|
thequestionist
New Member
6 Posts |
 Posted - 06/14/2008 : 06:20:08 [Permalink]
|
Case in point, about no1nose's copy+paste responses. Here's part of his response here:
Originally posted by no1nose
Thanks for your post Simon
| And Evolution and Christianity have many differences |
Evolution, whether you like it or not, is about the survival of the fittest. You can deny this but still it is true and more importantly it is what the vast majority of people believe. Christianity is about the redemption of the unfit, even if many Christians have not lived up to this ideal. From these two starting blocks there will be different outcomes and Evolutionist are responsible for the outcomes of their core ideals. Many social evils follow naturally from the theory of evolution core ideas. This is not the case with Christianity whose core ideals are against social evil.
|
and here was one of his recent responses over at christianforums:
(http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7245202&page=8)
Evolution, whether you like it or not, is about the survival of the fittest. You can deny this but still it is true and more importantly it is what the vast majority of people believe. Christianity is about the redemption of the unfit, even if many Christians have not lived up to this ideal. From these two starting blocks there will be different outcomes and Evolutionist are responsible for the outcomes of their core ideals. Many social evils follow naturally from the theory of evolution core ideas. This is not the case with Christianity whose core ideals are against social evil
|
Funny enough, he added a little more to his post here on skepticfriends, mainly:
You have pointed out some differences but what is the problem with recognizing the parallels between Christianity and Evolution?
In the most general sense they both follow the “Redeemer Scenario” which is the most prevalent myth in the world. The idea of a redeemer is as old as mankind. And it can be found in many cultures. There were many people before Jesus who claimed to be the Messiah and there have been many since. Entertainment in our society is so saturated with this idea of a saviour that we take the whole thing for granted. The Western movie is famous for the lone hero who rides into town to save people from a gang of villains. But there are also many adventure, war, action or drama movies feature a hero who suffers and then rescues the innocent. Often in movies a hero appears to die only to have to somehow have escaped death and reappears to everyone's joy. The fact saviour myths existed before the time of Christ doesn't disprove the validity of Christianity. Far from it, if anything they show that in the heart of mankind there has always been the need for a saviour. All Darwin did was adapt this to the natural world.
|
But sure enough, I checked to see if he had responded to the thread at christianforums recently, and look what I found! Post #75 in the thread:
What is the problem with recognizing the parallels between Christianity and Evolution?
In the most general sense they both follow the “Redeemer Scenario” which is the most prevalent myth in the world. The idea of a redeemer is as old as mankind. And it can be found in many cultures. There were many people before Jesus who claimed to be the Messiah and there have been many since. Entertainment in our society is so saturated with this idea of a saviour that we take the whole thing for granted. The Western movie is f |
 |
|
|
thequestionist
New Member
6 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2008 : 06:23:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
thequestionist:
I first came to this forum many years ago as a YEC Christian, and can safely say that the discussions I provoked and engaged in here were a key factor in my eventual deconversion from Christianity, and my embrace of skepticism. |
Way cool! Nice to hear back from old members who remind us that we aren't just spinning our wheels over here.
Thanks!
|
Yep, keep up the good work! :D
Originally posted by Dave W.
Oh, Google is your friend. Awesome stuff back then, brings back memories. Especially "Old earth: Where is everybody?" Good times, man. Goooood times.
Hmmm... I'd bet you don't want your Ivanisavich account password reset, right?
|
Ah thanks...didn't know about that google site-search feature. And yea...the "Where is everybody" thread was hilarious...that's one of the one's I was able to find :D
Not sure what you mean by having my account password reset....does that happen after long periods of inactivity? Either way, doesn't really matter...I haven't logged into that account in many years. :) |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2008 : 08:20:10 [Permalink]
|
no1nose:
Say something interesting and you will get my personal attention. |
And in that way, you get to ignore most of the objections to your posts no matter how well conceived they are. How convenient for you. But that's not how it works here. Welcome to SFN.
You have yet to directly address objections to your version of evolution. You have yet to directly address objections to your version of quantum mechanics. You have yet to address the many objections to your OP premise with anything but a restatement of your opinion, disregarding specific objections.
Back on page one, Dave and others (including me) responded to your first and second post, sometimes point by point. You offered no direct response. And that pattern of non-reply is still going on.
So here is the deal. I don't really care what you find “interesting.” If you want to engage in a discussion here, then you will have to begin responding to those who took the time to post objections to your posts by either defending your claims or admit your mistakes, directly, or you will not last long here. Either engage or get lost.
It's the height of rudeness to answer specific objections written by real people who took the time to write them with generalized answers suitable for use at other forums. It's lazy and it avoids actually having to engage in a real discussion, not to mention the fact that specific objections, in that way, are simply ignored by you. Again, rude.
Our forum is available for your use only if you intend to take part in an actual discussion by defending your many claims against specific objections to them. You are free to present your case only if you take an active roll in the discussion.
Take this post seriously. I have grown way too cranky to put up with trollish behavior and spam. Your choices are to engage in a real discussion, or to leave now. Of course, other options are available to the staff at SFN if you choose to disregard this post.
It's all up to you now…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2008 : 08:31:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by no1nose
So there may be some parallels? |
You have yet to demonstrate any. I mentioned one possibility, but you don't seem to have picked up on it, and it's a poor candidate anyway.| If you don't know what they are how can you know that they are causal? |
Until a parallel is shown to exist, there's no reason to wonder about whether it's causal or not. My point was that correlation is not causation. If it were, we could state that because Bibles and paper money are both rectangular, money must be an "offshoot of Christianity," an obviously ludicrous idea. Yet your ideas about evolutionary theory and Christianity are not qualitatively different.| Sounds like you have already made up your mind and are determined not to chance it. Come on open your minds a little!! |
You just blew out irony meters all over the country because it is clear that you've closed your mind to the possibility that you're simply wrong. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2008 : 08:40:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by thequestionist
Not sure what you mean by having my account password reset....does that happen after long periods of inactivity? Either way, doesn't really matter...I haven't logged into that account in many years. :) |
Well, obviously you re-registered as thequestionist instead of using your old account. Either you don't want to use your old account, or you'd forgotten your password. I was betting that your memory was good. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
thequestionist
New Member
6 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2008 : 08:48:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by thequestionist
Not sure what you mean by having my account password reset....does that happen after long periods of inactivity? Either way, doesn't really matter...I haven't logged into that account in many years. :) |
Well, obviously you re-registered as thequestionist instead of using your old account. Either you don't want to use your old account, or you'd forgotten your password. I was betting that your memory was good.
|
Ah ok...yea I still have the old account's password ;)...I just registered the new account because it's the username I use at christianforums and my original intent in posting here was to let you guys know that the same hijinks are going on over there. |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2008 : 10:00:00 [Permalink]
|
Well; let's think.
In Christianity; Jesus was chosen on purpose by an external agent to fill up a particular mission.
Moreover; Jesus' role was foreshadowed before his birth.
ToE: The mutation occurs at random and even if an individual carries this particular mutant gene, there is no certitude that it will survive to pass on to further generations.
Christianity: Jesus' is marked through 'magical' means.
ToE: The mutation occurs through known; well-characterized mechanisms that can be repeated artificially.
Christianity: Jesus knows and accepts his role.
Not in the ToE.
Christianity: Jesus does not physically diverge from the norm however his attitude was radically different and was recognized as such by its contemporaries.
ToE: There is one objective measurable physical difference between the mutant and the norm and the first mutant is in no significant way different from his descendant, in fact it is likely to be less fit that its homozygote descendants.
Christianity: Jesus suffered for the sake of his people.
ToE: The mutant does not undergo any particular suffering.
Christianity: Jesus is unique and irreplaceable
ToE: If the mutant disappears; it is likely that the mutation will present itself again at some point.
Christianity: Jesus is a unique; singular event.
ToE: Evolution is a continuous phenomenon that occurs through several generations.
Christianity: Every individual has to re-make the choice for himself.
ToE: The mutation is hereditary and the fact that one's ancestor underwent the mutation is enough to 'qualify' its descendants.
And, of course; the ToE fits the scientific method and would be falsifiable but is indeed supported by the facts.
The core tenets of Christianity are based on faith.
There are other differences, some of which have been covered earlier but there is too many of them to go through them all.
But; I think that it is clear that the similarities one can see are merely coincidental. |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
no1nose
BANNED
50 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2008 : 10:24:10 [Permalink]
|
| Case in point, about no1nose's copy+paste responses. Here's part of his response here: |
So what? Help! Help! thequestionist is a web stalker and he's after me!
Let's move on. Evolution is presented as a complete description of nature. But can this be?
In mathematical logic, Gödel's incompleteness theorems, proved by Kurt Gödel in 1931, are two theorems stating inherent limitations of all but the most trivial formal systems for arithmetic of mathematical interest.
The theorems are of considerable importance to the philosophy of mathematics. They are widely regarded as showing that Hilbert's program to find a complete and consistent set of axioms for all of mathematics is impossible, thus giving a negative answer to Hilbert's second problem. Authors such as J. R. Lucas have argued that the theorems have implications in wider areas of philosophy and even cognitive science as well as preventing any complete theory of everything from being found in physics, but these claims are less generally accepted. |
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems |
|
|
|
thequestionist
New Member
6 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2008 : 10:38:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by no1nose
So what? Help! Help! thequestionist is a web stalker and he's after me!
|
Actually no, I'm a frequenter of both forums more than happy to call dishonest people like yourself out for your bullshit. Apparently you thought you'd get away with it?
Let's move on. Evolution is presented as a complete description of nature. But can this be?
|
Most absurd statement you've made yet. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 06/14/2008 : 10:38:56 [Permalink]
|
no1nose:
Evolution is presented as a complete description of nature. |
Where the hell did you get that? You make these bold and erroneous statements and then fail to support them. In this case, your statement is a strawman you have built, with a weak attempt (because your source has nothing to do with your claim) to knock it down.
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2008 : 12:13:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by no1nose
| Case in point, about no1nose's copy+paste responses. Here's part of his response here: |
So what? |
Actually, Kil, an administrator here, explained to you "so what," and you have ignored him.| Help! Help! thequestionist is a web stalker and he's after me! |
If you'd been paying attention, you would know that thequestionist's tenure here is much longer than yours.| Let's move on. Evolution is presented as a complete description of nature. But can this be? |
It can't be, because as has already been explained, it isn't presented in any such way. Once again, this is more evidence that you've fallen for the creationist propaganda and refuse to think for yourself. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2008 : 13:04:51 [Permalink]
|
| Let's move on. Evolution is presented as a complete description of nature. But can this be? |
No, it cannot be. Where ever did you get such a preposterous idea?
To properly describe nature, you require not only the ToE but need to understand at least a little of everything from biology to ecology, to geology and beyond. To repeat myself (ad nauseum), the ToE merely deals with certain, biological processes that adapt a population of organisms to the current enviornment. It does not deal with geology nor ecological science, nor atmospheric science, nor oceanography, nor any of a myriad of other topics relating to the natural world. How is that so difficult to understand?
You were given the Talk Orgins link 'way back yonder on the first page. I suggest that you finally open it and do a little study. That way, if your attention span's up to it, you'll know at least a little whereof you speak.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
no1nose
BANNED
50 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2008 : 20:01:53 [Permalink]
|
Just for you guys I wrote this - I promise, kiss kiss (I did share it with some other "friends")
Incompleteness Thought Experiment. (please try this yourselves)
Sitting on the table before me is a coffee cup. I now close my eyes and try to picture the cup. As I try to picture the cup within my mind I notice that I can only hold the image of the cup for a short time and that the image that I imagine is different than what I see when I look at the cup. The image of the cup that I imagine is static in time and more two dimensional than three. I cannot imagine the whole cup but only a view of it. Clearly the cup that exists in my mind is a distorted representation of the cup on the table. The cup in my mind is made up from my observations of the cup on the table. But the cup in my mind is not the same as the cup on the table. The cup on the table exists in real time and space while the cup in my mind exists in an entirely different way that is not a true representation.
I now take a pen and paper and attempt to describe the cup. However, hard I try my description will be of the cup that is in my imagination and not the actual cup itself. This then is the problem with any description of nature based on observations. With the aid on mathematics we can describe some aspects of the cup and make predications based on laws of nature. But in the case of Evolution there are no mathematical measures inherit in its theory. This being the case we are left with only the distorted images in our minds to use as a basis for a written description of the natural world and how it works.
This was what Darwin faced when he set out to describe nature with the Theory of Evolution. Besides working with observations based on distorted images he needed a scenario or outline that would make sense of his observations. This is where he turned to Christian beliefs. In Christianity there is the idea that some survive and some become “extinct”. There is also the idea that changing one's nature is the key to survival. This fit well with his observations and with a few adaptations became the Theory of Evolution.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2008 : 20:14:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by no1nose
This was what Darwin faced when he set out to describe nature with the Theory of Evolution. Besides working with observations based on distorted images he needed a scenario or outline that would make sense of his observations. This is where he turned to Christian beliefs. In Christianity there is the idea that some survive and some become “extinct”. There is also the idea that changing one's nature is the key to survival. This fit well with his observations and with a few adaptations became the Theory of Evolution. |
Hardly. For one thing, nobody is mistaking the map for the terrain here, and Darwin certainly didn't. It's why the map keeps changing, despite your seeming insistence that the modern theory of evolution is the same thing that Darwin put forth 149 years ago.
For another, no creature purposefully changes its "nature" in order to survive. The mutations (that we've actually seen in real life!) are random. Not so with Christianity, where a specific change is required of all, and failure to adopt that change means punishment by a sadistic bully (which you equate with extinction, but for no good reason since all Christians die - 100% of them - and the "saved" Christians won't evolve any further, either, since once perfection is attained change is impossible).
If you have actual evidence that Darwin "turned to Christian beliefs" for his insight into biology, please do share (I believe that all of his surviving writings are now online and free). Until then, you appear to be doing nothing more than twisting words (like "extinct") to fit your conclusion, ignoring many facts and criticisms along the way. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
Darwin’s debt to Christianity
Topic Locked
