|  eat | Apr 12, 2007 6:55pm | A while ago in this forum, I tried arguing from etymology that the usage of the Hebrew word 'yôm' to mean a conventional 24-hour day throughout the Pentateuch negated the idea that 'day' per Genesis 1 didn't really mean 'day' (from the commonly cited figure of speech in Peter 3:8 - "...one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like a day."). The focus was then drawn off that point (which was valid, but not acknowledged as so), and I was criticized that my argument didn't explain time dilation.
See the thread 'Defending Biblical Literalism', posts 17 and 18. (apologetics.group.stumbleupon.com/forum/29669/16/ [apologetics.group.stumbleupon.com/forum/29669/16/])
I will not be surprised if that point isn't addressed. |
|
| 
| | Ottawan61350 | Apr 26, 2007 3:14pm | Talking with skeptics is easy. If they are searching it will be evident. If no I don't continue for long. I do let them know how they can get in touch with me.
There are plenty of people that hunger for God. That is why we just keep speaking the truth in love. Believe or not at least they heard and they can't say you didn't care enough.
Some day an event in their life may call to memory what you said. Even if you never find out about it the profit of speaking the word to them became evident to them.
You won't convince someone of something they don't want to believe. A person has to believe there is something greater than their own thoughts or the brainless philosophies they are already saturated with. Heck wrongly indoctrinated believers generally refuse to change so don't get too rattled when a skeptic doesn't.
I have also found them often easier to talk to than religious Christians. Thats a sad fact. |
|
|  |  438731 | Apr 27, 2007 2:02am | "...or the brainless philosophies they are already saturated with"
That's more than a little unfair, wouldn't you say?
I think talking with skeptics shouldn't amount to an attempted conversion. I'm skeptical of religion. Many here are skeptical of evolution. We can discuss each others view points without assuming that we'll ever agree on the subject matter. If you don't continue simply because you don't agree, then that's a very poor reflection on you, and your argument. |
|
| 
|  fireforchrist | Apr 27, 2007 4:36pm | | I guess I am more of a skeptic than you evolutionists because I habitually doubt the accepted belief in evolution. You do not doubt what the majority of scientists say. You are no different than the majority of people in history that have blindly accepted what the scientists have said. I am a skeptic because I habitually doubt what the majority of people say about origins and about religion. I just can not accept what your god (naturalism) has to say about how all the world came into existence and how we should live our lives, and your philosophy holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws, and your theology that all religious truths are derived from nature and natural causes and not from revelation. |
|
| 
| |
|
| | eat | Apr 27, 2007 5:40pm | 15: I suppose creationists would be more skeptical than evolutionists in the case of biological evolution. Being a skeptic, however, says nothing itself about the truth of the skeptic's position. People who believe in UFO's, the Bush administration's complicity in 9/11, and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion could all be said to be skeptics of common accounts, but the majority of people (probably correctly) views those beliefs as flawed.
"You are no different than the majority of people in history that have blindly accepted what the scientists have said. "
Religion far outdates what we today call science. Evolutionary theory came about in the late 19th century, and remains less popular than creationism almost 150 years after its introduction. Religiously motivated disbelief in evolution is without doubt the best example of why a statement like "the majority of people in history have blindly accepted what the scientists have said" is outrageously incorrect.
I would bet that most evolutionists were raised as creationists (I don't know about d4m14n, but both JRyanStevens and I were raised in an intensely Evangelical Christian environment). That assumed, it reasons that evolutionists had to question a preexisting belief in creation to arrive at their current belief - this is much less 'blind' than remaining in belief. The decision to believe in evolutionary theory as opposed to creationism is for most people a choice that comes after a lot of consideration. There are mountains of scientific evidence to support them in this decision, some of which has been offered here (and remains to be rebutted).
It's more or less certain that creationists disbelieve in evolution because it contradicts intractable parts of the Bible. If their skepticism of science were more genuine, then one would expect similar doubt to exist for other well-evidenced theories, like gravity, chromosomal inheritance or heliocentrism.
"I just can not accept what your god (naturalism) has to say about how all the world came into existence and how we should live our lives, and your philosophy holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws, and your theology that all religious truths are derived from nature and natural causes and not from revelation."
Science is not religion. As suggested in the statement above, the biggest difference is between the two is epistemological, or in how the two derive knowledge. Science relies upon "nature and natural causes", that is, empirical evidence and fitting that into a logical framework. Relgion relies upon "revelation", or faith, defined in Hebrews 11:1 as "being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." Believing things by empiricism is more reliable than believing thing by faith. While faith may make for rosy beliefs, the scientific method produces results (i.e., technology). |
|
|
| | inspiredhome | Apr 27, 2007 7:00pm | Evolution and creationism are origins science and both viewpoints are used to interpret empirical science. Faith is based on evidence. Faith means loyalty to and true faith is not blind.
--If their skepticism of science were more genuine, then one would expect similar doubt to exist for other well-evidenced theories, like gravity, chromosomal inheritance or heliocentrism.--
This is an unfair characterization because these are testable and repeatable theories and in line with the scientific method. |
|
| 
| | JRyanStevens | Apr 27, 2007 9:12pm | 18. "Evolution and creationism are origins science and both viewpoints are used to interpret empirical science."
I find it hard to consider creationism a science, because the hypotheses it makes (if it makes any) are refuted with empirical evidence.
"Faith is based on evidence. Faith means loyalty to and true faith is not blind."
not according to Heb 11:1 ("certain of what we do not see"--no evidence, blind). using this biblical foundation, I would say the definition (at least used by heb 11:1) is closer to "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." on the other hand, all my life I had believed ("had faith") for reasons and "evidence." realizing that the evidence led me in a contrary direction from my religious faith, and knowing that I've been following the evidence presented to me my entire life, I had to change my religious views.
"This is an unfair characterization because these are testable and repeatable theories and in line with the scientific method."
Evolution is a testable and repeatable theory. You do not have to replicate the actual occurence to test a hypothesis. for example, let's say you make a hypothesis, using the theory of evolution. now, using the methods of this theory, and searching for historic evidence, you find exactly what you were looking for, exactly where you were looking for it.
more examples--a testable hypothesis of the theory of evolution would include: we will never find human skulls next to dinosaur bones (or in the same strata--because their geologic ages do not overlap), likewise we will never find trilobite fossils with dinosaur fossils (again, because their geologic ages do not overlap), or since there are two kinds of whales (those with teeth and those with baleen) we expect to find a transitional fossil (somewhere between teeth and baleen) because obviously the whales had a common ancestor, and we've found such fossils. these are testable hypotheses. your test consists of making certain predictions about what you will observe (including details about location, geological time, etc.), and the support for the theory comes from actually observing what the theory said you should observe. this doesn't happen with creationism.
there are many more on this page.
(and here is the homepage to peruse). |
|
|
| |
| 
Sponsor |  emortis9 | Apr 27, 2007 9:58pm | 15)"I guess I am more of a skeptic than you evolutionists because I habitually doubt the accepted belief in evolution."
Most people in the US believe in creationism....so that argument is flawed.
"You do not doubt what the majority of scientists say. You are no different than the majority of people in history that have blindly accepted what the scientists have said."
The majority of people are not scientists...so flawed logic once again.
18)"This is an unfair characterization because these are testable and repeatable theories and in line with the scientific method."
So is evolution. It is testable, falsifiable, and consistent with all known evidence. So it is not unfair.
I don't have faith that evolution is right. I just looked at the evidence and reached the only known logical conclusion.
Here is a question: What is the evidence that made you believe in creationism? |
| |
| |
Apologetics → Discussion