Chance or by Design ?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Is there any higher level of arrogance?

Thinking that the creator of it all made you in his image and wants you to be his friend and come to heaven with him because you, unlike all those other fools out there, believe in him?

Originally posted by JS357
"[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.

Why not?

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
since 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.

But I do have a way of knowing.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
hugh ross presents a fallacy argument. can you identify why it is a fallacy?

His fallacy is teaching that the creation days represent long period of time and not literal 24 hour days, as stated in the Holy Bible.

Originally posted by finnegan
[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 r-argument is therefore totally without weight and the points I made therefore remain intact.

no its simply much easier to detail how religious belief influences ones behaviour than
non religious belief, your original statement was biased, secularists are just as likely to
be influenced by materialistic beliefs as are religionists by religious beliefs, its naive to
think otherwise. Were the Khmer rouge not influenced by a materialistic communist
doctrine? Did they not attempt to establish an atheistic state on its basis, murdering
some 30,000 Buddhist monks and killing millions of others in the process? As for
the catholic church, its adherents have killed more persons than any other
organisation on earth, shall we look at Rwandan genocide as an example, shall we?
Please detail how such gratuitous violence is a strong claim or even an indication
that the perpetrators were christians, indeed, what Christian teaching/principle were
they applying?

Polarity exists Finn, and this polarity is determined by ones beliefs, religious or
materialistic.

Originally posted by JS357
"[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.

there is everything in that assertion that jives with the bible and science, its termed the
discontinuity of genus!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no its simply much easier to detail how religious belief influences ones behaviour than
non religious belief, your original statement was biased, secularists are just as likely to
be influenced by materialistic beliefs as are religionists by religious beliefs, its naive to
think otherwise. Were the Khmer rouge not influenced by a materialistic ...[text shortened]... rity exists Finn, and this polarity is determined by ones beliefs, religious or
materialistic.

A very interesting post RC.

Some fair points IMO

Originally posted by FMF
It isn't about what I believe and don't believe, robbie. And it isn't about what Christ said or didn't say. There are people who believe in there being a creator and in evolution, so they cannot be said to be beliefs that are "opposed". Your 'Terms Of Reference' are not necessarily other people's 'Terms Of Reference', no matter how earnest and certain you are about yours.

so there are people who believe in a creator and the theory of evolution so what?
there are also people who believe in fairies, UFO's, aliens, parallel universes, it doesn't
mean that their beliefs have any validation and as you have not explained how its
possible that belief in a creator is harmonious with belief in evolution my premise
stands that the two are mutually exclusive, either life was the direct act of an
intelligence or it was not, either God animated different kinds of creatures or he did
not, please explain where there is room in this scenario for the belief in a creator and
evolution, so far you have failed to provide any argument against the mutual
exclusiveness of such beliefs being intent to state that people believe both, so what?

Originally posted by nook7
A very interesting post RC.

Some fair points IMO

thankyou, its not often one is the recipient of commendation in spirituality, mostly its,
your a lair, your insane, your being dishonest, drone drone. . . . . . .

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
thankyou, its not often one is the recipient of commendation in spirituality, mostly its,
your a lair, your insane, your being dishonest, drone drone. . . . . . .

The LIGHT exposes the TRUTH as well as the LIE. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!

Originally posted by RJHinds
The LIGHT exposes the TRUTH as well as the LIE. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!

RJH do you also dance with snakes harbouring the belief that even if your bitten by
one, it will do you no harm? Just asking.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
so there are people who believe in a creator and the theory of evolution so what?
there are also people who believe in fairies, UFO's, aliens, parallel universes, it doesn't
mean that their beliefs have any validation and as you have not explained how its
possible that belief in a creator is harmonious with belief in evolution my premise
sta ...[text shortened]... utual
exclusiveness of such beliefs being intent to state that people believe both, so what?

Whether you think a person's belief in a creator is "valid" is neither here nor there, robbie. If that is what they believe then that is what they believe. It is not necessary for you to believe the same thing as they believe, nor do they need your endorsement. The same goes for their understanding of "evolution" and their belief in it. You seem to think their beliefs somehow do not exist if they are different from yours. Whether you think a person's belief in evolution is "valid" is irrelevant. Clearly there are many hundreds of millions of people who believe in there being a creator AND in evolution. So, clearly, they are not "opposing" beliefs as you have claimed.

Originally posted by FMF
Whether you think a person's belief in a creator is "valid" is neither here nor there, robbie. If that is what they believe then that is what they believe. It is not necessary for you to believe the same thing as they believe, nor do they need your endorsement. The same goes for their understanding of "evolution" and their belief in it. You seem to think their b ...[text shortened]... or AND in evolution. So, clearly, they are not "opposing" beliefs as you have claimed.

Actually I have to disagree with this.

It is perfectly possible for people to believe mutually contradictory things, that under any
logical or rational analysis aught to be incompatible, and yet people happily go around
believing them.



For example the world view of science, and the methodologies and philosophy of science, is
diametrically opposed to and contradictory to the theistic and faith based world view.

ALL religions include and are based on faith based beliefs. Beliefs that you are required to hold
without any supporting evidence or despite supporting evidence.


Holding such beliefs is a complete and utter anathema to science and the scientific method.
In science all beliefs MUST be supported by evidence strong enough to justify holding that belief
and no belief may be held that is contradicted by the evidence.


Thus science and religion are totally and completely incompatible, they are diametrically opposed
view points and world views.

And yet there are many people who quite happily believe in/use both.



The fact that there are people who merrily believe mutually incompatible things and who even hold two
or more mutually exclusive world views does not mean that because people are capable of believing both
that suddenly they are compatible with each other.




There are indeed many millions of people who believe in some form of 'guided' evolution where life evolves
naturally with the odd prod or poke from god to guide evolution towards his intended goals.

This is of course nonsense, and requires holding mutually exclusive and incompatible ideas. However while these
beliefs are indeed incompatible. It is, as you say, equally wrong to claim that people can't hold mutually incompatible
beliefs to be true... Because they evidently can.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Actually I have to disagree with this.

It is perfectly possible for people to believe mutually contradictory things, that under any
logical or rational analysis aught to be incompatible, and yet people happily go around
believing them.



For example the world view of science, and the methodologies and philosophy of science, is
diametrically ...[text shortened]... t people can't hold mutually incompatible
beliefs to be true... Because they evidently can.

Same goes for as goes for robbie. Other people's beliefs don't need your endorsement or even your comprehension in order for those beliefs to exist.

Originally posted by FMF
Same goes for as goes for robbie. Other people's beliefs don't need your endorsement or even your comprehension in order for those beliefs to exist.

I never said otherwise.

People believe in mutually contradictory things, this is evident and undeniable.


However the fact that people can believe mutually contradictory things does not make those
things compatible or for it to be reasonable to believe such things.


For example I am fully aware that there are many theist scientists, so it's evidently possible
to be both.

However that doesn't mean that it's reasonable or justifiable to be both.

I can acknowledge the existence of theist scientists while at the same time pointing out that
their holding mutually incompatible beliefs is absurd and unjustifiable.


There are people who believe that world is flat... They are just plain wrong, and idiotic to boot.
And I can say this without denying their existence, or the existence of their beliefs.


The fact that someone holds a belief or set of beliefs does not make those beliefs valid.