Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution falsifies God/s?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1 of 253 (726247)
05-07-2014 10:45 AM


Taken from Open letter to all Atheists.
Welcome to the fray Faceman,
I think this deserves it's own thread;
Message 44: For evolution to be true, there can be no God - or at the very least He would become a liar. ...
So the validity of evolution is a falsification test for belief in god/s?
Or is it just a test for your particular belief\interpretation re god/s?
And do you mean god/s would be a liar for
  1. creating the book that tells you (your interpretation) that evolution doesn't occur ... or
  2. creating the evidence that evolution does occur ...?
Just askin.
... So indirectly, atheism is being taught in public schools, via evolution.
Logical fallacy, as has been pointed out.
Message 57: Does evolution leave room for a supernatural Creator?
Yes. A supernatural creator could create the universe in a manner that would cause life to form and evolve. Notice that this invalidates your argument re atheism. There are many religions that do not conflict with evolution.
Message 58: No, I'm almost certain that's not what they all believe. There are some Christians who believe in evolution, though I'm not sure how they sell themselves on that.
See the Clergy Letter Project, also see Catholic Church comments.
God is not a democracy. The majority does not get to rewrite the books of the Bible.
So you don't vote on the validity of the Rigveda but you choose fundamentalist Christianity instead. Curious.
quote:
Nasadiya Sukta (Rigveda Creation hymn)
"Who really knows?
Who will here proclaim it?
Whence was it produced? Whence is this creation?
The gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe.
Who then knows whence it has arisen?"
RV, 10:129-6 [1][2][3]

No conflict with evolution there eh?
(repeat): For evolution to be true, there can be no God - or at the very least He would become a liar.
  1. The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities.
  2. The process of phyletic speciation involves the continued process of evolution over several generations, where the accumulation of changes from generation to generation becomes sufficient for the breeding population to develop combinations of traits that are observably different from the ancestral parent population (and because such phyletic change in breeding populations are a continuous process, determining when the changes are "sufficient" to be deemed a new species is a subjective observation, this is frequently called arbitrary speciation).
  3. The process of divergent speciation involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations due to loss of gene flow between the daughter populations, which are then are free to diverge from each other independently via the process of evolution.
  4. The process of forming nested hierarchies occurs when multiple speciation events produce a branching pattern of genealogical history, where multiple offspring daughter species are descended from the same common ancestor population (Note that a clade is formed by the common ancestor population and all of their descendants).
This is evolution, these processes have been observed and documented and they are scientific facts.
Also, I note that "original kinds" and descendants ("after their kind") meet the definition of clades ... so I don't see much conflict there.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : added Nasadiya Sukta
Edited by RAZD, : kinds
Edited by RAZD, : liar list

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by RAZD, posted 05-07-2014 11:06 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 4 by mike the wiz, posted 05-08-2014 7:04 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 9 by faceman, posted 05-08-2014 7:57 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(5)
Message 2 of 253 (726250)
05-07-2014 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
05-07-2014 10:45 AM


More from Faceman
Message 77: In what capacity? Did He create life and then just walk away? That doesn't make sense. A being capable of creating everything, must be more complex than His creation - otherwise He becomes obsolete.
In other words, if He is more complex than we are, it's illogical to conclude that He would create us and then fade away into obscurity.
There can be only evolution, or a creator, but not both. An evolutionary god repudiates himself.
So you are saying that god/s capable of creating the universe complete with all the laws that govern physics, chemistry, biology, etc., so that it develops all according to plan, is less powerful\complex than god/s that need to tinker with their creation to correct mistakes? (*)
Fascinating.

(deleted0
Edited by RAZD, : notes
Edited by RAZD, : removed notes

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 05-07-2014 10:45 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 05-07-2014 5:58 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 3 of 253 (726286)
05-07-2014 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by RAZD
05-07-2014 11:06 AM


morpholution
Message 52: ... also declare that thick-boned, scaled theropods eventually morphed into hallow-boned, avian feathered flying things. ...
So, given all the problems you are having explaining yourself with other replies, I guess you will be happy to learn that evolution does not "declare that thick-boned, scaled theropods eventually morphed into hallow-boned, avian feathered flying things" yes?"
You may be less happy to learn that theropods had hollow (as opposed to "blessed") bones and feathers, and that birds and theropods share a common ancestor ... with feathers and hollow "pneumatized" bones.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by RAZD, posted 05-07-2014 11:06 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


(1)
Message 4 of 253 (726311)
05-08-2014 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
05-07-2014 10:45 AM


mikes alternative reading material.
(I offer this post as alternative reading material, the "opposing" view, note I am not attacking RAZD's information, but I would like to show to readers such as Faceman, that there is an alternative way to view the world. That's all, I promise I have no debate-intentions, we all know what I believe and expound, and we all know that what I expound will be "ripped" to pieces, following this post. For me, this doesn't prove my points unsound, because anyone can rip a fine cake to pieces. Majority-rule doesn't prove anything to me, which is why am like a bouncy mikey-ball that always comes back. )
This is evolution, these processes have been observed and documented and they are scientific facts.
I agree all four, "facts", exist. I submit that those facts can still exist even if molecules-to-man, did not happen. Logically it has been shown that these, "parts" of Darwin's claim do not preclude the "whole" from being false.
For example, if the branching, changing, and frequencies, all happened, these can all happen without any macro-changes to animal kinds. This is why evolution does not make any claims that animals MUST change over time, because all of these "facts" do not imply that animals MUST macro-evolve. So when you say, "this is evolution", then since I, mike, agree with all of those facts existing, does this mean I believe in, quote, "evolution"?
Yet we know that mike doesn't accept macro-evolution. In that case, how can I agree with evolution, and not agree with evolution unless the word has two meanings? It must at least mean two different things, logically.
Don't fall for the bait and switch - creation.com
At most, those facts sited, provide compelling confirmation evidence, in an inductive form, (as to claim proof is to affirm the consequent). Those things SHOULD follow given a macro evolution, that they actually do, is not consequential. It is "interesting".
But the burden of proof is still very heavy upon Darwin's shoulders, given the size of the very great claim of molecules-to-man.
Burden Of Proof
Evolution Is Not A Fact
One final point I make is in reference to the fallacy of composition. Even if the parts are true, this does not make the whole true. I won't get into disputing evidence, because I don't dispute any, I also accept adaptation in animals.
Notice I CERTAINLY DO accept those four facts that make "evolution", so does that mean that really I am evolutionist? If I accept those facts, and those facts, ARE "evolution" but I don't accept, "evolution", then logically, we have an equivocation problem happening.
Notice all the scientists at CMI ALSO accept those facts, but simply disagree that they are consequential. Consequential to what? To accepting MORE than those facts. What is MORE? MORE is to say, "ergo, molecules-to-man." But that "ergo" does not logically follow.
All the best, mike.
(Disclaimer. Please note RAZD, my very contrary opinions in no way effect the eloquence, knowledge, patience and cogency your posts constantly offer, which I have not seen an equal response to in fair debate, in this topic, as of yet. Naturally we are still diametrically opposed, ideologically, but please don't take that personally, because this is my standard response to all evolutionists. So very many times, because we are so outnumbered, it seems our absence-of-presence means that there is an absence-of-evidence of Christians actually having a response. So I chose to offer material to the contrary. We do exist, we do have an alternative thinking-pattern, but we are few in number. Absence of evidence can seem consequential, but only a "conspicuous absence of evidence" is consequential. Most Christians aren't all that intellectual, which also gives us absence. Feel free to have the final word on this one, as I am just passing through. )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 05-07-2014 10:45 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-08-2014 9:07 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 6 by RAZD, posted 05-08-2014 9:21 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 5 of 253 (726317)
05-08-2014 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by mike the wiz
05-08-2014 7:04 AM


Re: mikes alternative reading material.
Well, what faceman said was:
For evolution to be true, there can be no God - or at the very least He would become a liar.
If he comes back, one of the things he has to decide is how much evolution disproves the existence of God. Nowadays it seems like creationists admit the evolution of species and genera but not families, so presumably he'll have to argue that the latter, but not the former, disprove the existence of God. You say that we have an "equivocation problem", but this can be perfectly solved by faceman saying what he meant when he said "for evolution to be true, there can be no God".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by mike the wiz, posted 05-08-2014 7:04 AM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by faceman, posted 05-08-2014 7:43 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 6 of 253 (726323)
05-08-2014 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by mike the wiz
05-08-2014 7:04 AM


Re: mikes alternative reading material.
I agree all four, "facts", exist. I submit that those facts can still exist even if molecules-to-man, did not happen. ...
Agreed. The origin of life is still an open question.
... Logically it has been shown that these, "parts" of Darwin's claim do not preclude the "whole" from being false.
IIRC Darwin did not claim anything involving the origin of life, just the origin of species via natural selection ... and the formation of nested hierarchies from common ancestor populations.
For example, if the branching, changing, and frequencies, all happened, these can all happen without any macro-changes to animal kinds. This is why evolution does not make any claims that animals MUST change over time, because all of these "facts" do not imply that animals MUST macro-evolve. So when you say, "this is evolution", then since I, mike, agree with all of those facts existing, does this mean I believe in, quote, "evolution"?
Yes, imho, it does, as does any creationist that believes in descent from original kinds forming the diversity of life we see.
Of course I also need to ask what you mean by "macro-changes to animal kinds" -- is this some other kind of change from evolution?
Yet we know that mike doesn't accept macro-evolution. In that case, how can I agree with evolution, ...
Well part of the problem is a proper understanding of macro-evolution, how you use it vs how science uses it. For science speciation and nested hierarchies are the elements of macroevolution.
... how can I agree with evolution, and not agree with evolution unless the word has two meanings? It must at least mean two different things, logically.
Or it is a matter of degree rather than type of evolution.
Perhaps a foray into cladistics can clarify the discussion:
Clade - Wikipedia
quote:
A clade (from Ancient Greek κλάδος, klados, "branch") or monophylum (see monophyletic) is a group consisting of an ancestor and all its descendants, a single "branch" on the "tree of life".[1] The ancestor may be an individual, a population or even a species (extinct or extant). Many familiar groups, rodents and insects for example, are clades; others, like lizards and monkeys, are not (lizards excludes snakes, monkeys excludes apes and humans).
Cladogram (family tree) of a biological group. The red and blue boxes at right and left represent clades (i.e., complete branches). The green box in the middle is not a clade, but rather represents an evolutionary grade, an incomplete group, because the blue clade at left is descended from it, but is excluded.
Increasingly, taxonomists try to avoid naming taxa that are not clades.
And as new species continue to arise from existing species, cladistics is more flexible in categorizing the new diversity of life than traditional taxonomy.
Blue plus green is a clade and so is blue plus green plus red.
As can readily be seen from this diagram is that this is precisely (imho) how "kinds" would descend from a parent original kind. The question between creationism and evolution then becomes what and how many original kinds were involved.
So is Red a kind and Blue/Green another kind or are all three one kind?
A difference in degree ... or difference in kind?
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : kind

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by mike the wiz, posted 05-08-2014 7:04 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
faceman
Member (Idle past 3385 days)
Posts: 149
From: MN, USA
Joined: 04-25-2014


Message 7 of 253 (726391)
05-08-2014 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Dr Adequate
05-08-2014 9:07 AM


Re: mikes alternative reading material.
What I meant was if evolution were true, then that would nullify a great portion of the book of Genesis. If those chapters were suspect, then why wouldn't Gen. 1:1 be suspect? And on and on it goes, where the disbelief stops, no one knows.
Thus I should have clarified that (Darwinian) evolution would disprove a Christian God, since the Bible would no longer be reliable, but I suppose it wouldn't shut the door on other gods. The Christian God is the only God I work with though, so my choices of deities are limited in that regard.
How much evolution would I require? An amount equal to 1CNRhK.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-08-2014 9:07 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Coyote, posted 05-08-2014 7:51 PM faceman has replied
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 05-08-2014 8:09 PM faceman has not replied
 Message 15 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-08-2014 8:28 PM faceman has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(5)
Message 8 of 253 (726392)
05-08-2014 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by faceman
05-08-2014 7:43 PM


If evolution were true...
What I meant was if evolution were true, then that would nullify a great portion of the book of Genesis.
As it has been shown that evolution happens, and that the theory of evolution is our best explanation for that, is that close enough?
And parts of Genesis were disproved prior to Darwin and his theory. The idea of a global flood ca. 4,350 years ago was disproved about 200 years ago by the early Christian geologists who were seeking to support that flood.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by faceman, posted 05-08-2014 7:43 PM faceman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by faceman, posted 05-08-2014 8:01 PM Coyote has replied

  
faceman
Member (Idle past 3385 days)
Posts: 149
From: MN, USA
Joined: 04-25-2014


Message 9 of 253 (726393)
05-08-2014 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
05-07-2014 10:45 AM


I think I've answered most of your post in my replies to Dr. Adequate, so I'll just quickly repeat it here.
If evolution were true, then that would negate a Christian God, but you're right, many other religions would probably not be damaged by it.
Also, I note that "original kinds" and descendants ("after their kind") meet the definition of clades
But completed within 6 days? There's the rub (for Christians anyways).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 05-07-2014 10:45 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-08-2014 8:06 PM faceman has replied
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 05-08-2014 8:14 PM faceman has replied
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 05-08-2014 8:32 PM faceman has replied

  
faceman
Member (Idle past 3385 days)
Posts: 149
From: MN, USA
Joined: 04-25-2014


Message 10 of 253 (726394)
05-08-2014 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Coyote
05-08-2014 7:51 PM


Re: If evolution were true...
That's a tad bit of elephant hurling right there Coyote.
As it has been shown that evolution happens, and that the theory of evolution is our best explanation for that, is that close enough?
Not by a country mile (and they're longer out here - we evolve them that way).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Coyote, posted 05-08-2014 7:51 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Coyote, posted 05-08-2014 10:42 PM faceman has replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


(1)
Message 11 of 253 (726395)
05-08-2014 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by faceman
05-08-2014 7:57 PM


I shall here use "evolution" in the broad sense, not just biological evolution.
If evolution were true, then that would negate a Christian God...
If evolution were true, then that would negate portions of the Bible. IF you wish to equate the Bible with a Christian God, then it would also negate a Christian God. But, to me, equating printed material with God sure seems silly.
Moose

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith
"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien
"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by faceman, posted 05-08-2014 7:57 PM faceman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by faceman, posted 05-08-2014 8:13 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 12 of 253 (726396)
05-08-2014 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by faceman
05-08-2014 7:43 PM


Re: mikes alternative reading material.
What I meant was if evolution were true, then that would nullify a great portion of the book of Genesis. If those chapters were suspect, then why wouldn't Gen. 1:1 be suspect? And on and on it goes, where the disbelief stops, no one knows.
That would appear to be a problem for your particular all or nothing approach (which is not my problem).
Message 58: No, I'm almost certain that's not what they all believe. There are some Christians who believe in evolution, though I'm not sure how they sell themselves on that.
See the Clergy Letter Project, also see Catholic Church comments regarding evolution. It would appear that many Christians have no problems with evolution.
Thus I should have clarified that (Darwinian) evolution would disprove a Christian God, since the Bible would no longer be reliable, but I suppose it wouldn't shut the door on other gods. The Christian God is the only God I work with though, so my choices of deities are limited in that regard.
There are plenty of choices, so I always wonder why anyone would choose a flavor of belief at odds with reality observed in the world around us.
Message 44: For evolution to be true, there can be no God - or at the very least He would become a liar. ...
So the validity of evolution is a falsification test for belief in god/s?
Or is it just a validation test for your particular belief\interpretation re god/s?
And do you mean god/s would be a liar for
  1. creating the book that tells you (your interpretation) that evolution doesn't occur ... or
  2. creating the evidence that evolution does occur ...?
Just askin.
But we may be getting a little ahead of the debate here, as I am not convinced that you really understand what evolution is ...
  1. The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities.
  2. The process of phyletic speciation involves the continued process of evolution over several generations, where the accumulation of changes from generation to generation becomes sufficient for the breeding population to develop combinations of traits that are observably different from the ancestral parent population (and because such phyletic change in breeding populations are a continuous process, determining when the changes are "sufficient" to be deemed a new species is a subjective observation, this is frequently called arbitrary speciation).
  3. The process of divergent speciation involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations due to loss of gene flow between the daughter populations, which are then are free to diverge from each other independently via the process of evolution.
  4. The process of forming nested hierarchies occurs when multiple speciation events produce a branching pattern of genealogical history, where multiple offspring daughter species are descended from the same common ancestor population (Note that a clade is formed by the common ancestor population and all of their descendants).
This is evolution, these processes have been observed and documented and they are scientific facts.
Also, I note that "original kinds" and descendants ("after their kind") meet the definition of clades ... so I don't see much conflict there.
What do you think evolution is that makes it so antithetical to your belief/s?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by faceman, posted 05-08-2014 7:43 PM faceman has not replied

  
faceman
Member (Idle past 3385 days)
Posts: 149
From: MN, USA
Joined: 04-25-2014


Message 13 of 253 (726397)
05-08-2014 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Minnemooseus
05-08-2014 8:06 PM


IF you wish to equate the Bible with a Christian God, then it would also negate a Christian God.
Since the Bible reveals Jesus to be God, then it becomes impossible to separate the two - if you're a follower of Christ that is. If, on the other hand, you're Thomas Jefferson and think the Bible is fodder for scrap-booking, well good luck with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-08-2014 8:06 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by ramoss, posted 05-09-2014 9:53 PM faceman has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 14 of 253 (726398)
05-08-2014 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by faceman
05-08-2014 7:57 PM


YEC or not to YEC
But completed within 6 days? There's the rub (for Christians anyways).
Indeed, that would mean hyper-evolution on a scale not even remotely considered by scientists.
Presumably you also believe in a delusional flood and that the world is young.
You realize that these beliefs are falsifiable yes?
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by faceman, posted 05-08-2014 7:57 PM faceman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by faceman, posted 05-08-2014 8:30 PM RAZD has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 15 of 253 (726401)
05-08-2014 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by faceman
05-08-2014 7:43 PM


Re: mikes alternative reading material.
What I meant was if evolution were true, then that would nullify a great portion of the book of Genesis. If those chapters were suspect, then why wouldn't Gen. 1:1 be suspect? And on and on it goes, where the disbelief stops, no one knows.
Right. When you exclude the Gospel of Thomas, the Book of Judith, and the Epistle of the Apostles from the Bible, who knows where it will all end? You have to believe everything, or you can't believe anything at all. That's just logic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by faceman, posted 05-08-2014 7:43 PM faceman has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024