Darwinian evolution - still a theory in crisis.

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

Oh good gravy, ............................. Dad!

 

[BCP1928]

You can certainly write whatever you want. The worse that can happen is that the thread is blocked and you hurt feelings. I have had many atheists tell me that they don’t need the Bible to know how to do right. Does that include being polite to a person you are not face-to-face with? It is not right to take advantage of anonymity, and a bit of politeness will go a long way in getting people to consider your arguments. The person you are writing to is not the only person reading your post.

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.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Okay, but I don't know what a "New Atheist" is. I look forward to learning what it is , but it is time for bed.

Nah. Don't worry about the "New Atheist." They're no longer 'new,' and are considered old hash.

What we have here now (still) are the "other," more political activist group of atheists who sit on the wayside, more inclined to talk about the newest in fashionable socialist attire. They were here already when yesterday's 'new atheists' showed up years ago. They're still here now, riding out the political waves and making sure they're heard.

 

[BCP1928]

Nah. Don't worry about the "New Atheist." They're no longer 'new,' are considered old hash.

What we have here now (still) are the "other," more political activist group of atheists who sit on the wayside, more inclined to talk about the newest in fashionable socialist attire. They were here already when yesterday's 'new atheists' showed up years ago. They're still here now, riding out the political waves and making sure they're heard.

And the other side has harnessed themselves to the Trump wagon which is why this forum has grown so dull. Poor 1tonne thought we were piling on, but there was really no one else around. If you want to argue with a Fundamentlaist these days, you have to go to Politics.

 

[River Jordan]

This was recommended by Amo2 on another thread:

You might find it interesting.

It's a video trying to make the case for "genetic entropy", an idea from creationist geneticist John Sanford.

It has a number of fundamentals flaws, with the most obvious being that if every replication event is supposed to degrade a species's genome, how do we account for the persistence of organisms that replicate several times every hour? Even over a YEC's 6,000 year time span, those species should have been extinct, or at least have observably degraded genomes by now if genetic entropy were real.

It also assumes such a thing as a "perfect genome", but never gives a meaningful way to identify one, especially in light of things like SNP's and CNV's.

Then there's things like assuming mutations have constant fitness values and that there's no way to remove slightly deleterious alleles, but those discussions get into some deeper genetics, which most people aren't up to speed on.

It's also worth noting how Sanford wrote his book about this 20 years ago and it hasn't had any impact or effect on genetics or evolutionary biology. So until something changes, this would be a debate about an idea that went nowhere after it was proposed two decades ago.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And the other side has harnessed themselves to the Trump wagon which is why this forum has grown so dull. Poor 1tonne thought we were piling on, but there was really no one else around. If you want to argue with a Fundamentlaist these days, you have to go to Politics.

Oh, I don't know. Maybe you haven't seen my current conversations over in other sections of CF?

 

[BCP1928]

Oh, I don't know. Maybe you haven't seen my current conversations over in other sections of CF?

Forums where political issues are discussed. But Biblical Creationism has always been political anyway. I'm not blaming Whitcomb and Morris, I think they were sincerely trying to let Christians be "intellectually fulfilled Creationists" (to steal a line from Dawkins) but activists immediately began to use "Creation Science" as a wedge to get Fundamentalist prayer and Bible study into the public schools again. That's when it became political.

 

[AV1611VET]

I mean, I'm a Christian, but even I find it irritating when I hear it being used by another Christian, especially when it's used upon a former Christian.

You're not even remotely curious when someone gives up all this ...

Psalm 34:8 O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.

Psalm 51:12 Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit.

Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

... to become an atheist?

That's like saying, "I was a millionaire once, but I quit believing in money. Now I'm homeless, hungry, unhealthy, and happy."

 

[AV1611VET]

One friend of mine rejected God when his young wife died a horrible death from cancer.

I've asked here more than once what made a person reject all of God's benefits to embrace the benefits of atheism.

I think it's a valid question.

 

[Fervent]

I've asked here more than once what made a person reject all of God's benefits to embrace the benefits of atheism.

I think it's a valid question.

Ah, good ol' Pascal's Wager...how's that work out for you?

 

[AV1611VET]

For me it was the obviously human nature and unrealistic claims of scripture that lead me to realize that Christianity was literally unbelievable.

Excuse me, but it was those "unrealistic claims" that led you to become a Christian in the first place, were they not?

To wit, Jesus dying on the cross, then coming back alive after three days?

What [specifically] changed your mind?

I suspect science had something to do with it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ah, good ol' Pascal's Wager...how's that work out for you?

That is not Pascal's Wager.

Pascal's Wager is for those sitting on the fence, wondering which way to go.

I'm talking about someone who has been on the inside, then left the building, claiming it isn't there.

 

[Fervent]

That is not Pascal's Wager.

Pascal's Wager is for those sitting on the fence, wondering which way to go.

I'm talking about someone who has been on the inside, then left the building, claiming it isn't there.

Pascal's wager isn't about fence sitting, it's a comparison of personal benefit. As for those who have left, I am reminded of LutheranSatire's Tyler the Ex-Evangelical and his swimming skills.

 

[AV1611VET]

Pascal's wager isn't about fence sitting, it's a comparison of personal benefit. As for those who have left, I am reminded of LutheranSatire's Tyler the Ex-Evangelical and his swimming skills.

 

[Fervent]

 

[AV1611VET]

 

[BCP1928]

Excuse me, but it was those "unrealistic claims" that led you to become a Christian in the first place, were they not?

Some people are born into it, some are evangelized by Christian witness rather than doctrine. When they find out what's under the hood they walk away.

To wit, Jesus dying on the cross, then coming back alive after three days?

What [specifically] changed your mind?

I suspect science had something to do with it.

I was fortunate that I was secure in my faith before I ever heard of literal inerrancy.

 

[AV1611VET]

How do you read this: JESUSISNOWHERE?

1. Jesus is now here.
2. Jesus is nowhere.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Forums where political issues are discussed. But Biblical Creationism has always been political anyway. I'm not blaming Whitcomb and Morris, I think they were sincerely trying to let Christians be "intellectually fulfilled Creationists" (to steal a line from Dawkins) but activists immediately began to use "Creation Science" as a wedge to get Fundamentalist prayer and Bible study into the public schools again. That's when it became political.

Yeah, I know. I've studied the history of this issue, from Little Rock to Dover, and it also just so happens that Langdon Gilkey is one of my theological influences.

 

[AV1611VET]

When they find out what's under the hood they walk away.

You mean all this?

Psalm 34:8 O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.

Psalm 51:12 Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit.

Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,