Pope accepts evolution. Is he not a christian?
if i may impose and answer this question, not only is it incompatible but it is diametrically opposite to what Christ believed and taught, the reference for your perusal if i may,
'And Pharisees came up to him, intent on tempting him and saying: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife on every sort of ground?” In reply he said: “Did YOU not ...[text shortened]... mself taught! advocating evolution and being a christian are therefore completely incompatible!
Originally posted by rwingetti think that we have been through this before my friend, by our definition, if he does not follow the teachings of Christ, how can he in any sense be deemed a christian? therefore the answer must be a resounding no!
The Pope accepts evolution. Is he not a christian?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou have yet to make the case that Christ taught that evolution is false.
i think that we have been through this before my friend, by our definition, if he does not follow the teachings of Christ, how can he in any sense be deemed a christian? therefore the answer must be a resounding no!
It is not good enough to quote him quoting Genesis on some unrelated point. That does not prove he endorsed the whole book, nor does it prove that the book is incompatible with evolution.
Originally posted by twhiteheadwhat is this, an 'inquisition'? a witch hunt? what are you're motives my friend, do you really want a debate about the scientific evidence with regard to the Darwinian evolutionary model or are you trying to assert that because i may at times have erroneous thoughts that i am guilty of unchristian behavior. the latter i cannot deny, i have been both rude, condescending, belittling, sarcastic, flippant, belligerent, manipulative and at times intolerant! but we are human, ( i can take it that we are human and not in the evolutionary process of forming a new species) and as a consequence have human traits, but so have others! i have been termed an idiot, idiotic, pathetic, satanic, heretical, to name but a few, yet i do not resort to claiming that these fellows promote lies or knowingly promulgate untruths, yes i have played devils advocate, but so what? does that mean i lack sincerity or deliberately try to mislead others, on the contrary, the truth is potent and can transcend such manifestations of the ego!
So would you agree with me that if a person deliberately:
1. lies
2. promotes what he knows to be untruths
3. promotes 'facts' that he personally does not know the validity of or has good reason to doubt
in order to justify his personal belief that evolution did not take place, is not acting in a Christian manner?
Originally posted by SwissGambitSwiss gambit dude, look at this text and tell me what Christ is advocating
You have yet to make the case that Christ taught that evolution is false.
It is not good enough to quote him quoting Genesis on some unrelated point. That does not prove he endorsed the whole book, nor does it prove that the book is incompatible with evolution.
'And Pharisees came up to him, intent on tempting him and saying: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife on every sort of ground?” In reply he said: “Did YOU not read that he who created them from [the] beginning made them male and female and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’? So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together let no man put apart.” - Matthew 19 verse 3
Originally posted by FabianFnaswarning! warning!, no one is not pro science! the bible and science are completely compatible, its not science that is the issue but that evolution is unscientific!
Not all belivers reject evolution either. Most belivers are pro-science.
if i may be permitted to quote some eminent minds on this subject, for example famous evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky who was not so dogmatic as one might imagine, for in his book evolution, he and his coworkers described evolution as a hypothesis or theory and made this admission: 'scientific hypotheses can only be accepted provisionally, since their truth can never be conclusively established.', now is that not interesting? using another respected source in this instance Dr. Karl Popper as the authority he also states: 'a hypothesis that is not subject, at least in principle, to the possibility of empirical [experimental] falsification does not belong in the realm of science.' wow, let us just take a moment to assimilate what is being said, if one cannot subject the theory to experimentation and thus the possibility of falsification, it does not belong in the realms of science!
Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard another eminent mind and originator of the evolutionary principle of punctuated equilibrium (the idea that evolution happens in stages, because the fossil record did not fit with the idea of a continuous transmigration of one species into another, mmm, i wonder why?) also refers to Popper and says: 'a set of ideas that cannot, in principle, be falsified is not science.'
this thinking has been used to exclude creation as legitimate yet on the very same basis, the evolutionary model has been accepted? duh!
interestingly we turn for our defense to Dr. Popper because he showing the utmost objectivity applies this same criterion to the evolutionary model, he states: 'I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program', thus quite simply since it is not testable, the evolutionary theory is not science, according to these definitions. Not observable, not demonstratable by experiment, supported only by dogmatic assertions, it is not verifiable by the scientific method. dear reader it must be noted that Dr. Popper is highly respected for his study of the scientific method, and based on this method he finds evolution wanting as a legitimate scientific theory. Rather, he finds it to be, not science, but suitable for metaphysical research, how very very interesting Dr, Popper,!
Norman Cousins famous journalist and writer gives a definition of the scientific method that not only describes it but also shows its value: “The most important thing about science is the scientific method—a way of thinking systematically, a way of assembling evidence and appraising it, a way of conducting experiments so as to predict accurately what will happen under given circumstances, a way of ascertaining and recognizing one’s own errors, a way of finding the fallacies of long-held ideas. Science itself is constantly changing, largely as a result of the scientific method.' - anatomy of an illness, pages. 120, 121.
Both evolution and creation describe events that happened, or allegedly happened, in the past. No human observers were there to witness them. They cannot be recreated in a laboratory. No scientific experiment could prove or disprove either evolution or creation. According to this reasoning, if the Bible account of creation is unscientific, by the same premises evolution also must be unscientific.
why was evolution so widely accepted, simply because it was the first non theistic theory that was plausible, not because it was scientific! and we know how them bad ol putty cat atheists don't dig our theism.
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes. I have to agree. Lying is not Christian. So, why do you ask?
So would you agree with me that if a person deliberately:
1. lies
2. promotes what he knows to be untruths
3. promotes 'facts' that he personally does not know the validity of or has good reason to doubt
in order to justify his personal belief that evolution did not take place, is not acting in a Christian manner?
Do you know for a fact that someone who calls himself a Christian is deliberately lying?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou'll need more than seven edits to make this pile of garbage plausible.
if i may be permitted to quote some eminent minds on this subject, for example famous evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky who was not so dogmatic as one might imagine, for in his book evolution, he and his coworkers described evolution as a hypothesis or theory and made this admission: '[b]scientific hypotheses can only be accepted provisionally, sinc ...[text shortened]... t was scientific! and we know how them bad ol putty cat atheists don't dig our theism.