Jump to content

Deist And Libertarian Defense


Recommended Posts

You are the one trying o make a connection that doesn't exist. If the book that began all of you on your false search for a viable explanation for life is found to be false, it would undermine your theory.
A theory can be revised. If new evidence comes out that requires a improvements to the theory, then the theory will be adjusted. If it can't be, it will be abandoned. The theory of evolution has come a long way since Darwin. When new evidence comes out that does not support the bible, the religion cannot be revised. It has not been revised since the bible. You still believe absolutely everything in the bible is true. We do not believe that about On The Origin of Species. That's why we don't particularly care what the book was subtitled. Knowing the last ten years of literature in evolutionary theory is far more important in determining how well someone knows the theory than knowing OTOS is. For christians, knowing the bible still ranks up there as pretty important.
If the book of the Bible were found to be false, it would not relate in whether or not God exists.
If the part that says there is a god were found to be false, it would probably relate to whether or not God exists. Also, what DJ said.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 263
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

But it would relate to whether your God exists, right?
Yes and no.My understanding of the existence of God is clarified by the Bible. But His handiwork is displayed throughout the heavens.But it would undermine my belief that my sins are forgiven.Luckily the Bible has been able to withstand the countless attacks for millenniums of false accusations. So I'm not fearful of the future.evolution on the other hand..continues to fail to explain complex life systems coming from random mutation without granting some form of intelligence.
Link to post
Share on other sites
A theory can be revised. If new evidence comes out that requires a improvements to the theory, then the theory will be adjusted. If it can't be, it will be abandoned. The theory of evolution has come a long way since Darwin.
This is an interesting point. Darwin had a horribly flawed understanding of life, thought a human cell was the smallest organism for life etc. Yet he came to a theory using this terrible logic based on worse data that you guys have been trying to make work for a hundred years.If evolution were just a religion ( it kind of is ) you would laugh at anyone who bought into it, based on its history.
Link to post
Share on other sites
This is an interesting point. Darwin had a horribly flawed understanding of life, thought a human cell was the smallest organism for life etc. Yet he came to a theory using this terrible logic based on worse data that you guys have been trying to make work for a hundred years.If evolution were just a religion ( it kind of is ) you would laugh at anyone who bought into it, based on its history.
It is interesting because it highlights the difference between where truth is derived in a scientific versus religious system. In religion, ultimate truth derives from authority: the authority of god, or of his prophets and their writings. In science, the truth is independent of any authority. No person or book defines what is true, only the repeated challenges of evidence do that. It's funny to see you try and apply the religious mindset to attacking science. What you do is go after what you perceive as the sources of authority: the book, or the man who wrote it. Those attacks have no affect on a scientific theory. It doesn't matter if Darwin was wrong about everything he ever said, the truth of the theory stands on its own against the evidence.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The timescale is not the only inconsistency between Genesis and evolution.
What timescale is that? Because Genesis doesn't have a timescale.Also, it's weird how the Bible isn't racist, when everyone else at the time was. Very weird indeed.
Link to post
Share on other sites
What timescale is that? Because Genesis doesn't have a timescale.Also, it's weird how the Bible isn't racist, when everyone else at the time was. Very weird indeed.
I assume by the "bible" you mean the new testament. Unless you don't consider ethnic genocides racist.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I assume by the "bible" you mean the new testament. Unless you don't consider ethnic genocides racist.
They were killed for their actions as a tribe/city, not for their race.Big difference
Link to post
Share on other sites
It is interesting because it highlights the difference between where truth is derived in a scientific versus religious system. In religion, ultimate truth derives from authority: the authority of god, or of his prophets and their writings.
When the Authority created all laws, matter and time...it's kind of a nice starting place...
In science, the truth is independent of any authority. No person or book defines what is true, only the repeated challenges of evidence do that.
No, in the theory of science maybe, but in science you are stuck with the reality that politics, man's sinful nature, poor observation skills and faulty conclusions from inadequate data all combine to hamper actual science as seen throughout history up to and including the present.
It's funny to see you try and apply the religious mindset to attacking science. What you do is go after what you perceive as the sources of authority: the book, or the man who wrote it. Those attacks have no affect on a scientific theory. It doesn't matter if Darwin was wrong about everything he ever said, the truth of the theory stands on its own against the evidence.
That's silly, I started this by making fun of how stupid Dawkins is because his argument about Christians not knowing the name of the first book of the NT was somehow indicative of Christians place in the mind of God was offset by applying the same logic to himself, resulting in him being shown as the wanker that he is.Darwin was wrong about everything he ever said, except maybe the parts where he points out the serious flaws in the ToE like:"I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science." - From a letter to Asa Gray, Harvard biology professor, cited in Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation, N.C. Gillespie, p.2)or"When we descend to details we can prove that no one species has changed (i.e., we cannot prove that a single species has changed): nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not. The latter case seems to me hardly more difficult to understand precisely and in detail than the former case of supposed change" - Darwin, 1863.It really paralleled with many previous 'scientific' positions like the earth being flat. Something that was postulated by the leaders of science in their day, and enforced with chains against those Christians who debunked it.And the current GW farce.
Link to post
Share on other sites
What timescale is that? Because Genesis doesn't have a timescale.
Did you read the post I was responding to? He was discussing what a day meant in genesis. As if the problem was in the definition of day.
Also, it's weird how the Bible isn't racist, when everyone else at the time was. Very weird indeed.
The bible is most certainly racist, but that has nothing to do with what I was sayingMy point was that pretty much everyone in Darwin's time was racist. The theory of natural selection did not invent racism.
Link to post
Share on other sites
When the Authority created all laws, matter and time...it's kind of a nice starting place... No, in the theory of science maybe, but in science you are stuck with the reality that politics, man's sinful nature, poor observation skills and faulty conclusions from inadequate data all combine to hamper actual science as seen throughout history up to and including the present.That's silly, I started this by making fun of how stupid Dawkins is because his argument about Christians not knowing the name of the first book of the NT was somehow indicative of Christians place in the mind of God was offset by applying the same logic to himself, resulting in him being shown as the wanker that he is.Darwin was wrong about everything he ever said, except maybe the parts where he points out the serious flaws in the ToE like:"I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science." - From a letter to Asa Gray, Harvard biology professor, cited in Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation, N.C. Gillespie, p.2)or"When we descend to details we can prove that no one species has changed (i.e., we cannot prove that a single species has changed): nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not. The latter case seems to me hardly more difficult to understand precisely and in detail than the former case of supposed change" - Darwin, 1863.It really paralleled with many previous 'scientific' positions like the earth being flat. Something that was postulated by the leaders of science in their day, and enforced with chains against those Christians who debunked it.And the current GW farce.
Your ad hominem on Darwin (or on Dawkins for that matter) will never put a dent in the modern theory of evolution because it is irrelevant. If you want to attack the theory itself, I encourage you to bring it on. :aggressive dance move:Nevertheless, the quote you chose show someone aware of the limitations of his theory, which is good science. The only way we have made progress on some of the questions in that letter (and we surely have) is because he and others attacked the theory with a critical mind.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Your ad hominem on Darwin (or on Dawkins for that matter) will never put a dent in the modern theory of evolution because it is irrelevant. If you want to attack the theory itself, I encourage you to bring it on. :aggressive dance move:Nevertheless, the quote you chose show someone aware of the limitations of his theory, which is good science. The only way we have made progress on some of the questions in that letter (and we surely have) is because he and others attacked the theory with a critical mind.
Okay, I am done.I have an image of you making aggressive dance moves...Not cool bro, not cool :club:
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yup, he definitely looked like an asshat there, no doubt about it. It's pretty silly of him to claim that knowing the books of the bible word for word is what makes someone a christian. I mean, I'm sure it helps, but I feel like he's not in a position to try to make those distinctions.
The theory of evolution does not rely on Darwin's Book "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". Christianity, however, depends upon the existence of the Bible.
Yup, also definitely true.
Did you invent this part? It doesn't appear in the article, and also it has numerous strange typos.
I was also curious about this.
evolution on the other hand..continues to fail to explain complex life systems coming from random mutation without granting some form of intelligence.
Oh, BG, still pretending you understand the theory enough to say what it can and cannot explain.
Your ad hominem on Darwin (or on Dawkins for that matter) will never put a dent in the modern theory of evolution because it is irrelevant. If you want to attack the theory itself, I encourage you to bring it on. :aggressive dance move:
I enjoyed this immensely.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I assume by the "bible" you mean the new testament. Unless you don't consider ethnic genocides racist.
It was always based on religious or action oriented reasons as opposed to ethnic.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you read the post I was responding to? He was discussing what a day meant in genesis. As if the problem was in the definition of day.
No, I didn't. I rarely read BG's posts in the religion forum.
The bible is most certainly racist, but that has nothing to do with what I was sayingMy point was that pretty much everyone in Darwin's time was racist. The theory of natural selection did not invent racism.
[citation needed]
Link to post
Share on other sites
It wasn't BG, it was this "bat" character.
Oh sorry. I can't believe anyone is reading his posts, let alone responding.
Link to post
Share on other sites
[citation needed]
This seems kind of racist. Matthew 15:22-28New International Version (NIV)22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.” 23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.” 24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” 25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said. 26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” 27 “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.” 28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.Mark 7:25-30New International Version (NIV)25 In fact, as soon as she heard about him, a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an impure spirit came and fell at his feet. 26 The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter. 27 “First let the children eat all they want,” he told her, “for it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” 28 “Lord,” she replied, “even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.” 29 Then he told her, “For such a reply, you may go; the demon has left your daughter.” 30 She went home and found her child lying on the bed, and the demon gone
Link to post
Share on other sites
Did I mention the connection of evolutionist to nazism lately?
Why yes, yes you have. And I will say again that you're literally trying to agree with Hitler. It's possibly the single most obtuse argument against evolution that anyone ever makes, which is saying a mountain.Multiple choice question:Hitler was...A] An insane genocidal dictator who used any and all false excuses to justify and garner support for his campaign of genocide.B] A studious and respected scientist knowledgeable in the field of evolutionary biology.I shouldn't even bother responding to your Hitler garbage because I honestly hope that you're trolling, and it's hard to believe that you aren't.
Link to post
Share on other sites
It wasn't BG, it was this "bat" character.
Ouch. I have feelings too. :)OK... I'm sure I'll regret this but to sorta put a face with the name here's my blog (i hardly ever update) and another site I contribute moreso to.........http://bathill8.deviantart.com http://www.bathilliard.blogspot.com
Oh sorry. I can't believe anyone is reading his posts, let alone responding.
Et tu, Brute? Not a very Christian statement at all. But thanks.
If you're just saying that to be incendiary, please stop. If you actually intend to defend this statement, I'll engage you, but Im still not convinced you are actually here to discuss these issues. ones that are beholden to sacred texts and prophets. Darwin is not a prophet to us. He is just a guy who had some insights, was right about a lot of things, and wrong about a lot of things.
I'll be the first to admit that I was initially trying to steer the focus towards more poker related matters, but as they say, if you can't beat them, join them. And I'm not at all trying to be detrimental to your point of view. In fact, mine sort of coincides with some of what you have been saying all along. I'm sort of the arbitrator to this whole conversation but it seems I get more negative feed back from your side as opposed to BG and the Christian side. Your man Dawkins even somewhat admitted during a lecture that creationism and evolution could both be possible or at least he can envision that a creationist could also believe in the theory of evolution. In a way, I feel sorry for the guy because I think he just suffers relentless attacks due to the fact that he is a very intelligent fellow and he stands by what he believes to be true. He garners my respect because from what I've read and seen, he hasn't really ridiculed or belittled anyone for there beliefs (seems he leaves that to his supporters). Although, I could be wrong. Dr. Ken Miller is another professor whose research I respect that is rooted in spirituality and believes that there can be a grand Designer . He has even written a book, Finding Darwin's God, about the compatibility of both ways of thinking that I have yet to read, but is in my queue. Just for the record, my reference of the different time factor between an All Mighty Sentient Being and you and I was just to help show that maybe it could be a possiblity for evolution/creationism. I just don't see why we cannot all be in agreement on the subject during this era in which science and spirituality seem so divided. Given some effort, I think we could. Come on guys!
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...