New film tackles evidence for evolution
- Thread starter Stripe
- Start date
- Status
Jose Fly
New member
Then the OT clearly depicts an immoral "god".
Only if you ignore the words.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I will see what I can arrange with Knight. He does have a stated rule that these One-on-Ones must conclude within two weeks time. That said, Knight made an exception between Hiltson and Tet that ran for months. Stay tuned.
I am thinking that we each post one opening salvo, followed by four rounds each, then one concluding post each. Word lengths of each round would limited by the maximums set by the site's software for posts. (I welcome and employ verbosity.
) The person posting first yields the "last word" (the concluding post) to the other person. So what would be your preference: the first or the last word on the matter? I am willing to give you the option of your choice.Lest we lose sight of the objective, let me re-state it:
Given that once a person believes that there is such a thing as objective reality and that there are such things objective truths, then that person has posited a metaphysical claim--namely that the correspondence theory of truth is an adequate test for truth.
Thus the question becomes, which worldview can adequately appropriate and support such a belief? It is a matter of who has the best explanation, not who can prove it objectively.
Thus the question becomes, which worldview can adequately appropriate and support such a belief? It is a matter of who has the best explanation, not who can prove it objectively.
To ensure we are on the same page, from the above I assume we agree that:
(1) objective reality exists;
(2) objective truths exist;
(3) (1) and (2) are metaphysical claims;
(4) the correspondence theory of truth is an adequate test for truth; therefore,
(5) the person who has the best explanation for these metaphysical claims prevails.
Are we in agreement?
AMR
That suits me. I ought to be able to commit to a post at least every thee days, and sometimes more quickly, I would think, so we may not even need to go past two weeks, depending on how the timing ends up.
I am thinking that we each post one opening salvo, followed by four rounds each, then one concluding post each. Word lengths of each round would limited by the maximums set by the site's software for posts. (I welcome and employ verbosity.
Well, I have a tendency toward brevity, when I can manage it, although there is a fine line between concise and terse. But I think in the interests of efficiently expressing the ideas necessary, I will try to post a little more comprehensively than is my usual.
I think that I would rather you begin, if that's alright.
Just to be clear, we are focusing generally on the nature of morality, yes?
I believe we are.
don't forget all those immoral bacteria!
:think: has anybody brought the morality of tigers up yet?
somebody should
In other words, the "verses you listed" say whatever you want them to say.
:darwinsm: Gotta love these arguments where relative morality suddenly morphs into an absolute.
Frank explains the YE approach to Biblical hermeneutics:
It seems to me that it's more than that. Declaring that God created life from nothing directly contradicts His word in Genesis.
Yes, it's a lesser adjustment to declare that when He said "very good", he meant "perfect", and changing "created according to kind" to "reproduce according to kind" is sort of in-between the two as far as changing the text is concerned.
But why do they want to change His word at all?
It seems to me that it's more than that. Declaring that God created life from nothing directly contradicts His word in Genesis.
Yes, it's a lesser adjustment to declare that when He said "very good", he meant "perfect", and changing "created according to kind" to "reproduce according to kind" is sort of in-between the two as far as changing the text is concerned.
But why do they want to change His word at all?
Evoken
New member
Rather, it is more about letting your interpretation of scripture be informed by scientific evidence (and other branches of learning) so as to have a more robust hermeneutical approach that is less prone to an erroneous reading of the text.
musterion
Well-known member
What dog do you have in that particular fight, exactly, that compels you to advise believers how they should read the Bible? You don't even believe it is what it says it is, so you have no rational reason to be genuinely concerned with anyone's hermeneutic if it doesn't threaten to harm you.
Evoken
New member
The thing is that creationists are not just holding to some private belief but are rather pushing for that view to be taught as science in schools. I don't think a Christian is needs to choose between one or the other and indeed, as one can see, there are plenty of Christians from various denominations (many of whom are scientists) who think the same; so I simply point this out as a way to show that there can be a middle way forward and that the Christian isn't forced to choose between evolution and his faith.
Evo
musterion
Well-known member
So? Do you fear honest debate?
Between evolution and "their faith," whatever that may be? Meaningless. The point of discussion is the irreconcilable dispute between evolution and the Bible during a period in history where more professing Christians have access to Bibles than ever before but the majority of them have no real use for it.
There is only one or the other. Your hypocritical help isn't needed.
Last edited:
Like the science that says the Sun cannot stand still in the sky, iron sinks and people do not rise from the dead? That science?
And there is no "interpretation." Evolution is utterly ruled out by the plain reading of scripture.
Rather, it is more about letting your interpretation of scripture be informed by scientific evidence (and other branches of learning) so as to have a more robust hermeneutical approach that is less prone to an erroneous reading of the text.
Science says none of those things. There is no privileged frame of reference, so in many frames, the Sun does indeed stand still in the sky. For example, in the heliocentric theory, it stands still, and the Earth moves. As you probably know, and as Luther pointed out, a literal reading of scripture says that the Earth does not move.
Iron might or might not sink, depending on the fluid and the forces involved, according to science.
And of course, science has nothing to say at all about miracles, neither promoting them nor denying them. That's beyond the reach of science. However, people have indeed revived after being clinically dead, so your "science" is just a collection of misconceptions.
If that were true, most Christians would favor your particular interpretation. But they don't. You got that wrong, too.
I know you want to believe that. Which is not the same thing as reality. In fact, scripture has nothing at all to say about evolution, in the same way it has nothing at all to say about protons.
It does, however rule out YE creationism for reasons you already know..
Science says none of those things. There is no privileged frame of reference, so in many frames, the Sun does indeed stand still in the sky. For example, in the heliocentric theory, it stands still, and the Earth moves. As you probably know, and as Luther pointed out, a literal reading of scripture says that the Earth does not move.
Iron might or might not sink, depending on the fluid and the forces involved, according to science.
And of course, science has nothing to say at all about miracles, neither promoting them nor denying them. That's beyond the reach of science. However, people have indeed revived after being clinically dead, so your "science" is just a collection of misconceptions.
If that were true, most Christians would favor your particular interpretation. But they don't. You got that wrong, too.
I know you want to believe that. Which is not the same thing as reality. In fact, scripture has nothing at all to say about evolution, in the same way it has nothing at all to say about protons.
It does, however rule out YE creationism for reasons you already know..
Evoken writes:
The thing is that creationists are not just holding to some private belief but are rather pushing for that view to be taught as science in schools.
Musterion gets it mixed up:
So? Do you fear honest debate?
Honesty is not teaching religion as science. Even many honest creationists admit that it's a religious belief, and not scientifically supported. If you want to teach it in a comparative religion class, it's quite legal.
On the other hand, I notice that creationist schools don't allow evolution to be taught, so I'm thinking you should clean your own house first.
We could discuss unicorns, too. But it would be unproductive for the same reason. As you see, there are no disputes between evolution and the Bible. There are some differences between YE creationism and the Bible, however.
Creationists profess to accept God's word, but they wont accept all of it.
The thing is that creationists are not just holding to some private belief but are rather pushing for that view to be taught as science in schools.
Musterion gets it mixed up:
So? Do you fear honest debate?
Honesty is not teaching religion as science. Even many honest creationists admit that it's a religious belief, and not scientifically supported. If you want to teach it in a comparative religion class, it's quite legal.
On the other hand, I notice that creationist schools don't allow evolution to be taught, so I'm thinking you should clean your own house first.
We could discuss unicorns, too. But it would be unproductive for the same reason. As you see, there are no disputes between evolution and the Bible. There are some differences between YE creationism and the Bible, however.
Creationists profess to accept God's word, but they wont accept all of it.
musterion
Well-known member
Could not be more ironic, coming from a Catholic and a leftist.
Barbarian observes:
Creationists profess to accept God's word, but they wont accept all of it.
Jesus told us the world would hate us. You're nothing original. Nor does God care about political preferences.
But the fact is, YE creationism does not fully accept God's word in Genesis. That's not debatable. They not only add their own ideas, they also deny some of God's word.
Because your beliefs are conditional on your political ideas, you have compromised on faith. Accept Him without conditions; you'll be happier and better off.
Creationists profess to accept God's word, but they wont accept all of it.
Jesus told us the world would hate us. You're nothing original. Nor does God care about political preferences.
But the fact is, YE creationism does not fully accept God's word in Genesis. That's not debatable. They not only add their own ideas, they also deny some of God's word.
Because your beliefs are conditional on your political ideas, you have compromised on faith. Accept Him without conditions; you'll be happier and better off.
- Status