|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
unbelievers? - 8/10/2008 1:08:12 AM
|
|
|
Samurai22
Posts: 3
Joined: 8/10/2008
Status: offline
|
Hi everyone,
In my 12th grade class there was this student who came in like near the end of the year and he dosen't believe in God, but he believes in "Gods" just not any specific ones, just them in general, and hes set on becoming a shamen >.>. So he would always turn around and debate with me over how he thought that darwinism is the truth to all truths and me being a Christian was always disagreeing with him, and it would just go back and forth and he was always asking me to "ask my god" to help me find what every I happened to be lookin for and why wasnt it apearing before my eyes, and I would always says its not like magic and all this stuff, and im just wondering what do you say to people like this? This has happened with other people as well and im wondering what do you say to people who try and belittle your faith and prove that theirs is the right one without being too disrespectful and such.
|
|
|
|
RE: unbelievers? - 8/10/2008 4:36:29 AM
|
|
|
FurGodWurLivin
Posts: 829
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
|
What would I say? I usually wouldn't.
I would pray for God to give them wisdom and revelation (Ephesians 1:17-19). As for their belittling of your faith, get a look at the Sermon on the Mount. "If anyone slaps you on your right cheek, turn and let them slap the other also." As for what I might actually say, it would depend on the religious association of the person I was talking to.
Adam
_____________________________
I am hyena, Jesus is my Mufasa...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: unbelievers? - 8/10/2008 3:06:36 PM
|
|
|
Darion412
Posts: 17
Joined: 10/15/2007
Status: offline
|
I agree with the above poster.
http://www.carm.org/ might help you in future debates.
|
|
|
|
RE: unbelievers? - 8/10/2008 8:50:13 PM
|
|
|
Samurai22
Posts: 3
Joined: 8/10/2008
Status: offline
|
:3 thanks for the advice and I will check out that website Darion412
|
|
|
|
|
RE: unbelievers? - 8/16/2008 11:37:22 PM
|
|
|
DreadPirateRandy
Posts: 6920
Joined: 6/5/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Samurai22
im just wondering what do you say to people like this?
Given that he believes in evolutionism, he's going to disregard God and His word based on his scientific belief in Darwinism. I have found these individuals are usually the hardest to converse with, due to their stubbornness.
They're looking for evidence to put their faith in. God says to fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. Since God is invisible to the naked eye, that doesn't mean one can't see the evidence of God in life. Nature is a fantastic way of proving the existence of God.
Belief in God is not about a miraculous thunderbolt of evidence upon request. It is about faith. Through faith, the evidence of the unseen will become visible.
_____________________________
The lunatic, the lover, and the poet, are of imagination all compact.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: unbelievers? - 8/17/2008 6:08:39 PM
|
|
|
song
Posts: 307
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Southern Florida
Status: offline
|
I'd smile at him and not answer. I don't fight. And don't appreciate people who try and pick them. He doesn't want to hear from you he just wants to "get your goat". Ignore him. And definitely pray for him.
_____________________________
you are beautiful my sweet sweet song...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: unbelievers? - 8/18/2008 4:42:34 PM
|
|
|
Konstantinos
Posts: 4970
Joined: 4/14/2005
From: Greece Thessaloniki
Status: offline
|
how can he believe in darwinism and believe in a bunch of gods and want to be a shaman?
i think he just wants attention and is a troll and not half enough mature to actually have a conversation
_____________________________
i can pick you up off the floor and put you over my head
|
|
|
|
|
RE: unbelievers? - 8/19/2008 6:43:39 PM
|
|
|
LCannon
Posts: 1226
Joined: 2/22/2007
From: Lebanon, OR
Status: offline
|
Good, song. Personally 'that', conversation on that subject would be short and our last until he's ready to come to grips with his personal responsibility. Debating(arguing)on a purely simplistic and limited plane cheapens both parties. I would state, flatly, that there's only two world views that are valid, speculation and revelation. I can't trust my eternal destiny to anyone's speculation but the reveled Word of Jehovah and the mystery reveled in Christ Jesus is true and trustworthy. It's as easy as ABC.
Admit-John 1:11,12
Believe- Romans 3:22,23
Confess- Romans 10:8-10
_____________________________
"It may be that when the angels go about their task of praising God they play
only Bach. I am sure, however, that when they are together en famille they
play Mozart and then too our dear Lord listens with special pleasure."(Karl Barth)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: unbelievers? - 8/22/2008 3:34:29 AM
|
|
|
Real_Solitude
Posts: 373
Joined: 5/9/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DreadPirateRandy
Given that he believes in evolutionism, he's going to disregard God and His word based on his scientific belief in Darwinism.
There's a fairly common fallacy that you an Kon both seem to have made regarding evolutionary theory and theism.
An acceptance of the modern evolutionary synthesis is not incompatible with theistic belief, nor with Christianity. Evolutionary theory says nothing about God, gods, or anything else metaphysical. Accepting evolutionary theory does not require one to be an atheist or agnostic. (Also, 'Darwinism' is a term that, within the scientific community, refers to Darwin's original mechanisms of evolution. I know of no one that subscribes to Darwinism, which would disregard all progress in the field since Darwin's original proposal.)
The fact that this person, "believes in evolutionism," has little relevancy as to what god/ess(s) he believe in. There are many theistic scientists, many theistic evolutionary biologists, and many theistic evolutionists. The two are not mutually exclusive of each other.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Konstantinos
how can he believe in darwinism and believe in a bunch of gods and want to be a shaman?
i think he just wants attention and is a troll and not half enough mature to actually have a conversation
While I agree with your assessment; that the person in question is just being antagonistic, I do find curiosities in your statements.
I'm sure that some people do 'believe' in evolution, but on the whole they merely accept the prominent explanation of the gathered evidence. One does not believe in evolutionary theory any more than one believes in General Relativity.
Belief in many gods, polytheism, is not uncommon. It in not vastly different from belief in a single god, and in ancient civilizations was the prominent form or belief. A trend towards polytheism, as well as 'natural' religions such as Wicca and other forms of paganism, has been growing in recent years. I suspect that the student's desire to become a shaman stems from interest in these sorts of religions, as well as the older druidic practices.
There is nothing extravagantly odd about this person's beliefs any more than the belief that (and forgive the gross oversimplification) an invisible super-cosmic being created humans with the fore-knowledge (due to omnipotence) that they would sin, still gets angry about that sin, and in order to appease himself (Jehoba) sacrifices himself (Jesus).
_____________________________
"Instead of feeling alone in a group its better to have real solitude all by yourself."
~Faye Valentine
|
|
|
|
|
RE: unbelievers? - 8/26/2008 11:27:06 PM
|
|
|
Konstantinos
Posts: 4970
Joined: 4/14/2005
From: Greece Thessaloniki
Status: offline
|
polytheism is simply stupid. if he believed that there are other beings stronger than us, at least thats believeable. but believing that there are more than 1 "being" thats all powerful, all knowing etc is stupid imo no matter how you put it.
_____________________________
i can pick you up off the floor and put you over my head
|
|
|
|
|
RE: unbelievers? - 9/1/2008 5:30:15 PM
|
|
|
Real_Solitude
Posts: 373
Joined: 5/9/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Konstantinos
polytheism is simply stupid. if he believed that there are other beings stronger than us, at least thats believeable. but believing that there are more than 1 "being" thats all powerful, all knowing etc is stupid imo no matter how you put it.
You don't seem to really have a grasp of what polytheism entails.
A quick lesson:
Gods, as usually defined in polytheism, are not all powerful. Each deity is thought to be immensely powerful, but governs, and is limited to, their own sphere(s).
For instance, in the Greek mythos, Aphrodite was the goddess who governed love, lust, beauty, and fertility.
If one wanted another person to notice them, or if a couple wanted a child, then the person might offer a prayer to Aphrodite, or give an offering at one of her temples.
Hermes, on the other hand, was the god who governed "boundaries, and of the travelers who cross them, of shepherds and cowherds, of thieves and road travelers, of orators and wit, of literature and poets, of athletics, of weights and measures, of invention, of general commerce, and of the cunning of thieves and liars."
If a person wanted to wish a recently departed a safe journey on their way to the underworld, if you wanted to write a great poem, or if you needed a little extra edge in a footrace, it would be Hermes that you would pray to, or, as mentioned, give an offering to one of his temples.
In many forms of polytheism not all gods are as powerful as each other. In Greek mythology, Zeus was the king of the gods. He was 'more powerful' than the others, and could usually boss the others around.
So again, there's really nothing absurd about this person's belief. They probably don't believe that there's one supreme god, but a number of gods that govern different aspects of the universe, or of human existence.
_____________________________
"Instead of feeling alone in a group its better to have real solitude all by yourself."
~Faye Valentine
|
|
|
|
|
RE: unbelievers? - 9/17/2008 12:51:31 AM
|
|
|
HellHathNoFuryAtAll
Posts: 42
Joined: 5/27/2008
Status: offline
|
This is why apologetics is so important. We, as Christians need to be able to fire back at a non-believer but sometimes (because we base what we believe on faith and the WORD) it's hard to explain. The next time this kid says something about Darwinism just remind him that evolution is STILL not a highly supported theory and it HAS many flaws. Christianity, on the other hand is widely accepted and is known as THE TRUTH the whole world over. I suggest that he read "Conspiracies And The Cross" And any Apologetics Study Bible. A reformed Atheist myself, I know that it's not easy to convince someone to look beyond logic and reason. If he still persists....pray for Him:)
_____________________________
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
(Matthew 28:20)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: unbelievers? - 9/17/2008 12:58:24 AM
|
|
|
HellHathNoFuryAtAll
Posts: 42
Joined: 5/27/2008
Status: offline
|
I also note that Polytheism and Darwinism are simply not to be combined.
It's like Oil and Water. The theory of evolution knocks out any chance of divine intervention and Polytheism contradicts such processes as natural selection and evolution. If something is of a divine nature then it is the will of the creator and not just a natural happenstance.
On a more pesonal note: Polytheism is dead, evolution is flawed but MY GOD IS PERFECT.
_____________________________
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
(Matthew 28:20)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: unbelievers? - 9/17/2008 10:14:16 PM
|
|
|
Real_Solitude
Posts: 373
Joined: 5/9/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: HellHathNoFuryAtAllThe next time this kid says something about Darwinism just remind him that evolution is STILL not a highly supported theory and it HAS many flaws.
Evolutionary theory is one of the most supported scientific theories to date. Evolutionary theory has more supporting pieces of evidence than the theory of gravity, or general relativity.
From the genetics side, DNA supports evolution on two fronts. Not only that much of the code is the same between closely-related species, but that every species codes using DNA. Mitochondrial DNA also supports it, as does morphology.
Paleontology unanimously supports the theory of evolution, as does comparative anatomy. (Yes, including transitional fossils.)
Distribution of animals based on geological change is a definite supporter, (e.g. Marsupials only being found on Australia)
Not to mention that we've observed a number of speciation events, both in and out of the lab.
quote:
Christianity, on the other hand is widely accepted and is known as THE TRUTH the whole world over. I suggest that he read "Conspiracies And The Cross" And any Apologetics Study Bible. A reformed Atheist myself, I know that it's not easy to convince someone to look beyond logic and reason. If he still persists....pray for Him:)
Islam is also widely accepted, and is known as "The Truth" the world over. This is an argument ad populum, and it doesn't fly. The level of acceptance of any belief in the public sphere has no bearing on the truth-value of that belief.
This isn't to mention the fact, as I said in an earlier post, "An acceptance of the modern evolutionary synthesis is not incompatible with theistic belief, nor with Christianity. Evolutionary theory says nothing about God, gods, or anything else metaphysical. Accepting evolutionary theory does not require one to be an atheist or agnostic."
quote:
ORIGINAL: HellHathNoFuryAtAll
I also note that Polytheism and Darwinism are simply not to be combined.
It's like Oil and Water. The theory of evolution knocks out any chance of divine intervention and Polytheism contradicts such processes as natural selection and evolution. If something is of a divine nature then it is the will of the creator and not just a natural happenstance.
On a more pesonal note: Polytheism is dead, evolution is flawed but MY GOD IS PERFECT.
The theory of evolution does no such thing. Look at Behe; he accepts theistic (read: guided) evolution. Evolutionary theory gives us mechanisms to explain the diversity of life. It says that the diversity we see is a result of gene flow, genetic drift, mutation, and natural selection. It says this because this is what the evidence tells us.
While it makes concepts such as guided evolution, special creation, etc... unnecessary, it does not automatically make them invalid. It's possible that god(s) tinker with genetics to suit their purposes. It's possible that mankind was specially created, and just looks like it evolved.
It's also possible that all of the evidence for evolution was fabricated by a super-being.
If anything is of a divine nature, everything is. If a god created the universe, that makes everything in the universe of super-natural origin. That would include evolution as an indirect result of that creation.
_____________________________
"Instead of feeling alone in a group its better to have real solitude all by yourself."
~Faye Valentine
|
|
|
|
|
RE: unbelievers? - 9/18/2008 2:21:42 AM
|
|
|
HellHathNoFuryAtAll
Posts: 42
Joined: 5/27/2008
Status: offline
|
Polytheism is dead, evolution is flawed, but MY GOD IS PERFECT.
_____________________________
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
(Matthew 28:20)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: unbelievers? - 9/18/2008 3:45:25 AM
|
|
|
Real_Solitude
Posts: 373
Joined: 5/9/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: HellHathNoFuryAtAll
Polytheism is dead
Polytheism is dead?
Hinduism is a form of soft polytheism. (900 million believers)
Chinese folk religion is polytheistic. (394 million)
Taoism is polytheistic. (20-50 million)
Shinto is polytheistic. (4 million)
Jain is semi-polytheistic. (4.2 million)
Wicca & Neo-Druidism are polytheistic. (1 million)
Total= 1.3532 billion - 1.3232 billion.
This is well over 1/6 of the world population.
Polytheism is far from dead.
For that matter, some forms of Christianity are arguably polytheistic. Any form of 'folk' Christianity with venerated patron saints is arguably polytheistic.
Indeed, an unbiased study of religion revels that belief in the Trinity is soft polytheism, in the same manner that Hinduism is polytheism.
Adding these figures, you'd be well into the 2 billion range.
quote:
Evolution is flawed.
You're going to have to be more specific.
Evolution is a fact, we can observe changes in populations. You could argue that this is not a perfect process, but that doesn't change the fact that it happens.
Evolutionary theory is the explanation for the fact of evolution. The generals of the theory are well supported. All of the major branches of life can be traced back to early life. Many specific branches of life (including humanity) have quite well defined origins supported by extensive fossil records.
quote:
MY GOD IS PERFECT.
Good for you. This claim has no bearing on the other two, nor refutes my original statement.
_____________________________
"Instead of feeling alone in a group its better to have real solitude all by yourself."
~Faye Valentine
|
|
|
|
|
RE: unbelievers? - 9/18/2008 4:39:45 AM
|
|
|
FurGodWurLivin
Posts: 829
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
|
quote:
Polytheism is dead?
Hinduism is a form of soft polytheism. (900 million believers)
Chinese folk religion is polytheistic. (394 million)
Taoism is polytheistic. (20-50 million)
Shinto is polytheistic. (4 million)
Jain is semi-polytheistic. (4.2 million)
Wicca & Neo-Druidism are polytheistic. (1 million)
Total= 1.3532 billion - 1.3232 billion.
This is well over 1/6 of the world population.
Polytheism is far from dead.
For that matter, some forms of Christianity are arguably polytheistic. Any form of 'folk' Christianity with venerated patron saints is arguably polytheistic.
Indeed, an unbiased study of religion revels that belief in the Trinity is soft polytheism, in the same manner that Hinduism is polytheism.
Adding these figures, you'd be well into the 2 billion range. True enough, Polytheism is not dead. It is a "dead religion" in the canonical sense because it leads to death... but so does Athiesm, Agnosticism, Satanism, Scientology, and Islam. Putting that to rest, I'm kind of intrigued by the idea of patron saints and trinitarianism being "soft polytheism".
I can see the connection between Patron Saints and gods (admittedly, some argue that the whole idea of patron saints evolved into catholicism when it was Romanized under Constantine), however, an "unbiased study of religion" that went any deeper than the superficial would not reveal Trinitarianism as Polytheistic.
Some of the greatest Religio-philosophical minds in history have sought to delve into the mystery of the trinity, and none have come up with anything that touches the reality of it. The trinitarian doctrine holds that God is three persons in one being, while still being three persons. You can make a veritable casserole of all the various analogies of what the Trinity looks like, but the fact is that it is beyond human comprehension. The New Testament authors did not attempt to make comprehensvely deep explanations of the belief, they merely said that it was. This is why it is referred to as a great mystery.
That being said, I would contest that Trinitarianism is Polytheistic. Not only would it conflict with the Judaistic roots of Christianity (what with Jesus being Jewish, that's kind of important), but it would also conflict with the "Eccumenical church councils" themselves.quote:
Evolution is a fact, we can observe changes in populations. You could argue that this is not a perfect process, but that doesn't change the fact that it happens.
Evolutionary theory is the explanation for the fact of evolution. The generals of the theory are well supported. All of the major branches of life can be traced back to early life. Many specific branches of life (including humanity) have quite well defined origins supported by extensive fossil records. Addendum, Microevolution is a fact. Yes, there is a diversification of species (through both inbreeding and natural selection), but Macroevolutionary changes between individual species is as yet unproven. Darwin's hallmark observation of the Finch population does show limited adaptability within special boundaries, but there is a reason there hasn't been a single non-discredited "transitional form" found in the bountiful fossil record. In fact, last I had heard, the only fossils that were being looked at as possible "missing links" were either double fossils (one organism fossilizing over another), or entirely seperate species that are now extinct.
As for the DNA argument, it would make a massive amount of sense that similar characteristics have similar DNA patterns... especially because DNA is controlling factor in physical appearance and body structure. Rather than these DNA necessarily being "related", I would be more than willing to believe that they are similar due to God creating similar body structures.
However, we have an even bigger problem to hunt down... the fact that the evolutionary explanations of the origins of life are just as completely unscientific as the creationist one. Why? Because science is interested in facts that are testable, and, by extension, provable. It is absolutely impossible to prove for a fact that all species evolved from a single species. Why? Because it would have happened an uber-long time ago when (A) there were no writing tools and (B) there were no humans to observe it. In order to be proven, you would have to take a couple specimens of a single species and cause the population to evolve into a completely different species... but even then the length of time would cause this to be a completely impractical experiment. Perhaps impractical to the point of impossibility. In fact, looking at the fossil records, the number of species currently on this planet has shrunk massively since the creation of the fossils themselves. In this author's opinion, this would be well more in keeping with the laws of thermodynamics (specifically the third law) than any kind of macroevolutionary hypothesis. To be more specific, I am not arguing with the idea of the diversification of species and Microevolution (because it would be as foolish as geocentrism to argue so), but I am arguing with the idea of Macroevolutionary theory such as Darwin, Dawkins, and others consistently argue.
So, everyone in the origins argument needs to get a life... because neither side is scientific by any sense of the word.
It is very true that Evolutionary theory does not countermand any kind of theistic belief... however, it is constantly used to do so-- hence the Pavlov-type reaction in my fellow theists to the notion. The grand problem with Nontheistic (undirected) evolution is that we have been left entirely to chance, which means that David didn't know what he was talking about when he said that God "knit (him) together in (his) mother's womb". The problem with Theistic (directed) Evolution is that if God has the power to create the world from scratch, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that He created it in six days with a "back story" either. With the estrangement of "Intelligent Design" adherents in the academic community, it would seem that scientists are very vehement about pushing theists out from among them... even if they believe in Theistic evolution.
On a personal note, I would claim that God created an "old earth"... but that is just me.
Adam
_____________________________
I am hyena, Jesus is my Mufasa...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: unbelievers? - 9/19/2008 5:40:36 AM
|
|
|
Real_Solitude
Posts: 373
Joined: 5/9/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FurGodWurLivin
An "unbiased study of religion" that went any deeper than the superficial would not reveal Trinitarianism as Polytheistic.
Some of the greatest Religio-philosophical minds in history have sought to delve into the mystery of the trinity, and none have come up with anything that touches the reality of it. The trinitarian doctrine holds that God is three persons in one being, while still being three persons. You can make a veritable casserole of all the various analogies of what the Trinity looks like, but the fact is that it is beyond human comprehension. The New Testament authors did not attempt to make comprehensvely deep explanations of the belief, they merely said that it was. This is why it is referred to as a great mystery.
That being said, I would contest that Trinitarianism is Polytheistic. Not only would it conflict with the Judaistic roots of Christianity (what with Jesus being Jewish, that's kind of important), but it would also conflict with the "Eccumenical church councils" themselves.
In Hinduism, there are various gods that are worshiped. Brahma, Shiva, Shakti, and Vishnu are the gods that various sects of Hindus worship. All of these gods, however, are said to be part of the "Supreme spirit," Brahman, who is a 'Supreme Being' who possesses personality, and they also worship Brahman as an individual.
So, basically, Brahman has a distinct personality, and Brahma, Shiva, Shakti, and Vishnu all have distinct personalities, and yet all of them are part of Brahman, without being part of each other.
Sound familiar?
The greater majority of Christians reject the notion that the Trinity is a form of soft polytheism, while happily accepting that Hinduism is. Yet the Trinity doctrine basically states that there is God, who has a distinct personality, and that there is also the Son, the Father, and the Holy Spirit that also all have distinct personalities, yet are all part of God without being part of each other. These separate parts are even worshiped individually by many Christians as aspects of God, as are Shiva, Brahma, etc... by Hindus.
To take an unbiased look at Christianity in comparison to other religions, you must (or should) have someone who themselves does not believe the doctrine of the religions they are comparing. It really doesn't matter what the authors intended, or what the roots of the religion are. What matters is what the people of the religion actually espouse they believe. People who take an outside look at the Trinity generally agree that it is a form of soft polytheism in the same manner that Hinduism is.
quote:
Evolution is a fact, we can observe changes in populations. You could argue that this is not a perfect process, but that doesn't change the fact that it happens.
Evolutionary theory is the explanation for the fact of evolution. The generals of the theory are well supported. All of the major branches of life can be traced back to early life. Many specific branches of life (including humanity) have quite well defined origins supported by extensive fossil records.
Addendum, Microevolution is a fact. Yes, there is a diversification of species (through both inbreeding and natural selection), but Macroevolutionary changes between individual species is as yet unproven. Darwin's hallmark observation of the Finch population does show limited adaptability within special boundaries, but there is a reason there hasn't been a single non-discredited "transitional form" found in the bountiful fossil record. In fact, last I had heard, the only fossils that were being looked at as possible "missing links" were either double fossils (one organism fossilizing over another), or entirely seperate species that are now extinct.
We have witnessed many instances of a population splitting in two and become too diverse to reproduce. We have seen animals lose and gain whole organs.
There is no scientific difference between 'micro' and 'macro' evolution than time. (The terms 'micro' and 'macro' are not usually recognized as valid due to this fact.) In order for there to be a difference, there would have to be some regulation keeping evolutionary forces from changing the 'kind' of creature while allowing for changes within the species. There is no such regulation. Evolution acts on all parts of the genetic code equally.
The question I have for you is, transitional forms discredited by who?
Here (link) is a video (starting from 2:44 or so) containing a list of transitionals from jawless fish to humans. This is by no means a complete list, but is just a small glimpse of how complete the fossil record is.
We have (if I remember correctly) roughly two dozen different species between primates and humans found in the fossil record. This leaves us with a nearly flawless record of our species history back to our common ancestor with the other apes.
Within sciences concerned with such things (biology, paleontology, genetics, etc..) there is no real dispute on this issue. The evidence clearly points to 'macro' evolution.
quote:
As for the DNA argument, it would make a massive amount of sense that similar characteristics have similar DNA patterns... especially because DNA is controlling factor in physical appearance and body structure. Rather than these DNA necessarily being "related", I would be more than willing to believe that they are similar due to God creating similar body structures.
That's only for useful DNA though. Offer an explanation for why endogenous retrovirus' (ERVs) are placed in the exact same locations in both human and chimp DNA.
ERVs occur when a virus infects a cell (I believe it must be an egg or sperm cell, but I'm not positive). If the viral code malfunctions and fails to act, it essentially becomes a useless piece of genetic code embedded in the DNA of the cell. If that code is then transmitted to the descendants of the infected creature. These can then be used to track ancestry, because only creatures with common ancestors will have common ERVs. There are (I believe) 26 of these that we share with Chimps. And no, this can't be coincidence. The insertion of an ERV is random. This makes the likelihood of the same viral code being inserted in two separate species almost nil. The fact that we share 26 is clear evidence for a human-chimp ancestry link.
quote:
However, we have an even bigger problem to hunt down... the fact that the evolutionary explanations of the origins of life are just as completely unscientific as the creationist one. Why? Because science is interested in facts that are testable, and, by extension, provable. It is absolutely impossible to prove for a fact that all species evolved from a single species. Why? Because it would have happened an uber-long time ago when (A) there were no writing tools and (B) there were no humans to observe it. In order to be proven, you would have to take a couple specimens of a single species and cause the population to evolve into a completely different species... but even then the length of time would cause this to be a completely impractical experiment. Perhaps impractical to the point of impossibility. In fact, looking at the fossil records, the number of species currently on this planet has shrunk massively since the creation of the fossils themselves. In this author's opinion, this would be well more in keeping with the laws of thermodynamics (specifically the third law) than any kind of macroevolutionary hypothesis. To be more specific, I am not arguing with the idea of the diversification of species and Microevolution (because it would be as foolish as geocentrism to argue so), but I am arguing with the idea of Macroevolutionary theory such as Darwin, Dawkins, and others consistently argue.
The third law states that, "As a system approaches absolute zero, all processes cease and the entropy of the system approaches a minimum value."
This also only applies to a closed system. Earth is not a closed system.
We have evolved separate species from a single species. We have also observed this in nature. Species are differentiated (usually) by the ability to reproduce with viable offspring. We have differentiated various forms of drosophila so that they can no longer reproduce. Perhaps you meant Genus?
Indirect observation is a valid form of scientific knowledge. One does not have to directly observe an event to know what happened. We can look at the indirect evidence for many things to determine what is happening, or what happened in the past. We do not have to individually mutate every species (And could not, because the environment would not be the same). We can, however, take the information that is available (DNA, Mitochondrial DNA, Paleontology, etc...) and derive a theory from them.
In order to test such a theory, it must make a prediction that is then verified. Evolutionary theory has been used to predict where, and at what depth, we will find intermediate fossil forms. This has been done many times.
quote:
The grand problem with Nontheistic (undirected) evolution is that we have been left entirely to chance, which means that David didn't know what he was talking about when he said that God "knit (him) together in (his) mother's womb".
Chance in what manner? The universe functions on sets of rules. Everything that followed the big bang was the result of the initial conditions. Essentially determinism.
Evolution itself is an essentially non-random process, with fitness always being selected for.
Further, even in a theistic viewpoint, determinism remains true. If God is omniscient, then things can only happen in the way that God foresees. If this is true, every action was determined from the beginning of creation. Just by setting up the big bang, God would have destined David to be born.
Since we know all about embryonic development, and that it doesn't require any outside help from a supernatural being, the idea that a person is literally knit together is quite absurd.
quote:
The problem with Theistic (directed) Evolution is that if God has the power to create the world from scratch, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that He created it in six days with a "back story" either. With the estrangement of "Intelligent Design" adherents in the academic community, it would seem that scientists are very vehement about pushing theists out from among them... even if they believe in Theistic evolution.
On a personal note, I would claim that God created an "old earth"... but that is just me.
"Beyond the realm of possibility," doesn't dictate what must have happened. The evidence point to evolution being true, and to an old earth/universe being true. Personally, I've always wondered why any theist would reject the idea that God started it all of an basically left it alone. A god who creates ex nihilo is much less impressive that one who sets up a chain of events that leads to the desired result. It's difference between someone simply programming Windows XP, and someone setting up a much simpler program that eventually forms into Windows XP.
The problem with the idea that God (referring only to the Judeo-Christian one here) made a new earth that looks old is that, if you accept the premise that God does not lie, then you must take it literally when the Bible says that "God is not the author of confusion."
If God is not the author of confusion, this invalidates the idea of him creating an old Earth. This is because, if he created an old Earth, then the evidence will lead us to believe that it is old. If he then says that he created it not but 6-10k years ago, then this leads to a conflict; confusion.
No one is pushing theists from the scientific community. They're pushing ID advocates from the scientific community. ID is a non-science. It has no supporting evidence, is not demonstrable, and is not testable. This is the reason that its vocal advocates are being pushed out of the academic and scientific communities. It is because ID is contrary to science, and yet is being pushed to be taught as science. If ID proponents would provide evidence for their claims, and submit it for peer-review, then the scientific community would be more accepting.
Ken Miller is a very prominent Theistic Evolutionist, and opponent of ID. No one in the scientific community is attempting to push him out. This is because he does science, whatever he may believe theologically.
_____________________________
"Instead of feeling alone in a group its better to have real solitude all by yourself."
~Faye Valentine
|
|
|
|
|
RE: unbelievers? - 9/21/2008 6:50:32 AM
|
|
|
FurGodWurLivin
Posts: 829
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
|
quote:
In Hinduism, there are various gods that are worshiped. Brahma, Shiva, Shakti, and Vishnu are the gods that various sects of Hindus worship. All of these gods, however, are said to be part of the "Supreme spirit," Brahman, who is a 'Supreme Being' who possesses personality, and they also worship Brahman as an individual. Which is not the theosophical case of Trinitarian Christianity. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three persons who have a singular identity. They are not "lesser Gods" comprising parts of a higher "Supreme Being" such as Shiva is to Brahman. Rather, they ARE the Supreme Being. The Trinitarian position is that there are "Three in One while still being Three". The Hiduist position is that there are "many who are part of the One over all." This is what I meant when I spoke of the Trinity being a grand mystery because there is nothing equivalent to it in all Philosophy or other religions.quote:
People who take an outside look at the Trinity generally agree that it is a form of soft polytheism in the same manner that Hinduism is. Because you are trusting the opinion of those who don't believe the doctrine and have no real reason to do an indepth theosophical study of it, I'm not surprised you think so. There are many men who agree with the Trinitarian foundation that have done studies on the topic and written entire books on it. Grudem, Wright, Tennent, Augustine... just to name a few.quote:
We have witnessed many instances of a population splitting in two and become too diverse to reproduce. We have seen animals lose and gain whole organs. And guess what... we've seen the exact same thing happen due to extreme inbreeding in both midieval Europe and the hills of Kentucky. This isn't really evolution as much as it is genetic science (Read: recessive genes). If there isn't diversification of the genetic pool, the population suffers traumatic changes, such as losing the ability to reproduce. This alone should be a severe argument against the idea of "positronic mutations".quote:
There is no scientific difference between 'micro' and 'macro' evolution than time. Incorrect. Microevolution allows for small characteristical differences within certain boundaries whereas Macroevolution is the changing of an entire popluation into an entirely different genus. If you isolate a population of Apes in a zoo, I would put money that that population will never become humans without an interspersion of human DNA (aka, abberant cross-breeding).quote:
There is no such regulation. Evolution acts on all parts of the genetic code equally. So basically, Time is God. With Time, all things are possible, right?quote:
The question I have for you is, transitional forms discredited by who?
Here (link) is a video (starting from 2:44 or so) containing a list of transitionals from jawless fish to humans. This is by no means a complete list, but is just a small glimpse of how complete the fossil record is.
We have (if I remember correctly) roughly two dozen different species between primates and humans found in the fossil record. This leaves us with a nearly flawless record of our species history back to our common ancestor with the other apes. I will be quite honest. I have not studied the fossil record since High School. As such, I am not currently equipped to debate recent findings. I would point to examples such as "Nebraska Man" (formulating an entire "missing link" from a tooth of a pig) as how scientists can allow themselves to be carried away by their excitement.quote:
Within sciences concerned with such things (biology, paleontology, genetics, etc..) there is no real dispute on this issue. The evidence clearly points to 'macro' evolution. Actually, there is a dispute on the issue. That is why we are having this discussion at all. Global Warming activists use the exact same tactic when presenting their "arguments" about how the earth is going to freeze over in 30 years.quote:
Offer an explanation for why endogenous retrovirus' (ERVs) are placed in the exact same locations in both human and chimp DNA. Quite simply, sir. Similar characteristics between two species would lead to similar weaknesses and susceptibility to the same type of viruses. Remember, there are a limited number of amino acids, which means that quite a bit of DNA is going to contain similar information. Similar weaknesses will lead to the same problems in the same places. It isn't a big difficulty. So here is the question. Are these similarities necessarily pointing to a similar ancestor, or are they pointing to a common origin (ie, God)?quote:
Earth is not a closed system. Based on the unprovable Flux Theory, yes, Earth is not a closed system. However, the Bible says that the current earth is going to end, and that it had a definite beginning. So our current rendition of earth, at least, is a closed system. You would have to prove that our universe is the mere spawn of past universes before the "open system" argument remotely makes sense. Otherwise, we still have zero explanation for how we got here. Cause-and-effect is scientific logic 101.quote:
We can, however, take the information that is available (DNA, Mitochondrial DNA, Paleontology, etc...) and derive a theory from them. Okay... pull out a chess board. Put a king on one of the border squares. Then put that king in checkmate using three pieces (in no particular order). Now... looking at that chessboard, can you give a reverse play-by-play of exactly what happened? Of course not. However, that is the very game that evolutionary theory plays. When I was in High school, they said the earth was probably about 4-5 billion years old. Now we are over 13 billion. However, given the current rate of contraction of the sun (five feet an hour) at 13 billion years ago the earth was inside the sun. That doesn't sound hospitible for life of any kind.quote:
Chance in what manner? The universe functions on sets of rules. Everything that followed the big bang was the result of the initial conditions. Essentially determinism.
Evolution itself is an essentially non-random process, with fitness always being selected for. Except that natural selection is based on a variety of factors such as environment and an already living population. So now we are having to assume tha "Evolution" was able to select the fitness of species of animals based on an, at some point, non-existant environment (because plants hadn't come around yet). Some of those first atoms became plants and some became animals... even though both are carbon based life forms? Aside from severe genetic tampering from the outside, atoms don't shift from being ambulatory life forms to nonambulatory life forms, or vice versa. You are having to assume an awful lot to come up with a decent theory. I believe it was William Jennings Bryant who said that the creationist had to only make one assumption... "God".quote:
Further, even in a theistic viewpoint, determinism remains true. If God is omniscient, then things can only happen in the way that God foresees. If this is true, every action was determined from the beginning of creation. Just by setting up the big bang, God would have destined David to be born. You are using a very poor definition of foreknowledge. "Foreknowledge does not equate forebearance"-- Arminius. God knowing "ABC" is going to happen does not mean that He forced "ABC" to occur. Next!quote:
Since we know all about embryonic development Unless you are Barack Obama... quote:
Personally, I've always wondered why any theist would reject the idea that God started it all of an basically left it alone You wonder why Christians reject open theism? Because the Bible specifically relates a tale of a God who is intricately involved with the day to day operations of the world.quote:
A god who creates ex nihilo is much less impressive that one who sets up a chain of events that leads to the desired result. Based on what? Which is more impressive... a clock that mechanically keeps ticking, or the Sisteen Chapel? I'm endlessly impressed by a God who says "let there be..." and there is. My words don't carry that kind of power. If God is all-powerful, then it is not inconcievable or even intellecutally offensive that the earth was created in six days. Why? Because God is all-powerful. If He can do as He pleases, anything is truly possible.quote:
It's difference between someone simply programming Windows XP, and someone setting up a much simpler program that eventually forms into Windows XP. Except that both require an extremely intelligent individual who knows the in's and out's of how computer programs operate. Unless the evolution of XP was a joyful accident, I see that as no more impressive than simply programming XP. Why? Because the programmer knew exactly how the various programs were going to operate. Sorry to knock some of the glimmer off of computer programming for you, but programs are mere sets of electronic switches that open and close. Since the programmer has to know what switches will do what to actually accomplish anything useful, I don't see an "evolved XP" as any more important or impressive as XP itself actually is.quote:
The problem with the idea that God (referring only to the Judeo-Christian one here) made a new earth that looks old is that, if you accept the premise that God does not lie, then you must take it literally when the Bible says that "God is not the author of confusion."
If God is not the author of confusion, this invalidates the idea of him creating an old Earth. This is because, if he created an old Earth, then the evidence will lead us to believe that it is old. If he then says that he created it not but 6-10k years ago, then this leads to a conflict; confusion.
Except you are befuddling the definitions of "confusion" and "lie". Aside from the miscontextualization of the verse you are using, we need to remember that the very same volume in which that verse is found says that "It is the glory of God to hide a thing, and the glory of a King to search it out." Consider this, even if you managed to simulate life artificially in a laboratory, it would have been done by a highly intelligent scientist using very precise equipment... not exactly the random chance happening envisioned by modern Darwinists.quote:
ID is a non-science. It has no supporting evidence, is not demonstrable, and is not testable. Neither is modern evolutionary theory. Try getting a straight answer on how the first life form appeared. Try getting a straight answer on where the various inorganic materials that formed the Big Bang came from. It's surprisingly imaginitive. As for supporting evidenc... try the Mysterium Tremendum... that is supporting evidence.
Adam
_____________________________
I am hyena, Jesus is my Mufasa...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: unbelievers? - 9/22/2008 5:28:06 AM
|
|
|
Real_Solitude
Posts: 373
Joined: 5/9/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FurGodWurLivin
Which is not the theosophical case of Trinitarian Christianity. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three persons who have a singular identity. They are not "lesser Gods" comprising parts of a higher "Supreme Being" such as Shiva is to Brahman. Rather, they ARE the Supreme Being. The Trinitarian position is that there are "Three in One while still being Three". The Hiduist position is that there are "many who are part of the One over all." This is what I meant when I spoke of the Trinity being a grand mystery because there is nothing equivalent to it in all Philosophy or other religions.
While this doesn't apply to all of Hinduism, there is a faction of Hinduism called Trimurti.
"Trimurti, meaning "having three forms", is the term applied to the three main Hindu gods: Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. This Trimurti or triad represents all aspects of the Supreme Being. The Trimurti is depicted as a single-bodied, three-headed man. This symbolizes the fact that the three forms are aspects of one Supreme Being. Nothing in the universe is created, preserved, or destroyed without the mutual agreement and approval of the three aspects of the Supreme Being, for they are unitedly essential for the production and reproduction of all forms of life "
The three aspects are not viewed as "lesser" or subservient, but as aspects of Brahman.
Because you are trusting the opinion of those who don't believe the doctrine and have no real reason to do an indepth theosophical study of it, I'm not surprised you think so. There are many men who agree with the Trinitarian foundation that have done studies on the topic and written entire books on it. Grudem, Wright, Tennent, Augustine... just to name a few.
All of whom you name (from what I could find) have an inside view of the religion. This doesn't help us at all when offering comparisons and similarities to other religions, in order to properly classify the religion in question. In order to do that, we have a field of study dubbed, unsurprisingly, comparative religion.
It does not matter if one believes what the religion offers as long as all of the same information is available to them. Religion is a big player in world affairs. An unbiased assessment of the various belief systems, and a comparison of them, are the only reasons needed to do in depth studies into various world religions. These have been done, and many of them suggest that the Trinity is a form of soft polytheism in the same vein as Hinduism.
quote:
We have witnessed many instances of a population splitting in two and become too diverse to reproduce. We have seen animals lose and gain whole organs. And guess what... we've seen the exact same thing happen due to extreme inbreeding in both midieval Europe and the hills of Kentucky. This isn't really evolution as much as it is genetic science (Read: recessive genes). If there isn't diversification of the genetic pool, the population suffers traumatic changes, such as losing the ability to reproduce. This alone should be a severe argument against the idea of "positronic mutations".
Except that this isn't in populations with a non-viable number. (Read, they don't inbreed). I'm not talking about losing the ability to reproduce within the population, but losing the ability to reproduce with another branch of their own population.
E.g: Take a population of drosophila and split it in two populations that are each viable. Add new environmental selective pressures to population 1, keep population 2 able to breed with the greater world of drosophila. Wait.
After X period of time, population 1 will still be able to breed with population 1, and population 2 will still be able to breed with population 2, but population 1 will not be able to breed with population 2.
We've seen this many times in the lab, and in the field.
P.S.
I have no idea what a "Positronic mutation," is, and neither does Google.
quote:
There is no scientific difference between 'micro' and 'macro' evolution than time. Incorrect. Microevolution allows for small characteristical differences within certain boundaries whereas Macroevolution is the changing of an entire popluation into an entirely dif | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
