Quote of the day
posted at 10:30 pm on August 9, 2007 by Allahpundit
“This is not questioning the idea at all of evolution; it is refining some of the specific points. This is a great example of what science does and religion doesn’t do. It’s a continuous self-testing process.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Interesting, I’ve never heard of the “Evoluton” theory…
Bad Candy on August 9, 2007 at 10:34 PM
Amazing. God created two distinct half-man, half-ape creatures living side by side for 500,000 years completely unrecorded in the Bible.
Solid proof the Bible is true and “Evolutionists” are the scientific equal of Algore.
Christoph on August 9, 2007 at 10:35 PM
This is like the inverse of the normal quote of the day. That quote really weakens the article. Lots of interesting fact and some conjecture, then an out-of-place editorializing snark statement.
Spirit of 1776 on August 9, 2007 at 10:44 PM
Yeah, right. And for the first time in history, Professor Leakey revised his theories about evolution.
Ha! THAT’s about as likely as fire melting steel, or a bridge on an interstate highway that simply falls down,
or maybe NASA overlooking a Y2K bug that introduces errors in its global warming calculations.
Trust me. It’s just NOT gonna’ happen.
My collie says,
Stupid dog.
CyberCipher on August 9, 2007 at 10:44 PM
The only evolution theory I subscribe to is this one.
Here is the link to the clip (Content warning)
F15Mech on August 9, 2007 at 10:55 PM
I will show self discipline and will not get into a discussion about religion and evolution.
Oh gosh… this is so hard!
terryannonline on August 9, 2007 at 10:59 PM
Wasn’t the Leakey family discredited years ago for faking fossil evidence? I smell another fish story.
infidel4life on August 9, 2007 at 11:02 PM
Good call, terryannonline. I’m sure you agree with me.
Christoph on August 9, 2007 at 11:02 PM
The article doesn’t go into enough detail. The basic premise seems to be that because Homo habilis and Homo erectus co-existed, this somehow proves that one could not have originated from the other. That, however, is a false premise. It’s the equivalent of saying that because me and my father are both still alive, he can’t possibly be my father. It’s nonsense.
Ofcourse, I’m sure the scientists conducting this study had another reason for making these conclusions, however those reasons aren’t listed in this article. With this quality of “scientific reporting” it’s no wonder so many Americans have such a poor understanding of science and logic.
c6gunner on August 9, 2007 at 11:04 PM
Haha. Thanks for the link F15.
Spirit of 1776 on August 9, 2007 at 11:06 PM
What they are admitting is that their cutie little graph of ape evolving into man is a phoney. A century after it came out
What they admit today is that they are not 100% certain of how evolution came about
Does this change anything really ?
William Amos on August 9, 2007 at 11:07 PM
I don’t think I ever heard evolution occurring in a single generation. (That is what you are describing) not what the article is saying.
F15Mech on August 9, 2007 at 11:11 PM
Evolutionists have evidence. Creationists have a book that says the world is flat and is only 6,000 years old. Who are you going to believe?
SoulGlo on August 9, 2007 at 11:14 PM
They’ve admitted they’re not 100% certain forever.
That’s why it’s an actual science and they’ve had enhancements and changes to their understanding from day one.
Accurate or not — and it is — that man is a primate and related to others, they certainly never have pretended to be 100% certain on the details.
To state otherwise is disingenuous.
Christoph on August 9, 2007 at 11:14 PM
Don’t fight it. Let go.
Weight of Glory on August 9, 2007 at 11:15 PM
Really?
Show me one piece of evidence that supports the evolution
facttheroy.F15Mech on August 9, 2007 at 11:17 PM
*Here we go again*
JayHaw Phrenzie on August 9, 2007 at 11:20 PM
Allah should do a post one day that just says:
“Evolution. Go.”
Alex K on August 9, 2007 at 11:23 PM
Well, the theroy is supported by four broad categories of evidence:
1. Fossil evidence
2. Homologies
3. Distribution in time and space
4. Evidence by example
Have a read.
I would also say the obvious inaccuracies and omissions in the Bible while still purporting to tell the tale of Creation tend to disprove it.
Christoph on August 9, 2007 at 11:24 PM
Herein we see the problem of both sloppy thinking and sloppy writing. Neither science nor religion are, in their makeup, without self-testing. Within both, throughout history, there have been those who skip over the self-testing process. Neither science nor religion have been without their share of asses. If this statement was accurately written, having been given serious consideration, utilizing definitions that best suited his intent, then it demonstrates a lack of perspective concerning both science and religion. I think, then, that these words were merely strung together, without much thought, being the first that popped into his head.
Weight of Glory on August 9, 2007 at 11:25 PM
Question: What Hebrew literary form were the first two chapters of Genesis written. Your answer to this will determine your outcome. If you haven’t given it much thought up until this point, then you may need to reevaluate your position.
Weight of Glory on August 9, 2007 at 11:28 PM
*sigh* No one thought the Headline typo was funny?
I give up.
Bad Candy on August 9, 2007 at 11:28 PM
Of course, we already are aware of what science doesn’t do and what
religiona priori metaphysics does accomplish.We know that “science”, because of its very limitations, cannot provide a basis for the existence of logic.
Metaphysics does.
There are some empirical things that “science” does better than metaphysics. But both domains (empirical science and a priori metaphysics) need to be aware of their limitations and restrictions.
ColtsFan on August 9, 2007 at 11:31 PM
Two different forms, Yahwist and Priestly.
The point is the data’s wrong. God messed it up like much of the Bible.
A great work of man. A poor work of God.
Christoph on August 9, 2007 at 11:31 PM
Again, you need to be very careful. When discussing the Bible, particularly the Old testament, particularly, literary forms that are not didactic in nature nor narrative, what may at first sight be an inaccuracy, may really be a misinterpretation on the readers part.
Weight of Glory on August 9, 2007 at 11:32 PM
It is a bit funny.
Christoph on August 9, 2007 at 11:33 PM
Tell that to the Global Warming Crowd.
TheBigOldDog on August 9, 2007 at 11:34 PM
To me the strongest proof of evolution is f—ing.
Man f—s, so do fleas. God has a strange way of showing us our superiority over nature and how we were created in his image.
Nope, it’s man’s THOUGHTS (and by consequence actions) that makes him what he is.
Christoph on August 9, 2007 at 11:35 PM
Umm doesn’t this “new find” destroy the Distribution in time and space argument?
Evidence by example? What evidence?
Neither creationism or evolutionism offers any real evidence to support their respective theory.
F15Mech on August 9, 2007 at 11:35 PM
Wellhausen!?! The JEDP theory of Genesis. You have got to be kidding me. That theory has been forsaken by biblical scholars, including bible skeptics, for over a decade now. In fact it has become somewhat of an embarassment. The idea that authorship of the OT can be determined by the various names ascribed to God. That theory doesn’t hold water in neither OT studies, nor Ancient Near Eastern studies.
Weight of Glory on August 9, 2007 at 11:35 PM
I yield to you as being 1000 times, probably literally, than I am on Biblical literary (and other) interpretation.
I do, however, not find much of the knowledge of modern science contained in its pages.
I believe in a Creator, but have no reason to believe the Bible is literally true. I love many Christians — but there is no evidence Jesus was the “Son of God” yada yada.
Christoph on August 9, 2007 at 11:38 PM
[Weight of Glory on August 9, 2007 at 11:25 PM]
Having read this before posting mine, I’ll just sign on to this much more succinct one. Nice job, WoG.
Dusty on August 9, 2007 at 11:39 PM
Hey, I thought we were all in this together, for the sake of Allah. :-)
Remember, the “more page views at HotAir,” translates into increased likelihood of Michelle giving the Defender of the Free World his i-phone.
ColtsFan on August 9, 2007 at 11:40 PM
The first sentence is funnier:
See? It’s Bush’s fault.
RushBaby on August 9, 2007 at 11:40 PM
Thoughtcrime.
PRCalDude on August 9, 2007 at 11:40 PM
No, it just gives us more data to study.
What’s really interesting to me is how RELIGION is spread similarly through time and space.
Presumably — and I agree — the worst aspects of Islam are pretty nasty… and according to many Christians these people belong to a Satanic death cult or whatever.
Yet why does the 4-year old boy belong to said religion?
Why — in most cases, time and space. He was raised there.
Presumably God looks favorably on Alabama and put lots of Christians their who have a better than average chance of being saved, but He’s got a real late on for Lahore.
I don’t buy it.
Fruit flies and cultured plants among others. Dogs.
Christoph on August 9, 2007 at 11:41 PM
*hate on for Lahore
Christoph on August 9, 2007 at 11:43 PM
You are correct. The Bible is a poor science book, but is this a result ignorance or intent. For instance when the Psalms say, “From the rising of the sun to the going down of the same…” is it stating a falsehood? It depends on the form it was written. If the intent of the author was to preceisly describe the movement of the heavens, then the Bible is inaccurate. If on the other hand, it was written in the same mind as my own when I turn to my wife on Key West and say, “THat was a pretty sunset” her response would be, “yes it was” rather than, “Liar!” The Bible seems to be filled with inaccuracies, by many in the science world because they are trying to read it as a science textbook; it is, in fact, not that.
Weight of Glory on August 9, 2007 at 11:45 PM
Regardless of the subject, I think this is a sign of the future of journalism. It’s devolving, clearly. No article without not only editorializing but at least gentle mocking of the opposite side.
Spirit of 1776 on August 9, 2007 at 11:46 PM
Well, perhaps we’re created in God’s image… much like fleas… as I crudely pointed out above.
Hey, you could be right and I could be wrong. But evidence is on the side of evolution as a theory — an incomplete complex theory details being worked out daily in a two steps forward, one step back fashion — and Christianity, which rests, by its own admission, on faith.
Christoph on August 9, 2007 at 11:47 PM
Sorry…I got the chuckles out of that quote.
I couldn’t help but have a minds picture of a “Silky” sort of fellow’s skull and Elton John’s jowl jaws being so close together.
Ewwww!
(Sorry for the absurd~)
SouthernPride on August 9, 2007 at 11:51 PM
Your mistake is believing they are mutually exclusive. They are not.
TheBigOldDog on August 9, 2007 at 11:52 PM
I agree with you that flys will evolve among their species and their wings will “evolve” with their offspring if they are brought up in a wind tunnel. (One of my HS studies BTW :)
I have never seen a housefly de-evolve into a fruit fly or a fruit fly become a housefly.
F15Mech on August 9, 2007 at 11:53 PM
“RushBaby on August 9, 2007 at 11:40 PM”
You’re bad. The problem I’ve always had with the tree and it’s branches analogy is that they have never identified any of the millions of roots.
Dusty on August 9, 2007 at 11:53 PM
I must say that, the logical support of a Creator, is a bit easier to come to, than the Christological claims Jesus made concerning Himself, and those made by the apostle Paul. In Christian theology, the historical Christ event was in fact, as much revelatory as it was redemptive. One can, however, come logically to the claims of Christ, with great study. The acceptance of those claims, however, I must admit, is only by faith. Thus, though the claims are not logically contradictory, they are improvable.
Weight of Glory on August 9, 2007 at 11:56 PM
I don’t believe faith, indeed religion and a Creator, and evolution are mutually exclusive.
But if it’s a competition, the scientific evidence for evolution is very strong.
Does it have all the answers? No way, never will. It can’t explain everything the hundreds of millions of species to ever inhabit the Earth over a billion years — heck, we can’t find them all.
But the basic idea is much sounder than that presented in the Bible.
“And God, feeling lonely, stopped playing with Quasars and talked to Jonah…”
Christoph on August 9, 2007 at 11:58 PM
Mankind is different in kind from animals, because we possess the God-given gift of rationality, intellect, etc.
Even naturalists, like John McDowell, acknowledge this in their writings, when they speak of a “partially enchanted world.” If naturalism is true, it is extremely odd and out of place for humans to find themselves alone among the other entities (fish, animals, even fleas) on planet Earth possessing the faculty of rationality.
We know truth because we are made in God’s Image. Thus, Christian Theism provides both the metaphysical (referring to the “cognitive equipment”) and epistemological (“the epistemic trigger linking our minds to the eternal truths—propositions, concepts, numbers, modality, etc) foundations for mankind.
We are not grown-up fleas. We are different in kind from other animals. This is true because we know it to be true.
ColtsFan on August 10, 2007 at 12:00 AM
This is in fact not true. Science, when involved in the hypothetical-deductive method, delves a great deal into faith. And the formulation of theological principles, based from the Bible, deal greatly with logic, and utilize a good portion of science.
Weight of Glory on August 10, 2007 at 12:01 AM
Yes, Christianity rests on a humble dependence for salvation by faith alone in Christ alone.
But Christianity is not alone in having some of its key propositions rest on faith.
After all, Thomas Kuhn reminded us not too long ago that “science” itself rests on “faith”, in his discussion of community-based paradigms.
But we know that atheism and naturalism and skepticism rests on faith too.
ColtsFan on August 10, 2007 at 12:03 AM
How does the person, who holds to the theory of evolution, deal with the criticism of many Christian and non-Christian scientists of irreducible-complexity?
I’m not trying to be a smart-a$$, I jsut really haven’t read much on an answer.
Weight of Glory on August 10, 2007 at 12:05 AM
By reading more than Darwin’s Black Box (read it years ago) and stopping there.
Christoph on August 10, 2007 at 12:10 AM
Yes Yes, I had forgotten about Kuhn. Paradigm shifts and all that. I remember in a philosophy of science class, my prof. drew a series of dots on the board, and asked each student to come up and draw a line, connecting each dot. Every student went to the board, and drew a straight line to each dot, in order from left to right. He then asked us why we didn’t draw the line wavy, or in zig-zags. His point was that when formulating theories using raw data (the dots) the subjective elements of simplicity and beauty, come into play almost as much as the data itself.
Weight of Glory on August 10, 2007 at 12:11 AM
But MOSTLY, it’s the logical fallacy, an argument from ignorance.
Doesn’t mean it can’t be true… but it is a logical mistake committed in this case.
Christoph on August 10, 2007 at 12:11 AM
Christoph. Just read this from that link you provided. Doesn’t that statement seem a bit circular in reasoning? I haven’t read the link to the authors actual writings, but if it starts this poorly, it can’t end too well.
Weight of Glory on August 10, 2007 at 12:14 AM
I will never convince you, you may convince me.
You’re going on faith. I’m going on the most likely explanation based on all the available evidence.
Also, our brains our complex and wired for religion, I believe, through no less than evolution. More power to your side.
But… you will never convince me the mountains of fossils and billions of years of the history of the universe with a billion of life on this planet and the many pre-cursor or certainly damn human-like primate species which used tools and thought, whether they lived alongside each other at times or were sequential at other times, were covered in any way in the Bible.
Christoph on August 10, 2007 at 12:17 AM
Also, and that **non-rational considerations** have played a significant part in theory formation in scientific theorizing. This opens the door to the common charge of Kuhnian “paradigm shifts” leading to epistemological relativism.
Christoph,
Hey, buddy, thanks for your comments above. Here is my motivation, to be honest with you.
I do not mind reading or debating articles or subjects in evolutionary biology or archaeology or whatever. My only concern is the following:
***I do not want “science” to be confused with “scientism”
***I think that both parties, if they are honest, will readily admit that empirical “science” does not, in and of itself, support the “Grand Metaphysical Story of Naturalism and Origins.” Unfortunately, “science” is used as a veiled weapon to introduce naturalism through the back door (especially in the field of bioethics). My desire is to have empirical science taught as accurate empirical science, minus the prior committment to Naturalist Philosophy.
***I want to help Allah, via increased page views, to get his i-phone.
ColtsFan on August 10, 2007 at 12:22 AM
When satan took Christ to an exceedingly high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world. Impossible. Even on the highest mountains, your view is limited by the curvature of the earth.
csdeven on August 10, 2007 at 12:23 AM
Why would our brains evolve into a machanism that was hardwired to prevent us from knowing the “truth” of evolution? My parents raised me without religion. Wanted me to choose for my self they said. As a result I grew up believing the Bible was written by a bunch of drunk men who wanted to screw everyone up. But then sophomore year happened…
Weight of Glory on August 10, 2007 at 12:25 AM
Christoph on August 10, 2007 at 12:17 AM
A simple question, if I may: what is the driving force behind evolution? Why change? Am I correct in assuming it is theorized to be pushed by functional adaptation?
Spirit of 1776 on August 10, 2007 at 12:25 AM
Christoph(er) must be a hard name for you to live with if it is actually your name. Christoph(er) literally means “child of Christ” Oh the sweet sweet irony…
Guardian on August 10, 2007 at 12:27 AM
The same way you show mercy, and show sympathy. When I show mercy I am not pointing out its demonstration amongst third party participants; rather I am engaging in a specific act whose description of poorly captured in the idea of “showing” Language can be difficult.
Weight of Glory on August 10, 2007 at 12:29 AM
I’m not really sure. I suspect it comes down to fundamental physical and mathematical principles to do with numbers much deeper than “functional adaption”.
It would be the same driving force that Creates a universe where none exists, an electron out of nothing along with it’s positron counterpart all united by the number zero.
I think even morality may be explained by that.
But my having all the answers or not (I don’t) doesn’t change the fact the Bible has numerous inaccuracies and there is a huge amount of evidence for us to be related to primates.
Christoph on August 10, 2007 at 12:30 AM
– moronic.
Christ is an interesting and fascinating philosopher. Either insane, misquoted, a fraud, or the Son of God, but intelligent and thought-provoking all the same.
Christoph on August 10, 2007 at 12:32 AM
If these episodes were taught as allegories, that would be one thing. But they are taught as literal truth.
RushBaby on August 10, 2007 at 12:34 AM
csdeven on August 10, 2007 at 12:23 AM
If you would think about it a little bit. It is hardly unreasonable to think that, having been taken to the high Mt. satan then showed the horizon to Christ, and as the lanscape dissappared into the distance, that image of an infinite landscape would be mixed with the desribling of all the kingdomes of the world (showing)this “visualising” was the heart of the temption. Not that he could visabley see it; but rather the same way the runner visualizes the finish line, his goal, his glory. He doesn’t see it, yet he sees it.
Weight of Glory on August 10, 2007 at 12:34 AM
Thanks. I’m actually pretty curious about that because I’ve long wondered how certain things are fit into the evolution mold.
For example, we can take cells out of one person and put them into someone else and they still do a good job. Clearly they have a cellular intelligence or a programming that they know what to do. But I don’t think it can be self-survival because they work synergistically.
And also have stem cells which are somewhat amorphic, and they can do whatever job is needed – which indicates strategic, not cell-centric design.
Which presuming progression from a single cell organism would be like going from a democratic to a socialistic society. That’s a big jump in design.
I’m just curious how that fits into the grand scheme of the evolution theory. Hope that’s not too confusing. Anyway, thanks for the answer.
Spirit of 1776 on August 10, 2007 at 12:39 AM
Read my post to cs deven. I explain how it could still literally happen without Christ literally seeing seeing all the world at once. really folks you hold the Bible to a level of language that no one holds for themselves. When some one begins dialogue by saying, “And I was like, ‘whoa man’” no one thinks he was making a statement of his metaphysical make up by saying he-was-like.
like i said, language can be tricky. See, right there i wrote “like I said” when in fact I typed it. Then, in the next sentence I said “see” when I really meant “understand”.
Weight of Glory on August 10, 2007 at 12:41 AM
Looks like you don’t have anyone willing to interact with you.
PRCalDude on August 10, 2007 at 12:41 AM
I did. But in truth, I am nobody.
Weight of Glory on August 10, 2007 at 12:44 AM
Unwrap some of that tricky language for me, and explain Noah’s Ark, please.
RushBaby on August 10, 2007 at 12:44 AM
If you’re talking about Richard, he has no academic credentials. Maeve does.
Bob's Kid on August 10, 2007 at 12:44 AM
signing off for the night, weight, sorry to start an interaction that I can’t stick with. But I sincerely meant what I asked and look forward to more conversation.
RushBaby on August 10, 2007 at 12:47 AM
HUGE orbiting mirrors (preventing the primordial Sun from overheating the Earth, reversed for the occasion). Do you DOUBT the power of Satan?
Christoph on August 10, 2007 at 12:48 AM
See? Even this shows a huge misunderstanding of what exactly a theory even is.
We know way more about evolution than we do about gravity, which, I might add, also is not mentioned in the Bible.
/evangelical Christian speaking here
(okay, typing here, so sue me)
Bob's Kid on August 10, 2007 at 12:49 AM
Simple (with music) “The Lord told Noah to build Him and Arky Arky”
You will have to be a little more specific. But be ye warned, I may not have a satisfactory answer. But simply because I don’t doesn’t mean some one else doesn’t. and if you really want to know, then I will find it for you and in some obscure thread, in which you are participating, I will throw it in, without warning.
Weight of Glory on August 10, 2007 at 12:50 AM
heh!
Weight of Glory on August 10, 2007 at 12:51 AM
Yeah, I think it is because I should be spending my free time guest-blogging on a friend’s website instead of spending all my time at HotAir.com.
But Allah puts up good stuff all the time. I don’t want to miss the action…
ColtsFan on August 10, 2007 at 12:52 AM
goodnite! And me too.
Weight of Glory on August 10, 2007 at 12:52 AM
Weight of Glory, re: RushBaby’s question Ark.
It’s simple. The Ark has a certain designated size. Rather small by today’s standards. Now how do you fit all of the animals inside?
GO!
Christoph on August 10, 2007 at 12:57 AM
He didn’t. What do you think happened to the unicorn? There are many many deluvian theories. But most scholars believe that some sort of cataclismic flood took place, given that nearly evary single ANE culture had an oral tradition of a flood (eg. Gilgamesh). In regards to the space for the animals one such theory goes like this: First God never told Noah, that he had to take full-grown adults of every kind. Next Biblical scholars use the scientific classification system to determine the required amount of varying species needed to have all representative kinds of animals present and accounted for. Then, and this may surprise you, biblical scholars allow for the idea of micro-evolution to explain the various millions of combinations of present in each species.
Weight of Glory on August 10, 2007 at 1:05 AM
.Oh! and that kanga’ has a striking resemblance to myself
Weight of Glory on August 10, 2007 at 1:06 AM
Also, no sea dwelling animals would have needed to be on the Ark…for obvious reasons.
Weight of Glory on August 10, 2007 at 1:08 AM
1. Where did they pick up the kangaroos and polar bears from?
I believe there probably WAS a flood. The anthropological evidence for that around the world — even the cultural memories of the Haida indians near my home — is profound.
I believe it destroyed an actual to goodness advanced civilization of some kind and the evidence for that is widespread.
But I don’t believe we were saved in a 450′ boat.
Rather, the flood affected different parts of the world in different ways. And this is definitely hypothesis.
Christoph on August 10, 2007 at 1:15 AM
To be honest with you, I thought your above quotes only serve to illustrate how man is fundamentally different in kind from animals, including fleas.
One of the books that led me to that conclusion is listed here and also
here.
My position is that the ontological differences (differences of kind–not just mere degree) that exist between mankind and animals lead to qualitative differences in other areas as well.
I believe secular and Christian existentialists have noted and commented on these qualitative differences as well in the past.
ColtsFan on August 10, 2007 at 1:16 AM
Perhaps.
But there are much fewer differences between Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo sapiens, and others.
Christoph on August 10, 2007 at 1:20 AM
1. Where did they pick up the kangaroos and polar bears from?
You are assuming that the current conditions that exist today, that would make it difficult for these animals, separated by oceans, and varying climates, were also present back then. Plus, “If you build it, they will come” Also, I don’t want to come across as one who tries to demythologize in the Bultmannian sense. I do believe in the miraculous. But to understand miracles better, it would be good to read C.S. Lewis’ book Miracles.
Weight of Glory on August 10, 2007 at 1:21 AM
Or ask yourself why all the hundreds of thousands of years of disparate tool-using, hunting, social primates.
Christoph on August 10, 2007 at 1:23 AM
Well, it’s nice to see the stereotype of conservatives only being fundamentalists smashed right here today in this thread. I don’t have much to add past that, save for reiterating that evolution and religion (or to a more broad point, science and religious beliefs) are not mutually exclusive concepts. You don’t have to decide that there is no God to understand evolution.
NeoConNews on August 10, 2007 at 1:26 AM
I am always pushing that book because it deals with first things very well. It is a modern work. And he is a great writer, who is very easy to read. Bit of a tangent here, but I believe that all one would need in terms of literature, would be the works of three authors, St. Augustine (Plato, Homer, Virgil, Cicero, pre-socratic philosopher), St. Thomas (Aristotle, Formal Logic, Catholic Church doctrine), and C.S. Lewis (Reformation, 17th 18th 19th century philosophy, World Wars, beginnings of Postmodernism.) Man it’s 12:30! That’s it Im going to bed. Really Christoph, it has been really fun. I rarely get to discuss these things with people. Thanks.
Weight of Glory on August 10, 2007 at 1:29 AM
I can’t remember whether I’ve read that book or not although I’ve read several nonfiction books of Lewis’s years ago.
Still not more convincing than all the different socialized tool using pottery making primates all over the place for eons.
Goodnight.
Christoph on August 10, 2007 at 1:33 AM
There was a time when I wanted to know the “how.” I kinda focused on it so much, wanting to know “how did this occur,” etc. But this guy , I think, or was it this guy spoke on how “big miracles” are not a problem at all for the Christian believer. You see, once a theistic universe has been showned, then from God’s perspective, a “small miracle” (Noah’s Ark, Jonah and the whale) is not a problem in the same way that a “big miracle” (creation of Earth) is not a conceptual problem. The key question is:
Does God exist?
If God exists, then “small miracles” are not a conceptual difficulty. If God exists, then “big miracles” are not a conceptual difficulty nor are they a contradiction.
By the way, I have found these guys to be kinda helpful in the past.
ColtsFan on August 10, 2007 at 1:35 AM
I did notice my typo once it was posted.
I thought I could let it slide.
Instead you entered into the picture. over an hour and 1/2 later just to point it out, after GOD/god/Jebus knows how many other people let it slide as well.
Frankly if your only asset is being a spelling nazi then please go somewhere else.
F15Mech on August 10, 2007 at 1:36 AM
Well, there are illegitimate accusations of violating Godwin’s Law and legitimate ones.
I think you’ve just hit the jackpot.
And earnest pleas too:
Christoph on August 10, 2007 at 1:43 AM
Ha!! :-)
ColtsFan on August 10, 2007 at 1:47 AM
Christoph,
Ok you busted me about my “spelling”,
I am still waiting for a response from you about “the evolution of flies”.
BTW does this comment ring a bell?
F15Mech on August 10, 2007 at 2:11 AM
You mean the one where you say…?
I believe you.
Yes. terryannonline and I thought it was funny when you begged Bob’s Kid to leave the thread for pointing out a spelling error.
Christoph on August 10, 2007 at 2:17 AM
The problem with the Theory of Evolution is that there are some very large holes in it that no one is willing to approach.
Take for instance – How do you explain the evolution of sexually reproducing organisms that have different numbers of chromosomes? Organisms with different numbers of chromosomes cannot reproduce with each other, so for an organisms to evolve that has a different number of chromosome it would require a similar organism of the opposite sex to have basically the exact same mutation, in close physical proximity, and the two organisms reproduce together. Take a moment and consider the odds of this happening by chance. Then consider that this process must have happened multiple times in order for the variety of life that we have on Earth to exist. I would say that belief that this happened by chance requires at least as much faith as believing in a god that guided the process.
Buford on August 10, 2007 at 4:35 AM
One, their are theories to explain that.
Two, your is an argument from ignorance — not knowing everything (yourself or the science itself) does not invalidate it. We all have more to learn.
Three, do you think it’s more likely than, God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light and he saw it was good? Then, God really got cracking and worked on fundamental physical particles, balancing all of the forces, and creating 15-billion years of “Universe” evolution history and proof to REALLY mess with humans’ minds.
Christoph on August 10, 2007 at 5:14 AM
Buford:
“Take a moment and consider the odds of this happening by chance.”
That right there clearly demonstrates that you don’t really understand evolution.
c6gunner on August 10, 2007 at 7:32 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »