Go Back   Scotland Discussion Forum > Culture > Religion and Philosophy

Notices


Is the BIBLE GOD'S word?

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Rating: Thread Rating: 2 votes, 4.00 average. Display Modes
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 6th January 2003, 18:29
ANDY-J2 ANDY-J2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,760
Tom Sawyer,
I was intrigued by your statement that Behe's Darwin's black box was a biological refutation of Darwin's theory and I think you must admit that you've been exagerating a little.Behe presents a number of examples of complex biochemistry which he declares could not have evolved but did you miss the part where he states "on a small scale Darwin's theory has triumphed".In other words in the world of intelligent design,things do evolve.Finches change the size of their beaks,HIV adapts to new hosts and of course a multitude of small changes over a long period of time adds up to big effects.He also offers no objection to the fossil record and isotopic dating which means he apparently accepts that the tree of life has branched out over the course of the last 4 billion years.
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 6th January 2003, 20:06
Theja Theja is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 228
Tom, I find it very arrogant of you to say that most Christians don't have a clue what true Christianity is.

With such attitude, I'm not surprised to find you asserting evolution without offering a shred of evidence.

There never was evolution. It is only the evolutionists who are having difficulty in accepting the fact that "Evolution never happened".
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 6th January 2003, 21:07
ANDY-J2 ANDY-J2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,760
[quote]Originally posted by TomSawyer

1. By your own admission, Behe says Darwin is "small scale." I rest my case.

Behe uses the phrase "Darwin has triumphed".Does that support your assertion that he refutes Darwin's theory?Small changes,which Behe accepts do occur,over a long period of time are all that is required to bring about large scale change in any given species.Behe therefore clearly does not undermine Darwin's theory in fact he supports it.I rest my case.


2. Your critique of poltergeists is, if I may be so bold, laughable. I have read nine, dense
books on the subject. As Harry Price points out, there is a "sameness" to the phenomena.
Poltergeists have shown up in "every country, every age" by rich and poor, young and old,
male and female. There are, simply, too many witnesses. The physical evidence speaks
for itself. All serious researchers, save Frank Podmore, know the phenomena is real.
It is a stupidity to say otherwise.

Did I say that poltergeist activity does not occur?I stated that there is ample evidence that a combination of geological anomalies and electrical fields given off by pylons etc. seem to result in psychokinetic phenomena.If you've read nine dense books on the subject you will be aware of this.There is however no evidence whatsoever to suggest that ghosts are involved

3. C.S. Lewis had a term for people who attack the psychology of their opponent. He calls it
Bulverism. A Bulverist says WHY the opponent is wrong, but never HOW they are wrong.
You fallen into this trap, I am afraid. Rather than refute miracles, one by one, as any
sensible thinker would attempt, you simply say they do not exist, and that my belief in
the supernatural is based on fear. As if Darwinism were a great truth we resist. For my part,
I cannot see the good of Darwin. His ideas "put a premium on sex and greed" (T.C. Lethbridge) whether he intended it or not. He has reduced life to a mechanical process.
Any basic mysticism or peak experience says otherwise. I could argue that your own
unbelief in the supernatural is based on fear. Unbelief gives you security in an insecure
world. Your unbelief in the supernatural may, possibly, be a fear, OF YOUR OWN INABILITY
TO COMPREHEND THE GREAT MYSTERY OF LIFE.
The ultimate refutation of miracles was given by the secular philosopher David Hume who stated that "no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless the testimony be of such a kind that it's falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish".Miracles are contrary to the laws of nature and therefore unless I see reliable evidence supporting their occurence I am under no obligation to believe they occur.Lethbridge clearly failed to fully grasp the implications of Darwinism.Look at the positive aspects of his theory.It shows how recently our "human-races" have diverged from a common ancestor therefore showing that racial prejudice can have no factual foundation.The genetic differences between racial groups are almost non-existent."Darwin's theory does not provide us with the comfortable thought that all of nature is perfectly designed by God for the benefit of humanity,but when we sense life's rich diversity and history of change,with mankind as one single twig on the evolutionary tree,then we finally become free to detach our search for ethical truth and spiritual meaning from our quest to understand the facts and mechanisms of nature."

Quote-S.J.Gould.(Zimmer.London-2001)



/[quote]
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 6th January 2003, 21:59
CSLewser CSLewser is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 13
Surveying this thread, Mr Sawyer, I have to say I am staggerred by the arrogance, naivety, gullibility and ignorance you have shown.

Almost all of the people you cited are sympathetic to parapsychology, spiritualism, alternative realities and other forms of mystical thinking. It is therefore hardly surprising that they find themselves in conflict with science. For example, Colin Wilson :

"This brings us to the substance of Alien Dawn. The book is primarily a compendium of information detailing what Wilson has perceived, through his extensive research, as the different types of contact experience with UFOs that has been reported. Wilsonís definition of the contact experience is quite unorthodox, however; he applies the term to a wide range of supernatural phenomena, including UFO sightings, abduction, poltergeists, telepathy, remote viewing, demonic possession, and even the Loch Ness monster - among others."

You have attempted to prove that anyone who does not share your narrow set of beliefs is an idiot ; in fact all you have proved so far is that you are the idiot here.
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 7th January 2003, 00:58
Fear_nam_Beanntan Fear_nam_Beanntan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,431
Theja, there is a great deal of evidence to support that evolution is real. We have fossil records showing lower life evolving into higher life. Completely rejecting something which is well grounded in scientific fact makes Christianity seem less credible, and it makes it much harder to win converts among the scientific comunity.

The big dispute here is what the mechanism of evolution is. Here I would side with Tom in saying that Darwinism is an outdated picture of how evolution occurs. The existence of humans is proof that life evolves far beyond what is required to survive and reproduce. And I would agree that it is foolish to reject the possibility of supernatural forces having a hand in it.

Loser, attacking the messenger will get you nowhere. And before you throw around the term narrow minded take a look at your own beleif system. In my experience atheists are more narrow minded than theists.

Andy J, your contention that Darwinism has positive implications for society is rubbish. Racism is based on cultural differences, not genetic ones. People develop racial hatred for groups which look/act/talk/think differently than them. If a racist learns that the people he hates are genetically the same as him, he'll probably say "so what."

Darwin himself was adamant that his theory was about biology and should never be applied to society. Whenever a philosopher applies Darwinian ideas about survival of the fittest to human society the result is a monstrosity like social darwinism or objectivism.
__________________
"Pure religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world." (James 1:27)

www.personal.psu.edu/bmd175
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 7th January 2003, 13:18
ANDY-J2 ANDY-J2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,760
Quote:
Originally posted by Fear_nam_Beanntan

Andy J, your contention that Darwinism has positive implications for society is rubbish. Racism is based on cultural differences, not genetic ones. People develop racial hatred for groups which look/act/talk/think differently than them. If a racist learns that the people he hates are genetically the same as him, he'll probably say "so what."

I disagree.Take the example of the third reich.Nazi Germany sent numerous expeditions of anthropologists and biologists to various places throughout the globe in order to find evidence to support their propoganda that the evolution of nordic races was different from that of Jews and Slavs etc.In fact these expeditions provided no evidence to support this proposition.A rascist may well sat "so what" but provide him with some real compelling evidence that our races have,comparatively recently in evolutionary terms,diverged from a common African ancestor.Show him that the genetic differences between the various groups are miniscule and he may just come to the realisation that racism can claim no factual foundation in any real differences among human groups.
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 7th January 2003, 14:08
ANDY-J2 ANDY-J2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,760
Tom Sawyer,
You state that Darwin was a christian which isn't strictly true.As a young man he was an orthodox christian like the majority of his contemporaries however throughout his lifetime he developed an aversion to christianity.In his autobiography he stated when writing Origins of species "I deserved to be called a theist".However by the end of his life he could probably be termed an agnostic and he had a close relationship with radical free thinkers such as George Eliot and Thomas Huxley.He is the exemplar of the Victorian honest doubter who increasingly had difficulty accepting the validity of orthodox christian doctrines in the light of the evidence provided by scientific findings although given that he was an intensely private man it is difficult to find reliable evidence of his beliefs.It is unfortunate that his name has become linked to such an unsavoury system of philosophy as social Darwinism.It was his contemporary Herbert Spencer who championed the cause of social Darwinism and it was he not Darwin who coined the phrase "survival of the fittest".I do not support "uncompromising Darwinism".As I have stated earlier in this thread his theory was not perfect and some of his conclusions were plainly wrong,however it is clear that the champions of older forms of creationism and intelligent design have failed to mount a credible scientific argument to undermine Darwin's theory.Unable to use science to undermine Darwin they resort to rhetoric.I have read accounts of creationists in America who have campaigned to prevent the teaching of evolutionary theory in schools so America faces the prospect of raising a generation of people who don't understand evolution.Fortunately such a state of affairs will never occur in the UK.As regards poltergeists I should have used the word entity instead of ghost.I do not believe that there is hard evidence to prove that poltergeist activity is the work of some disembodied being and the most convincing explanation to me is that geological and electrical energies can somehow be channeled by certain sensitive individuals to create psychokinetic activity.I haven't read Behe's book in it's entirety but I found a copy in my university library and browsed through it.I read enough to be satisfied that it did not ,as you stated,undermine Darwinism.Intelligent design cannot create hypothesis which can be tested.As Richard Dawkins states "if you're allowed just to postulate something complicated enough to design a universe intelligently,then you've sold the past...you are simply giving up at the beginning.You're simply not providing any explanation at all".ibid.

Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 18:27.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC4 © 2006, Crawlability, Inc.