Posted on 08/13/2005 3:49:15 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
You through? Cause I wanted to be sure you got the full "I'm a martyr of my cause. Feel sorry for me" speach done before we continued. I didn't call you stupid - merely uninformed - which isn't a crime in and of itself unless you make it one yourself.. perhaps by walking into a public forum to debate and being unprepared to do so. In a regular forum, you'd have been bood out of the place. I just noted that you didn't know your subject. If that's the great terror of mean-ness I've displayed, you need help. Seriously.
I love you on the one hand; but, you don't seem to see anything beyond your own self interest. The message you carry impacts others. When you run about throwing around comments like Evolution and Christianity can coexist, not knowing the full implication, you should be prepared when someone takes you to task for it. Cause you're slandering Christianity in the doing. And because you don't know the subject, you don't even understnad the extent to which you are doing so. You just say it as if it's no big deal in the same way evolutionists ignore lack of any evidence to support their positions as though such a hurdle is no big deal. At some point, words mean things. So, please, don't lecture me on living the word vs knowing it. If you don't know it, how can you hope to live it. You know all the right soundbites and none of the substance so far. I merely ask that you read and know your subject so you aren't wasting my time and others. I fail to see how that qualifies you as a martyr in the public square.
Not a martyr, never asked about being a martyr never even cried to heaven to be a martyr.
You didnt know evolution, you didnt know the true story behind Galileo. You didnt even know what and why the Catholic Church believes that evolution and creationism can be complimentary, and why Darwinism in itself is not accepted becausze it relies on materialism and does not explain certain aspects of human creation. You didnt even know the true theory behind ID, all of those you attacked me on.
This is all part of the greater argument, you have attacked me with knowledge that failed.
Now please come again, who or what came in with what argument?
Ok, I'm going to preface this comment with a warning because I work two jobs and must leave shortly for 14 hours - the warning is I won't be responding for another 14 hours. Just a heads up.
Forgetting 737 for the moment, you're admitting now that you wanted to beg similar circumstance in reliance on philosophy as a lowest common denominator for excusing your position based on what you thought I might be doing. That is the gist of your position as I understand it, is it not.
In response to that, I would point out that what I personally do one way or the other has zero bearing on what the truth of scripture is. I can defend it for being true; but, if I cuss you out, that isn't a reflection on scripture, it's a reflection on me. So whether I invoke philosophy or not doesn't help your argument. Whether anyone else does or not doesnt' help your argument. Your argument has to stand on it's own against the facts. And if you aren't taking that approach, you show the weakness of your hand by appealing to the lowest common denominator.. 'Buddy does it so I should be able to steal too' doesn't work as a kid in a candy store and it doesn't pass muster as an adult before a judge either. How then does it pass muster before an all knowing God?
My view on anything that even smacks of being unscriptural is to take the case to God - literally. Sit down, read what scripture has to say. Once you've examined that carefully, sit in a chair as though you were sitting before God and explain it to Him. It may seem absurd; but, act like it's the difference between going to heaven or going to hell and try to imagine what an unbiased And just judge would tell you. It requires being objective. And it requires a healthier respect for the scriptures as God's word instead of the usual approach many people take that it's God's suggestion when taken in small doses with tradition and the opinions of men via philosophy etc. That is to say, I've debated Catholics for years now and I'm well acquainted with the usual explanations and gimmes.
Evolution and Christian scripture are irreconcilable. And if you're going to start calling God a liar, what makes Genesis 1 any different from the Gospels. What about Jesus arising from the dead? It is no more scientifically plausible than God speaking everything into existance because it can't be explained "naturally". When you start picking and choosing things to believe, you end up with not much left ultimately save for the reverse of where you started. Your compromise is your comfort zone and your bottom line is what you want whether true or proper. When that becomes the bottom line, anything goes. And that is the point. Philosophy can rationalize anything amd most of the time does just that. Philosophers can pull the wool a lot of times because the art is in persuasion using whatever means sound good. If they had to convince God to his face of most of the garbage they spew, most would have the good sense to shut up knowing better before him. They don't realize he's right there all the time even if they can't see him. And he misses nothing.
You are talking strict evolution. They are not irreconciable. What would make it irreconciable is a denial of God. Evolution exists just as plain as day exists. But to what degree and so on is the question. A denial of God would be to say life was created out of nothing by no one, ID and the Catholics view of the situation are pretty damn similar.
They both acknowledge that a form of evolution exists by saying yeah animals and humans do adapt to there situation, less hair, growing taller, shorter, etc. Those are examples of evolution, what ID and Catholicism says is that they wouldnt be possible without the Intelligence of GOD or to other Religions a intelligence.
You see I believe my God to be so intelligent as to have created within every litle thing on earth the ability to evolve overr time to adapt and overcome or need be perish. Do you see? In other words Gods abilities are so great and so incredible is that not only did he create the Earth and everything on it, he even created evolution as we are arguing now.
Otherwise, I believe if you dont see the obvious examples of evolution, you deny a part of Gods creation.
No far from denying God, I am giving him his due where strict big E evolutionists do not.
No, I'm talking evolution as the theory we all know. Evolution can't play cybil and put a mask on for everyone that approaches it as you and others attempt to portray. It doesn't work like that. And the plain fact is that if you say dark and I say light, then, yes, the two stances are irreconcilable as light and darkness cannot occupy the same space. When Genesis states matter of factly that events played out in a specific order and in a specific way and you call that to task because evolution says it happened another way, you're calling it to task because you yourself understand that it can't be both ways - and you prefer the evolution story or you wouldn't be calling God's version the lie. You aren't seeking, when you call God's version false, to bring the two things together. You're trying to supplant God's word with something else - taking that something else preferentially as true. And Evolution does not need to have an outright denial of God to make it unreconcilable. Look at the liberal playbook. Liberals are good at destroying people and rendering them ineffectual over time by slander. They don't have to deny Newt Gingerich, they label him till they find a label with a smidge of truth that gains traction then he's done and they can shake there heads in mock and say "what a shame".
What would make it irreconciable is a denial of God.
A denial of God. You mean like what Satan did in the Garden when he denied God. How did he do it? He attacked God's word and lied while playing to Eve's ego. Once he had labeled God a liar and offered a motive for the lie, Eve was on the hook. Satan didn't outright call God a liar though. He let Eve put that together on her own by calling God's word into question. And that is precisely what you've done with your Evolution approach. You call God's word into question. And you start with things like, 'Did God really mean a literal "day" when he said day. No, day can mean many things..' Except when God means day, uses it and attaches to it in non-poetic language references that belong to a day - like morning and evening. The concept of the day is defined in these passages as well as concepts like seasons etc.. The meaning couldn't be more clear if it tried and the language disallows the leaps of trying to make 'day' mean something other than 24 hours. Had the evolutionists bothered to actually consult proper authority on the concept, they might have learned that this was a bad ground on which to craft a lie. But they didn't need to deny God to do the appropriate damage anymore than you yourself needed to in attempting to duplicate that damage amongst others. Evolution and the Genesis account cannot be reconciled.
They both acknowledge that a form of evolution exists by saying yeah animals and humans do adapt to there situation
Wrong. Adaptation existed long before the theory of evolution was ever thought of. Calling adaptation evolution, then calling your theory 'evolution' then trying to beg one is a part of the other because 'look at the words' etc is dishonest. Adaptation is not evolution. Micro and macro are not the same and you don't get one by mentioning the other.
You see I believe my God to be so intelligent as to have created within every litle thing on earth the ability to evolve overr time to adapt and overcome or need be perish.
Saying God is capable of anything is a nice ploy. But when God has spoken on the subject and stated what he HAS done, your belief to the contrary doesn't Change anything. Satan's begging of reason in the garden is no different in approach than your own. Adaptation to environment doesn't require single celled organisms to change into multicelled, into fish, grow legs walk onto dry land, climb a tree, grow a tail hang from a limb, tail falls off and stands upright - almost there... God did design us with brains enough to adapt to different environs and with a diverse enough defined set of DNA options for man to be man in all kinds of settings. That doesn't mean man came from monkies. You are again discussing micro - not macro. And the two are not the same.
I realize you need to play semantics games to sell the story. I realize you want to be warm and fuzzy. So did satan. I'm sure you'll take that for insult. But I really don't care what someone's reasons are for compromising God's word and calling God a liar. Whatever good intentions may lay there are unimportant and the road is paved with that intent as well. God is so great he spoke the universe into existance and created things just as he said, in the order he said them, in six days and rested on the seventh.. not for a million or x years as it were. And he commanded us to do the same. If it was millions of years and he commanded us to rest a million years once a week, what kind of nonsense do you think that amounts to when he also stated that we will only live physically in the old covenant language, x number of years be it 70, 120, etc - that's vast multiples less than millions and billions of years that you'd have us believe he meant by a day. It defies common sense. And the hope is that people don't look too deeply before buying the nonsense. The aim isn't reconciling the two. The aim is selling evolution instead.
Otherwise, I believe if you dont see the obvious examples of evolution, you deny a part of Gods creation.
You believe. Right. Not you have factual evidence to show it so - you believe. I already have a faith, I don't need another. And what you 'believe' outside of scripture and per the apostles requires consistency as a first requirement for consideration as to whether it's inspired or should be listened to. Evolution fails on that point. So you can believe it all you want. You can believe the sky is purple and lime green with little m&m logos all over it, that doesn't make it so, to say nothing of being worthy of canon and referenceable as gospel.
No far from denying God, I am giving him his due where strict big E evolutionists do not.
How are you doing that when your arguments are no different than theirs?
"This is not the accepted definition of God, an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Supernatural Being IS. If you want to define Him however you want then words mean nothing."
Sorry took a few days to respond, been busy. I like to think of God like how humans are omnipotent over the animal kingdom.
This is not exactly true. The concept of living vs non-living is a construct based on the fact that after three and a half billion years, it's pretty easy to distinguish the forms and products of life. As some evolution critics have said, if it's a protein, it was manufactured by a living thing.
So much nonsense in one paragraph. I stand by my statement. There was a point at which life began on this planet. Prior to that point there wasn't life, just matter. You are trying to argue (by redefining the term {life}) that life always existed, I believe you will find yourself in the minority. Next.
Your statement is essentially so far off point that it is not even wrong.
I'll leave that judgement to the audience at large. More to the point; I am still waiting for a working theory of evolution.
W.K.
So your argument is that the Scientific Method (used by every scientist in the last 2000 years) is nothing more than a "wet dream". No wonder you can't come up with a working theory of evolution. Once again, I think you will find yourself in the minority on this issue.
Science does not seek truth. It seeks knowledge. There is a difference. Knowledge is always incomplete and tentative. Knowledge has the attributes of utility and degrees of confidence, but never has certainty and logical perfection.
I disagree with this statement on several levels; if the knowledge science is seeking after is the truth then science is certainly looking for that which is true. Additionally, if science is seeking after knowledge that is not truthful science will most likely fail in the endeavor. In either case, this makes your assertion mostly false. If the knowledged gained is complete then by definition your second statement is false. I agree that knowledge has utility and degree (including the full spectrum from zero to complete). However, knowledge that is certain (ie my hair is brown) is complete. Logical perfection; you will have to define that one. I would only argue that logical reasoning and deduction (cause and effect) are key prinicipals of the Scientific Method.
Back to the point, any chance on seeing a theory of evolution?
W.K.
As stated previously, this is not a theory. At best, the first part is an observation. The second half would also be an observation, assuming it had ever been observed. In any case, this is not a theory based on the Scientific Method.
W.K.
Really? Would you mind posting some of the ones you HAVE seen?
Unable to comply with your request, see the underlined sentence above.
W.K.
ID supporters who assert that ID hasn't been proven false (since it cannot be, by definition) therefore it must be considered a valid proposition, with absolutely no evidence to support the assertion, only conclusions. [The Fallacy of Begging the Question.]
Once again, ID is the supposition that natural laws are inadequate (note the negative) to explain other natural phenomenon. This assertion would require an omniscient understanding of the natural world and natural laws. The only means by which science, in the proper context of the term, can evaluate assertions is via natural laws, or it is mysticism.
Before the proposition of an "irreducible complexity" is considered as a premise for ID, evidence must be given that the structure is "irreducibly complex" (which is an opinion not a fact), that there is a pre-existent intelligence to "design" it and that that intelligence actually had a hand in designing it, which is impossible to prove, by definition.
Burden of Proof. ID fails on all three.
This is classic example of why the definition of words is so important. Words have specific meanings. Empty means there is nothing in it. This is a contradiction in terms. See: Void.
Now, after making a fool of yourself, did you have a point?
You made it for me by being a jerk...
Really? Would you mind posting some of the ones you HAVE seen?
Unable to comply with your request, see the underlined sentence above.
Perhaps you misunderstood my question. Adhering to the scientific method or not, to what theories of evolution do you refer?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.