toldailytopic: Theistic evolution: best arguments for, or against.

[eameece]

The reality is that you will use a theist/scientists ideas about theology when they seem to support your views, yet you reject them when they do not support your views.

I repeat:

"Einstein was not an IDer, nor did he hold to the classical theism implied by IDism". This much is very clear. So your attempt to use Einstein quotes to support ID is a bit disingenuous, if not completely dishonest.

I guess Angel4Truth does not like scientists very much. :mock:

You'll have to move to a country where there are no scientists. Even Iran has nuclear ones!

 

[noguru]

Mind reading again i see.



That line is what is disingenuous, and completely dishonest, since i never stated such to begin with so you can cut the feigned outrage.

Since you want more scientists who believe in ID though, heres another for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew

But again i responded to a post asking for a science that supports the bible and ID was my response. Everything else you added, was ....added by you.

Whose disingenuous? (this is how to spell it btw mr intelligence)

I went back and corrected my spelling mistake.

And no, I am not being disingenuous. You were pretending that the Einstien quote you chose was a simple example of his support for IDism. Because he did not make that quote in order to support ID. So again, you were either being disingenuous by oversimplifying the scenario, or you were being completely dishonest by using Einstein's words at all as support for ID.

So which was it?

And no, I do not need any other scientist's quotes that you feel support ID. Because you have already demonstrated that your screen name is quite inaccurate.

 

[eameece]

The Big Bang theory was invented by a Catholic theologian. Scientists just saw it as accurate and stole it. That is the irony of atheists trying to use such against Christians.



The Days of Creation are the beginning. It is an opening sequence. However, since you aim to debunk creationism, you are going to refuse that. In which case, why even debate it? If something is formless and void, then it does not exist, and the 'waters' in Genesis, when looking at it from a respectful angle, can simply be considered the 'expansions' of the universe.



I don't take it literally, I take it for how it should be read. Translators break it up into verses and through there guesswork try to conform the story to how they feel it should work, but the truth of the matter is that if one took away all of that and just made it into one long paragraph then it becomes far more applicable. The Hebrew language didn't have such complexities in it's written tongue.

Then let's just take Genesis and science for what they are. Genesis is a poetic description by a pre-scientific people of the process of creation; modern science fills in a lot of facts that pertain to the same process, but leaves out the divine or creative aspect of it.

The best stance on the whole thing is creative evolution, or evolution of consciousness, or theistic evolution; not Young Earth Creationism which only accepts the poetic pre-scientific account, and not the scientific findings; or at best tries to graft the science onto the frame of the poetry.

 

[Angel4Truth]

I went back and corrected my spelling mistake.

And no I am not being disingenuous. You were by pretending that the Einstien quote you chose was a simple example of his support for IDism. Because he did not make that quote in order to support ID. So again, you were either being disingenuous by oversimplifying the scenario, or you were being completely dishonest by using Einstein's words at all as support for ID.

So which was it?

By any stretch of the imagination, to state belief that everything had a creator, is support of ID.

Its so simple a child should be able to understand it, don't know why you can't.

 

[Angel4Truth]

I went back and corrected my spelling mistake.

And no, I am not being disingenuous. You were pretending that the Einstien quote you chose was a simple example of his support for IDism. Because he did not make that quote in order to support ID. So again, you were either being disingenuous by oversimplifying the scenario, or you were being completely dishonest by using Einstein's words at all as support for ID.

So which was it?

And no, I do not need any other scientist's quotes that you feel support ID. Because you have already demonstrated that your screen name is quite inaccurate.

Neg rep me again just because you didn't like my post that showed you up - i am so proud because to me it means your false claims were defeated and that was all you could do about it

Thank you

 

[noguru]

By any stretch of the imagination, to state belief that everything had a creator, is support of ID.

Its so simple a child should be able to understand it, don't know why you can't.

No, not in the scientific sense. I will repeat this once more:

"Einstein believed that the natural universe was both seemless and self-sufficient." He did not use a "God of the Gaps" argument to explain things that are a mystery in the natural universe. In fact the quote I posted is evidence that he believed there were no "gaps".

Einstein's view are more in line with Barbarian's view or perhaps mine. Than they are in line with people who want to push their religious dogma as science, like you, other YECs and the many IDers who want to get their theological claims passed off as science.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

This does not answer my question.

What criteria do you use to determine "proper hermeneutics"?

I feel that determining such should be subject to the reader's intuition and intelligence. The biggest mistake, in my opinion, is thinking fundamentally after the fact of appealing to someone else' blueprint. I'm not the usual creationist. I believe in an old universe and a young Earth. I'm not even sure if that notion exists in mainstream creationism, young or old, but I have spent much time examining Genesis 1 and 2 and my blogs lay testimony to that.

 

[Angel4Truth]

No, not in the scientific sense. I will repeat this once more:

"Einstein believed that the natural universe was both seemless and self-sufficient." He did not use a "God of the Gaps" argument to explain things that are a mystery in the material universe. In fact the quote I posted is evidence that he believed there were no "gaps".

Einstein's view are more in line with Barbarian's view or perhaps mine. Than they are in line with people who want to push their religious dogma as science, like you, other YECs and the many IDers who want to get their theological claims passed off as science.

:baby:

 

[noguru]

Neg rep me again just because you didn't like my post that showed you up - i am so proud because to me it means your false claims were defeated and that was all you could do about it

Thank you

I only neg rep people when they are being blatantly dishonest and pretending they are of good character.

You defeated yourself with your lies.

 

[noguru]

:baby:

You definitely are acting immature.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

You definitely are acting immature.

It won't be the first time. Just shrug it off :thumb:
Trust me, I know

 

[noguru]

I feel that determining such should be subject to the reader's intuition and intelligence. The biggest mistake, in my opinion, is thinking fundamentally after the fact of appealing to someone else' blueprint. I'm not the usual creationist. I believe in an old universe and a young Earth. I'm not even sure if that notion exists in mainstream creationism, young or old, but I have spent much time examining Genesis 1 and 2 and my blogs lay testimony to that.

I have spent much time examining all the tools we have in our epistemological toolbox, as well. And I agree that we should not "think fundamentally after the fact of appealing to someone else's blueprint". We should start from the very beginning by acknowledging all the data available to us, whenever making any decision on epistemology.

 

[Angel4Truth]

I only neg rep people when they are being blatantly dishonest and pretending they are of good character.

You defeated yourself with your lies.

You definitely are acting immature.

 

[noguru]

:rotfl:

Dry your tears, liar.

Pick yourself up and have the courage to do the right thing from now on. But perhaps you need a few more years of life to recognize the value of such.

 

[Angel4Truth]

:rotfl:

Dry your tears, liar.

Pick yourself up and have the courage to do the right thing from now on. But perhaps you need a few more years of life to recognize the value of such.

Keep going, this is fun to watch.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

I have spent much time examining all the tools we have in our epistemological toolbox, as well. And I agree that we should not "think fundamentally after the fact of appealing to someone else's blueprint". We should start from the very beginning by acknowledging all the data available to us, whenever making any decision on epistemology.

Exactly. I was once all about YEC literalism until I realized just how unworkable it is to reality. And yet, obviously, I'm not for common descent either.
Suffice it to say, however, I've decided that being diametrically opposed to any brand of creationism is a limit all it's own to understanding Scripture. This is actually somewhat of a recent thing for me. 'Duking it out' really just doesn't get anywhere. Rather, we should try and understand each others ideals because after all, these things are not salvation issues.

 

[Jukia]

Theistic evolution impossible.

Genesis 1:26-27

Correct because the first word is meaningless. Might as well be "unicornistic".

 

[noguru]

Keep going, this is fun to watch.

You definitely are a pussycat.

 

[noguru]

Exactly. I was once all about YEC literalism until I realized just how unworkable it is to reality. And yet, obviously, I'm not for common descent either.
Suffice it to say, however, I've decided that being diametrically opposed to any brand of creationism is a limit all it's own to understanding Scripture. This is actually somewhat of a recent thing for me. 'Duking it out' really just doesn't get anywhere. Rather, we should try and understand each others ideals because after all, these things are not salvation issues.

Agreed.

 

[Angel4Truth]

You definitely are *****cat.

Don't understand what youre saying there, some of your letters are missing.