Anti-Evolutionists Wanted !!!! (page 11)

Francois

Gravedancer - you were posting the same time as me. I didn't know about the "Theistic Evolution" position of the church. I applaud it. I feel it's the first step in the Church (used in the all-inclusive sense of all religion) coming around to the acknowledgement that, yes, science is right again, this time about evolution.

We would do well to welcome them and their acceptance with magnimity - utterly without any derision and "we told you so." They're in the religion business, what do they know? And perhaps their truculence serves a good purpose - keeping science honest.

I have a feeling however that the Theistic Evolution of the Church isn't exactly what I've got in mind. Remember that the burden of part of my belief system is the direct interface between the individual and God. Can't have that. If the relationship is a direct one, then who needs the church intefering in that relationship; you know - the one in Romans, the "all who are led by the spirit of God are the children of God" one. Religion offers a nice place to socialize one's spiritual urges, but the urge itself is private and the church has no business attempting to intefere and make rules and such. The riverbed is not the river.

IMHO.

Francois

gsx1138

Quantum, I wasn't trying to question the validity of your conclusion only the source of your argument. If someone wanted to use Lord of the Rings to prove a point they would have the same response from me as someone using the Bible. This is because I view both as works of fiction. However, since the point of this thread is to post opinions you've done better than some despite being Font challenged. One of my chemistry teachers recommended "Darwin's Black Box". I have no idea about this book or if there is some kind of christian agenda in it but I would love to hear a short review.

Francois

Gravedancer - No, I have not read it, nor heard of it in fact. Can you tell me more about it?

F

QUANTUM

How about science not being able to show one sintilla of evidence which provides the movement from one species to a higher order. It is an established fact that the geologic layers appear fully established without any evidence of a gradual changing from a lower to a higher order.

Further, please don't give us that nonsence about religion winning no arguements with science. That is purely wishful thinking and deceptive on your part. Many scientists are coming over to the side of religion because of the lack of science being able to answer the IMPORTANT questions. Like you the hell am I, why am I here and whats next? Getting with the program is a matter of perception. Don't pout francios when your philisophical jargen falls apart.

QUANTUM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

gravedancer

Frank,

The gist of Behe's argument lies in therm "irreducible complexity". Essentially what he tried to do was look at the fact that by means of evolution things evolved from the simplest possible organisms to what we perceive as our living world today. Then he started to point out what he called irreducibly complex systems. In so doing he is trying to show that if an "end result" as we now know it cannot be reduced back to simple organisms then this would argue for a designer/creator.

He does a pretty good job at arguing his point - raises some interesting theories and brings a fresh perspective. However, some have written articles to debunk his arguments.

Here are some links for you to research:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html

http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

http://americanscientist.org/bookshelf/Leads97/Darwin97-09.html

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html (interesting thoughts from Ken Miller in his book "Finding Darwin's God") Do a search on Kenneth Miller..his work is very interesting. Here is the final chapter from the Miller's book you might enjoy it Frank: http://www.brown.edu/Administration/Brown_Alumni_Magazine/00/11-99/features/darwin.html

hannibal

To all skeptics/ athiests,

what would need to happen for you to believe in God?

I liken this debate to one I have with my wife when I ask her,

what would need to happen for you not to believe the wts?I show

her scores of information and she goes so, so and so what!That s

fine shes intitled to her beliefs.Proof to me isnt proof to my wife,and

the same can be said for this debate.Peoplee who are skeptics

question everything,which is good, these are the people that keep

people on there toes, continue to think about issues.especially in

debates on religion or God.On the other hand I dont need

someone to break down the scientific formula of oxygen, the

formula we know that make up oxygen is the proof it exists,

the EFFECTS from it are. The debate goes on......

gravedancer

Hanibal

To all skeptics/ athiests, what would need to happen for you to believe in God?

That's a loaded question...because no matter what one would answer your reply would be that we are "looking for the worng thing". So if you were in my shoes what would it take to convinve you to believe in God?

GD

tdogg

Hannibal:....um.....(sigh)...(shake my head)....where to begin...nevermind...

Quantum: You should do more reading, less writing

I think some joining the discussion seem to come with the delusion that there is a right and a wrong way to believe. Some even write in a way suggesting that they can "prove" that they are right or wrong. This had been a great thread for information from humans with many different opinions and I appreciate what both sides have to say (though I my beliefs are most similar to Gravedancer's.)

This is one subject wherein the only proof is that neither side can prove itself entirely. So dont get emotional and defensive when someone posts an idea that may challenege your belief system. Using facts to support your beliefs is fine, just remember that they are still, for now, only beliefs. But then we have aready gone over the whole "fact\theroy" thing in the first pages the thread (for those who bothered to read it all before jumping in).

Francois

Quantum - Um, first of all, it's spelled "scintilla," and the rest of your assertions are about as accurate. We also find that eyes do not show intermediate forms, which proves nothing but that the further refinement of Darwin's work, styled punctuated evolution (and other names) is at work. If evolution is a divine technique, then that's what one would expect: no eyes, then - when the conditions were ripe - suddenly eyes. Now, what about that is impossible for God? Hmmmmmm?

Geological layers, by which I assume you mean rock boundries, are not nearly so cleanly defined as you imply, or as meaningful. Do your homework. You need to get your information from a source other than the Awake!

And the "nonsense (you really must learn to spell, Quantum) about religion winning no arguments with science"? How about you name a few of the arguments/debates that religion has won? Hell, how about you name just one? You have put yourself in the mother of all corners. Name one for us.

And jargon doesn't "fall apart." Jargon is merely an idiom tailored for a specific pursuit. Your emperor has no clothes, Quantum.

Gravedancer - Thanks for the links. I will get myself to reading this evening and see what Behe hath wrought.

Hannibal - What would it take for you to believe that evolution is a technique god used to create all life on this planet? Why must he just have waved his hands, like a cheap stage magician out to entertain you, and had a loud thunderclap and all life appear through fiat creation? Was it because Genesis was a story told to entertain illiterate bedouins sitting around a campfire five thousand years ago? And now that we understand vastly more than those bedouins did about cell biology, we can comprehend vastly more - such as evolution. What would it take for you to believe that evolution is God's technique?

Francois

D wiltshire

I think beleif in God or disbelief in God are just personal choices and that is all!

As of right now,. today,. it is unproveble to the degree of certainty need to give an answer one way or the other it's all pros and cons with each side and so many just take the middle road of doubt.

I think it is good to be a skeptic to a degree it keeps you flexible, and not unduley influenced.

I feel free to explore and seek, that's what I will do till the day I die, and as I find answers I will change and keep on changeing that's what being free is all about, to be able to change as you please, to look at more iformantion and change again.

I don't want to ever be dogmatic again like I was in the WT(puke).

Anti-Evolutionists Wanted !!!!

Share this