Spirituality
12 May 12
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
23 May 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobie"[T]he prospect that fish became amphibians, amphibians reptiles, reptiles birds, birds mammals" must be some sort of shorthand approximation in your mind, of the evolutionary story. If there is something in that shorthand approximation that doesn't jive with the Bible, don't take that fact to defeat the premise of biological evolution.
I dont care what they believe, the two are mutually exclusive, if Christ states that we
were created by God and he does, it excludes the prospect that fish became
amphibians, amphibians reptiles, reptiles birds, birds mammals etc. Lots of people
once believed the earth was flat, so what?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
@ Finn
great Finn, me thinks that you are not a little biased, for example, you make a case for
establishing the morality of fundamental Christians, however is it not so that a liberal is
more likely to embrace the theory of evolution than a southern baptist fundamentalist Christian and strongly resonate with moral issues such as gay marraige ...[text shortened]... e about. I think this is undeniable and for want of scientific data could be proven empirically.
however is it not so that a liberal is more likely to embrace the theory of evolution than a southern baptist fundamentalist Christian and strongly resonate with moral issues such as gay marraige, the right of abortion etc so that a polarity exists and the polarising effect is simply due to the adoption of a particular belief concerning life, the universe, its origins and how it came about. I think this is undeniable
Your comparison between "liberals" (a vaguely defined term to refer presumably to anyone on the planet who is not a southern baptist fundamentalist Christian) and southern baptist fundamentalist Christians (a relatively small segment of even America's population and presumably the social equivalent there of a Kerryman in Ireland or an Irishman in England) is absolutely empty and has no useful application to the points I made. I referred to the population of the World that supports evolutionary theory and not least Natural Selection and pointed out its enormous diversity.
The Catholic Church, which has enormous following across much of the planet though not all by any means, has a very strong claim to being a Christian religion, albeit some pure minded souls sometimes dispute this. Nevertheless, in any rational use of the language it is a vast body of Christians. The Church has formally and openly endorsed Darwin specifically and evolution generally. It opposes abortion violently (literally so) and gay marriage loudly and currently. They just do not fit the stereotype. I continue the list but enough is said to make my point and ruin your point.
Your counter-argument is therefore totally without weight and the points I made therefore remain intact.
24 May 12
Originally posted by finneganThe fact that the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church has formally and openly endorsed Darwin specifically and the abominable myth of evolution in general gives me more indications that we are in the last days just before the tribulation and the man of sin is revealed. There seems to be a falling away from the truth and a turning to cunningly devised fables as the Holy Bible foretells.
[quote] however is it not so that a liberal is more likely to embrace the theory of evolution than a southern baptist fundamentalist Christian and strongly resonate with moral issues such as gay marraige, the right of abortion etc so that a polarity exists and the polarising effect is simply due to the adoption of a particular belief concerning life, the ...[text shortened]... r-argument is therefore totally without weight and the points I made therefore remain intact.
24 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsPossibly so and you may notice I allowed for that viewpoint in my post, but nontheless the Catholic church opposes abortion and gay marriage and is, for all your angst, a Christian church, so for the purpose of the argument I engaged in it is sufficient to destroy the case put forward by Robbie. The polarity to which he refers does not exist.
The fact that the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church has formally and openly endorsed Darwin specifically and the abominable myth of evolution in general gives me more indications that we are in the last days just before the tribulation and the man of sin is revealed. There seems to be a falling away from the truth and a turning to cunningly devised fables as the Holy Bible foretells.
It is impossible to engage in any debate if the goal posts are reduced to smoke rings. When you present an argument then defend it, not switch your ground in perpetual mindless circles of confusion.
24 May 12
Originally posted by finneganI believe the Roman Catholic Church is a Christian Church and not all of its membership have fallen for this abominable heresy from Satan. It is many of the leadership that have become like the Pharisees of old and are teaching falsely.
Possibly so and you may notice I allowed for that viewpoint in my post, but nontheless the Catholic church opposes abortion and gay marriage and is, for all your angst, a Christian church, so for the purpose of the argument I engaged in it is sufficient to destroy the case put forward by Robbie. The polarity to which he refers does not exist.
It is imp ...[text shortened]... t an argument then defend it, not switch your ground in perpetual mindless circles of confusion.
24 May 12
Originally posted by RJHindssince you have no way of knowing, it is likely that they have shed the heresy of satan by accepting evolution while your church still embraces the heresy of satan by rejecting evolution.
I believe the Roman Catholic Church is a Christian Church and not all of its membership have fallen for this abominable heresy from Satan. It is many of the leadership that have become like the Pharisees of old and are teaching falsely.
24 May 12
1 edit
copied from The Creator and the Cosmos by Hugh Ross, Ph.D.
This is the final paragraphs of the book filled with impressive evidences of not only the fine tuning of the universe for life and humankind, but also of our position in the universe for best possible observing our place in it and its size.
Why Extra Evidence to This Generation ?
One question I hear often is, "Why has our generation been singled out to receive such an abundance of evidence for God and His Word?" Why have we been given so much more proof than previous generations?
The answer I see from the Bible is that God measures out evidence in direct proportion to the level of resistance to His truth. Where the resistence is relatively low, less hard evidence for the God of the Bible is necessary to over come it. But where resistance, namely arrogance, is high, so also is the quantity of evidence He provides to overcome it.
Let's consider our world, especially the Western world. We have the most wealth, the most discretionary time, the most education, and the most technology of any previous generation. And how do we respond to these blessings? The loudest voices say that we humans deserve all the credit. The loudest voices say that humanity is deity. Given such arrogance, no wonder evidences are being flooded upon us.
Though the opposition seems great, God has equipped us to overcome it. He says, "See, I have placed before you an open door that no one can shut." Let's make good use of these evidences to build our own faith and the faith of others while He is holding that door open."
[The Creator and the Cosmos, Hugh Ross, Navpress, pg. 165]
24 May 12
Originally posted by jaywillhugh ross presents a fallacy argument. can you identify why it is a fallacy?
copied from [b]The Creator and the Cosmos by Hugh Ross, Ph.D.
This is the final paragraphs of the book filled with impressive evidences of not only the fine tuning of the universe for life and humankind, but also of our position in the universe for best possible observing our place in it and its size.
Why Extra Evidence to This Generation ? [ ...[text shortened]...
[The Creator and the Cosmos, Hugh Ross, Navpress, pg. 165] [/quote]
24 May 12
5 edits
Originally posted by VoidSpiritYou go ahead and sniff out your fallacy. You sit down to a turkey dinner and hunt for a bone to choke on.
hugh ross presents a fallacy argument. can you identify why it is a fallacy?
He is human. And I did not quote the paragraphs because he is infallible but because I think he has some good things to say.
Man is here in the universe as a extremely lucky winner of not only ONE cosmic lottery but MANY !!
Another fallible man with some good things to add is G.L. Schroeder of MIT, who in The Science of God wrote:
With the universe we did not win just one lottery. We won at the choice for the strength of electromagneticic force (which encourages atoms to join into molecules). We won at the strength of the strong nuclear force (which holds atomic nucei together; were it a bit stronger the diproton and not hydrogen would be the major component of the universe, and no hydrogen means no shining stars). Other winning lotteries were the strength of the weak nuclear force and the strength of gravity (which dominates the universe at distances greater than the size of molecules and clusters mass into galaxies, stars, and planets), the mass and energy of the big bang, the temperature of the big bang, the rate of expansion of the universe, and much more. Lottery upon lottery, and all winners. They have meshed to produce the wonderful world in which we live. By chance? Not if our understanding of the laws of nature is even approximately correct. To this observer of nature, our universe looks like a put-up job.
Schroeder is a theist but not a Christian (as far as I know).
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
24 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillAny worthwhile exploration of this topic must encounter the weak anthropic principle:
You go ahead and sniff out your fallacy. You sit down to a turkey dinner and hunt for a bone to choke on.
He is human. And I did not quote the paragraphs because he is infallible but because I think he has some good things to say.
Man is here in the universe as a extremely lucky winner of not only ONE cosmic lottery but MANY !!
Another f ...[text shortened]... , our universe looks like a put-up job. [/quote]
Schroeder is a theist but not a Christian.
quote:
Roger Penrose explained the weak form as follows:
"The argument can be used to explain why the conditions happen to be just right for the existence of (intelligent) life on the earth at the present time. For if they were not just right, then we should not have found ourselves to be here now, but somewhere else, at some other appropriate time. This principle was used very effectively by Brandon Carter and Robert Dicke to resolve an issue that had puzzled physicists for a good many years. The issue concerned various striking numerical relations that are observed to hold between the physical constants (the gravitational constant, the mass of the proton, the age of the universe, etc.). A puzzling aspect of this was that some of the relations hold only at the present epoch in the earth's history, so we appear, coincidentally, to be living at a very special time (give or take a few million years!). This was later explained, by Carter and Dicke, by the fact that this epoch coincided with the lifetime of what are called main-sequence stars, such as the sun. At any other epoch, so the argument ran, there would be no intelligent life around in order to measure the physical constants in question — so the coincidence had to hold, simply because there would be intelligent life around only at the particular time that the coincidence did hold!"
—The Emperor's New Mind, Chapter 10
also quoting:
Douglas Adams used the metaphor of a living puddle examining its own shape, since, to those living creatures, the universe may appear to fit them perfectly (while in fact, they simply fit the universe perfectly).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
That is, it is not remarkable that "we" are here, now. Any group of beings that has the capability (thanks to the arrangement of physical constants, etc.) will be tempted to consider the situation specially adapted to them whereas it is they who adapted, where and when the situation allowed.
24 May 12
Originally posted by jaywillsuch things are coincidental and schroeder makes the same kind of fallacy as ross. js357 presented more information regarding the fallacy.
You go ahead and sniff out your fallacy. You sit down to a turkey dinner and hunt for a bone to choke on.
He is human. And I did not quote the paragraphs because he is infallible but because I think he has some good things to say.
Man is here in the universe as a extremely lucky winner of not only ONE cosmic lottery but MANY !!
Another f ...[text shortened]... s like a put-up job. [/quote]
Schroeder is a theist but not a Christian (as far as I know).
24 May 12
Originally posted by jaywillBut if his main argument is a fallacy, surely you should be interested? You are content to accept fallacies? Do you even know what a fallacy is?
You go ahead and sniff out your fallacy. You sit down to a turkey dinner and hunt for a bone to choke on.
He is human. And I did not quote the paragraphs because he is infallible but because I think he has some good things to say.
24 May 12
We used to think people in the past were arrogant because they thought the earth was the center of the universe.
We now have a staggering picture of just how tiny a speck our little planet is in the mind-boggling vastness of the universe, and how insignificant the lifespan of our species will be compared to the lifespan of the universe.
And we think that it's all there because the laws of physics had to be 'tuned' to make us!
Every nebula, galaxy, star, solar system, planet, quasar, black hole (and now zooming way in) electron, quark, gluon, photon, molecule, element is all exactly the way it is just so WE could exist.
Is there any higher level of arrogance?