Originally posted by josephwThat was my opinion as well.
I believe the answer is no to the first two questions.
It wouldn't be the truth if it wasn't factually accurate.
In my opinion.
I was surprised to discover how few seemed to care about it pre-Enlightenment. People 2000 years ago couldn't actually demand the same level of proof that a 21st-century person can.
That is, it seemed more and more likely to me that a 1st-century illiterate xian hearing someone read the gospel of Mark aloud in someone's house would determine the worth or truth-value of the account using a different set of evaluative criteria than does someone in our time reading it silently to himself or herself.
The questions to ask were "on what basis would a 1st-century person decide that Mark was trustworthy? And how might that differ from someone in the 21st century considering the same problem?"
For someone in our time, authenticity of source material is pretty important when trying to figure out what actually happened. I'm not convinced that it was that way earlier in history, because it wasn't a possibility for the average person.
Originally posted by blakbuzzrdIs there inerrant truth in the universe? I say there is. For example, is there a God? It seems to me the answer is yes or no. I don't see how this could be a "grey" area. Is there life after death or will we cease to be when we die. Again, it is either yes or no. Threre is no gray area. It seems to me that one must then choose between what they consider to be the truth and what is not. As Christians we are ridiculed by relying to much on the Bible and claiming it to be inerrant, yet, those that do adhere to a fundamental dogma all their own in which they lay hold to. To top it all off, it is often a conundrum of personally held beliefs from which there is no possibilty of inerrancy due to the fact that the source of such beliefs is imperfect. However, what makes the whole situation more convoluted, however, is an inerrant message from God in the Bible and imperfect being interpreting such messages. I say there is an inerrant truth and a source for that truth. I do not lay claim to absolute truth except only to point to that source.
The question is actually c.
If you're right, Starrman, and here xians will need to chime in, then why the need to insist on factual inerrancy in the bible?
Can't the bible yield truth without it?
Originally posted by whodeyThat's all well and good for propositional claims and even some mechanistic claims, but what about aesthetic claims? How do you suppose to elucidate the truth of beauty, taste, desire, morals, mercy, hatred etc?
Is there inerrant truth in the universe? I say there is. For example, is there a God? It seems to me the answer is yes or no. I don't see how this could be a "grey" area. Is there life after death or will we cease to be when we die. Again, it is either yes or no. Threre is no gray area. It seems to me that one must then choose between what they consid ...[text shortened]... ce for that truth. I do not lay claim to absolute truth except only to point to that source.
Originally posted by twhiteheadDo you mean like the Buddhism like concept that is taught by Evolutionists that there is only an appeareance of design (more or less an illusion) in nature?
It is not so much me trying to justify my unbelief but me discussing your beliefs. If I met more people who believed in pink unicorns and wanted it to be taught in the science classroom then I would probably do the same with them. If you lived with Buddhists or Hindus or Muslims and they tried to convince you that their religion was correct and to teach your children the same, would you not try to reason with them?
Do you mean a Hindu like caste system that some Evolutionists teach that certain races are relegated to a superior or inferior stage of evolutionary development?
I did innoculate my children against the pseudo Buddhism and pseudo Hinduism of some your materialist myth makers.
I also warned them against the philosophical pronouncments which have nothing to do with science. For example Brown Universty's Miller whose text book maintained that Evolution was a purposeless process. How does he know that? That is not a finding of science. That is Miller's philosophical opinion coded in a school text book and passed on as science.
Originally posted by jaywillSo considering that you also exert 100 times more energy into justifying your unbelief in evolution then you do for unbelief in pink unicorns, do you do it because you fear that evolution may be right or because you do not want your children to be taught something you yourself consider to be not factual?
It is curious to me that you seem to exert 100 times more energy into justifying your unbelief in God then you do for unbelief in pink unicorns.
Originally posted by jaywill
Do you mean like the Buddhism like concept that is taught by Evolutionists that there is only an [b]appeareance of design (more or less an illusion) in nature?
...[text shortened]... y children against the pseudo Buddhism and pseudo Hinduism of some your materialist myth makers.[/b]
..that some Evolutionists teach that certain races are relegated to a superior or inferior stage of evolutionary development?
This is not a common viewpoint and certainly unscientific so those who do teach that are wrong.
I also warned them against the philosophical pronouncments which have nothing to do with science. For example Brown Universty's Miller whose text book maintained that Evolution was a purposeless process. How does he know that? That is not a finding of science. That is Miller's philosophical opinion coded in a school text book and passed on as science.
Actually I would say that it is almost part of the definition of evolution that it is a purposeless process.
Would you say that for another common process say the weathering of rocks it is a philosophical opinion to say that it is purposeless? Or maybe you simply misunderstand what 'purpose' means and what 'process' means.
So considering that you also exert 100 times more energy into justifying your unbelief in evolution then you do for unbelief in pink unicorns, do you do it because you fear that evolution may be right or because you do not want your children to be taught something you yourself consider to be not factual?
I have written on this forum before that I think that some form of change in animal species is evident on some levels. I understand a distinction between micro evolution and macro evolution.
I have also written on this forum before that I would like to see some alternative theories explored to Darwinian modification by gradual descent as an explanation of biological life. One theory which has caught my attention is sudden changes in gamuts brought about by some catastophic cataclysmic change on the earth.
I don't mean exactly "punctuated equilibrium".
I don't insist that the universe is 6,000 years old. And as for "fear" that a random, purposeless, directionless, cascading series of small modifications caused human beings to exist on the earth "by accident" - I have no fear that that is true.
Why should I fear that that astronomically unlikely idea might be true?
Besides, if I should somehow come to the end of my life and it turns out that it WAS true and that there is no creative intelligence behind the creation and design of life - I will have absolutely no regrets. I still would have lived my life the same way.
Believing as I do has led to the most fruitful life I could have lived. Had I to do it all over again I don't see what would have been gained even if the materialist's mythological macro evolution was true.
You, on the other hand, may be in for a bitter disoppointment if you find out that God does exist and you fought to deny God.
You see, with Evolution, whatever I believe I will melt peacefully away into dust. So if I accept it or not, little consequence is involved.
If my believing in God and in Christ turns out to be illusion, and I had to live on earth again, I doubt that your philosophy could have offered me more meaning and enjoyment of life.
Having said that - Evolution I see as a program. If macro evolution did take place it certainly doesn't rule out that there was some intelligence behind this rather remarkable and even ingenius way of developing more and more diverse species.
I see the "program" as having been devized somehow by intelligence even if it is true.
..
Actually I would say that it is almost part of the definition of evolution that it is a purposeless process.
Would you say that for another common process say the weathering of rocks it is a philosophical opinion to say that it is purposeless? Or maybe you simply misunderstand what 'purpose' means and what 'process' means.
I think the weathering of rocks down into sand is one thing.
The weathering of rocks resulting in the existence of a human brain or a process of sexual reproduction is another.
And if "weathering" sounds unfair, let me put it this way. I don't think matter organizes itself randomly from a choatic state into life. And I don't really care if you say origin of life is not a part of Evolution theory.
The evolutionists frequently draw these tree structure diagrams showing the development of life, with Branches going off here and there. A natural question is "What about the Roots?"
So weathering of rocks down into sand and the creation of self reproducing species ending in human beings I see in two different catagories of phenomena.
I will tell you what. If you could show how the weathering of a mountain might arrive at the four faces on Mt. Rushmore in South Dakota, I might revize my consideration of your example.
Any likely samples?
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm not sure what makes pink unicorns necessary for anything to be
So where is the difference between my faith that the universe is void of a creator and my faith that the universe is void of pink unicorns? Surely creators are just as unrequired as pink unicorns?
real; however, can you say the same thing for the universe without a
creator? You know or believe one isn't required, or do you believe
one is not necessary for the one you currently believe you live in?
If you don’t think you have faith on anything, I’d say you do. You
have beliefs on some very specific things such as how everything
came to be by themselves, or that everything always was, or
whatever it is you believe about the beginning of the universe is.
Kelly
Originally posted by scottishinnzI've started reading the paper it is slow going since I don't have a lot
If he has "a great deal of faith" there is no creator, that equally means that YOU have a great deal of faith in the non-existence of many things. Is that right? Do you positively believe in the lack of leprechauns, or do you actually just not think about it most of the time?
In any case, THERE IS NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FOR GOD WHATSOEVER, the defaul ...[text shortened]... hould have had time to read it by now. I look forward to your point by point rebuttal soon.]
of time. I tried to schedule a couple of days at home after our road
trip to decompress from all the driving. I hope to read it then.
I'll address the rest later.
Kelly
Originally posted by jaywillThinking about the weathering process though is very different from evolution, since evolution has a selective aspect to it - weathering doesn't.
[b]Actually I would say that it is almost part of the definition of evolution that it is a purposeless process.
Would you say that for another common process say the weathering of rocks it is a philosophical opinion to say that it is purposeless? Or maybe you simply misunderstand what 'purpose' means and what 'process' means.
I think the weatheri ...[text shortened]... South Dakota, I might revize my consideration of your example.
Any likely samples?[/b]
Natural selection selects some changes over others - weathering doesn't.
Originally posted by amannionWeathering does select; harder rocks weather slower than softer rocks, etc. However the rocks don't reproduce and pass on their genes which is the other half of the process.
Thinking about the weathering process though is very different from evolution, since evolution has a selective aspect to it - weathering doesn't.
Natural selection selects some changes over others - weathering doesn't.
Originally posted by KellyJayIn my opinion pink unicorns are as necessary as a creator. I know of no reason why either would be required or even suggested by the existence of the universe. In fact I find both concepts preposterous. You seem to think that the idea of a creator somehow has more weight but you are unable to articulate why. The fact remains that my denial of the existence of a creator is identical to my denial of the existence of pink unicorns and neither is something I could reasonably be said to have faith in.
I'm not sure what makes pink unicorns necessary for anything to be
real; however, can you say the same thing for the universe without a
creator? You know or believe one isn't required, or do you believe one is not necessary for the one you currently believe you live in?