Welcome to PatsFans.com

Patters

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by CPF, Jan 12, 2006.

  1. CPF

    CPF Practice Squad Player

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    169
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I thought it was time to satrt a fresh thread for this, I hope you don't mind. It will probably take two post's so bear with me.

    Thank you I will.

    Well I don’t know of a single proponent of I.D that does not believe that evolution occurs, it is the mechanisms that I feel are in dispute. I think the big dispute, and one that the Pope may agree with, though it really doesn’t matter, is the micro vs. macro evolution debate. Darwinists claim that the same mechanisms that allow species to adapt to their environs are also used to build complex living systems from the ground up, via genetic mutation and natural selection. I don’t disagree with the entire theory, in fact I think it is incredibly useful and beneficial when properly applied, but there are many things that myself and other supporters of I.D do disagree with and that is where the debate lies. One major problem (and it exists on both sides) is that many times arguments are based on “straw men†of what the opposition actually believes, these slight distortions allow opponents of one view or another to appear to refute a viewpoint quite thoroughly, the only problem is that it is not an accurate assessment of the opposing view to begin with. I think both sides need to really study the opposing viewpoint in order to avoid these situations and thus have a much more fruitful debate. The Pope’s argument seems to presuppose that the Darwinist’ brand of evolution is truth, while those in the I.D camp feel the “jury is still out†on that assumption. I don’t reject the ToE because it removes God from the equation, in fact I don’t even reject all of it. The parts I do reject, I reject based on the scientific evidence that points to it’s incredible unlikelihood. I think if there were not a competing viewpoint I would have a hard time accepting the ToE based upon it’s “removal of God from the equation†but because there is, in my opinion, a viable alternative I certainly don’t need to reject it on a philosophical basis, there are plenty of scientific reasons to reject it.

    I don’t know where you are coming from with the “majority of Christians†comment. I think I have a good pulse on the Evangelical Christian community as I am part of it and I can safely say that the overwhelming majority of those Christians do not subscribe to the ToE.

    I suppose I was a bit thoughtless in my treatment of the Vatican, and subsequently the many Catholics that find solace in it’s authority. This is why I should take time to ruminate about my response before I offer one, sometimes emotion gets the best of me. I do really disagree with the majority of Catholicism’s teachings, but I could be far more tactful in how I express that disagreement. Perhaps you feel the same way about you’re comments having had some time to think things through, perhaps you do not, either way it does not excuse what I wrote and I apologize to anyone reading along that I might have offended.


    Originally Posted by CPF I believe that everyone makes assumptions based on their particular worldview and that those assumptions influence what we find to be viable. At the end of the day though, two diametrically opposing views cannot both be right. One is right and the other is wrong or they are both wrong and it has nothing to do with the particular philosophy of those that support one theory or the other.



    Does the fact that my view of God and subsequently the world is “narrow†somehow dictate whether or not it is viable? While you claim your worldview does not exclude God, it certainly does not leave a whole lot of room for him either; isn’t that a bit “narrow�

    Well as I have said before, as well as offered examples, I do not contort the Bible to fit my views. Just because I don’t immediately allegorize any biblical passage that even hints at the supernatural does not mean I am somehow “contorting†it. As I have said, some passages are obviously meant to be taken literally. Now, we can debate whether or not they are a true depiction of God but I don’t think we can debate whether or not they are a biblical depiction of God. As far as science is concerned; I don’t think any contortion is involved, the evidence for a designer is, in my opinion obvious, there is no need to “ “contort†anything.

    Exactly, you would welcome a God created in your own image that is molded perfectly to the way you think he/she/it ought to be. What if God does not operate that way? What if he/she/it is sovereign and requires you to acquiesce to who he/she/it is and not the other way around? By the way I’m not sure you are intentionally trying to be offensive, but your treatment of the Christian view of God here, as well as elsewhere in this post are disrespectful and unnecessary.

    Well it certainly excludes the existence of a God that has any control whatsoever over creation. As far as it being compatible with Christianity in it’s current form; I think this quote says it all:

    "The doctrine of evolution is a newly invented system, a newly concerted doctrine, a newly formed dogma, a new rising belief, which places itself over against the Christian faith, and can only found its temple on the ruins of our Christian confession." Dr. Abraham Kuyper, "Evolution" speech delivered in 1899.

    The fact is that the majority of those that hold to materialism of any kind have absolutely no use for God, as famed evolutionist Richard Dawkins attests in his comments.:

    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. As that unhappy poet A.E. Housman put it: ‘For Nature, heartless, witless Nature Will neither care nor know.’ DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. River out of Eden (1995) p.133

    Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. The Blind Watchmaker (1996) p.6


    Do you think that there are any evolutionary scientists that are simply interested in grant money or is this a phenomena reserved for I.D scientists only? Do you have any solid evidence of this or are you simply relying on your keen sense of “suspicion� I’m sorry if I’m being a bit facetious but I am really growing tired of this brand of ad hominem attack being substituted for good solid debating practices.

    More to follow
     
  2. CPF

    CPF Practice Squad Player

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    169
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Oh I think that there are many “ToE-ers†who “care†a great deal.

    For Darwin, any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God was no evolution at all. It made a nonsense of the central point of evolution. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (1996) p.249

    Catholicism's "net" is not limited to moral considerations, if only because Catholic morals have scientific implications. Catholic morality demands the presence of a great gulf between Homo sapiens and the rest of the animal kingdom. Such a gulf is fundamentally anti-evolutionary. The sudden injection of an immortal soul in the time-line is an anti-evolutionary intrusion into the domain of science.
    More generally it is completely unrealistic to claim, as Gould and many others do, that religion keeps itself away from science's turf, restricting itself to morals and values. A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. The difference is, inescapably, a scientific difference. Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims.
    Richard Dawkins You can't have it both ways: Irreconcilable differences? Skeptical Inquirer July 1999 pp.62-64

    Darwin applied a consistency philosophy of materialism to his interpretation of nature. Matter is the ground of all existence; mind, spirit, and God as well, are just words that express the wondrous results of neuronal complexity. Stephen Jay Gould Ever Since Darwin (1979) p.13 †

    Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable Arthur Keith The Antiquity of Man (1915) p.vii

    The explanations given in olden times were accepted by the generations among whom they were promulgated. The followers of Charles Darwin are to-say seeking to answer the same questions for their generation. The ancient seekers after truth differ from their modern successors in only one respect. It was permitted to them to suppose that supernatural forces were at work in the world-forces which could be perceived only by the eye of faith. The modern seeker refuses to accept any explanation which involves the action of a supernatural agent, even as a last resort. Arthur Keith The Religion of a Darwinist (1925) p.62

    Now none of these statements in any way detracts from the veracity of the ToE, they are simply the philosophical viewpoints of some proponents. In the same way the ToID is done no harm by the particular philosophical viewpoints held by it’s supporters.

    Well it would be helpful if you could recall the article, but on the surface the argument seems logical, though I have pointed out to you that many I.D scientists have attempted to be “publishedâ€, only to hit a brick wall of evolutionary bias.


    Originally Posted by CPF I don't think you could possibly be more wrong. I am nothing now like I was before I accepted Christ as my Savior. I don't think the same I don't act the same, my values are completely different. I was an atheist and I can tell you personally that my views could not be more different now than they used to be.



    You weren’t talking about me? I could have sworn you said, and I quote:

    “In other words, I think if you were an atheist, very few of your views would change, and the same goes for me if I was a devout Christian.â€

    How am I suppose to interpret those comments as being directed at anyone BUT me? I could give you reams of testimonies that are similar to mine, in that a radical change has occurred in a person who has become a Christian.

    Well I am certainly not ashamed to admit that I rely on God. The Christian faith is all about reliance on God, we recognize that his way is better than our way and thus acquiesce to it. I can see how this could be interpreted as weakness by those that have not experienced it. Sometimes a person has to be convinced they are lost before they can be found.

    Originally Posted by CPF I don't interpret the Bible to accommodate myself, if I did I would be a far more liberal Christian. I try to interpret the Bible literally, unless it is obviously meant to be interpreted otherwise.



    What “majority of Christians†are you speaking of? Could you be a bit more specific?


    Originally Posted by CPF A metaphor for something greater? What could be greater than the God of the universe, the one who spoke everything into existence and who holds it all together by his infinite power, stooping down to enter his own creation as a man. Humiliating himself by allowing the very ones he came to save to ridicule him, spit upon him, beat him and ultimately kill him, all in order that God's justice might be appeased, that man's debt might be paid. So that we may come into a right relationship with the one who loves us enough to offer his only Son as a sacrifice for our redemption, as well as the one who was willing to come and be that sacrifice. Tell me Patters what could possibly be greater than that?



    I have to admit I have really struggled with how to respond to your comments here. I am sure that if I had responded right away my comments would have been emotionally driven and antagonistic. I don’t have a desire to go in that direction so I have chosen to try to understand why you have responded in such a way as opposed to rebuking you for it. I understand that you do not put much stock in the Christian message so I see how you could interpret Christ’s actions as being egotistical but I think you are missing the point. He didn’t come and die in an effort to somehow “lord†his greatness over us, he did it because he loved us and saw no other alternative. Christ did not wish to die on the Cross (thus his pleas to his Father in the garden of Gethsemane) he chose to die on the cross in an act of obedience to his Father and out of his great love for us. You see justice and mercy do not coexist well together, yet God is both perfectly just and boundlessly merciful. The question is how do you satisfy perfect justice (sin’s penalty of death) while at the same time showing mercy? Justice demands the penalty must be paid, if mercy is given then justice cannot be fully met. The answer of course is that the penalty was paid but instead of being paid by us it was paid by Christ. He had to first be made human in order to pay the penalty imposed on humans by their sin. Second he had to be free of the curse of sin, thus the virgin birth. Third he had to live a sin free life, which the Biblical account attests he did. And finally he had to pay the penalty in our place, being the perfect sacrifice, able to take all the sin of mankind upon himself and bear it to the grave, thus satisfying God’s perfect justice completely and allowing Him to administer his boundless mercy to us if we simply place our faith in his Son. I’m sorry but I fail to see the egotism in this. What I see is a monumental act of “love, humility, and charityâ€, the very things that you seem to find admirable.


    Originally Posted by CPF I don't need you to respect the message, just hear it and make a decision. I don't respect many of the things you have to say but I certainly respect your right to say them. Take care.

    Do we? Do you really respect my right to express my religious belief in a public forum? It seems to me that we live in a society that preaches this form of “hyper-tolerance†where absolutely everything is supposed to be “toleratedâ€, everything that is BUT the Christian worldview. That is the one thing that can be attacked with zealous impunity. I can be called a “bigotâ€, “bible thumperâ€, “fanatic†etc. and it is generally accepted, but turn that type of antagonism on any other deeply held worldview and see what happens. Are ou sure we (meaning the opposing worldviews) “understand each otherâ€? Take care
     
  3. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,950
    Likes Received:
    304
    Ratings:
    +564 / 22 / -19

    CPF,

    I do respect your opinion and for that reason I pull no punches. This discussion won't get any easier, since we're coming from two very different places, but if I thought you were a blowhard, I would not waste my time.

    I think we need to get something clear. As in any subject that I'm not an expert on, I rely on the preponderance of evidence. At this point, I've read a reasonable amount of I.D. literature online have read the ToE rebuttals. I find the rebuttals very convicing. That doesn't mean I could sit with Dembski and effectively defend my point of view, just as I would doubt that you could do the same with a ToE expert.

    ***

    You said, "One major problem (and it exists on both sides) is that many times arguments are based on 'straw men' of what the opposition actually believes, these slight distortions allow opponents of one view or another to appear to refute a viewpoint quite thoroughly, the only problem is that it is not an accurate assessment of the opposing view to begin with."

    Can you provide an example or two of that? The problem I see is that when scientists attempt to explain things in layman's terms, they oversimplify. This is probably true in any endeavor, not just science.

    ***

    As far as the majority of Christians favoring evolution, I should have done my homework. At least in the United States, according to Gallup, most believe in Creationism, though some believe in both!

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1507582/posts

    That said, I'm not sure what it proves, if anything. I made the claim while talking about the Vatican's stand on evolution.

    ***

    You asked, "Does the fact that my view of God and subsequently the world is 'narrow' somehow dictate whether or not it is viable? While you claim your worldview does not exclude God, it certainly does not leave a whole lot of room for him either; isn’t that a bit 'narrow'?"

    Right now, I'm still convinced that you embrace I.D. because it supports your view of the Bible, and you have not approached it objectively. I have seen far more responses by ToE-ers to I.D. than the other way around. Articles like these neatly lay out the the ToE response to ID. I have yet to find an article written in layman's language that does the same for ID.

    http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&sc=I100322

    http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html

    I don't dispute that ToE has not solved every riddle, but it seems to me with whatever the IDers throw out, ToE comes up with an excellent response. What do you think is the strongest point in ID? Is there one aspect of ID that you think is especially convincing? Is there something that ToE-ers do not have an effective response to? And can you lead me to articles where ID-ers respond to the issues raised by the ToE community?

    ***

    After I said, I would genuinely welcome it if God existed, you said, "Exactly, you would welcome a God created in your own image that is molded perfectly to the way you think he/she/it ought to be. What if God does not operate that way? What if he/she/it is sovereign and requires you to acquiesce to who he/she/it is and not the other way around? By the way I’m not sure you are intentionally trying to be offensive, but your treatment of the Christian view of God here, as well as elsewhere in this post are disrespectful and unnecessary."

    I do believe the God portrayed by many evangelicals as egomaniacal. While that is disrespectful, I do not mean it antagonistically. If God is exactly as you describe, I would disagree with Him on many issues. Therefore, He would not be God from my point of view; he would simply be a powerful entity. When you die and go to heaven, just hypothetically, what you think if God said, "You know CPF, the liberal Christians are right. Bush was evil, the war in Iraq was sinful, homosexuality is okay, etc.," would you change your beliefs or would you stand up and say to God, "Sorry, I don't agree with you"?

    ***

    As far as Darwinism not being compatible with Creationism, I agree, but my point was that one can still believe in God, as the Catholics do, for instance.

    ***

    As far as grant money goes, of course there are opportunists on both sides, but it seems to me it's mostly the ID-ers who are making the ad hominem attacks on ToE-ers, and attempting to use the courts and political process to present their views rather than working through peer review and developing ways to test their theories. Until ID makes its case before scientists (most of whom I believe are honest and sincere), it will be junk science.

    ***

    As far as my comment that, "I think IDers want to prove God exists. I don't think ToE-ers care either way," I am referring to a view of God that requires Creationism. I don't think ToE-ers are concerned with God, but I do think ID-ers are. I don't think a ToE-er would back off evidence that God or even Creationism exists.

    ***

    CPF: I don't think you could possibly be more wrong. I am nothing now like I was before I accepted Christ as my Savior. I don't think the same I don't act the same, my values are completely different. I was an atheist and I can tell you personally that my views could not be more different now than they used to be.
    Patters: I wasn't talking about you, but I think what I said applies to most people.
    CPF: You weren’t talking about me? I could have sworn you said, and I quote:
    “In other words, I think if you were an atheist, very few of your views would change, and the same goes for me if I was a devout Christian.â€

    I actually wasn't talking about you, and should used the word 'one.' You had already told me that finding Jesus changed you dramatically, but I don't think that's true for most people. It may be true for people of your specific branch of Christianity.

    You said, "I could give you reams of testimonies that are similar to mine, in that a radical change has occurred in a person who has become a Christian."

    We each have moments of truth in our lives, but one is not superior to the other. For some the moment of truth is Jesus, for others it's Allah, for still others it's mathematics, sexuality, parenting, or cancer. What I mean by that is that many people have some event in their lives that compels them to develop a worldview, and just because your event was finding Jesus doesn't make it more valid than someone else's event. What you found is a worldview with which you can achieve self-acceptance. That is true for each of us.

    ***

    When I said, "The majority of Christians believe there is more in the Bible that is meant to be interpreted metaphorically than you believe. Otherwise, they would be more conservative," you asked what majority I was referring to.

    You don't think a majority of Christians share your views, do you?

    ***

    As far as your explanation of what Jesus did for us, I really don't see why he "had" to do any of those things. Why did we have to be forgiven? What would have happened if we weren't forgiven? Would God have hurt us? If so, why?

    ***

    As far as your point about respect, I talked about that in the first paragraph. As far as your comment, "I can be called a 'bigot,' 'bible thumper,' 'fanatic,' etc. and it is generally accepted, but turn that type of antagonism on any other deeply held worldview and see what happens." It's probably true that gays, blacks, women, and other groups are more vocal when they are called insulting names. You have to turn the other cheek, which is really a very good thing.
     
  4. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,093
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Darwinism and creationism are very much compatible.

    One explains the beginning of life on earth. The other explains the great variety of life forms we see 4 billion years later.
     
  5. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,626
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    You must mean ID and not creationism. As I understand it, creationism states that the universe was created in six days as it is today. On the 7th day, God rested and on the 8th day he started another parallel universe. He's up to 312,000 universes.
     
  6. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,093
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    hey...don't criticize me. here :bricks:
     
  7. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    41,630
    Likes Received:
    272
    Ratings:
    +1,115 / 3 / -10

    Wish I was educated.

    This is me in the 6th grade :bricks:
     
  8. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,093
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    OK...get some :bricks:
     
  9. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    41,630
    Likes Received:
    272
    Ratings:
    +1,115 / 3 / -10

    GOD:
    The "egg heads" are so over educated that they could go out and sit on a beach somewhere and spend eternity "arguing religion" and at the end of time they would be right back where they started.

    "I'm right"
    "oh no, I'm right"

    Thank God I spent 4 years in the 6th grade :rocker:
     
  10. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,626
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    With all due respect, Boy, I have a hard time believing a teacher would put up with you for four years.

    This is a pretty exhausting discussion, but it's more of a mental exercise rather than an attempt to decide who's right or wrong. Kinda like arguing which color is the best.
     
  11. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,093
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Harry, then please feel free to leave your drivel out of such discussions. It just sucks up bandwidth and makes it more cumbersome to scroll through.
     
  12. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    41,630
    Likes Received:
    272
    Ratings:
    +1,115 / 3 / -10

    God said:
    "So verily I send unto thee a man named George and he shall so Save The world and everything therein, thou shalt worship the man named George and thy soul shall be saved, thou and all thine breteren shall dwell in the house of the lord forever and ever".
     
  13. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,626
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    Man, you started drinking early, today, dincha, Boy...
     
  14. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    41,630
    Likes Received:
    272
    Ratings:
    +1,115 / 3 / -10

    It cracks me up to read our highly educated folks on here arguing about a Guy that nobody has ever seen, he caused a flood that killed everybody except a man, his family and some animals and then this guy has a son born to a virgin, this guy grows up and makes blind people see, he can walk on water, and after he died he brought himself back to life.

    I wish I was educated so I too could debate this issue with them.

    "Mary, have you seen our son"
    "He just went out Joe, he's going to walk across the lake"
    "Oh"

    Oh God, here comes the bricks :bricks:
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2006
  15. OhExaulted1

    OhExaulted1 In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Messages:
    3,293
    Likes Received:
    372
    Ratings:
    +1,098 / 27 / -37

    #15 Jersey

    I think it was the other guy that sent us George. I beleive his coming was mentioned in Revelations.


    When the Lamb opened the second seal, I heard the second living creature say, "Come!" Then another horse came out, a fiery red one. Its rider was given power to take peace from the earth and to make men slay each other. To him was given a large sword. (Revelation 6:3-4 NIV)
     
  16. CPF

    CPF Practice Squad Player

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    169
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Hey Patters, thanks for the timely response. I will have a reply for you as soon as I can. Take care.
     
  17. CPF

    CPF Practice Squad Player

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    169
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Hey Patters, this is a long one....at least two posts so bear with me ok. I hope you and yours are well.

    I don't expect or want you to "pull any punches", I simply want us both to make a conscious effort to respect each other at all times and not become unnecessarily antagonistic, something I think we both desire.

    I understand what you are saying, we are just having some "point counterpoint" discussion and since neither of us are "experts" we are going to need to defer to the work of others from time to time. That’s fine, it's a good thing to be well informed of an opinion which you oppose, I try to constantly read from both sides of the fence so I don't become blind to opposing arguments and hence set up "straw men". The trick is not to let the "experts" start thinking FOR us but to simply take their input at face value and attempt to form our own opinion.

    Sure, let me give you one from each side:

    First the ToE: It is often claimed by proponents of the ToE that I.D or Creationism does not support the mechanism of natural selection and that we believe species to be "static". Nothing could be further from the truth, I do not know of many I.D'ers or Creationist's that do not accept that natural selection works within species to allow them to make modifications to their environment, even to the extent that a new species is created. We do however draw the line when it is posited that the same mechanism builds entirely new organism's from the ground up or allows one "kind" to metamorphose into another.

    Now I.D: I have often heard those in my camp say that there are absolutely no transitional forms in the fossil record we have available to us. Now I know this drives evolutionists nuts because there are quite a few of what scientists believe to be transitional forms, such as "bird like Dinosaurs". Now don't get me wrong, I find these forms to be very much in question and highly debatable but to simply say that none exist is certainly a straw man.

    You may be right to some extent, I can see how misconceptions could develope as a result of oversimplification.

    Thanks for your honesty. As far as those that believe in both; the merits of that position make for a good philosophical discussion if you are game, of course I understand if you do not want to make this conversation bigger than it already is

    I wasn't trying to prove anything, I was simply challenging whether the statement you made was accurate.

    I will respond to each of the fifteen "answers to creationist nonsense", in “layman’s terms†if you would like, as far as the other article, you have offered it before and I have directed you to several rebuttals that are available at ARN.org. You are probably right that I embrace the theory because it fits well with my worldview but this in no way affects the merits of the scientific arguments made by the theory; either they are sound or they are not, the philosophical viewpoint of it's supporters do not change that one way or another.

    I think that the argument from a cosmological standpoint is very convincing. I outlined it some time ago, it’s called the “kalam cosmological argument†and it states that 1) Whatever begins to exist had a cause 2) The universe had a beginning 3) Therefore the universe has a cause. There is some excellent evidence to bolster the claims made by “kalam†in the “Big Bang†model, we can go into it further if you like. I also find Behe’s “Irreducible complexity argument to be quite compelling.


    Well think that there is quite a bit that the ToE does have an effective response to but I think the thing that presents the most difficulty to the Darwinist evolutionary model is the problem of information. Any acquired function or form that an organism takes on has to be a direct result of an influx of specified information. What we know of information tells us that it only arises from an intelligent cause; so where did the information in say, DNA come from?

    more to follow:
     
  18. CPF

    CPF Practice Squad Player

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    169
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Second installment of.....would you believe....three....sorry.

    Sure, take a look at these sites and tell me what you think. Look under “featured authors here: http://www.arn.org/ most of the authors have responded to critics. Also, take a look at these sites, some have responses, some just have info, but I think you will find them all to be quite informative.http://www.ideacenter.org/resources/reviews_media.php http://www.iscid.org/ http://www.idurc.org/studentwriting.htm http://www.idthink.net/ http://www.idthink.net/ http://www.designinference.com/ http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/publications.htm http://www.discovery.org/csc/ http://www.reasons.org/ I hope that some of these can be of help.

    What if your “point of view†regarding God is irrelevant? What you or I “feel†doesn’t change who God is, or what he requires of us. Whether or not he is God “from your viewpoint†is not going to somehow cause him to change the way he operates. If I am right and you are wrong, you are going to have a very long time to think about the consequences of your choice. I honestly hope you change your mind one day, before it is too late.

    Well, I have to say I would be quite surprised as this is definitely not the God who has revealed himself to mankind through the Bible and His Son Jesus Christ, and I seriously doubt this will actually happen, but hypothetically I suppose I would be a fool not to acquiesce to God, I mean after all, He is God.

    As far as Darwinism not being compatible with Creationism, I agree, but my point was that one can still believe in God, as the Catholics do, for instance.

    Yes and my point was that anyone who is serious about his/her belief in the Bible and Christ should have a very hard time simply accepting a theory that completely strips God of his creative ability and substitutes it with a completely naturalistic mechanism. That is not the God of the Bible and I would expect anyone who is serious about their faith to at least search for viable alternatives.

    Patters, ad hominem attack derives from both sides, neither is more culpable than the other, we have already addressed “peer reviewâ€, it’s a “straw man†just like the ones I outlined above. They are using the courts in an attempt to get an honest “unbiased†hearing in the public square, something that is becoming increasingly apparent the evolutionist community does not want to happen.

    I.D has made it’s case before scientists over and over again and many have taken the time to “review†what they have to say or else you wouldn’t have the many “answers to creationist nonsense†floating around out there would you?

    I think I.D’ers find comfort in the fact that there is actually a viable alternative to Darwinian Evolution available to them. I have provided you with many quotes from prominent evolutionists that contradict the claim that ToE’ers “don’t care either wayâ€, but you may choose to believe what you wish.

    .
    Back off? They either ignore it or sweep it under the rug every day of their life. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that they necessarily consciously do this, but I feel that many have been so strongly indoctrinated with evolutionary dogma that they do it without giving it much thought at all.

    I think it is true for anyone who has a REAL encounter with Christ.

    From my perspective I didn’t choose a worldview as much as it chose me. I was adamantly opposed to anything that even remotely resembled Christianity. There is absolutely no reason in the world why I would have chosen it as a worldview on my own. I was fully “accepted†by my peers in my former worldview, yet something has to account for this radical paradigm shift that occurred in my life. I say it is Christ, you can call it what you wish, it doesn’t matter to me.

    Protestant Christians, yes.

    One more post and we are done.
     
  19. CPF

    CPF Practice Squad Player

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    169
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Third and final post.

    Myself and many Christians like me believe that God loves us and has a plan for our lives, not so much that he has planned out every step but that he wants the best for us much like a parent wants the best for their child. God’s love is demonstrated to us by the fact that he was willing to give his only Son on our behalf.

    John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

    His plan is that we might experience abundant life.

    John 10:9 I am the door. If anyone enters in by Me, he shall be saved and shall go in and out and find pasture.
    John 10:10 The thief does not come except to steal and to kill and to destroy. I have come so that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.


    I believe many people are not experiencing this “abundant†life because in his heart man is sinful. I know you have to have noticed the tendency we have to do the wrong thing even though we know in our hearts what is right, the Bible calls this “tendency†sin and says that it is what separates us from God.

    Romans 3:23 “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.â€

    We were created to have perfect fellowship with God but instead we chose to follow our own path and thus that fellowship was broken. We each earn a “wage†for the sin we commit, much the same way you earn a “wage†for the work you do each week at your job, but instead of money, the wage we earn for our sin is death.

    Romans 6:23 “The wages of sin is deathâ€

    You see God is completely holy and cannot come in contact with sin, thus we are separated from him by it. No matter how much we try we cannot have the abundant life God offers through our own efforts, such as living a “good†life, philosophy, or religion, inevitably we all fail at some point, but God has his own way of bridging the gap between himself and man…..He sent Christ to die in our place. Christ is God’s provision for our sin, he died instead of us.

    Romans 5:8 “But God demonstrates his love for us by the fact that Christ died for us while we were still sinners.â€

    After he took our place he rose from the grave.

    1Co 15:3 For I passed on to you the most important points of what I received: Christ died for our sins in keeping with the Scriptures,
    1Co 15:4 he was buried, he was raised on the third day in keeping with the Scriptures-and is still alive!-


    Christ paid our penalty on the cross and then took our sins to the grave with him, then triumphant over sin, he rose again on the third day. He was without sin and yet he became sin for us]/b]

    2Co 5:21 “God made the one who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that we might become God's righteousness in him.â€

    God has bridged the gap between himself and man with the Cross of Christ, it is the only way he has provided.

    John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. “

    But it is not enough to simply “know†these things, we must also receive Christ as our Savior in order to experience this “abundant†life He offers us.

    Joh 1:12 “But as many as received Him, He gave to them authority to become the children of God, to those who believe on His name,â€

    You must receive Christ through faith and not as a result of something you have done to somehow deserve the gift.

    Eph 2:8 For by grace you are saved, through faith, and this not of yourselves; it is the gift of God;
    Eph 2:9 not of works, that not anyone should boast;


    You must personally invite Christ into your life, He will never force Himself in.

    Revelation 3:20 (Christ speaking) Behold, I stand at the door and knock: If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will enter to him, and I will dine with him, and he with Me.

    When you receive Christ you make a conscious decision to turn from your old way of life and embrace the new “abundant†life He is offering you. You can do this at any time and in any place. You must simply sincerely pray to Christ and acknowledge that you need Him, that you are opening the door of your life and receiving Him, that you wish for Him to carry the burden of your sin in your place and be forgiven, and finally that you are willing to give Him the pre-eminent position in your life to guide and direct you the rest of the days of it. Do this and the abundant life is yours, reject it and the alternative is to die in your sin and be eternally separated from God…the choice is yours.

    It’s really not so much my reaction I am trying to bring to light. It is the general acceptance of this treatment by the public at large that concerns me. Lets say an openly gay man began to post here and he was sincerely attempting to voice his viewpoint in an effort to reach out to those around him. Now lets say I responded to this person’s efforts by posting something along these lines; “Man I am so sick of these queers and their agenda, I just wish these homo’s would keep their opinions to themselves†How do you suppose that would be received by the general population here? This is in no way different than some of the responses I have received and yet not a single protest was uttered. Do you find this “double standard†strange at all?

    Sorry it took so long for me to get back to you and I also apologize for the length of this post but as I said in the past I am a bit of a stickler for detail. I look forward to your response. Take care.
     
  20. CPF

    CPF Practice Squad Player

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    169
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I just thought I would give this one a bump before it fell to far down the cue. Take care.
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>