Christianity & Evolution Are Compatible...A Reflection

AV1611VET · #**121** 30th July 2009, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by Psudopod

So why, when those scientists are right 95% of the time, do you feel they are so wrong that other 5%? What are they doing differently?

Ruling God out of the picture and going on empirical evidence alone.

Putting the creature (creation) above the Creator.

marktheblake · #**122** 30th July 2009, 11:19 AM

Originally Posted by Hespera

The bit about Everest is such a silly strawman, thats unworthy of you.

Not a straw man, it is an analogy that evidence doesnt talk - rocks do not have dates on them.

So how do you determine this date? there is the old cliche "from the age of the fossils we found it in" unfortunately the fossil doesnt have a birthday engraved on it either.

So is the "evidence doenst talk". Try that in court! They have a stack of photos, documents, fingerprints, empty bullets, bloody clothes, etc and so on. Your defense is "evidence doesnt talk"?

correct, the evidence has to be interpreted. The Prosecutor looks at it through the view that the defendant is guilty, the Defence looks through the view of innocence. Both have different outcomes.

Your ad hom about deciding what box put something in and then bending evidence to make it fit is also unworthy of you, or or any debate.

Incorrect, evidence cannot be bent or changed. Only the interpretation can, and you do, I do, we all do.

Pure and total objectivity is probably impossible. Theists of course, make no effort at all

.
The underlined is a purely subjective statement. There are many highly credentialed academics that believe in creation, you cannot apply that to them.

No ideology can stand up to that for long.

Christianity (which technically began supposedly 6000 years ago) is still going strong.

Darwinism on the other hand is beginning to struggle. Lots more scientists are beginning to break out, and really its mostly the Biologists that are really hanging on to it so tightly.

The kind of "fiath" that theists have may well seem like a basic way of approaching life that is common to all. It isnt. You keep it; I dont want it, wont accept it; its your problem, not mine.

Faith is not a leap, it is a foundation, no need to be so against it. Like it or not, you have faith.

marktheblake · #**123** 30th July 2009, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by Psudopod

You seemed to be implying that as "evidence doesn't talk" one interpretation is as good as another.

I was simply stating that two people can look
at one object and get a different result

Why would no God imply millions of years?

because thats what the materialist must have if there is no god. The best explanation he has is millions/billions of years.

Psudopod · #**124** 30th July 2009, 11:26 AM

Originally Posted by Psudopod
So why, when those scientists are right 95% of the time, do you feel they are so wrong that other 5%? What are they doing differently?
Ruling God out of the picture and going on empirical evidence alone.

Putting the creature (creation) above the Creator.

Okay, fair enough. So how do we know we are putting the creation above the creator? Check the bible? So what happens when they disagree, which one do we go with? You can claim the bible says it is the word of God, and therefore it is, but let me ask you this: which is easier for a man to create? A book or a universe?

Psudopod · #**125** 30th July 2009, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by Psudopod
You seemed to be implying that as "evidence doesn't talk" one interpretation is as good as another.

I was simply stating that two people can look
at one object and get a different result

But only one can be right, that was my point. You should be able to show who made the mistake.

Why would no God imply millions of years?

because thats what the materialist must have if there is no god. The best explanation he has is millions/billions of years.

Millions of years isn't an explanation, it's a conclusion from the evidence.

AV1611VET · #**126** 30th July 2009, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by Psudopod

Okay, fair enough. So how do we know we are putting the creation above the creator? Check the bible? So what happens when they disagree, which one do we go with? You can claim the bible says it is the word of God, and therefore it is, but let me ask you this: which is easier for a man to create? A book or a universe?

Just fyi, if you want to put two quotes together, you do it like this:

Originally Posted by Quote One

Hello

Originally Posted by Quote Two

Hello back

Join them like this:

[quote=Quote One]Hello[quote=Quote Two]Hello back[\quote][\quote]

Notice I used 'back slashes' here.

When you use 'forward slashes' --- it comes out like this:

Originally Posted by Quote One

Hello
Originally Posted by Quote Two

Hello back

Hespera · #**127** 30th July 2009, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by marktheblake

Not a straw man, it is an analogy that evidence doesnt talk - rocks do not have dates on them.

So how do you determine this date? there is the old cliche "from the age of the fossils we found it in" unfortunately the fossil doesnt have a birthday engraved on it either.

correct, the evidence has to be interpreted. The Prosecutor looks at it through the view that the defendant is guilty, the Defence looks through the view of innocence. Both have different outcomes.

Incorrect, evidence cannot be bent or changed. Only the interpretation can, and you do, I do, we all do.

.
The underlined is a purely subjective statement. There are many highly credentialed academics that believe in creation, you cannot apply that to them.

Christianity (which technically began supposedly 6000 years ago) is still going strong.

Darwinism on the other hand is beginning to struggle. Lots more scientists are beginning to break out, and really its mostly the Biologists that are really hanging on to it so tightly.

Faith is not a leap, it is a foundation, no need to be so against it. Like it or not, you have faith.

Your cliche about dating does sound like the kind of moldy canard that creos use to try to discredit that which they dont know anything about.

Meanwhile, serious minded scientists around the world go along being quite successful using things that they DO understand. With no concern that some religion thinks they are wrong. Some of them would possibly be surprised and amused to find out there were such cultists.

"Credentialed academcis" who believe in "creation' mostly have divinity degrees i expect. maybe English lit. Not physics, biology etc.

Another moldy canard is that more and more scientists are starting to reject evolution. In your dreams.

As for "faith', its not a case of being against it. Theist types use the word to mean all kinds of things. Define it, maybe I will agree that i have "faith".

marktheblake · #**128** 30th July 2009, 11:52 AM

Originally Posted by Hespera

I personally dont think that being responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people is very nice. So Im not a Mao fan.

You avoided the question. I know you don't think Mao is nice. Why do you think like that, why do you think that human life has value, Were you told, does it come naturally, Buddha told you, what?

Because Mao didnt think he was doing anything wrong. According to him just a bunch of chemicals reacting together that have no value at all, just like cutting down trees.

I said there are stories about god being responsible for the slaughter of innocents. There are. Simple

There is not.

The stories arent true anyway. Tho no doubt a lot of people did get killed.

So you pick and choose what to beleive, that is no basis for an argument.

I see that you are determined as any good little Maoist was, that whoever the maximum leader says should be killed,

It really is fanciful to compare God to Mao. There is really no comparison.

Why on earth would the old hebrews want to make up stories about how god sent them to do the killing, that the victims were evil? You honestly to goodness dont understand that?

I dont understand, you are making this up as you go along, its a good one though, have never heard this before, so you might as well finish the story.

You think that every firstborn in Egypt deserved to be killed, their parents hearts broken

According to you, there is no God, therefore that supernatural event could not have happened. It is unrealistic to even suggest that a race of slaves could kill tens of thousands of people in one night without causing any ruckus. Therefore a very bad example from your point of view.

There is also a reasonable naturalistic explanation how that could have happened as well.

but the guys who thought up the story didn't see anything wrong with it!

The Egyptians committed Infanticide for a long time against the Hebrews. Pharaoh was warned, and he refused.

The entire Nation of Egypt committed this horrible crime of humanity (killing babies shock horror ghasp), and God dealt with them. The entire nation therefore bore the consequences of the sin.

marktheblake · #**129** 30th July 2009, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by Psudopod

But only one can be right, that was my point. You should be able to show who made the mistake.

Impossible, nobody has absolute knowledge. (not in the area of origins anyway)

Millions of years isn't an explanation, it's a conclusion from the evidence.

In order draw a conclusion, you must have known something else first. Is that something else adequately grounded. If yes, something must have been known before that.

And when you get down to it, it began with an assumption, it had too, because no rock has a date on it.

Hespera · #**130** 30th July 2009, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

Ruling God out of the picture and going on empirical evidence alone.

Putting the creature (creation) above the Creator.

Putting reality above fantasy