|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/7/2008 7:17:44 PM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 1961
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltesquote:
quote:
That argument against a young universe is as bogus as a three-dollar bill.
Without changing the subject, please explain why this argument is bogus.
Perhaps you need a course in reading comprehension because I already did.
The argument is a two edged sword. The speed of light is the heart of the argument. In order for the BBT to be valid light must have traveled over 30 billion light years in less than 15 billion years. The argument is bogus because those who use the speed of light to justify disbelief in a 6,000 year old universe deny the other edge of the same sword which blows their own belief in a 15 billon year old universe out of the water.
IOW, if you believe that light can travel over 30 billion light years in less than 15 billion years it is bogus to argue that light can’t travel 15 billion light years in less than 6,000 years.
So, essentially, being off by a factor of 2 is equivalent to being off by a factor of 2.5 million. Is that what you're arguing? One is within the realm of not-there-yet-but-on-the-right-track while the other is completely out of the ballpark.
And, as you've pointed out, BB has a potential solution its problem. What's the answer to your problem?
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/7/2008 7:40:03 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 859
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
Evolution is scientifically bankrupt BECAUSE it is void of ANY empirical support.
That's a lie.
Evidence
quote:
I fail to see ANY empirical support for evolution presented in either of those threads.
Another lie. You have stated that you reject any evidence that supports evolution. Period. It is not a failure but an effort to ignore any and all evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/7/2008 8:09:35 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1062
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltesquote:
quote:
That argument against a young universe is as bogus as a three-dollar bill.
Without changing the subject, please explain why this argument is bogus.
Perhaps you need a course in reading comprehension because I already did.
You changed the subject.
Without changing the subject, please explain why this argument is bogus. Pointing at the BBT has nothing to do with this argument and a 6000 year old earth.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/7/2008 8:11:45 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
ORIGINAL:gluadysquote:
quote:
Look HERE. If you read THIS THREAD it is obvious that my prediction was right on the mark.
Only in your own eyes.
Evolution is scientifically bankrupt BECAUSE it is void of ANY empirical support. I fail to see ANY empirical support for evolution presented in either of those threads. Please feel free to cite the empirical support for evolution presented in either of those threads that my eyes have overlooked.
I the "empirical evidence" thread, you were referred in post 3 to the talk origins archive. Your response was:
quote:
I have already read a lot of the nonsense at talkorigins, but didn’t find the least bit of empirical evidence supporting evolution. Maybe you could give me a specific cite from talkorigins providing empirical support for evolution that I must have overlooked.
This suggests to me that you do not recognize empirical evidence when it is presented to you.
Here is a paragraph from their "Introduction to Evolutionary Biology"
quote:
The cellular machinery that copies DNA sometimes makes mistakes. These mistakes alter the sequence of a gene. This is called a mutation. There are many kinds of mutations. A point mutation is a mutation in which one "letter" of the genetic code is changed to another. Lengths of DNA can also be deleted or inserted in a gene; these are also mutations. Finally, genes or parts of genes can become inverted or duplicated. Typical rates of mutation are between 10-10 and 10-12 mutations per base pair of DNA per generation.
Perhaps you would like to explain why it is not empirical evidence for evolution?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/7/2008 8:26:56 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
ORIGINAL:gluadysquote:
quote:
Look HERE. If you read THIS THREAD it is obvious that my prediction was right on the mark.
Only in your own eyes.
Evolution is scientifically bankrupt BECAUSE it is void of ANY empirical support. I fail to see ANY empirical support for evolution presented in either of those threads. Please feel free to cite the empirical support for evolution presented in either of those threads that my eyes have overlooked.
I see a thread chalk full of evidence that you refuse to acknowledge or explain. You simply fall back on one of your feeble canned responses, like "oh that just points to a common designer".
But if you want to compare threads, how bout my Evidence for a young earth thread... it's not looking good for YEC over there. It seems that the YEC's wont put their money where their mouth is.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/7/2008 8:36:12 PM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 903
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:methodquote:
quote:
I fail to see ANY empirical support for evolution presented in either of those threads.
Another lie.
You keep calling me a liar while distorting what I said. Can you say hypocrite? If my statement is a lie all you need do to prove it’s a lie is cite the empirical support presented in either of those threads. You can’t do it because there is NONE there to cite.
quote:
You have stated that you reject any evidence that supports evolution. Period.
This is a complete distortion of what I have said. Do you not consider distorting another’s words lying?
What I have said is that I reject INTERPRETATIONS that contradict Scripture. I stated also that evolution has absolutely NO EMPIRICAL support.
IOW, I reject evolution for two distinct reasons. I reject evolution on a scientific basis because it has absolutely NO empirical support and reject evolution on a theological basis because it contradicts Scripture.
Please quit trying to drag me into a contest of insults and try to prove my position wrong.
Refute my scientific rejection by presenting empirical support for evolution. In spite of multiple request by drmark and myself NO ONE has provided even one shred of empirical support for evolution. Until someone does my position that evolution fails as a scientific theory stands.
Refute my theological rejection of evolution by presenting Scriptural support for evolution. ALL of the Scripture I have seen regarding origins is diametrically opposed to evolution.
BTW, talkorigins 29 supposed proofs of evolution is a thoroughly refuted JOKE.
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/7/2008 9:16:50 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
ORIGINAL:methodquote:
quote:
I fail to see ANY empirical support for evolution presented in either of those threads.
Another lie.
You keep calling me a liar while distorting what I said. Can you say hypocrite? If my statement is a lie all you need do to prove it’s a lie is cite the empirical support presented in either of those threads. You can’t do it because there is NONE there to cite.
quote:
You have stated that you reject any evidence that supports evolution. Period.
This is a complete distortion of what I have said. Do you not consider distorting another’s words lying?
What I have said is that I reject INTERPRETATIONS that contradict Scripture. I stated also that evolution has absolutely NO EMPIRICAL support.
IOW, I reject evolution for two distinct reasons. I reject evolution on a scientific basis because it has absolutely NO empirical support and reject evolution on a theological basis because it contradicts Scripture.
Please quit trying to drag me into a contest of insults and try to prove my position wrong.
Refute my scientific rejection by presenting empirical support for evolution. In spite of multiple request by drmark and myself NO ONE has provided even one shred of empirical support for evolution. Until someone does my position that evolution fails as a scientific theory stands.
Refute my theological rejection of evolution by presenting Scriptural support for evolution. ALL of the Scripture I have seen regarding origins is diametrically opposed to evolution.
BTW, talkorigins 29 supposed proofs of evolution is a thoroughly refuted JOKE.
You should read the refutation of the "refutation": http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/7/2008 9:24:46 PM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 903
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:drj11quote:
quote:
Evolution is scientifically bankrupt BECAUSE it is void of ANY empirical support. I fail to see ANY empirical support for evolution presented in either of those threads. Please feel free to cite the empirical support for evolution presented in either of those threads that my eyes have overlooked.
I see a thread chalk full of evidence that you refuse to acknowledge or explain.
In that case you should have no difficulty citing the empirical support I have refused to acknowledge. Please do so. If you don’t then you are just blowing hot air.
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/7/2008 10:07:39 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 859
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
You keep calling me a liar while distorting what I said.
Let's see it again, shall we?
"What I reject are the interpretations that contradict Scripture."
You reject any and all evidence which can be interpretted as supporting evolution.
quote:
If my statement is a lie all you need do to prove it’s a lie is cite the empirical support presented in either of those threads. You can’t do it because there is NONE there to cite.
Once again.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
quote:
This is a complete distortion of what I have said. Do you not consider distorting another’s words lying?
I have not distorted your words. You are a liar.
quote:
What I have said is that I reject INTERPRETATIONS that contradict Scripture. I stated also that evolution has absolutely NO EMPIRICAL support.
Evidence and interpretation are one in the same. The theory of evolution predicts that one should observe a nested hierarchy. Orthologous ERV's form a nested hierarchy. Therefore, orthologous ERV's are evidence of evolution. Period. The theory can still be wrong, and you can certainly try to argue that if you want. However, to claim that there is no evidence supporting the theory is an outright lie.
quote:
I reject evolution on a scientific basis because it has absolutely NO empirical support
That is a lie. You are a liar.
quote:
Please quit trying to drag me into a contest of insults and try to prove my position wrong.
I have proven you to be a liar.
quote:
Refute my scientific rejection by presenting empirical support for evolution.
Already have.
quote:
In spite of multiple request by drmark and myself NO ONE has provided even one shred of empirical support for evolution.
Another lie.
quote:
Refute my theological rejection of evolution by presenting Scriptural support for evolution.
Your religious dogma is your problem.
quote:
BTW, talkorigins 29 supposed proofs of evolution is a thoroughly refuted JOKE.
No, it's not. Now I have you on record as rejecting evidence outright. My case is proven.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/8/2008 9:32:37 AM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 903
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:methodquote:
quote:
"What I reject are the interpretations that contradict Scripture."
You reject any and all evidence which can be interpretted as supporting evolution.
I sure would be a welcome break if you would quit distorting what I say. I fear that is asking too much though.
I DO NOT REJECT EVIDENCE. I REJECT INTERPRETATIONS THAT CONTRADICT SCRIPTURE.
It seems you don’t understand the difference between evidence and interpretation. That goes a long way toward explaining why you believe in evolution.
quote:
Evidence and interpretation are one in the same.
There was no need to make that statement. I already surmised you incapable of telling the difference.
quote:
quote:
If my statement is a lie all you need do to prove it’s a lie is cite the empirical support presented in either of those threads. You can’t do it because there is NONE there to cite.
Once again.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
IOW, you could not find the least bit of empirical evidence on either of the threads, so rather than admit that calling me a liar is bogus you will try a distraction maneuver.
Once again, 29 evolution-based interpretations do not constitute empirical support.
quote:
quote:
This is a complete distortion of what I have said. Do you not consider distorting another’s words lying?
I have not distorted your words. You are a liar.
You were unable to substantiate your accusation so you just keep making it. You need to be looking in the mirror when you make your accusations.
All you want to do is drag me into a contest of insults. Rather than lower myself to your standards I will not respond to any more of your posts. Bye.
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/8/2008 6:59:45 PM
|
|
|
ianz
Posts: 271
Joined: 12/22/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
ORIGINAL:methodquote:
quote:
"What I reject are the interpretations that contradict Scripture."
You reject any and all evidence which can be interpretted as supporting evolution.
I sure would be a welcome break if you would quit distorting what I say. I fear that is asking too much though.
I DO NOT REJECT EVIDENCE. I REJECT INTERPRETATIONS THAT CONTRADICT SCRIPTURE.
It seems you don’t understand the difference between evidence and interpretation.
I must say I am a little confused. If a red car is parked on your street, but the Bible says that red cars do not exist, are you not rejecting the evidence that a red car is on your street?
Regards, Ian
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/8/2008 7:35:40 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 859
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
I sure would be a welcome break if you would quit distorting what I say. I fear that is asking too much though.
I DO NOT REJECT EVIDENCE. I REJECT INTERPRETATIONS THAT CONTRADICT SCRIPTURE.
Humans and other apes have sequences that mirror viral genes within their genomes. These viruses insert themselves into DNA in order to replicate. Therefore, these endogenized viral sequences indicate a viral insertion into a gamete that was involved in producing an offspring. Does any of this contradict scripture? No. Is this a valid interpretation of DNA sequence? Yes.
The theory of evolution states that orthologous endogenous retroviral insertions (ERV's) should fall into nested hierarcy for species that share a common ancestor and have gone through the process of evolution. Do orthologous ERV's fall into a nested hierarchy? Yes they do. This is a valid interpretation.
How is this not evidence of evolution when the theory predicts exactly what we find in sequenced and newly sequenced genomes?
quote:
It seems you don’t understand the difference between evidence and interpretation.
Valid interpretations of the evidence are independent of evolution. If we did not even have the theory of evolution we would still find that orthologous ERV's fall into a nested hierarchy. You reject this evidence for no other reason than it's contradiction with scripture. It is a lie to claim that this is not evidence for evolution due to the FACT that the theory predicts the pattern of orthologous ERV's, even those that have not yet been sequenced.
quote:
Once again, 29 evolution-based interpretations do not constitute empirical support.
That is a lie.
quote:
You were unable to substantiate your accusation so you just keep making it.
Given the fact that you continue to reject evidence out of hand it would seem that my accusations are well founded.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/8/2008 10:27:44 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
I get it all right. It is quite obvious though that you don’t. Augustine said that it is foolish to try to convince an unbeliever, i.e. one who rejects the validity of Scripture, that his perceptions of the physical world are wrong by quoting Scripture.
I really think you missed the blatantly obvious point in that quote. I wish I could say I was surprised. Perhaps you should re-read part of the quote. You'll see it doesnt really mesh with your interpretation:
Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided (ie, the creationist in modern times), but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men...
He's saying its a shame when Christians try and profess scripture, make ridiculous false assertions (ie Creationism) , and make themselves and the entire religion look foolish. He's saying that it damages Christianity and simply serves to turn people away from it. What an extremely wise man, if you ask me.
quote:
There are two MAJOR flaws in your reasoning.
First. you are calling gluadys an unbeliever, i.e. not a Christian.
Gluadys professes to be a Christian and that is not for me to judge. Therefore, when I quote Scripture to gluadys I am not “quoting Scripture to an unbeliever”.
Second, I quote Scripture to gluadys to convince him of his doctrinal error. That doesn’t fit Augustine’s quote that you are trying to hammer me with.
This is all irrelevant to the point. The relevant nuggets of the quote didn't have much to do with unbelievers, but of those believers who misunderstand and misappropriate scripture to be scientific authority.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/9/2008 4:18:56 PM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 903
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:iluvatarquote:
So, essentially, being off by a factor of 2 is equivalent to being off by a factor of 2.5 million. Is that what you're arguing?
Nope. I am saying that arguing that a particular phenomena supports your view over another's view when it also contradicts your view is a bogus argument.
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/11/2008 8:33:27 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 859
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
Nope. I am saying that arguing that a particular phenomena supports your view over another's view when it also contradicts your view is a bogus argument.
Where are the contradictions in the evidence that I have presented, such as the relative luminosity of type Ia supernovae and the nested hierarchy of orthologous ERV's?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/12/2008 9:58:40 PM
|
|
|
draexo
Posts: 504
Joined: 1/26/2007
From: Saratoga County, New York
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ianz
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
ORIGINAL:methodquote:
quote:
"What I reject are the interpretations that contradict Scripture."
You reject any and all evidence which can be interpretted as supporting evolution.
I sure would be a welcome break if you would quit distorting what I say. I fear that is asking too much though.
I DO NOT REJECT EVIDENCE. I REJECT INTERPRETATIONS THAT CONTRADICT SCRIPTURE.
It seems you don’t understand the difference between evidence and interpretation.
I must say I am a little confused. If a red car is parked on your street, but the Bible says that red cars do not exist, are you not rejecting the evidence that a red car is on your street?
Regards, Ian
Maybe I'm color blind?
_____________________________
The truth will set you free!
TRUTH
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/14/2008 7:18:25 AM
|
|
|
ianz
Posts: 271
Joined: 12/22/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: draexo
quote:
ORIGINAL: ianz
I must say I am a little confused. If a red car is parked on your street, but the Bible says that red cars do not exist, are you not rejecting the evidence that a red car is on your street?
Regards, Ian
Maybe I'm color blind?
Precisely. Ne'er a truer word was spoken!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/14/2008 11:12:45 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
But, don't stop there, ianz. The most important point is that being color-blind is the very best condition, the highest station, the most moral position that one can have - in this illustration.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/15/2008 10:23:52 PM
|
|
|
ianz
Posts: 271
Joined: 12/22/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
But, don't stop there, ianz. The most important point is that being color-blind is the very best condition, the highest station, the most moral position that one can have - in this illustration.
This is starting to get a little silly. After all, the analogy rather requires that the observer can distinguish red from blue.
But sticking with the colour-blind answer, in this illustration, the observer's colour-blindness means that faith, not observation, tells the observer the colour of the car.
Since the observer is rendered incapable of distinguishing red from blue, they must take it on faith alone that the car is blue, because the Bible says all cars are blue, while dismissing evidence put forth by non colour-blind persons that the car is in fact red.
Regards, Ian
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/16/2008 8:24:58 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
No, Ian, the analogy breaks down because you have assumed that the only form of color-blindness must render an observer incapable of distinguishing red from blue. Another kind renders others incapable of distinguishing red from yellow. So the "evidence" put forth for red cars by this group of persons is faulty, even though they are convinced that all yellow cars are red. Thus, those that use their faith in the Bible are the ones who know the truth that there are only blue and yellow cars, because the fact is that red cars do not exist!
< Message edited by drmark -- 6/16/2008 8:31:11 AM >
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/16/2008 7:29:35 PM
|
|
|
ianz
Posts: 271
Joined: 12/22/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
No, Ian, the analogy breaks down because you have assumed that the only form of color-blindness must render an observer incapable of distinguishing red from blue. Another kind renders others incapable of distinguishing red from yellow. So the "evidence" put forth for red cars by this group of persons is faulty, even though they are convinced that all yellow cars are red. Thus, those that use their faith in the Bible are the ones who know the truth that there are only blue and yellow cars, because the fact is that red cars do not exist!
?
You are over-complicating the analogy.
The analogy was, if the Bible says that only blue cars exist, and I see a red car, then the explanation consists of two options:
1 I am mistaken (perhaps I see blue objects as red)
or
2 The Bible is wrong.
Option 2: If people who are not colour blind, and are able to distinguish red from blue, see the car as red, then I must either trust their observation, or I must trust the Bible.
Either way, it's a faith-based conclusion, and accepting what the Bible says requires the dismissal of evidence to the contrary.
Regards, Ian
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/17/2008 11:33:49 AM
|
|
|
endless_night
Posts: 82
Joined: 6/17/2008
Status: offline
|
It took me a long time to come to the conclusion that I will not go against the only persons who actually saw the world being created, who incidentally was creating it Himself.
I am well versed in Scriptures and evolution and the longer I read about evolution, the more my intellect is sure that it was God who created the world, the way He said it in Genesis and through the entire scripture.
The universe really do scream out His creation.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/17/2008 11:51:42 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Either way, it's a faith-based conclusion, and accepting what the Bible says requires the dismissal of evidence to the contrary. Totally incorrect, Ian! I dismiss NO evidence to the contrary because there is NO evidence in nature that contradicts the Bible. There are only faulty human interpretations due to the faith-based assumptions of uniformitarian naturalism that you perceive may contradict the Bible. Accepting what the Bible says is really quite easy once one eliminates her/his erroneous presuppositions and allows the Word of God to speak for Itself.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/17/2008 12:21:31 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
Hello endless_night!
quote:
I am well versed in Scriptures and evolution and the longer I read about evolution, the more my intellect is sure that it was God who created the world, the way He said it in Genesis and through the entire scripture.
I'd be interesting in your testimony -- y'know the details :)
Something interesting to note about this idea though:
quote:
The universe really do[es  ] scream out His creation.
I agree that the totality of the Universe and nature can be a powerful "sign" that God is behind it all!
However, such an idea brings up a strange question: Does nature then speak to us about who God is and how He thinks? Of course, Genesis addresses what I am getting at, but... You know, is God telling us to attack and eat one another? If "survival of the fittest" is indeed so obvious as to be a circular statement -- as in, of course, those who are better endowed to survive will stick around; that's not saying anything! -- then is God saying "might makes right?" Genesis, I believe, contends that creation has been corrupted by sin, and we cannot derive what ought to be from what in fact is.
Truly, the majesty of creation can give a believer a new dimension to his or her awe of God, but then is it true that God "speaks" through nature? That is, does He say anything specific othe rthan, "check this out!!" -- I mean, "Behold, my glory!" and "Behold! I made you a being that can apprehend the scope of my creativity!"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/17/2008 2:48:46 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Genesis, I believe, contends that creation has been corrupted by sin, and we cannot derive what ought to be from what in fact is. You believe correctly! This incredibly important point is constantly missed by all agno-atheists and often forgotten by Christian creationists. Thanks for the reminder, hhhi!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
