My Bad Seed Challenge

[AV1611VET]

As a personal observation, the majority of people that do become well informed about evolution don't lose their faith.

Maybe not, but they drag that philosophy into the churches and ruin them from the inside out.

The term for that is "psychoheresy."

However, creationists tend to get hit the hardest by that.

That's why we have the shield of faith in our Christian armor (Ephesians 6).

Still, you might be better off in the philosophy subforum then, because debating a stance you don't understand puts you at a disadvantage.

No, it doesn't.

Not if I'm debating from the standpoint of something's antithesis.

Since a literal six day creation is the antithesis of a literal million-years evolution, I don't have to know the nuances of evolution.

All I have to do is believe its opposite.

That's why little children should be able to tell seasoned evolutionists they're wrong.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Maybe not, but they drag that philosophy into the churches and ruin them from the inside out.That's why we have the shield of faith in our Christian armor (Ephesians 6).

Being knowledgeable about evolution is not the same thing as supporting it. It wouldn't shock me if people like Ken Ham knew more than the basics, and more or less acted like they didn't as it suited them.

No, it doesn't.

Not if I'm debating from the standpoint of something's antithesis.

If we were debating about whether or not some video game had violence in it, don't you think the person that played the game would have a huge advantage over the person that hadn't, even though their positions are complete opposites?

Since a literal six day creation is the antithesis of a literal million-years evolution, I don't have to know the nuances of evolution.

You would have to in order to catch when people make errors or present flawed evidence for their position.

All I have to do is believe its opposite.

I suppose if all you want to do is continue to disagree, sure. But, if you want to actually win the debate, you have to know what you are going up against. I'm kinda tired of the corrections towards the evolution defenses being self-contained within those that actually support it.

That's why little children should be able to tell seasoned evolutionists they're wrong.

They could probably literally say the phrase "evolution is wrong", but they'd lack a proper rebuttal when presented with evidence. This is why so many people with faith lose it when they become informed; when all you teach kids to do is to plug their ears and go "lalalala evolution is a lie", they are incapable of dealing with any evidence to the contrary. Basically, it makes for additional weakness to faith that it requires one to be ignorant to keep it. Faith built up with an understanding of the opposing points of view will ultimately be more durable, even if one cannot counter every bit of evidence, because the awareness that faith isn't about evidence will prevent said evidence from being a problem.

 

[AV1611VET]

If we were debating about whether or not some video game had violence in it, don't you think the person that played the game would have a huge advantage over the person that hadn't, even though their positions are complete opposites?

If the video game was rated V for violence, it doesn't matter if an objector even knows the name of the game, does it?

In fact, that's what the rating system was created for: so people could keep their morals intact without having to watch the show and "judge for themselves."

 

[PsychoSarah]

If the video game was rated V for violence, it doesn't matter if an objector even knows the name of the game, does it?

Let's say the game is rated T for Teen, the rest of the rating label has worn off, and the wifi is out so it can't be googled. A teen rating could mean violence, but it could also be for cursing or sexual innuendos, so it doesn't guarantee it. You know what, I challenge you to this very concept; pick a side, and defend that this game is or is not violent without playing it or looking it up. http://www.labelgames.com/games/Page_613/img_b1.jpg you have a 50% chance of randomly picking the side that is easier to defend, but even if you do, I bet I can make the more convincing argument.

In fact, that's what the rating system was created for: so people could keep their morals intact without having to watch the show and "judge for themselves."

Oh man, you have no idea the range on some of these games for how inappropriate they can be. I mean, I know which of these games is the most violent, but do you without looking it up?
https://vgboxart.com/boxes/PC/49570-lucius.jpg
http://images.parenting.mdpcdn.com/sites/parenting.com/files/styles/slide/public/dead%20space%202_updated.jpg?itok=fMrcCWcU
http://thumbs.ebaystatic.com/images/i/141918512947-0-1/s-l225.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/17/98/89/17988913e9633534b4bc6fd72fb9b8bb.jpg
http://media.ign.com/games/image/object/137/137864/Deadpool_US_ESRB_PS3.jpg
http://images.redbox.com/Images/EPC/Kiosk/8516.jpg
because one of these is so bad even I wouldn't feel comfortable playing it, morally speaking, while another is tame enough I'd be ok with a 13 year old playing it without question, even though by the rating standard, it is for those at a minimum of 17.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I think the term we're looking for is: "sin nature."

In an effort to sterilize the Bible, scientists will stoop to blaming it on "your genes" or "your DNA."

You'd rather blame it on demons, I suppose?

 

[HitchSlap]

But not as much as you, since you're an atheist?

Same coin, different side.

Capish?

 

[AV1611VET]

Same coin, different side.

Aaaaand you're the obverse side, I take it?

 

[HitchSlap]

Aaaaand you're the obverse side, I take it?

I take it you don't capish?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Maybe not, but they drag that philosophy into the churches and ruin them from the inside out.

The term for that is "psychoheresy."

If the churches are teaching that faith in God can only be maintained through ignorance of His creation, doesn't such a philosophy deserve to be ruined?

Consider this, AV -- and I would like a sincere answer:

IF evolution is true -- as in, it is the method that God brought about biodiversity on this planet,
and IF God is Truth,
Then wouldn't any church that is ordering its members to actively avoid the truth actually leading its members away from God?

Shouldn't any such teaching deserve to be "ruined"?

 

[AV1611VET]

IF evolution is true -- as in, it is the method that God brought about biodiversity on this planet,
and IF God is Truth,
Then wouldn't any church that is ordering its members to actively avoid the truth actually leading its members away from God?

Of course.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Of course.

So IF the church proclaims knowledge on a topic without investigating it, and someone else actually does investigate a topic and discovers something different, who is more likely to be correct: The church, or the other fellow?

 

[AV1611VET]

So IF the church proclaims knowledge on a topic without investigating it, and someone else actually does investigate a topic and discovers something different, who is more likely to be correct: The church, or the other fellow?

The other fellow.

Until he oversteps his authority and knowledge by saying something the King James Bible disagrees with.

Then he's gone too far.

And if he keeps it up, and depending on what he's arguing against with his information and evidence, he either needs to be considered a mission field or put on the prayer list or ostracized.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The other fellow.

Until he oversteps his authority and knowledge by saying something the King James Bible disagrees with.

Then he's gone too far.

Sounds like that, regardless of any amount of investigation to the contrary, one's opinion on the King James Bible is the ultimate authority on everything.

And if he keeps it up, and depending on what he's arguing against with his information and evidence, he either needs to be considered a mission field or put on the prayer list or ostracized.

Even if he's right?

 

[AV1611VET]

Even if he's right?

Going up against the KJB doesn't even rate a hypothetical.

That's like asking what color nothing is.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Going up against the KJB doesn't even rate a hypothetical.

That's like asking what color nothing is.

Your worship of the KJV is noted... and heretical.

 

[pgp_protector]

Going up against the KJB doesn't even rate a hypothetical.

That's like asking what color nothing is.

Can anything other than God be Perfect & 100% without Error?

 

[AV1611VET]

Can anything other than God be Perfect & 100% without Error?

His creation before the Fall.

Genesis 1:31a And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.

But for the record: no.

 

[[serious]]

Going up against the KJB doesn't even rate a hypothetical.

That's like asking what color nothing is.

How do we establish that the KJB is an inerrant and perfect text? The KJB itself never says so, thus we can't appeal to it. Instead it seems to be pitting fallible man's ability to recognize infallible text at odds with fallible man's ability to systematically observe the universe.

 

[AV1611VET]

How do we establish that the KJB is an inerrant and perfect text?

By faith.

 

[PsychoSarah]

so, not going to do the video game example with me, AV? I'm a tad disappointed in your lack of wanting to defend your assertion that being ignorant of the subject matter related to the opposing side can benefit someone in a debate.