Very fine arguments, all of them.
Since I am new to the SD, some of my responses were written in a way to ellicit a counter response in order to guage the depth of knowledge herein.
I recall some complaining due to of lack of counter.
I am not a hardliner to the extent that I seem.
I also am not as familiar with the intriguing and complicated world of evolution as I should be. Thanks for the reading suggestions DINSDALE.
I shall be back in the future to dabate, on topic.
ENJOY:cool:
In addition to Dinsdale’s suggestions, consider the several popular works by Richard Dawkins (particularly, The Blind Watchmaker), that are directed explicitly to evoutionary theory.*
If you’re trapped far from a library or bookstore, you can also visit the “Talk Origins” web site that includes far-reaching discussions of most evolutionary topics and concise FAQ pages on particular subjects of interest to beginners:
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
Introduction to Evolutionary Biology
Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution
*Both Dawkins and Gould are unabashed atheists. Nevertheless, their presentation of the science is clear and forthright. I may occasonally disagree with the philosophical conclusions each draws, but I have not found their preentation of science to be hampered by their philosophies.
Glad everyone is taking up the slack for me today. Pretty busy day at the office. These GD threads are hard to answer quickly, to it is rough during the day sometimes.
**An important comment that deserves a proper answer; the explanantions of evolution and cosmic origin you see people arguing here are not things that they have swallowed whole without a pause for thought; it’s just that, well, this conversation has cropped up once or twice before and will again; it therefore makes sense for people to have a few answers ready.
I for one am quite prepared to face that eventuality; Jesus instructed us (among other things) to love God with our minds.
MANGETOUT - I see perfectly where you are coming from.
Thankyou for the clarification.
Whuckfistle, do you believe that the earth is flat?
Because it used to be that essentially all Christians believed the earth to be flat. Why? They thought that the Bible told them so.
If you showed them a photo of the earth, taken from space, they might start talking about mice and elephants. After all, who are they going to believe- some photo, or God? But nowadays most Christians say that those people just interpreted the Bible incorrectly. They stubbornly stuck to their own wrong interpretation, and justified that by calling their own ideas by the name “God’s Word.”
The fact of the matter is that your “faith” isn’t faith in God. If Christianity is correct, then God has put evidence in His creation, and you refuse to look at it. You actually put your own interpretation of Scripture above God’s own handiwork!
If God gave you evidence and a brain capable of interpreting it, don’t you think he meant you to use the two together?
Unfortunately I don’t have this on my webpage yet, (which, by the way, has two FAQs on evolution that you might be interested in,) so I’ll post it here:
You may have heard this story before, but I’ll tell it again:
Once there was this guy, and a flood was coming to his town. The neighbors offered to let him use their truck to pack up his stuff and get out of town, but he said, “No, I have faith, God will provide.”
Then the floodwaters came, and he was stuck up on his roof. A motorboat came by, and the guys on the motorboat urged him to get in and ride to safety with them. “Nope, I have faith, and I know God will provide.”
Finally the waters got so high that he was perched on top of his chimney, and a helicopter dropped a ladder for him. He waved it away- “I have faith! God will provide!”
Then he died. When he got to heaven he asked God, “Hey, I had faith- why didn’t you provide?”
“What?” God boomed. “I sent a truck, a motorboat, and a helicopter. What more do you people want?!?”
Here’s a little updated version for you.
Once there was this creationist- for the sake of argument, let’s make him an old-earth creationist. And some evolutionists talked to him about retrogenes, and he couldn’t refute their arguments. But he said, “No, I have faith- Genesis is the literal truth.”
Then they talked to him about orthologous vs. paralogous proteins. But he didn’t believe them, so he said, “Nope, I have faith- I believe Genesis is the literal truth.”
And then they talked to him about this, that, and the other, but the same argument kept coming back. “No, to a man like me, a man of faith, it doesn’t matter that I can’t refute your arguments. It’s clear that Genesis is the literal truth.”
One day the creationist died. When he got to heaven, God said, “Boy, I love you, more than you can possibly imagine. But I’ve got to tell you something- you were a little misguided there. You spent all that time spreading the lie of creation science, when I really used evolution as the tool for creating My Glorious Creation.”
“What?” The creationist was flabbergasted. “But what about Genesis?”
“Well, that was a metaphor. You know, like the part where six days for Me is equal to billions of years for humans. Or the part where I say that if your eye offends you, you should pluck it out. So for Me to sculpt the genome over billions of years using mutations is like a human potter sculpting something out of clay.”
The creationist was shocked. “But why didn’t you tell me?”
“Why didn’t I tell you?” God boomed. “I gave you retrogenes, pseudogenes, transposons, protein homology between orthologous and paralogous proteins, agreement between molecular and fossil phylogenies, the arrangement of genes in the human hemoglobin cluster…” (God went on in this vein for a while,) “…high mutation rates for nonfunctional DNA, differential mutation rates between the interior and exterior of proteins- what more do you people want?!?”
I have explained my position in a different thread, and alluded to my true beliefs upstream.
I was sublimely playing the Devils advocate. Maybe I shouldn`t have. But I was.
I believe I can learn more from someone by argueing with them than by agreeing with them.
Some of my posts were arguments I have heard from the creationists in my circle.
I, in fact, did learn a-lot from the members that posted in this thread and I greatly respect thier opinions. Including yours.
I agree for Example with almost everything MANGETOUT and you (BEN) posted.
I don`t know enough to have agreed with everything, or I may have.
I do believe that the evidence points toward evolution. I also understand how, on a basic level, organisms evolve. My point about the Gray elephant was used to incite responses from the members in this post.
My stance is this: I believe that no matter what side of the fence you fall on you can still be Saved. Creationists and evolutionists have equall chances at Salvation. Believe that Christ died for your sins and you shall be saved. It is basically quite that simple.
My thoughts on creation are thus: I believe God had (has) his hand in every aspect of “building” this universe. Nothing has been done that He hasnt, in some way, directed. If todays evidence is that of a Big Bang then I believe God used this as a way to create the universe as God wants us to see it.
Really, the way to Salvation does not rest in the literal belief of every aspect of the Bible. The Bible may still be exactly as God wanted it written, but the people it was first exposed to would never have understood anything more complicated than Genesis.
Also, the Bible contains all manner of parables used to make a point. Genesis is “a parable” explaining the BIG picture to even the most simple humans. Written to the lowest common demoninator.
The BIG picture being, that God created this world and universe with us - his children as the main focus. — The End
How did I do?
P.S. My father-in-law is a strict creationist and some of the material came from my conversations with him. Now I have more “ammo” so to speak to defend my point of view (thanks to you people).
Oh and one more thing, Would my username be (a certain phrase spoonerized) if I was this truely strict Biblican. Think about it.
I know this is a bit of a hijack, but the above scares me a little.
I’ve studied the Bible, attended church and listened to the Protestant Christian viewpoint.
My conclusion is that there is no evidence that God exists, or that Jesus was His son.
I do my best to lead a decent, law-abiding life as an atheist.
You seem to be saying that I will therefore not be Saved.
Does this mean I will go to Hell?
Will I be joined there by people who have not ever heard the Christian message?
Will a serial killer who sincerely repents on his deathbed go to Heaven?
What sort of God uses these criteria to judge people?
My apologies, whuckfistle, I didn’t realize you were playing devil’s advocate. That will teach me to post without reading the thread carefully…
And yes, I did notice your username, and it gave me pause to wonder.
So, not to hijack this thread too much, but I was just curious: what happened to people who died two seconds after the Crucifixion, in Australia?
Hey, Whuckfistle, what happened to Gandhi?
Hell, Hell, Hell the whole lot of them.
I shall make a clarification - those that REJECT that Christ died for our sins will not be saved.
Those that have not had the option to reject or accept? I dont know. Those that accept will be saved. If there are fine lines to and fro, I cant judge. Thats Gods job.
Maybe he lets people “slide”, but I don`t want to take that chance.
It is my understanding that the serial killer can be saved.
Glee - It sounds like you REJECT.
Ben - I suppose those who havent heard the message get judged differently. Cynic - Gandhis true intentions regarding his Godly beliefs are probably the basis. We might need to throw the red flag and let the ref upstairs look at the replay.
We are obviously goofin here. You guys dont expect me to have the answers. And I really don`t know them.
Im going by what I believe to be the path to salvation. I may be wrong. I may be right. Id like to bellieve I`m right. If God sees a sincere heart, He probably judges on that basis.
So if you hunker down with what you bellieve is the way to salvation, and stick with it, I think your chances are good.
In general the simplest way there is to accept Christ. That is a given. There may be other paths, but why take the chance?
Whuck, there are so many logical flaws with your post that I don’t know where to start. Basically you seem to espousing a meandering variation on Pascal’s wager. This old chestnut has been disposed of many times on this board and elsewhere, but here we go one more time:
Pascal’s wager is predicated on a false dichotomy. It supposes that there are two choices, to wit: believe God exists/ believe that God does not exist.
However
These are not really the only two choices are they? How do you know you believe in the RIGHT god? What if there are multiple gods? What if an erroneous belief gives you bad karma, thus resulting in a bad rebirth.
You say that believing in Jesus is the simplest way, but wait a second. By Islamic and Judaic standards, worshipping Jesus is idolotry. If the Muslims are right, then you’re going to fry like bacon, Mr. Fistle
There are risky choices even within Christianity. Do you accept the Book of Mormon? Better be careful you could fry either way.
My point is that there IS no “safe” choice. Anything you choose to believe could be a risk.
And why does god even CARE what we believe? Is he really that much of an humorless, nitpicking A-hole that if you don’t believe exactly the right thing then WHOOSH, off to the fiery pit you go.
This would not be a god that I have any respect for. This would be an unacceptable deity to me. If this is God, then I am better than God. I refuse to believe that I am better than God.
On a side note
I’ve often been baffled by this. Still am, really.
These creationist ‘scientists’ twist the meaning of words, they ommit evidence, draw obvious false conclusions, muddle the issue, quote out of context, put up non-authorative and antiquated scientists as leading scientists and indeed pose outright LIES.
And all of this knowingly.
I mean, what other group in society does anything up to the scale of these people (politicians aside ofcourse)?
What kind of sick mind would actually promote an idea, and agressively too, that they themselves know to be false?
And why? What are these people really after?
I’ve wondered about that too Latro - the average Christian creationist innocently believes it’s true pretty much on the authority of the arguments presented with a sort of hand-waving dismissal (I can provide examples from here in GD if called), but the guys at the top who are creating the arguments - I don’t think there’s any way they can be unaware that they are playing a game of deceit.
Cynic ?, Does this defense work?
Science doesnt prove things right, it proves things wrong. We thought we have been right many times about many things only to be proven wrong later. Same goes with religion, I cant prove Im right and you havent proven me wrong. And vice- versa. So until any views are proven wrong they are right by default. I think I make sense here.
Are all views right until proven wrong? And how can we prove any wrong without direct input from God?
Maybe we are both right, which goes with my earlier post that a sincere heart may get judged on that basis.
If you are trying to get LOGIC out of any religious discussion, good stinkin` luck!!
MANGETOUT - how does this sound to you?
No; it shifts the burden of proof away from the person making the (possibly quite absurd) assertion.
Consider:
“Gravity is caused by invisible elves that grab things and yank them downwards”; can this be disproved?
…And arguably we were proven wrong in the past because our methods were not rigourous; people believed that geese grew from barnacles because they looked similar in appearance - the theory was based on incomplete observation padded out with blind assumption.
We now know that this is false and that geese hatch from eggs that are fertilised as a result of sexual intercourse between a goose and gander (avian parthenogenesis notwithstanding) - do you think that someone in the future might dismiss our whole sex/egg theory in favour of something better?
