No reason to believe X is true, other then my interpetation of Y must be true.

[LifeToTheFullest!]

This stupid video seriously under estimated the complexity of Christianity. In fact, every Christian has his or her own version of Christianity. It is more than just a few hundred versions. It is in millions or billions.

And, that is another unique beauty of Christianity.

It seems that you could say evolution of religion is the best way to describe its diversity and distribution.

 

[juvenissun]

And yet, each Christian believes they're the one who's right, the True Christians (tm).

That is very true. And it is all true. (I don't think you can understand, unless you are a Christian)

 

[Cabal]

That is very true. And it is all true. (I don't think you can understand, unless you are a Christian)

Depends who you talk to.

Try being a theistic evolutionist (who, as a group, tend to least fall into the trap of True-Christianism).

 

[juvenissun]

As I said, waiting on you. And no offence juve, but you're nothing to be afraid of - never were, either.



As SR said, they cannot all be correct - and from the point of view of science, they are equally void of explanatory ability.



How can I? You are asking me to predict the future. No-one can. This is like saying what creationists latest God of the gaps argument will be.

Evolution has not been falsified yet. It would be naturalistic, but could explain both what evolution could explain and could not explain and was falsified by.

I'm not sure why you're thinking that science wouldn't eventually formulate a new theory if evolution was falsified - evolution has already gone through one major overhaul already from Darwinism to the neo-Darwinian synthesis. It's what always happens - asinine to assume otherwise.

The very reason is that if there were one, we must have thought about it already. If we have not, then there is none.

This is not something like a new law of physics. This is about the idea of a major system. If we can't even imagine it now, then it does not exist.

 

[Cabal]

The very reason is that if there were one, we must have thought about it already. If we have not, then there is none.

So you're that confident we'd have thought of it already? I'd love to know how one is supposed to think of a new theory using hypothetical anomalous data out of all the trillions of scenarios such data could occur in a given system.

This is not something like a new law of physics. This is about the idea of a major system.

This is just verbal fluff. Laws of physics are ideas of major systems, in case you hadn't noticed.

If we can't even imagine it now, then it does not exist.

Assertion, and assertion only.

Instead of investing so much energy in trying to win by default, how about you actually work on providing support for creationism?

 

[juvenissun]

Of course panspermia is not included in evolution, I was offering it as an alternative to evolution! Panspermia (including Directed Panspermia) is an alternative to evolution, because it would also explain the distribution and diversity of life on earth.


OK, how about Spontaneous Generation, then?

So, would you like to answer my question, now? Can all creation stories be correct?

OK, then what is the origin of panspermia? The seeds of lives have to come from somewhere. So we have three ideas of origin: creation, evolution, and (multi)-abiogenesis. Is that right?

Creation = Spontaneous Generation.

Answer you want (I thought you figured it out on yourself): Within the domain of this argument, yes, any version of creation will work.

 

[juvenissun]

Then you should've said that.

Regardless, P V Q is neat and all, but you still have yet to give any good reason why we should care.

I am not sure what are you asking.
Assume I understand your question, then the reason is because we do care about our own long-term benefit.

 

[juvenissun]

Depends who you talk to.

Try being a theistic evolutionist (who, as a group, tend to least fall into the trap of True-Christianism).

Make clear on what the argument is. It is not about creation/evolution, but is about the unity (or dispersion) of Christianity.

On this regard, I don't think there is any difference between YEC and TE.

 

[AV1611VET]

No effort on our part is going to make us a "True Christian".

What is going to make us a "True Christian" is what Jesus did for us.

Ephesians 2:4 ¶ But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
Ephesians 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, ( by grace ye are saved; )
Ephesians 2:6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
Ephesians 2:7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Ephesians 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

You guys who are mocking what you call True Christians™ don't realize that you're only repeating Acts 11:

Acts 11:26b And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Back then, the saints' antagonists mockingly called them "Christians"; today, our antagonists mockingly call us "True Christians".

 

[juvenissun]

So you're that confident we'd have thought of it already? I'd love to know how one is supposed to think of a new theory using hypothetical anomalous data out of all the trillions of scenarios such data could occur in a given system.



This is just verbal fluff. Laws of physics are ideas of major systems, in case you hadn't noticed.



Assertion, and assertion only.

Instead of investing so much energy in trying to win by default, how about you actually work on providing support for creationism?

So, as far as NOW, creation or evolution is a T/F question.
I don't care if it will become a MC question in the future.
Then the OP is answered.

 

[Split Rock]

OK, then what is the origin of panspermia? The seeds of lives have to come from somewhere.

They could come from another part of the solar system as spores, etc. In the case of directed panspermia, life would have intentionally been seeded on earth by an alien species.

So we have three ideas of origin: creation, evolution, and (multi)-abiogenesis. Is that right?

Well, I would say: Hundreds of creation stories you don't ascribe to, creationism, evolution, panspermia, spontaneous generation.

Creation = Spontaneous Generation.

No. Spontaneous generation is not directed by any god.

Answer you want (I thought you figured it out on yourself): Within the domain of this argument, yes, any version of creation will work.

How can they all be correct if they contradict each other?

 

[juvenissun]

No effort on our part is going to make us a "True Christian".

What is going to make us a "True Christian" is what Jesus did for us.

Ephesians 2:4 ¶ But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
Ephesians 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, ( by grace ye are saved; )
Ephesians 2:6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
Ephesians 2:7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Ephesians 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

You guys who are mocking what you call True Christians™ don't realize that you're only repeating Acts 11:

Acts 11:26b And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Back then, the saints' antagonists mockingly called them "Christians"; today, our antagonists mockingly call us "True Christians".

I agree with you 100%.
But I do have different idea on what you said.

This is an example to others who wondered how united the True Christians are.

Again, that video clip is plain stupid.

 

[juvenissun]

They could come from another part of the solar system as spores, etc. In the case of directed panspermia, life would have intentionally been seeded on earth by an alien species.


Well, I would say: Hundreds of creation stories you don't ascribe to, creationism, evolution, panspermia, spontaneous generation.


No. Spontaneous generation is not directed by any god.


How can they all be correct if they contradict each other?

So, it is creation without God.
Fine. That is another version of creation. It may not be true. But it is NOT evolution. I take that in this argument.

 

[AV1611VET]

I agree with you 100%.
But I do have different idea on what you said.

And I'm sure that you and I disagreeing doesn't bother us like it bothers those guys for some reason.

Romans 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
Romans 14:6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

They like to bring up that we don't see eye-to-eye on things, and ignore the fact that our moon has five major scientific theories behind it.

 

[Cabal]

So, as far as NOW, creation or evolution is a T/F question.
I don't care if it will become a MC question in the future.
Then the OP is answered.

Except it is MC now, because of the other creation myths.

 

[Cabal]

And I'm sure that you and I disagreeing doesn't bother us like it bothers those guys for some reason. They like to bring up that we don't see eye-to-eye on things, and ignore the fact that our moon has five major scientific theories behind it.

Because you claim your documentation is inerrant - we don't. Why is Christianity more divided than science, if its documentation is so much better? Please stop avoiding this question.

Unless you are admitting that creationists are personally interpreting the Bible the way all other Christians do.

 

[sandwiches]

That is very true. And it is all true. (I don't think you can understand, unless you are a Christian)

So, every view of every Christian is true even when they disagree with each other?

 

[AV1611VET]

So, every view of every Christian is true even when they disagree with each other?

Yes, we can interpret the Bible incorrectly -- but even an incorrect interpretation can pwn evolution back to where it came from.

 

[Cabal]

Yes, we can interpret the Bible incorrectly -- but even an incorrect interpretation can pwn evolution back to where it came from.

But you won't accept TEs, of course.

Any time you want to start making sense, be my guest.

 

[AV1611VET]

But you won't accept TEs, of course.

Any time you want to start making sense, be my guest.

I accept TEs as my brothers-and-sisters in Christ.

We are all going to sit at the same table when the time comes.