|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:57 pm
It drives me nuts how there are many who defend that Creationism has to be true or it destroys the truth of Genesis thus destroying the truth of God. This is false because the Creation story in genesis still remains true since its truth is a spiritual truth about why we are the way we are. Thoughts, opinions, additions, or contests to this?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 6:24 pm
There's also a slight difficulty in that for there to be a literal resurrection, there would have to be a literal fall. I ran into this difficulty when I was reading a former head of my church who argued that it's impossible to be a Mormon and still believe in evolution. Then I realized that it was still possible to be the head of the Mormon church while still mouthing your own personal opinion on things you shouldn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 13, 2009 2:55 pm
Boxy There's also a slight difficulty in that for there to be a literal resurrection, there would have to be a literal fall. ? I'm not sure what you're saying there... But, if evolution is right, then Young Earth Creationists are dead dead dead wrong. However, theistic evolution does not inherently contradict the creation story in Genesis, if days are taken out of a 24 hour context (which they'd pretty much hafta be, IMO).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 13, 2009 5:23 pm
linaloki Boxy There's also a slight difficulty in that for there to be a literal resurrection, there would have to be a literal fall. ? I'm not sure what you're saying there... Without a perfect world that we've fallen from, there's not really a perfect human state to return to, physically speaking. The intangibles of metaphysical existence, however, permit a perfect spiritual existence. It's just that I know that a lot of conservative Christians want there to be a literal, physical resurrection as a logical progression from a literal, physical fall. linaloki But, if evolution is right, then Young Earth Creationists are dead dead dead wrong. However, theistic evolution does not inherently contradict the creation story in Genesis, if days are taken out of a 24 hour context (which they'd pretty much hafta be, IMO). I know. However, a literal fall demands that (A) humans were originally created perfect and deathless by God, and that (B) there was no death before the Fall. People don't really like these difficulties. Reasoning it all out adds more depth and layering to one's religion, but most people don't want to go through the logical steps to figure out what's actually going on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:50 am
to me there is a difference between creationism, which can get dogmatic, and intelligent design, which seems to try to invite rational discussion.
yet whenever anybody tries to bring up intelligent design, however many legitimate degrees they display behind their name, they are shouted down as an ignorant unwashed nincompoop.
i think evolution has become an unexamined dogma and a shibboleth of humanism. not to say it isn't right! but if you can't stand a little honest debate, what's wrong with you? if you have to win arguments by demeaning the intellect and integrity of those who differ with you, or who even just want to discuss principles, what's wrong with you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:01 pm
chessiejo to me there is a difference between creationism, which can get dogmatic, and intelligent design, which seems to try to invite rational discussion. yet whenever anybody tries to bring up intelligent design, however many legitimate degrees they display behind their name, they are shouted down as an ignorant unwashed nincompoop. i think evolution has become an unexamined dogma and a shibboleth of humanism. not to say it isn't right! but if you can't stand a little honest debate, what's wrong with you? if you have to win arguments by demeaning the intellect and integrity of those who differ with you, or who even just want to discuss principles, what's wrong with you? That's because ID has no scientific backing, it's philosophy at best.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 8:13 am
evolution has shifted from being a working theory to becoming a shibboleth.
it is now a means by which its believers sort out the heretics.
no discussion allowed, infidel.
the criticisms that proponents of discussion receive remind me of what Betty Freidan said about those levelled against feminists: they were "stupid, evil, or ugly."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 10:31 am
chessiejo evolution has shifted from being a working theory to becoming a shibboleth. it is now a means by which its believers sort out the heretics. no discussion allowed, infidel. the criticisms that proponents of discussion receive remind me of what Betty Freidan said about those levelled against feminists: they were "stupid, evil, or ugly." Who said that evolution was case shut? All I said that ID could not work as a comparable theory because there's no science involved in it. It's a "why" explanation, which would fall under philosophy at best because ID does not try to explain how the process occurs, it only offers why the process occurs, but it's answer as to why is not based on empiricism. Something that is scientific can only answer "how" questions based on empirically objective facts. The scientific method cannot provide answers to "why" or "for what philosophical purpose"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 9:31 pm
rmcdra chessiejo evolution has shifted from being a working theory to becoming a shibboleth. it is now a means by which its believers sort out the heretics. no discussion allowed, infidel. the criticisms that proponents of discussion receive remind me of what Betty Freidan said about those levelled against feminists: they were "stupid, evil, or ugly." Who said that evolution was case shut? All I said that ID could not work as a comparable theory because there's no science involved in it. It's a "why" explanation, which would fall under philosophy at best because ID does not try to explain how the process occurs, it only offers why the process occurs, but it's answer as to why is not based on empiricism. Something that is scientific can only answer "how" questions based on empirically objective facts. The scientific method cannot provide answers to "why" or "for what philosophical purpose" If I may summarise, there really can be no discussion between ID and evolution, because not only do they try to answer very different questions, they work in very different manners. This would be like a debate between glass-blowing and how pretty the desert sand looks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 10:34 pm
Gho the Girl rmcdra chessiejo evolution has shifted from being a working theory to becoming a shibboleth. it is now a means by which its believers sort out the heretics. no discussion allowed, infidel. the criticisms that proponents of discussion receive remind me of what Betty Freidan said about those levelled against feminists: they were "stupid, evil, or ugly." Who said that evolution was case shut? All I said that ID could not work as a comparable theory because there's no science involved in it. It's a "why" explanation, which would fall under philosophy at best because ID does not try to explain how the process occurs, it only offers why the process occurs, but it's answer as to why is not based on empiricism. Something that is scientific can only answer "how" questions based on empirically objective facts. The scientific method cannot provide answers to "why" or "for what philosophical purpose" If I may summarise, there really can be no discussion between ID and evolution, because not only do they try to answer very different questions, they work in very different manners. This would be like a debate between glass-blowing and how pretty the desert sand looks. Exactly. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:01 am
chessiejo i think evolution has become an unexamined dogma and a shibboleth of humanism. not to say it isn't right! but if you can't stand a little honest debate, what's wrong with you? if you have to win arguments by demeaning the intellect and integrity of those who differ with you, or who even just want to discuss principles, what's wrong with you? TBH, this might be a resultant of sorts from people getting annoyed at defending evolution in the face of those who reject it because they don't understand what it is, yet feel no need to learn more about it or understand because they reject it. Most of these people, in my experience, are creationists, but think about it this way: If ten kids come up to you and the first nine say that your mohawk looks like s**t-on-a-stick, and the tenth starts to talk about the same thing, you're probably going to be sick of it and snap on them, assuming they are criticizing you as well (if you're like me, anyway). Maybe they just wanted to tell you they think it would look better in a different color, but you didn't know that and you're agitated and annoyed from the first 9 kids. Is it the right thing to do? Maybe not. But we're human and our patience runs out after a while.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 7:38 am
Chessie, I don't think there is any room for "honest debate" with proponents of intelligent design, because it requires honesty. Intelligent design, as it currently exists, is legend and pseudoscience masquerading as actual science. It's deliberately deceptive in that it pretends to be science when everyone, including the people who believe in it, know it really isn't.
Just ask any ID proponent to come up with an item of evidence that would disprove ID.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:37 am
Shaviv Chessie, I don't think there is any room for "honest debate" with proponents of intelligent design, because it requires honesty. Intelligent design, as it currently exists, is legend and pseudoscience masquerading as actual science. It's deliberately deceptive in that it pretends to be science when everyone, including the people who believe in it, know it really isn't. Just ask any ID proponent to come up with an item of evidence that would disprove ID. so you refuse to talk? you assume an automatic position of superiority over all those who differ with you? you might as well be an ayatollah; i thought free debate might be welcomed here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 1:20 pm
chessiejo Shaviv Chessie, I don't think there is any room for "honest debate" with proponents of intelligent design, because it requires honesty. Intelligent design, as it currently exists, is legend and pseudoscience masquerading as actual science. It's deliberately deceptive in that it pretends to be science when everyone, including the people who believe in it, know it really isn't. Just ask any ID proponent to come up with an item of evidence that would disprove ID. so you refuse to talk? you assume an automatic position of superiority over all those who differ with you? you might as well be an ayatollah; i thought free debate might be welcomed here. *sigh* Eliam, my computer, likes to go back unexpectedly as I am writing, thus causing me to lose my post. So this will be a lot breifer than originally planned. 1. Shaviv is not refusing to talk. He is speaking directly to the point. If he refused to talk, here would have said "it's wrong, the end" or some equivocal remark. But here, he not only speaks to the problem of a "debate" between ID and Evolution, he gives reasoning behind his view. Albeit, it isn't phrased nicely, but niceness is not a requirement. 2. He is not assuming. The fact that there is no evidence that supports ID beyond supposition is what he uses as evidence for his stance. Assumption is a belief taken without regard to verification or proof, but here he does no such thing. 3. Free debate is welcomed here, but you are not welcoming it. You seem to be operating under the supposition that if we disagree with your view, we are wrong, automatically. Your replies have less to do with what is said within them and more to do with the wall that you are putting up. If you wish to have free debate, please foster it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 4:01 pm
Gho the Girl chessiejo Shaviv Chessie, I don't think there is any room for "honest debate" with proponents of intelligent design, because it requires honesty. Intelligent design, as it currently exists, is legend and pseudoscience masquerading as actual science. It's deliberately deceptive in that it pretends to be science when everyone, including the people who believe in it, know it really isn't. Just ask any ID proponent to come up with an item of evidence that would disprove ID. so you refuse to talk? you assume an automatic position of superiority over all those who differ with you? you might as well be an ayatollah; i thought free debate might be welcomed here. *sigh* Eliam, my computer, likes to go back unexpectedly as I am writing, thus causing me to lose my post. So this will be a lot breifer than originally planned. 1. Shaviv is not refusing to talk. He is speaking directly to the point. If he refused to talk, here would have said "it's wrong, the end" or some equivocal remark. But here, he not only speaks to the problem of a "debate" between ID and Evolution, he gives reasoning behind his view. Albeit, it isn't phrased nicely, but niceness is not a requirement. 2. He is not assuming. The fact that there is no evidence that supports ID beyond supposition is what he uses as evidence for his stance. Assumption is a belief taken without regard to verification or proof, but here he does no such thing. 3. Free debate is welcomed here, but you are not welcoming it. You seem to be operating under the supposition that if we disagree with your view, we are wrong, automatically. Your replies have less to do with what is said within them and more to do with the wall that you are putting up. If you wish to have free debate, please foster it. to me, it seems just the opposite. i do not in fact support creationism! but when i state my conviction that has become an unexamined axiomatic dogma, i am scorned. YOU seem to be operating under the supposition that if I disagree with YOUR view, I am wrong, automatically. so, where does that leaver us? see, it is so hard to argue with "true believers".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
