Deism

Well Martin, I wish you all the best, etc. but I'm afraid you're on your own on that one. I don't know that any reasonable man has ever asserted that God is the hater.

Yes, it is. That is what the concept of God is. An eternal, uncreated, all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing Spirit. He has to be spirit because he existed before matter was created....it is not possible that God is material and at the same time eternal........don't you understand that?

I probably won't be able to reply for a while as I'm leaving work.....but I'll say this. Martin, you're gonna make one helluva Catholic when you finally arrive :grin:

 

Red, this was for you:

It's possible I'm mistaken or misinformed so I'll let you tell me at which point it's all gone pear shaped for my thinking....please feel free to correct me on dates, timeline....

-When Darwin first proposed his theory of evolution most people who even had a thought on the subject were under the impression that the planet and life on it were a result of God's work, weren't they? (mid-late 1800's)?

-Ok, after the assault of Darwin and Freud upon much of the Christian cultures on the planet the public had been informed that life and it's diversity on the planet was the result of natural, evolutionary forces as well as reaching a new understand, ala Freud, that mental illness is not a result of demons, etc. but a result of the complex tug of war of subconscious forces. The main point being that the Christian interpretation of life wasn't very accurate and that now with "Progress" we could begin to do away with the superstitions of the past. I'd have to say that Darwin was very successful in changing the landscape of the Western world. (1930's Scopes trial?)

-Evolution had reached a point where it was almost accepted as a fact by everyone. The Christians and creationists, if there were any, were fairly quiet on the subject and any protest they did voice weren't really backed up by many sound scientific arguments. For this reason the evolutionary literature in school books for example went largely unchallenged. (1970-1990's)

-The clashes over evolution and creation are increasing and the creationist are much better funded and organized than they were twenty or thirty years ago. You will see more and more struggles over text books etc, in the future with the end result being the elevation of creationist literature to at least on equal standing with evolutionary thought. (2005-2015)

-That will happen in our lifetime. Sometime after we are all dead things may have progressed far enough for evolution to be removed from the text books. (2050)

Now, as far as evolution being on the way out......I'd have to say you'd be hard pressed to say that it's gaining strength. Evolution is going the same way as abortion rights. In fifty years both will be a thing if the past.

 

Flabengal, do you think that evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive? It seems logical to me that you can have creationism, in that God created the universe, and established in species an ability to change and evolve to survive their surroundings.

 

well, he is sentencing me to hell. doesnt get much worse than that.

i can understand that idea, but not why you would think that is actually the case. your evidence for that seems to be the fact that you have said it and wish it were true.

 

No, I don't think they are mutually exclusive. I just don't think evolution took place, that's all. If God had wanted to do it that way then there would be evidence. I just think that the majority of the scientific community is biased against religion and will go to great lengths to avoid making any conclusions that point to a Supreme Being.

A few examples:

-The Great Flood.....a theory that would provide a mechanism for animal/fish/plant fossils on the tops of mountains, in the middle of deserts, etc. However, because the idea of a Flood sounds like it lends credibility to the Bible the scientists go to great lengths to explain how these fossils could have gotten their without a Flood. That's how you get these articles about how millions and millions of years ago the Himalayas were actually part of the sea floor, etc.

-think about this, if God had created the earth exactly as in the Bible/Garden of Eden and theoretically if a team of scientists were able to test it the next day they would tell you that Adam and Eve were adults (say 19 yrs. old for arguments sake.) They could also test the trees and tell you based on the tree rings the trees were such and such a date old. The point is that if the universe was created like that the scientist come up with results that overstate the age of everything. I think that is basically what goes on with the idea of evolution, etc.

-the fossils that have been found and pointed to as proof of evolution are sketchy at best. I'd have to go back and research the info again but there have been plenty of fakes, hoaxes, etc. in the evolutionary research. It's a lot like the New York Times actually. They come out with a find, lot's of press, etc. then a few years later on the back page they say it was actually an example of an extinct ape or some such thing. I'm sure I'll get blasted for that but I'll stand by it. You'll have to wait a couple of days for me to look up the exact info, etc. Like I said on a post earlier, I haven't looked into this stuff very heavily since college.

I'm rambling now so I'll stop.

 

It's amazing how hard it is to communicate at times. Thankfully, it doesn't diminish my enjoyment of the discussion. I put abortion in there because, in my opinion, momentum is building against abortion. Just as I think the evolutionary forces will soon be on the retreat. I could be wrong, naturally but I think evidence supports my position.

-As medical science progresses and is able to examine and reveal more about fetuses and their development it will be increasingly difficult to politically support abortion. There are already laws on the books that allow for prosecution for killing an unborn baby. Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Scott Peterson convicted for killing his wife and the baby? That is completely incoherent as far as the law goes, considering you can have the pregnency terminated in a clinic. I would have to say I think the public's awareness of the incoherence will only increase. It's simply not credible to argue that the fetus is only a collection of tissue when you can hear the heart beat, etc.

-As far as the evolution question goes it's interesting that Nat'l Geo. came out with that article. Do you think maybe it was in response to the increase in Creationist literature in public circulation? I can tell you that ten years ago it took a lot of effort to scrape up some articles on creationism and now all you have to do is go through a decent sized book store. Articles like that in Nat'l Geo. will only result in an increase in the discussion in the public's mind. I'm not saying the debate is over and the creationists have won, only that the debate is beginning.....just the fact that there will be a debate is evidence that people are more confident in questioning Evolution.

Yes, I am serious....and don't call me Shirley....My point is that in any conflict/clash/battle or whatever you want to call it the ability of one side to get support, politically, financially, etc. is a good indicator of the viability of that entity. People generally shy away from pouring money, time, effort into a losing cause. At the same time, causes that gain momentum can generate greater interest, support, financing, etc. It will be much more difficult to discredit the creationist as their cause will be led by creationist scientists and not church leaders. I'm all for a debate on the scientific evidence; religion has nothing to fear from science. They are completely compatible as long as both are true. The only problem arises when one of them is not....the question is only where does the error lie.

 

-I guess my question would be whether you believe in a catastrophic flood event at some point in mankind's history or not? Most civilizations the world over have a flood story in their mythology. That would be considered a piece of evidence in favor of the flood.

-How about the huge concentrations of fossils that are found. I'll have to go back and check the locations/terminology but it's my understanding that there are numerous fossil concentrations that could lead one to believe that the animals were overwhelmed/killed by something and then collected together....much like they would if drowned and settled together in a low area.....


-As far as the WEALTH of evidence in regard to evolution....I'd say there is a dearth of evidence if anything...where are all the transitional fossils of creatures on their way from fish to reptile or reptile to bird or bird to mammal or whatever transition you like. Every fossil they find is of a fully functioning type of animal with functioning organs/fins/legs/wings or whatever. They still haven't found any with a half-leg/half-wing have they...? And how would that enhance their chance of survival anyway?

-I can find several cases of evolutionary claims/finds where the findings were completely discredited later. I know for a fact that they do not mention these cases in the textbooks. Why do people feel so driven to produce something that they do not find? And why does it go unpublicized when there is out and out fraud perpetrated by scientists? The same reason the traditional media sweeps Democratic problems under the rug and viciously attacks the Republicans for infractions of a much less serious nature.....these people have an agenda they are pushing.

 

Actually, most ancient cultures around the world have a flood legend...the Chinese, Indians, American Indians, etc., not just the Hebrews. Now I'm not ready to attribute evidence of millions of years of geological strata to a rainstorm that lasted 40 days and 40 nights...that would be ridiculous. But clearly (to me, at least), something along the lines of a global flood must have happened. There are just too many similar ancient myths about it around the globe for it to not have happened.