Proofs of Evolution: A Mediocre Debate (Faith, robinrohan and their invitees)

That is a problem, admittedly. You don't know that for sure. It wasn't a matter of bamboozling. It's just that people began to think that way, and so they made up this story about Eden. There had to be some explanation for the current state of affairs. The idea of evolution had not occurred to them. You call this "touching condescension" on the part of God: I call it Paganism. What I'm reading, Faith, is the Bible.

You said God acted like a Pagan god in a touching way. He was making out like he was just a little god when in fact he was God. Well, I read some about this, but at the moment the Bible is my source. Remember what I said one time, and you agreed. You have to be able to explain something in plain language, or otherwise you don't understand it.

Our father, who art in heaven . . . that sort of thing?How about if two or three of us gather together in the name of Nothing, Faith? Then Nothing will be with us.We will do this in a bar and raise our glasses to Nothing.Our patron saint, Ernest Hemingway, will be with us.Shakespeare will be with us too.

This is a cop-out. The things that are known about chemistry can be explained by someone who knows chemistry . . .The things that are known about Faith can be explained by those who know Faith . . . but those who don't know Faith are in the dark . . .

It's like the cart before the horse.

There's no such thing as the "First Calvinist Church"--just Baptists and Presbyterians and other offshoots.And the Baptists are notorious teetotalers. The Catholics are more lenient.

No. Are you suggesting that the way they date these different parts of the Old Testament is through a question-begging procedure, in which they assume ahead of time the movement from Paganism to monotheism and then work out the dates according to how God is pictured in a given part of the Bible?But there was this trend toward monotheism--and not just among the Jews, correct?

What you have never explained and cannot explain is why it's my fault if I'm not a believer. We talked about it and you just said, in effect, that you couldn't explain it. That is a crucial issue.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 02-18-2006 11:22 AM

And I believe you would also say that this question-begging procedure also occurs when scientists provide proof for evolution, correct? (the evidence from DNA samples, for example). I'm just trying to understand your overall position.In regard to dating of the Bible, C. S. Lewis said exactly the same thing you did:

See message #241 of this thread.

There's evidence on the other side as well--plenty of it.Speaking of proofs of evolution, which, after all, is supposed to be the topic of this thread (ha, ha), after studying up on it some (the book by Mayr and a few other things I read on the Internet), I've decided that the real physical evidence is the fossils. I don't think there would be much of a case for it if it wasn't for the fossils. What is one to do with them if one wishes to reject evolution? All those hominid skulls, for example.The other types of evidence consists of the following: If evolution is true, such and such would have to be the case. Such-and-such is in fact the case. This is what we find with DNA evidence (and redundantly, with morphological evidence).ABE: I think I've convinced myself that if evolution is true, there can be no God.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 02-18-2006 03:19 PM

The brain cavity gradually gets bigger in the hominids. The arrangement of the fossils is very telling. A Flood would have deposited them haphazardly.Also there are those fossils--lots of them--of those lizard-cows--from whom we came.

See message #126 of this thread. Message 126This message has been edited by AdminJar, 02-18-2006 04:20 PM

They don't all come from Africa. They come from all over. The brain cavity is too big for an ape and not big enough for a modern man. They have thousands of hominid fossils, but they don't have very many complete skeletons. They have some skulls--not a lot. Looks like maybe 20 or 30 or so--I'm not sure.The lizard-cows are crosses between reptiles and mammals. They have features of both. This line is the most complete grouping they have--probably because there were so many of them. Also they had a lot of hard body parts which you need for fossilization. These lizard-cows are descendents of dinosaurs, I guess. And of course they have tons of dinosaur fossils.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, you conceded the point. If you concede that, and if you accept the validity of radiometric dating, then your theory is in ruins. I was just going over what I think are the main strengths of the evolutionary argument.Now, what we do have on your side to combat that?This message has been edited by robinrohan, 02-18-2006 04:59 PM