Darwinian evolution - still a theory in crisis.

[2PhiloVoid]

Science is the reason they go to atheism today.

Specifically evolution.



Because of the Bible? or in spite of the Bible?

Evolution didn't wreck my effort to find faith. In fact, I had Evolution loaded into my mind first, and I was still able to accept the essential message of 1st century Christianity, even as fragmented as it was delivered through the Church.

So, I wouldn't worry too much about Evolution. It's just a bump in the road for those who are willing to engage more than merely their favored career driven focus.

 

[Jerry N.]

That was a figurative statement statement with a grin. I suppose I had better make my point more explicitly: It is an absolute tragedy when people are taught that they must turn away from Christ if they turn away from literal inerrancy. Literal inerrancy is a doctrine about the Bible, one of many. It is not an objective truth or enduring tradition of the Christian faith. A person who denounces Christians who accept evolution as "watering down the Scriptures" or anything of that kind--especially if he is hostile about it, as so often happens, needs to be 'spoke to' by his brothers and sisters in Christ, even if he does not recognize them as such.

I understand. I believe the Bible is true, but I don't believe it was all written by God. He may have influenced the writers to be as honest as possible, but the writers wrote as individuals. The exception, in my mind, is when a prophet writes, "God said, ..." I'm sure that my view would not be accepted by many Christians, but I'm not in a position to worry about it.

 

[BCP1928]

What do you think a soul is?

The first perfection of a physical being.

 

[Jerry N.]

The fact that I have to be "allowed" in only if I keep a civil tongue in my head. Oh, my. Bit I'm not the one who decided I must be an atheist.

I have been trying to say that we should all keep a "civil tongue in our heads." I didn't mean to single you out so much as to answer you post.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because it is bullying.

Thanks for the QED.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because they weren't fooled by the Biblical literalist propaganda.

I disagree.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because science does not lead to atheism.

Paul says otherwise.

 

[Larniavc]

(like specified complexity,

What units are you using to measure specified complexity?

 

[Larniavc]

digital code in DNA

It's not digital.

 

[Jerry N.]

Unfortunately, I wasn't referring to the atheists here, although some of them do tend to offer their own share of troubling accusations, coming out of another political ideology that doesn't do much better on the Left than that used by hyper-evangelicals on the Right.

I see what you mean. I once went into a restaurant and the man in line in front of me gave the cashier a religious pamphlet. She pulled out a stack of them that was quite thick and said, "Do I look particularly evil?"

 

[BCP1928]

I have been trying to say that we should all keep a "civil tongue in our heads." I didn't mean to single you out so much as to answer you post.

Of course, but you did deserve an explanation for my cranky attitude.

 

[Jerry N.]

There is no real "understanding" available. One either believe in the literal inerrancy of Genesis or one is not a Christian. That's one of the reasons I don't put my faith under my avatar. If "Biblical" Christians think they are the only real Christians then I am happy to let them. I am ashamed of what they have made of the name.

By “understanding” I meant the Christian should try to see the atheist they are writing to as a person and not just a target for evangelizing. I can be pretty sure every atheist on this forum knows the way of salvation, so repeating it would not be taken well. My primary rub with the threads on evolution is that the discussions are not always done in a respectful manner. I want to learn things, not argue. A good dialectic discourse is much more profitable.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I see what you mean. I once went into a restaurant and the man in line in front of me gave the cashier a religious pamphlet. She pulled out a stack of them that was quite thick and said, "Do I look particularly evil?"

Lol! That's rich. I haven't heard that one yet.

 

[Jerry N.]

Of course, but you did deserve an explanation for my cranky attitude.

Thanks.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Paul says otherwise.

No, no, no. We're not going to allow a twisting and misappropriation of Colossians 2:8 here. Uh-uh. No way!

As ol' Copernicus once said, "“There may be babblers, wholly ignorant of mathematics, who dare to condemn my hypothesis, upon the authority of some part of the Bible twisted to suit their purpose. I value them not, and scorn their unfounded judgment.”

Same goes for the field of philosophy or for modern science. There's good uses and there's bad uses. Paul was referring to "bad uses," NOT philosophy on the whole. We need to get that straight through our thick skulls.

Don't be a babbler, AV. I know you can do better.

 

[Jerry N.]

The first perfection of a physical being.

It is going to take me some time to unpack that.

 

[BCP1928]

It is going to take me some time to unpack that.

Sorry. I thought you were starting a Catechism. Now I look at your profile and find that you're not a Catholic. Never mind. If you're interested, the definition comes from Aristotle by way of Thomas Aquinas.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What do you think a soul is?

A colloquial term for conscious mind.

 

[Ophiolite]

A good hint for you is to speed it up. I often watch things on YouTube like this in 1.75 speed, but if you want to take it all in, you may want to try 1.25. This way, you can get through more info in less time. Works a treat. Eventually, you will be able to speed it up faster and faster as your brain will naturally get used to the speed. And eventually your brain will not hear chipmunks, it will hear their voices as they are. Blessings

Thank you for this suggestion. I recognise and applaud your intent in making it. I raise my hat to you.

However, in the context of this thread and my commitment to @Jerry N. to view the video and comment on it I am left appalled, astounded and aghast. I take my commitment to view the video to be done with the highest level of objectivity I can mount and with careful consideration of all the points raised. That requires multiple views and careful examination of each argument, each sentence, in some cases each word. To treat it in the cavalier mannner you describe would be fine for addressing uncontroversial points, or the typical YouTube dross. It is wholly out of place in the present context. I am troubled that you would consider this gimic a bona fide method for serious study.

The reason a lot of people proclaim to be atheists is that they are doing something that God would not like. Maybe sex outside of marrage or something like that. If they acknowledged that there was a God, they would then be accountable to Him.

Nonsense. We (I generalise) don't care what your God, or any of the thousands of other Gods do or do not like. It is irrelevant to us. We care about what our own moral compass tells us is good and what is bad, what is right and what is wrong. My own compass is partially informed by the Sermon on the Mount, but I do not consider it to be the word of God, rather the thoughts of a compassionate and thoughful fellow human.

Atheist hate it when we defend the bible

In one sense this is true. I hate seeing the illogical, emotional, agenda ridden arguments that are often presented in defence of the Bible. I am alternately amused and disappointed to see the contradictions that arise in defence of the Bible by different denominations. It ill serves your purpose and makes the whole religion look ridiculous. If my aim was to spread atheism I would encourage the continued defence of the Bible because such defence can be so effective at turning people from belief.

Why would an atheist get angry over something that they do not believe exists?

We don't get angry at God, we get angry at the presumption and ignorance present in many of the arguments against and descriptions of atheists.

 

[Ophiolite]

Have you ever studied Wittgenstein?

Very, very slightly, but I was able to recover.