Evolution
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-09-2012, 01:38 PM
RE: Evolution
(10-09-2012 01:33 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(10-09-2012 01:26 PM)haarvik Wrote:  Well, I find their whole argument weak and full of holes. Of course considering they still believe in a book that has repeatedly been proven false it's no wonder.

Eh. This may only only hold up against a YEC or OEC. If you start debating an evolutionary creationist or theistic evolutionist, you may be in trouble.

I think he's already in trouble, I've seen 7 year olds ask on yahoo the same questions regarding Race and Adam and Eve, except they didn't actually use it as their ace in the hole argument, they were actually curious.

Leviticus does not justify stupidity, but it is more than enough to define corruption of the human mind.

[Image: 24851795.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2012, 03:28 PM
RE: Evolution
(10-09-2012 01:33 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(10-09-2012 01:26 PM)haarvik Wrote:  Well, I find their whole argument weak and full of holes. Of course considering they still believe in a book that has repeatedly been proven false it's no wonder.

Eh. This may only only hold up against a YEC or OEC. If you start debating an evolutionary creationist or theistic evolutionist, you may be in trouble.

I seriously doubt that.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2012, 03:33 PM
RE: Evolution
(10-09-2012 03:28 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(10-09-2012 01:33 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Eh. This may only only hold up against a YEC or OEC. If you start debating an evolutionary creationist or theistic evolutionist, you may be in trouble.

I seriously doubt that.

How so?

If you're arguing that evolution is true and an EC or a TA goes "yep" and then you try to prove the Bible is false and they counter with an allegorical Genesis account, then what do you do?

I'm just trying to give the OP a heads up because not all Christians are YECs.

[Image: vjp09.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2012, 07:10 PM
RE: Evolution
(10-09-2012 03:33 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(10-09-2012 03:28 PM)Chas Wrote:  I seriously doubt that.

How so?

If you're arguing that evolution is true and an EC or a TA goes "yep" and then you try to prove the Bible is false and they counter with an allegorical Genesis account, then what do you do?

I'm just trying to give the OP a heads up because not all Christians are YECs.

You go onto the idea that since there is no Adam & Eve, there is no original sin BY Adam & Eve.. which makes Jesus's dying to free man of the original sin, pointless...

Unless your view of the idea is that God just created original sin for no explained reason and just controls everything in his bizarre power where he leaves humanity to fend for themselves these days.

"Love is hot, Truth is molten!"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
16-09-2012, 04:06 AM
RE: Evolution
(15-09-2012 07:10 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  You go onto the idea that since there is no Adam & Eve, there is no original sin BY Adam & Eve.. which makes Jesus's dying to free man of the original sin, pointless...

Unless your view of the idea is that God just created original sin for no explained reason and just controls everything in his bizarre power where he leaves humanity to fend for themselves these days.
Duh, original sin is obviously part of god's glorious perfect plan. Rolleyes

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2012, 05:39 AM
RE: Evolution
Well, I find the whole evolution believing christian an oxymoron. You can't believe in evolution or else it proves the bible is wrong as it is only about 6,000 years old. If we evolved, then god did not create adam and eve, thus once again proving the bible is wrong. If the bible is wrong on any point, then all of it is wrong as it is supposed to have been dictated by god to man.

http://www.theaverageatheist.com

Challenge Everything!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2012, 06:26 AM
RE: Evolution
(16-09-2012 05:39 AM)haarvik Wrote:  Well, I find the whole evolution believing christian an oxymoron. You can't believe in evolution or else it proves the bible is wrong as it is only about 6,000 years old. If we evolved, then god did not create adam and eve, thus once again proving the bible is wrong.
Bible scholars claim that the stories in Genesis are of a metaphorical nature and should not be taken literally. Though I have serious doubts about that, considering that the vast majority of people was first of all illiterate and second of all uneducated, meaning that it's unlikely that they even knew what a metaphor is.

(16-09-2012 05:39 AM)haarvik Wrote:  If the bible is wrong on any point, then all of it is wrong as it is supposed to have been dictated by god to man.
That's not quite true. One part being wrong does not equal all parts being wrong. It does not logically follow and is known as the division fallacy.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2012, 01:15 PM
RE: Evolution
(16-09-2012 06:26 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Bible scholars claim that the stories in Genesis are of a metaphorical nature and should not be taken literally. Though I have serious doubts about that, considering that the vast majority of people was first of all illiterate and second of all uneducated, meaning that it's unlikely that they even knew what a metaphor is.

Now to play devil's advocate here, I don't think this point is truly valid. Sure, the illiterate, uneducated originators of bronze-age mythology may very well have had no idea what a metaphor was, but I'm fairly certain that they, and others before them, had been telling and hearing stories all their lives and it's entirely possible that story-tellers could and probably did tell stories where something in that story represented something else entirely, even if those illiterate, uneducated story-tellers had no formal training to label that particular literary device.

Heck, when I was a little child I knew that Humpty Dumpty was a metaphor and I got the hint that playing on walls or other high places could result in falling and getting hurt so badly that no men, and especially no horses, could figure out how to fix me (not that getting this particular hint kept me from doing stupid things in high places). I clued into all of this way way before being introduced to the concept of a metaphor.

(16-09-2012 06:26 AM)Vosur Wrote:  That's not quite true. One part being wrong does not equal all parts being wrong. It does not logically follow and is known as the division fallacy.

This point is valid, but in haarvik's defense, I suspect that what he wrote isn't exactly what he specifically meant. Maybe he meant something like:

WhatHaarvikMightHaveReallyMeant Wrote:If the bible is wrong on specific key points like the existence of Adam and Eve, then even more of it must be wrong like Original Sin, which couldn't have happened without Adam and Eve, which invalidates the main reason for Jesus to be sacrificed, and so on. And if the bible can be wrong about all of this, then that clearly undermines the idea that ALL of the words of the bible were breathed by God into the men who wrote them. And if we know that some of the bible is wrong and that we can no longer rely on a blind assumption that all of the words were divinely inspired, then it stands to reason that other parts of the bible could (not must) be wrong. And given that reasoning, we are faced with the challenge of determining which parts are God-inspired and which parts are man-made. This is a big challenge since there is usually no way to differentiate any bible verse into one of those two categories and worse, the few that we can categorize have all been man-made. Which means that every verse of the bible is questionably just the writings of man. And because man is flawed and capable of making mistakes, therefore it's possible that each and every verse of the bible might be flawed and incorrect because each and every verse might have been written by man instead of God.

But maybe that's what he meant but he just abbreviated it to the shorter version that he wrote.

And if that's not what he meant, well, then thanks for making the connection to his fallacy.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2012, 01:18 PM
RE: Evolution
WhatHaarvikMightHaveReallyMeant Wrote:If the bible is wrong on specific key points like the existence of Adam and Eve, then even more of it must be wrong like Original Sin, which couldn't have happened without Adam and Eve, which invalidates the main reason for Jesus to be sacrificed, and so on. And if the bible can be wrong about all of this, then that clearly undermines the idea that ALL of the words of the bible were breathed by God into the men who wrote them. And if we know that some of the bible is wrong and that we can no longer rely on a blind assumption that all of the words were divinely inspired, then it stands to reason that other parts of the bible could (not must) be wrong. And given that reasoning, we are faced with the challenge of determining which parts are God-inspired and which parts are man-made. This is a big challenge since there is usually no way to differentiate any bible verse into one of those two categories and worse, the few that we can categorize have all been man-made. Which means that every verse of the bible is questionably just the writings of man. And because man is flawed and capable of making mistakes, therefore it's possible that each and every verse of the bible might be flawed and incorrect because each and every verse might have been written by man instead of God.
Quote:But maybe that's what he meant but he just abbreviated it to the shorter version that he wrote.
You are correct. Didn't really feel like typing the amount you did...lol!

http://www.theaverageatheist.com

Challenge Everything!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: