/christian/ - Christianity

Religious discussions and spirituality

SAVE THIS FILE: Anon.cafe Fallback File v1.1 (updated 2021-12-13)

Want your event posted here? Requests accepted in this /meta/ thread.

Max message length: 5120

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB

Board Rules
More

(used to delete files and postings)


Open file (98.77 KB 349x500 garden of eden icon.jpg)
Genesis + Biblical Creation Anonymous 12/26/2021 (Sun) 17:45:50 No.2178
This thread is for discussion and the sharing information critical of evolution, old earth, attempts to allegorize the early chapters of Genesis, etc. I will be posting some basic info critical of (Neo-)Darwinism shortly.
Darwin's theory essentially holds that every species has variations. Some varieties turn out to be advantageous for competition in survival, breeding more, etc., while other varieties are not. Creatures with advantageous traits live longer, reproduce more and pass on the useful traits. This natural selection caused by environmental pressures causes species to develop in particular directions and, in time, to lead to the development of radically different species. All life is descended from a few primordial forms in a gradually branching and diversifying 'tree of life'. Some of this is true, some of this is not. This is why evolution is deceptively believable at first glance until one looks into it deeper. Yes, every species has variation within its bounds. This is true, and it can be readily confirmed by the diversity of human beings on this planet, and the diversity of different types of dog breeds, ranging from a Great Dane to a Chihuahua. Darwin believed that changes could be extended without limit. What evolutionists do is rely on an extrapolation that varieties within the species can, over huge periods of time, become separate species in their own right. The question is whether this is true. Many qualified people have denied this: Luther Burbank (American botanist and horticulturalist responsible for developing more than 800 strains and varieties of plants): >I know from experience that I can develop a plum half an inch long or two-and-a-half inches long, with every possible length in between, but I am willing to admit that it is hopeless to try to get a plum the size of a small pea, or one as big as a grapefruit, I have roses that bloom pretty steadily for six months of the year, but I have none that will bloom twelve, and I will not have. In short, there are limits to the development possible. (from Norman Macbeth's Darwin Retried) Pierre Grassé (French zoologist and author of over 300 publications): >In spite of the intense pressure generated by artificial selection (eliminating any parent not answering the criteria of choice) over whole millennia, no new species are born. A comparative study of sera, hemoglobins, blood proteins, interfertility, etc., proves that the strains remain within the same specific definition. This is not a matter of opinion or subjective classification, but a measurable reality. The fact is that selection gives tangible form to and gathers together all the varieties a genome is capable of producing, but does not constitute an innovative evolutionary process. (quoted from Philip Johnson's Darwin on Trial) Francis Hitching (British author): >It is now absolutely clear that there are firm natural limits to what can be done. Remarkable achievements can be made by crossbreeding and selection inside the species barrier, or within a larger circle of closely related species, such as wheats. But wheat is still wheat, and not, for instance, grapefruit. Between 1800 and 1878, the sugar content of beets was raised from 6 to 17 per cent. A half century of further breeding failed to make any difference.” (quoted from Francis Hitching's The Neck of the Giraffe) Things like bacteria and fruit flies are also ideal for this sort of study in trying to extrapolate varieties into entirely new kinds of organisms, since they reproduce so quickly. Despite cycling through thousands and thousands of generations of these organisms, there has never been any evidence of speciation among them from normal bacteria or normal fruit flies. Sometimes they come out and announce that they have done so, but invariably it is a variety that they selected for and nothing else (the same thing dog breeders do). One would think in a scientific, highly-controlled setting like this, that they would be able to make radical changes quickly. Evidence doesn't support this. It's also important to point out that instead of natural selection being seen as an innovative force as Darwin had postulated, some biologists, such as proponent of design Edward Blyth (who comes before Darwin, notably), wrote of natural selection as a conservative force, not an innovative one. Natural selection maintained the stability of the species within its environment, it functioned as a sort of quality control, removing defective varieties, while healthier and more well-adapted creatures would survive and reproduce. Essentially, Natural selection helps a species flourish by favoring gene combinations that allow it to adapt to new and changing conditions.
It's also important to point out that Darwin, like Lamarck, believed in the inheritance of acquired characteristics. This is of course the idea that a creature will pass on useful adaptations that it made during its own lifetime, often demonstrated in the example of the giraffe stretching its neck to reach leaves, and then having children with slightly longer necks as a result. The inheritance of acquired characteristics was the driving force of Darwin's evolutionary theory. He proposed a theory called pangenesis in order to explain how this worked. External influences from the environment would affect the body, which would pass on influences to the reproductive elements, and the acquired traits would then be passed onto the offspring. The inheritance of acquired characteristics has of course been shown to be false time and time again, and so Darwin has lost the mechanism of innovation in his theory. Darwin had no knowledge of genetics either, which is in many ways not very amenable to his theory. Modern evolutionists of course reject ideas like pangenesis and the inheritance of acquired characteristics, and instead adhere to a modern synthesis of Darwinian evolution and Mendelian genetics, what is called Neo-Darwinism. Neo-Darwinism is a much weaker theory that Darwin's. Darwin's evolutionary mechanism is almost deterministic. Creatures adapt for needed traits and pass them on. In Neo-Darwinism, the mechanism of innovation is random mutations in genes. Since they are random, they may or may not happen, and if they do occur, they probably won't happen when needed. If there is a drought, a hypothetical short-necked ancestor of the giraffe probably won't have the slightly longer neck needed to let it survive at that time (to give one example). To jump back a bit, Mendel worked out the laws of inheritance. The laws of Mendel are basically the opposite of Darwin's. To compare the difference between the two of them, Mendel's theory is like shuffling a deck of cards. There is a large amount of combinations that can be created, but there are no new cards or information being added. Darwin's theory is that new cards can arise through shuffling them around. This of course is not observed. The 'beneficial mutations' of relied upon as an evolutionary mechanism are elusive as well. Most observed mutations are manifestly harmful or neutral at minimum, or examples like a bacterium becoming resistant to antibiotics, or how the mutation that creates sickle-cell anemia provides some resistance to malaria (but with the offset of chronic health issues and high mortality). The Fossil Record The issue with the fossil record not supporting evolutionists claims is well-known as well, in that there are no transitional forms as one would expect. Darwin himself said that this is 'the most serious objection which can be urged against the theory'. In Darwin's time geological layers outside of Europe and North America were still largely unexplored. Today paleontologists have carried out excavations from all geological time periods and in all parts of the globe, uncovering thousands of extinct species. Not a single intermediate species or chain of intermediates has ever been found though. In his 'Origin of Species', Darwin realized that the fossil record was the weakest part of his theory, writing: >Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. Swedish botanist Nils Heribert Nilsson summed the issue up in the following way: >It may be firmly maintained that it is not even possi­ble to make a caricature out of paleobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of material. De­ficiencies are real. They will never be filled ... The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils_Heribert-Nilsson Paleotologist and Evolutionist Niles Eldredge said: >No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seemed to happen. Assiduous collecting from cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change - over millions of years, at a rate far too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niles_Eldredge
PART 3 (Fossil record cont.) Paleontologist David Raup said: >[W]e are about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded ... ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_M._Raup So what is expected to be seen in the fossil record of millions of years of Earth's history just is not there. Evolutionists are actually a bit concerned why they can't find the sort of gradual but constant change they expect to see in animals. It just isn't there, leading scientists like Stephen Jay Gould to posit even more unscientific and unobservable theories such as punctuated equilibrium, where most species over the duration of their existence exist in stasis with little to no change, and where there is occasional rapid change in isolated groups, or we have Richard Goldschmidt and his 'hopeful monster' monster theory where one species can just magically give birth to a new one all of the sudden. This is used to explain away the gaps in the record, it just happens so fast you'll never find any evidence! The Cambrian Explosion The Cambrian explosion is inconsistent with Darwin's idea of a gradually diversifying tree of life from a few different types of initial life-forms. The Cambrian explosion took place 541 million years ago. In the span of some 5-10 million years, literally 95% of all animal phyla today appeared abruptly in the fossil record. For clarity's sake, a phylum is a major group of life forms that are distinguished by large differences in morphology, body plans, etc. There exist no transitional forms between these phyla, either, unsurprisingly. As time goes, the appearance of new classes (the level below phyla) also dramatically drops off, to the extent where new ones stop appearing for the remaining 500 million years of life history. We started with amazing diversity already, even on old earth assumptions. Complexity From the very start Darwinian theory has been hard-pressed to explain the formation of complex organs such as eyes, or the brain. The general idea is that these organs develop by series of tiny, almost imperceptible steps. With the eye, they push the idea that it began as a tiny light-sensitive spot, but even this depends on a complex nervous system and inexplicable existence of a region of light sensitive cells. So basically they're starting with a simpler eye, but not explaining how it came to be in the first place, not to mention that diagrams trying to explain quietly slip in entirely new features like magic - now there is a cornea and lens! Now there is a retina and an iris! We must keep in mind that this has to be entirely undirected and blind according to Darwinian theory and that every change in series of changes has to be beneficial to the organism according the doctrine of natural selection. But how often do we see mutations that are beneficial? Oftentimes we see abominations and freaks created by random mutations, not helpful new traits. When is the last time you saw a baby with a birth defect having a useful adaptation? These are unscientific theories that can be be verified in the same way that Newton's theories of planetary orbits can. We can just look at see if actually follows according to what he proposed. Not so with evolution. One must accept it on faith. I imagine that the odds of random interactions of chemicals even forming a single cell are astronomically implausible, given that cells themselves are extremely complex organisms, a far cry from the 'protoplasm' of Darwin's day.
>>2178 Materialist scientists don't believe in God and don't care to. They take their piecemeal frameworks of knowledge and project it into the primordial past, to be asserted as truth, because it befits the authorities of the Earth that there should be no deliverance for fallen man.
>>2193 That, and since they're on the hole so deep, their pride will not let them go back.
Anyone care to volunteer information on how unreliable carbon dating is?
>>2256 In regards to what? Dinosaurs?
>>2256 Carbon dating is largely a meme. One must remember that carbon dating is only 'accurate' out to around 50,000 years ago. The accuracy of this dating method also crucially relies on the assumption that the amount of the carbon-14 in the atmosphere has been constant, and that the decay rate into nitrogen proceeds constantly. There are numerous examples of modern mollusk shells that can be dated to be thousands of years old, freshly killed animals having calculated ages of over a millenium, among other things. It is also well known that over the past 60 plus years atmospheric radiocarbon levels have almost doubled due to above-ground nuclear weapons testing. Who knows what effects this has had on the accuracy of some measurements, if any. It has also been theorized that there is in general a fluctuation of the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere over time due to changes in the Earth's magnetic field, which would change the deflection of cosmic ray particles streaming towards Earth from the sun. The general theory is that carbon-14 is thought to be mainly a product of bombardment of the atmosphere by cosmic rays, so if the intensity varies over time, this would also affect the amount of carbon 14 in the environment at a given time, and thus effect datings. But even if it's perfect it only works out to 50,000 years and scientists readily admit this. Also, this book has some appendices that deal with the age of the Earth: https://archive.org/details/GenesisCreationAndEarlyManTheOrthodoxChristianVision
>>2262 Marvelous, thanks. Got anything about how the Great Flood happened? Me am Grug, so mostly questions out of me here.
Open file (383.97 KB 483x581 ClipboardImage.png)
Open file (116.97 KB 462x200 ClipboardImage.png)
>>2273 In terms of books, looking at the two pics attached for some good recommendations. I myself have not gone too deeply into studying the evidence for the Flood yet, but when I do, I will be relying on many of the sources recommended in those two images. It is also good to look into the various flood myths around the globe and their similarities with the Biblical narrative. The Indians claim that Manu built a boat and survived the great flood with several others, being towed by an avatar of Vishnu in the form of a giant fish. The Greeks claimed that Deucalion and his wife Pyrrha survived a great flood within a chest that destroyed all of humanity but themselves, and they landed on top of a mountain. Mesopotamian cultures talked of Utnapishtim who was told by Enki to build a great ship to survive a flood. He too brings animals aboard. In Hawaii, there is the legend of the man Nu'u who builds a boat to escape a flood, landing on top of a mountain. There is a rainbow in this story as well. There are flood legends all around the world, and this itself seems to point towards the fact that there was indeed a great flood at some point, and very few survived except for a small group who had foreknowledge of the flood, essentially restarting humanity from there. One thing to point out that you probably understand, but that many don't, is of course that just because a culture is alleged to have an older account of a flood myth (like the story of Utnapishtim) this doesn't mean that it was 'stolen' and put into the Bible. Genesis wasn't written until Moses was inspired by God to write it, and Moses' account is the definitive account, and this can be confirmed with how Bible prophecies come true, but those of other religions do not. For a super in-depth theological overview drawing on the Church Fathers regarding the flood, check out this chapter of the book I linked (but they don't go over evidence in this chapter) https://archive.org/details/GenesisCreationAndEarlyManTheOrthodoxChristianVision/page/246/mode/2up
>>2276 I have now ordered Mr. Whitcomb's book. Looking forward to it. Anything you've got on other events from Genesis?
>>2482 >Anything you've got on other events from Genesis? Anything in particular that interests you?
>>2262 Can you provide some sources?
Species change over time. Period. It's because of genetic variation and genetic mutation. Over the course of billions of years (not 6,000), species can change drastically, because of the enormous time span. It's not a valid refutation to say that you can't breed grapefruit sized plums over the course of a few dozen generations; of course you can't, and that doesn't disprove the theory of evolution. Evolution is not necessarily at odds with the Bible; there are interpretations of genesis that reconcile the two. The function of genes and the innumerable forms of life on Earth are nothing short of miraculous. The fact that you people can't appreciate the complexity and intricacy of Creation shows you have the wisdom of a flea, and is the reason I refuse to take christians seriously. You aren't scholars, you aren't thinkers, and you don't speak the word of God. You are luddites and idiots. I'll look for fellowship and wisdom elsewhere.
>>2483 Well... The Antediluvian World.
>>2501 >Species change over time. Period. It's because of genetic variation and genetic mutation No one denies this. >Over the course of billions of years (not 6,000), species can change drastically, because of the enormous time span. You are assuming uniformitarian models of nature with no evidence. This is a philosophical assumption, not a fact. Not to mention that it directly conflicts with God’s revelation through Scripture. >Evolution is not necessarily at odds with the Bible; God did not create death. Wisdom of Solomon 1:13-15 makes this as clear as day. Death and sin came into the world through the actions of a single man. Romans 5:12 makes this very clear. Romans 8:18-25 teaches us that the world subjected to futility and is under the bondage of decay—this is the direct result of Adam’s trangression, which affected the entire universe. You’re telling us to believe in a God which create death, which created a world that was corrupted and decaying for billions of years. This is not the God of the Bible. >You aren't scholars, you aren't thinkers, and you don't speak the word of God. I scorn your wordly wisdom—“For the wisdom of this world is folly with God” (1 Corinthians 3:19). You trust the words and foolish wisdom of men over the God-breathed words of the Bible.
>>2503 The best resource for this is what the Church Fathers wrote - namely St. Ephraim the Syrian, St. John Chrysostom and similar figures. They essentially teach that when Adam and Eve were removed from the Garden that they still lived right near it. Here there is a tiny discrepancy between the LXX and the Masoretic texts that shapes their interpretations. Genesis 3:24 in the LXX reads: >And he cast out Adam and caused him to dwell over against the garden of Delight, and stationed the cherubs and the fiery sword that turns about to keep the way of the tree of life. And the Masoretic reads: >He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life. The Septuagint has a sense of closeness to Eden that is not as clear in the Masoretic, but the Church Fathers teach that Adam dwelt near Eden, and that this was likely a time of repentance and grief for Adam. The nearness to the garden was spiritually beneficial to him and his wife, surely. Now when Cain kills his brother and is cursed from the earth and goes to dwell in Nod, some try to ask where Cain got his wife, since the text reads at Genesis 4:16-17: > So Cain went out from the Lord’s presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden. Cain made love to his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch The answer the Church Fathers give is that of course that this was one of Adam's daughters even though she has not been mentioned. Adam likely had hundreds of children (Genesis 5:4-5). This sort of thing, which is obvious unthinkable to our current generation, was permissible in this era. There would have been little to no risk of deformed offspring because there was little genetic entropy in this era, no genetic deterioration yet. And today, when there has been thousands of years of mutations, a lot of deterioration and disorders have accumulated. And today, the more closely related people are, the more likely they are to share mistakes, and the more likely their children are to be deformed or afflicted in some way. From Genesis 5 onward, the Bible focuses on the descendants of Seth. These are best viewed as the 'chosen people' of this era. These were the virtuous descendants of Adam living near Eden, as opposed to the more corrupt descendants of Cain who dwelt in Nod. This leads us to a surprising interpretation that I am not sure I am entirely behind, but it is nevertheless a common explanation among the Church Fathers - they teach that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:1-4 were actually the virtuous Sethites living near Eden, while the "daughters of men" were the offspring of Cain. They have all sorts of explanations such as that of St. Ephraim the Syrian, who said that the Cainites were dying out and had a preponderance of daughters and desired to marry the sons of Seth. The sons of Seth were taken over by lust, and became corrupted along with the daughters of Cain. That's one explanation. The other is of course that the "sons of God" were fallen angels who were raping and having children with the daughters of men. This certainly supported by some Church Fathers, such as St. Justin Martyr (Apology 1.5) and St. Irenaeus of Lyons (Against Heresies 4.36.4). This explanations was known to various pre-Christian Jews as well. I only recently learned of the Sethite and Cainite theory, and am not entirely sure what to think of it. I like the fallen angel theory because it fits with so much pagan mythology, personally. They both have interesting aspects to them. Unfortunately though, we don't know all that much about the Antediluvian world. It was certainly much different than the world we know today. People were much less degenerated than they were now, and they lived for centuries at a time. Man was not yet permitted to eat meat, which is not permitted by God until Genesis 9:3. Humans were most likely still living in a limited geographical area, and they all, of course, still spoke a single language. Some have even theorized that the world knew no seasons prior to the Flood on the basis of Genesis 8:22. Though mankind was now living in a corrupt and fallen world, to our eyes today, the antediluvian world would essentially be a paradise to the eyes of the modern man.
>>2517 >People were much less degenerated than they were now, and they lived for centuries at a time. They were less degenerated in body from the state of Adam and Eve but don't pretend like the evil of man wasn't extant upon the Earth such that it warranted the complete destruction of all life save Noah and the ark.
>>2521 Of course, I didn't mean to imply that, we know that there were murders, polygamy and all sorts of evils being practiced even at this time. And as you said, it got very bad towards the end.
>>2514 >uniformitarian models of nature with no evidence But there is evidence of Earth being billions of years old, including radiometric dating. >a God... which created the world that was corrupted and decaying for billions of years. So you accept the Earth's age, but don't consider Earth to be made by God. That's interesting. >You trust the words and foolish wisdom of men over the God-breathed words of the Bible. But the Bible was written by men. The Bible isn't perfect, which is clear from the apparent contradictions in the text.
>>2535 >contradictions Such as?
Open file (7.28 MB 3327x4418 biblecontradictions.png)
>>2539 >Reason Project Why do I have a feeling these are not terribly reasonable people? Or that every one of those was accounted for by a desert father who knew the actual context of this Book better than any of these so-called reasoners?
>>2540 >argument from authority Did you check the contradicting verses in the list? See for yourself whether you think they're right or not.
>>2546 Except I know that authority is correct. I have no reason to distrust it. It is our tradition, after all. For the record, I don't trust a gaggle of secular eggheads who wouldn't know what truth or beauty was if it bit them. Advise trying a less pretentious source of argument. By the way, the "fallacy card" only works situationally.
>>2546 You do realize religion is practical and not deductive right? That religious faith isn't a math equation?
>>2535 >But there is evidence of Earth being billions of years old, including radiometric dating. Based on uniformitarian assumptions. You’re making philosophical claims now, not doing science. >So you accept the Earth's age, but don't consider Earth to be made by God. That's interesting. Literally not what was said at all. >But the Bible was written by men. Obviously. Still an inspired text though. Demonstrated by prophetic claims being fulfilled >The Bible isn't perfect, which is clear from the apparent contradictions in the text. No contradictions on vital matters that distort the theological integrity of Scripture.
>>2539 This was posted back on old /Christian/, I recall someone replying to it explaining why it's wrong but I don't remember the post itself. Unfortunately there aren't as many old posters that stuck around. I don't spend much on apologisim myself so the best I could do at the moment is mention online playlists from apologist youtubers.
Allegedly 65-million years old, but found with soft, pliable tissue, proteins, blood vessels and red blood cells. Hmm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bS6TXh_bx8Q
Open file (201.99 KB 375x469 intense_aquinas.png)
>>2737 At the end of his life he realized that trying to fit the endless horizons of Christianity into a single work of Aristotelian philosophy would be a futile task.
>>2739 >At the end of his life he realized that trying to fit the endless horizons of Christianity into a single work of Aristotelian philosophy would be a futile task. [citation needed] >endless horizons This is a meaningless phrase at best. At worst, it sounds like you're advocating process theology or universalism. Please correct me, because I really don't want to make that uncharitable assumption. >into a single work of Aristotelian philosophy would be a futile task. Well, he did perform that "futile task," so... "Religion," or rather, "Christianity," can absolutely be reasoned. Not applying reason makes you either superstitious or lazy. Theology is reason applied to religion. It's absolutely deductive and saying otherwise is incoherent. >Christ died for our sins. >Only one sacrifice was necessary for sins past and future. >Christ and His sacrifice are extratemporal and omnipresent. Do you think that all of your beliefs were arbitrarily proclaimed by some distant authority for no particular reason?
>>2741 What was it that Father Brown said gave a thief away? "You attacked reason. It's bad theology."
Why do so many Christians get hung up on dinosaurs when they simply could have died long before the Flood?
>>2741 >>2742 He had a mystical experience during Mass near the end of his life and stopped working on the Summa Theologica for a year, before dying. When his brethren urged him to continue, he declared this. The Summa was left unfinished. At least do the slightest bit of research man. It's not that faith cannot be reasoned, but that it also all surpasses the bounds of our present reason.
>>3272 A lot of people don’t realize that the dating methods of scientists are based on naturalistic and uniformitarian assumptions by the past, so when they hear a scientist say that dinosaurs lived a 100 million years ago, they don’t question the data or the philosophy underlying the methods that led to the conclusion in the first place. Dinosaurs probably did mostly die out in the Flood. Some lived afterwards too, most likely, and were known as dragons. The fact that dinosaurs didn’t live tens of millions or over a hundred million years ago is demonstrated by the fact that several finds have been made where the intact skin of dinosaurs, or blood, veins and bones have been uncovered. The damage control that resulted from these finds has been amazing.
Noah's Ark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9f4uF4Va9gI They're finally going to start digging up more remains of Noah's Ark. I think most people know about it by now but Noah's Ark was never lost. There's many references to it through history, people used to go up and break off pieces. But I think the digging they're going to dig is what the Bible talks about when it says in the end times people will be ignorant of Creation and the flood. People will ignore the actual evidence. All you have to do to disprove evolution to someone is ask them to explain how it works. I would say 99% of people who believe in evolution don't even know that it requires the "life force" God. People who believe in evolution don't realise that atheist evolution means RANDOM mutations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5KocK8tTgY The second issue is that you still have to believe in magic. Just magic that isn't recorded in history. Nature can't create itself that's the first magic trick, the second magic trick is life. Where does organic life come from. No amount of rolling rocks around in mud and water has ever produce a single cell organism which then some how fed and reproduced and all these symbiotic relationships formed. The theory is based on zero scientific evidence. So organic life is the second magic trick. The most important questions about existence are mysteriously unexplainable through nature itself. Dinosaurs: https://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/historical/ancient/dinosaur/ https://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/paleontological/old-bone/ https://newgeology.us/presentation48.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AThj-0xp-tw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDeVgvUtt0U Kent Hovind https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWxgSGE3rWU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_E-GEVn8jo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib7eOuHpA9Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uHQv9QohHI
Open file (786.07 KB 1219x1626 Confessions.png)
>>3274 And if you dispute my discourse on the magnitude of God's power and glory, here is Augustine expressing his reverence and awe of His perfection and wonder in superior prose in Book 11, Chapter 4 of Confessions. I'm not expressing it as some form of universalism and I don't even know what "process theology" is besides being some 19th century innovation. God's might and majesty and the scope of His omnipotence is so vast for anyone besides Him in the Godhead to wholly comprehend, and everything that can be written in an earthly lifetime is in juxtaposition, chaff. By the Holy Spirit, we might aspire to know at least some part of His fullness, by His grace. For those things which are necessary to know for salvation, He declared to all in the Law and the Gospel, but even as above Saint John the Evangelist communicates at the conclusion of his gospel: >And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen. John 21:25
>>2741 >Do you think that all of your beliefs were arbitrarily proclaimed by some distant authority for no particular reason? And lastly on this point, how do you even read that into the post? I believe that the pre-existent Word, God the Son, was incarnate in the flesh as Jesus Christ and dwelt among us, who in His manifestation circumscribed as an icon the divinity which is uncircumscribable, invisible, and incomprehensible, and therefore is the only way through which mankind can be reconciled with God. This isn't something I've invented, this is the orthodox and catholic declaration of Nicaea II: >...the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us — that is, as perfect man — they do very right. For God the Word who dwelt among us was circumscribed in the flesh, and never did any one attempt to depict His deity; for He says, ' No man hath seen God at any time.' He is as God uncircumscribed, invisible, incomprehensible, but he is circumscribed as to His manhood (p. 337) https://archive.org/details/seventhgeneralc00mendgoog >The unbuilt-up, indivisible, incomprehensible, and non-circumscribed Trinity; he, wholly and alone, is to be worshipped and revered with adoration;  https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3819.htm So I humbly ask brother, what do (You) believe in?
>>3275 Amazing, amusing, or both?
>>3275 You might just be the dumbest human being in the world. How did you manage to put on pants this morning?
Open file (63.38 KB 480x640 schema monks.jpg)
There is a big difference between Western and Eastern theology. Eastern Christian theology is apophatic. It describes things by describing what they are not. Which means they will only tell you what is not true, but never what is absolutely true. The reason is that only God can be absolutely correct. Claiming to understand His mind and to speak in His place as if we knew His mind is hubris. Therefore, the Scriptures are not seen as literal truth and there is no point to the dispute between Evolution and Genesis. Evolution belongs to the realm of science (Episteme in Greek=that which can be known/understood) and Genesis belongs to the realm of faith (Πίστις in Greek=trust/surrender in the hands of God). Church deals with faith, not science.
Open file (154.27 KB 1024x683 orthodox church.jpg)
Professors of Belgrade’s University of Orthodox Christian Theology (Pravoslavni Bogoslovski Fakultet) have recently expressed that theory of evolution is the best theory so far that deals with origin of life. And also, that one shouldn't read Bible as factual report of the past events. All this happened in response to calls of some uneducated religious fanatics for the state to ban theory of evolution in schools and replace it with Biblical stories about origin of life. Orthodox Christianity is not in conflict with science. Such a thing comes from USA and unfortunately spills over its borders. Luckily it can be easily contained and neutralized. The response has put an end to such calls and discussions in public.
Open file (52.91 KB 570x514 schema monk.jpg)
Orthodox Christians say two things; 1. Everything begins with God. What happened from that beginning point on we don’t say we know because we don’t. What science discovers isn’t problematic. 2. At some point that is God determined, man became more than an animal. Man is aware of his spiritual self (not just mind and body). Man is unique. The term Adam and Eve are the first self aware spiritual beings and not necessarily the first humans ever. I know some people are going to go nuts reading this but Orthodox Christians leave much to mystery. It would be pretty arrogant to claim that we know exactly how God created everything! It’s better to say All begins with God and leave it there. Science becomes a friend.
There is no official line regarding evolution. The only things we concern ourselves with enough to establish official understandings about are (basically) the teachings of the Apostles, and the Seven Ecumenical Councils which were convened to clarify points which had become muddied by popular opinions. In fact, regarding the idea of evolution, my Priest very explicitly states that we have no idea how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden for, nor what the earth looked like once they were expelled. It is conceivable, and even acceptable (if odd) that the “Two legged beasts" created on the fifth day are our hominid “ancestors”. Also it is conceivable that when Adam and Eve were expelled, that they came out to a world of cavemen, and from cavemen did Cain and Seth take wives; that what distinguished these people from the cavemen were the “breath of God" which was breathed into our initial progenitors. Evolution seems to be a fact. But our Church hasn't weighed in on it, because there's no real reason to. There may be someday, but it isn't today.
>>2547 >appeal to authority >argument against the man >doesn't understand what a logical fallacy is >calls others pretentious People like you are the reason why normies think Christians are retarded.
>>3316 >>3317 >>3318 >>3319 Would it be a stretch to say something like... Evolution is the story but Biblical Creation is the plot?
Open file (6.09 MB 960x720 Christian_Lore.mp4)
>>3335 Not that anon but you just reminded me of this
>>3335 Evolution or Evolutionism? Take care to define your terms carefully.
>>3341 I'm sorry. What's the difference? Isn't evolutionism just believing and advocating evolution?
>>3343 Short answer, no. As for the long answer... well, I'm at work right now. Have you ever heard of E.F. Schumacher and his Guide for the Perplexed? Or The Transformist Illusion''? I can get back to you on the former later, as I have it.
>>3315 What a womanly response.
>>3319 >my Priest very explicitly states that we have no idea how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden for This is true, but it doesn’t matter. The entire creation was incorrupt and deathless, for animals and men alike. There can be no evolution under these conditions, which require billions of years and death and corruption. Scripture is clear that God did not create death, and that it came into the world through man alone. God created everything from the beginning in accordance with its kind (which is not identical with the nebulous scientific concept of a ‘species’). Unless one is to say that the God-breathed Scripture is wrong here, the natural conclusion is that Adam, Eve and the animals lived for an indeterminate amount of time in the garden in a state of deathlessness and incorruptibility along with the rest of the created order. >It is conceivable, and even acceptable (if odd) that the “Two legged beasts" created on the fifth day are our hominid “ancestors”. I do not see this in the section on day five. Here birds and aquatic creatures are created. There seems to be nothing about two-legged creatures on day six either outside of the creation of man. >it is conceivable that when Adam and Eve were expelled, that they came out to a world of cavemen, and from cavemen did Cain and Seth take wives They were daughters of Adam. This is the natural conclusion and the teaching of the Church Fathers. Already on this timescale one is distorting Scripture and forgetting that Adam and his descendents lived for hundreds and hundreds of years at a time. The descendents of Cain in particular lived in urban areas and were metal-workers and players of the flute and harp (Genesis 5). They were identical with humans today in almost every respect except that they lived much longer than us.
>>3325 >muh fallacy Is not and never has been a magic talisman which can suddenly invalidate a statement just because you don't like it. Also, did you seriously comb a whole thread just for that? Talk about petty.
>>3344 Please do! I'm afraid I haven't read much philosophy.
>>3351 If you can show that a statement is based on fallacy, then yes, that statement is invalid. And yes, I read the whole thread. Like you're supposed to do.
>>3346 >Adam, Eve, and the animals lived I thought the garden of Eden was distinct and separate from the Earth. If so, then you're wrong, and the Genesis is compatible with evolution because what happened in the material world is not necessarily what was happening in Eden. >I do not see this in the section on day five You're right, day 6, and I call them two legged beasts because they were separate from Adam and Eve and presumably didn't have souls. >They were daughters of Adam Gen 6: That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose... Why do you think they made this distinction between the children of God and the children of men? At the very least, you have to admit it's ambiguous, and open to interpretation. To be honest, it seems like you have preconceived notions about the world that you want to defend, instead of being open to new information and humbly learning about the world. Socrates- "All that I know is that I know nothing."
>>3335 That's what I believe. Well said.
>>3277 Those links are pretty bad. Look at these pictures... He uses this as evidence for dinosaurs coexisting with early man. Pretty flimsy.... Look at the rock wall, and how much of the drawing has fallen away; it could be a drawing of anything, and they're more likely to be anything else in the world than dinosaurs. About the soft tissue and blood cells in the T-Rex remains... >Young earth creationists have widely cited these findings as evidence that dinosaur fossils cannot really be millions of years old, and so the rock layers (radioactively dated to more than 65 million years of age) cannot really be millions of years old—and so, it is claimed, the whole old-earth dating edifice collapses. There are multiple reasons why these claims are false. I have read through most of Schweitzer’s papers on this topic, and reviewed the key findings from them in a 25-page article, which is posted on the Letters to Creationists blog as “Dinosaur Soft Tissue.” For lots of data and literature references, that is the place to go. For those who do not want to wade through all that information, here are some key takeaways. >These remarks pertain mainly to thigh bones from two dinosaur specimens, a T. rex (approx. 68 million years old) and a duckbill hadrosaur (approx. 80 million years old). In both cases, the fossils had been buried in sandstone (which may help wick away destructive enzymes from the corpse) and the fossils were analyzed within a relatively short time after excavation, which minimized degradation from sudden exposure to a new set of environmental conditions. >The proteins which have been identified include collagen, actin, and tubulin. These are known to have structures which are resistant to degradation, especially when they are crosslinked. Tests indicate that these proteins from the dinosaur bones are indeed highly crosslinked, which appears to be a key aspect of their longevity. >Beside the effect of iron, being in contact with the mineral walls of the pores, and being sealed in tiny pores, away from the enzymes and other body chemicals, can act to preserve remnants of the original proteins. Also, if soft tissue is initially dried out before it decays, it undergoes changes that make it more stable even if it is later rehydrated. Thus, several plausible mechanisms are known to help explain the preservation of these flexible tissues, and there are likely other factors yet to be discovered. https://biologos.org/articles/soft-tissue-in-dinosaur-bones-what-does-the-evidence-really-say https://archive.is/krdsi
>>3364 >I thought the garden of Eden was distinct and separate from the Earth The Garden of Eden was located on a specific place on Earth. This is made clear by Genesis 2:10-14 which give us a vague location for Eden, even citing for us earthly rivers which are extant today, such as the Tigris and the Euphrates. Scripture indicates, however, that the effects of Adam's sin rippled out to the entire universe. Romans 8:20-22 is the key proof-verse for this: >For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. The entire creation, not just man, was corrupted, as we can see from this passage. It was subjected to "bondage to corruption" and "subjected to futility". And then to further support this, we of course know that according to the Wisdom of Solomon 1:13-16 that: >...God made not death: neither hath he pleasure in the destruction of the living. For he created all things, that they might have their being: and the generations of the world were healthful; and there is no poison of destruction in them, nor the kingdom of death upon the earth: (for righteousness is immortal:) but ungodly men with their works and words called it to them: for when they thought to have it their friend, they consumed to nought, and made a covenant with it, because they are worthy to take part with it. Here we learn that God created all things so that they may exist and have being, and that death, crucially, is not a creation of God. God's 'very good' creation of Genesis 1-2 was deathless and incorruptible for all things. So from this, so far we can conclude the following: >God did not create death in general >creation itself was subjected to futility and bondage through sin (so Adam and Eve weren't just dumped into an already-corrupt mateiral world) These both preclude evolution, needless to say. >because what happened in the material world is not necessarily what was happening in Eden. I know you probably just mean to separate the incorrupt Eden from the rest of the world in this statement, but we must of course remember that Eden was always a part of the material world. Adam and Eve were created as very physical beings. The idea that Adam and Eve somehow received material bodies after the first sin is actually a pagan intrusion into Christian modes of thought. >Why do you think they made this distinction between the children of God and the children of men? It can be slightly ambiguous, but Tradition gives us two interpretations. One is that that when Cain went to Nod, he was the progenitor of a more corrupt and less godly race of man. The Daughters of Men, according to this interpretation were Cainites, and the Sons of God were the descendents of Seth, who were more virtuous and godly. They intermixed and God destroyed them all except Noah and his family. This interpretation was endorsed by St. Ephraim the Syrian, and St. John Chrysostom (iirc), as well as many others. The more common interpretation (and the one I support) is that this was the interbreeding of fallen angels and women. This is a common motif in pagan myths, creating so-called 'demi-gods'. This was an interpretation known in the pre-Christian Jewish world, and among early Christians such as St. Irenaeus and St. Justin Martyr. >it seems like you have preconceived notions about the world that you want to defend Yes, I have a preconceived notion of the truth of Scripture. This shouldn't be controversial here. Scripture is inspired and written by God's prophets for our benefit. The fullness of Biblical truth is impoverished when so-called 'philosophy' is put above the inspired word of God. Colossians 2:8 sums this up: >See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. The Word of God will always be superior than the traditions of men. Philosophy is defined as the 'love of wisdom', but true philosophy is to love Wisdom Himself, i.e. Christ, and to have faith in Him. Scripture is God-breathed.
>>3360 According to? Perhaps my wording was poor, but the intent was to make it abundantly clear I would not accept that source, and was perfectly satisfied with scholars from my own tradition. And it was made clear.
>>3367 >The Word of God superior to the traditions of men But... The bible was written by men, Anon. And Christianity IS a religious tradition. Everything humans do is fallible, and that includes writing the Bible. You think it's the infallible word of God because someone said it was. It's just more circular logic. I'm not an atheist, but this hard-line thinking really turns me off from religion. It's hubris. I guess I can respect your resolve, but regardless, this is a fact: species change over time due to genetic variation and mutation, it's been going on for billions of years, and this process seems to be responsible for the multitude of life on Earth. I don't see why such an elegant system can't be God's plan and God's design. Sure, it contradicts the Jewish creation myth, but only if you take Genesis literally... Boiled down, Genesis describes a fall into the material realm, which is true; your soul is something more than material, but for now it's trapped in the material world, and you may have done something bad to deserve it (original sin). In this sense, it's perfectly elegant and compatible with evolution. This guy (>>2514) says the theory of evolution is "assuming uniformitarian models of nature with no evidence". That's bullshit, there is tons of evidence. He's denying reality because his hubris is so great he'd rather cling to his fallacious worldview than accept something that can be proven. It's disgusting and it drives me away from this religion. I'm glad Orthodox Christians seem a little smarter, because otherwise I would discard the whole thing on principle. Modern society needs wisdom and spiritual guidance, which is why I'm interested in religion. We don't need more irrational nonsense. A Catholic priest is responsible for the big bang theory. Most Orthodox Christians seem to accept the theory of evolution as the system God designed to create life. Science should complement religion, not be at odds with it.
>>3372 Not that anon, I have a personal theory of the literal seven day creation that's completely out of left field theology wise so I won't set it out for now. There are three points that I want to lay out however: 1. God, being transcendent, is outside of space-time, and in omnipotence, would have control over space-time. His declaration of universal creation in seven days can be taken as a affirmative statement of His capabilities. 2. On the "old Earth," we're told that God rested on the seventh day, but there's nothing that says God stopped creating afterwards. Being an extemporaneous being, he could create new historical eraa and to us it would never have seemed to be discontinuous. 3. Theistic evolution is a nice mirage, but it's incompatible with the Christian understanding of a harmonious cosmos. Darwinian evolution requires competition, and death and extinction are taken as normative elements of the selective process. In the Christian metaphysic there was no death at the beginning and will be no death at its end. God is the Lord, the giver of life, >In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not John 1:4-5 So while there may exist death as a result of the fall of man, it is no immovable fact of existence and is ultimately ephemeral in the divine plan.
>>3366 All that can preserve it for millions of years?
>>3373 >No death at the beginning or end >incompatible with harmonious cosmos Couldn't this just mean there is no death in heaven? Heaven is perfect, but the lower realms are not. Death is inevitable here in this world, seemingly by design. Things inevitably break. Even the sun will eventually run out of fuel and collapse. >On the "old Earth," we're told that God rested on the seventh day, but there's nothing that says God stopped creating afterwards. That's an interesting thought, but it seems like you take Genesis literally and only let other ideas slip through the cracks. Don't you think Genesis could be more general in meaning, and that the details don't really matter? Other creation myths have different details, but a similar central meaning as Genesis (you're in a fallen state, your soul is being tested, etc.). The details of the story seem to be made up as a way of conveying this deeper meaning. Is it possible that this is true for Genesis? I believe in the message of Genesis, but not the details: I believe we're in a fallen state, we're being tested, and we did something bad to be here -- but I don't believe Adam and Eve really existed as described in the bible, in fact I think they were invented as a vehicle to explain these difficult concepts in a way ancient people could understand, by personifying and mythologizing the concepts in the form of a story. Is it possible to interpret it this way? I think it's the only way I can believe in and find value in it.
>>3372 >But... The bible was written by men, Anon. Who denied this? Can Scripture not be written by men and inspired by the Holy Spirit? This is what the Bible is. I am shocked to see you seemingly deny this when prophetically the Bible has been 100% accurate when it came to the coming of Christ, and is confirmed over and over again through various extra-Biblical sources, whether textually or archeologically. The Bible is inspired. >And Christianity IS a religious tradition Founded by Jesus Christ and invested with the Holy Spirit. >species change over time due to genetic variation and mutation Are you aware that not even the most hardline creationists deny this? >it's been going on for billions of years How do you know that the past goes back billions of years? Were you there? What presuppositions undergirded the methodology that led to the conclusion that the past extends that far back in the past? This is just philosophy, not science. Again, it's just unfounded uniformitarian assumptions about Nature. >I don't see why such an elegant system can't be God's plan and God's design. You believe in a God of death, evidently. >Genesis describes a fall into the material realm, which is true; your soul is something more than material, but for now it's trapped in the material world, and you may have done something bad to deserve it (original sin). In this sense, it's perfectly elegant and compatible with evolution. This isn't even Christianity at this point. You seem to describe the pre-existence of souls, this material world as something evil and as a prison for souls. This is literally gnosticism and paganism. This is what happens when you begin to engage in this sort of philosophical speculation and approach Scripture with an arrogant attitude that (you) know better than the men whom God inspired to write Genesis and the other books of the Bible. >This guy (>>2514) says the theory of evolution is "assuming uniformitarian models of nature with no evidence". That's bullshit, there is tons of evidence. Prove that the laws of nature have been uniform for billions of years in the past. Hint: you can't, because even if they had changed, scientists would have no way of ever knowing that they did, because science cannot even function without the assumption of uniformitarianism, because you can't make predictions about something that you have no idea how it was or how it functioned different from what you observe now. You cannot even conclude via reason that the future will resemble the past without making a circular argument. This is the problem with induction. The Bible doesn't describe a uniformitarian world. Uniformitarianism is a philosophical presupposition and nothing more. > It's disgusting and it drives me away from this religion. You are emotional and have no reasons for why you continue to throw derision against Scripture as 'Jewish myths' (very telling wording for you here) and go to preach paganism. > because otherwise I would discard the whole thing on principle. You'd damn your soul to hell because you can't believe what God inspired people to write down for your benefit? Top kek
Open file (795.71 KB 1267x1600 christ chan giggle laugh.png)
>>3376 >But I don't believe Adam and Eve really existed as described in the bible, Oh no no no
>>3366 These plenty of depictions of dinosaurs by humans catogorised on the website
1/2 >>3380 >Who denied this? To say the Bible is the infallible word of God is to deny that mankind, and anything mankind does, is prone to error. >Can Scripture not be written by men and inspired by the Holy Spirit? Sure, inspired by the Holy Spirit, but it wasn't written by the Holy Spirit, so it probably isn't perfect. >prophetically the Bible has been 100% accurate when it came to the coming of Christ I'm unfamiliar with this. Can you tell me where to read more about it? The problem with prophecy is that it's usually so vague that you can make all kinds of post hoc justifications as to why some unrelated event is actually the fulfillment of prophecy. It's the same error in judgement that causes people to still wank over Nostradamus and pay 'psychics' to lie to them. >invested with the Holy Spirit. Allegedly. >Are you aware that not even the most hardline creationists deny this? I wasn't aware. That's what evolution is, so I guess creationists believe in evolution. Neat. >How do you know that the past goes back billions of years? Were you there? Lmao, really? We *think* we know the age of the universe because of the mountain of evidence you are so intent on denying. >What presuppositions undergirded the methodology that led to the conclusion that the past extends that far back in the past? The scientific method. >This is just philosophy, not science. Lol, anything that helps you sleep at night. I hereby deem you a Christcuck, both distinct from and inferior to a Christian. >Again, it's just unfounded uniformitarian assumptions about Nature. Oh, it was you that left that stupid comment before. Nice. Unfortunately for your delusions, there is no evidence to suggest that the laws of physics changed 6 thousand years ago. I hereby deem you a Turbo Christcuck. >You believe in a God of death, evidently. All things come from God, through God. Death is a thing, so I guess your beliefs directly contradict Romans 11:36, you Heretical Turbo Christcuck, by which name you are hereby deemed. >This isn't even Christianity at this point. You'd probably say the same thing if I denied the trinity, even though the trinity wasn't part of Jesus' ministry or the early Church. Maybe you're the one who isn't really a Christian, ever think of that?
2/2 >>3380 >This is what happens when you begin to engage in this sort of philosophical speculation Translation: This is what happens when you engage your mind for more than five minutes. >arrogant attitude that (you) know better than the men whom God inspired to write Genesis Whom God (allegedly) inspired to write Genesis. Not very convincing. I am above no man, and no man is above me. The ideas should stand on their own. >Prove that the laws of nature have been uniform for billions of years in the past <Prove this unfalsifiable statement isn't true. That's not how it works, Anon. You're the one claiming the laws of physics changed, so the burden of proof is on you. It has to be that way, or else I could claim any nonsense I want, and say "well prove it DIDN'T happen!" That's madness. For what it's worth, according to the Big Bang Theory, which was proposed by Catholic priest and physicist Georges Lemaître, it's likely that the laws of physics were indeed very different in the earliest moments of the universe. There seems to be >>>>*evidence*<<<< to suggest it. >scientists would have no way of ever knowing ... presupposition and nothing more. Yup. It's based on lot of assumptions about what's *most likely* true. We might discover something that throws it all into question. The key words are "most likely". I would categorize your view as "least likely". >science cannot even function without the assumption of uniformitarianism You mean the theory of the age of the universe can't function without that assumption. Science functions just fine when discussing things in the laws of physics currently imposed on us. However, science does assume that the laws of physics don't change moment to moment at random, so if that's what uniformitarianism means to you then I guess you're right, but I think most people would disagree with your definition. >circular argument lol, lmao >You are emotional Nope, I'm not emotional at all. I'm describing honestly my opinion about this line of thinking. Maybe I'm being a bit mean. >derision against Scripture as 'Jewish myths' (very telling wording for you here) and go to preach paganism. Anon... the Old Testament (Tanakh) is part of the Jewish religion, and Genesis is the Jewish creation myth. By definition. The fact you think it's derision to call something Jewish is more telling of your mindset than of mine. >You'd damn your soul to hell because you can't believe what God inspired people to write down for your benefit? Top kek >it's true because.... you'd just better believe it!!!!!!!! Unconvincing argument is an understatement. I have a hard time believing God talks to people when it's indiscernible from the normal process by which myths are created. If you can't understand that, then I don't know what to tell you. In review: If this is Christianity then I'd rather join a thong-wearing African witch doctor cult than associate with you imbeciles. >>3381 >it's true because we said so, sweaty Sorry, I'm not stupid enough to believe things with no evidence that don't make any sense. That's why I'm not a leftist, why I don't believe in covid hysteria, and why I'm giving a fair shake to religion. >>3368 >reads a proof >asks "according to who?" I guess authority is the only thing you understand. Are Christians just old world normies?
>>3396 Are you just a redditor?
>>3397 Nice argument, tard. You forgot to greentext my post with a soyjak.
>>3398 >tard Ah, and I see your vocabulary has already begun to degenerate. Ho hum. Anyway... >>3353 >"Evolution in biology," says Julian Huxley look him up, by the way, and behold the Cain to Aldous's Able, "is a loose and comprehensive term applied to cover any and every change occurring in the constitution of systematic units of animals and plants..." That there has been change in the constitution of species of animals and plants in the past is amply attested by the fossils found in the earth's crust; with the help of radioactive dating, they have been put into historical sequence with a very high degree of scientific certainty. Evolution, as a generalization within the descriptive science of biological change, can for this as well as for other reasons be taken as established beyond any doubt whatever. >The Evolutionist Doctrine, however, is a very different matter. Not content to confine itself to a systematic description of biological change, it purports to prove and explain it in much the same manner as proof and explanation are offered in the instructional sciences. This is a philosophical error with the most disastrous consequences. >"Darwin," we are told, "did two things: he showed that evolution was in fact contradicting scriptural legends ofcreation and that its cause, natural selection, was automatic with no room for divine guidance or design." It should be obvious to anyone capable of philosophical thought that scientific observation as such can never do these "two things." "Creation," "divine guidance," and "divine design" are completely outside the possibility of scientific observation. Every animal or plant breeder knows beyond doubts that selection, including "natural selection," produces change; it is therefore scientifically correct to say that "natural selection has been proved to be an agent of evolutionary change." We can, in fact, prove it by doing. But it is totally illegitimate to claim that the discovery of this mechanism--natural selection--proves that evolution "was automatic with no room for divine guidance or design." It can be proved that people get money by finding it in the street, but no one would consider this sufficient reason for the assumption that all incomes are earned in this way. >The Doctrine of Evolutionism is generally presented in a manner which betrays and offends against all principles of scientific probity. It starts with the explanation of changes in living beings; then, without warning, it suddenly purports to explain not only the development of consciousness, self-awareness, language, and social institutions but also the origin of life itself. "Evolution," we are told, "is accepted by all biologists and natural selection is recognised as its cause." Since the origin of life is described as a "major step in evolution," we are asked to believe that inanimate matter is a masterful practitioner of natural selection. For the Doctrine of Evolutionism any possibility, no matter how remote, appears to be acceptable as if it were scientific proof that the thing actually happened: <When a sample atmosphere of hydrogen, water vapour, ammonia, and methane was subjected to electric discharges and ultraviolet light, large numbers of organic compounds...were obtained by automatic synthesis. This proved that a prebiological synthesis of complex compounds was possible. >On this basis we are expected to believe that licing beings suddenly made their appearance by pure chance and, having done so, were able to maintain themselves in the general chaos: <It is not unreasonable to suppose that life orginiated in a watery "soup" of prebiological organic compounds and that lcing organisms arose later by surrounding quantities of these compounds by membranes that made them into "cells." This is usually considered the starting point of organic ("Darwinian") evolution. >One can just see it, can't one: organic compounds getting together and surrounding themselves by membranes--nothing could be simpler for these clever compounds--and lo! there is the cell, and once the cell has been born there is nothin to stop the emergence of Shakespeare, although it will obviously take a bit of time. There is therefore no need to speak of miracles or to admit any lack of knowledge. Iti is one of the great paradoxes of our age that people claiming the proud title of "scientist" dare to offer such undisciplined and reckless speculations as contributions to scientific knowledge, and that they get away with it.
>>3403 >>3353 >Karl Stern, a psychiatrist with great insight, has commented thus: <If we present, for the sake of argument, the theory of evolution in a most scientific formulation, we have to say something like this: "At a certain moment of time the temperature of the Earth was such that it became most favourable for the aggregation of carbon atoms and ocygen with the nitrogent-hydrogen combination, and that from random occurrences of large clusters molecules occurred which were most favourably structured for the coming about of life, and from that point it went on through vast stretches of time, until through processes of natural selection a being finally occurred which is capable of choosing love over hate and justice over injusticie, of writing poetry like Dante, composing music like that of Mozart, and making drawings like thoses of Leonardo." Of course, such a view of cosmogenesis is crazy. And I do not at all mean crazy in the sense of slangy invective but rather in the technical meaning of psychotic. Indeed such aview has much in common with certain aspects of schizophrenic thinking. >The fact remains, however, that this kind of thinking continues to be offered as objective science not only to biologists but to everybody eager to find out the truth about the origin, meaning, and purpose of human existence on Earth, and that, in particular, all over the world virtually all children are subjected to indoctrination along these lines. >It is the task of science to observe and to report on its observations. It is not useful for it to postulate the existence of causative agents, like a Creator, intelligences, or designers, who are outside all possibilities of outside observation. "Let us see how far we can explain phenomena by observable causes" is an eminently sensible and, in fact, very fruitful methodological principle. Evolutionism, however, turns methodology into a faith which excludes, ex hypothesi, the possibility of all higher grades of significance. The whole of nature, which obviously includes mankind, is taken as the product of chance and necessity and nothing else; there is neither meaning nor purpose, nor intelligence in it--"a tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing." This is The Faith, and all contradicting observations have to be either ignored or interpreted in such a way that the Faith is upheld. >Evolutionism as currently presented has no basis in science. It can be described as a peculiarly degraded religion, many of whose high priests do not even believe in what they proclaim. Despite widespread disbelief, the doctrinaire propagand which insists that the scientific knowledge of evolution leaves no room for any higher faith continues unabated. Counterarguments are simply ignored. The article on "evolution" in The New Encyclopaedia Britannica (1975) concludes with a section entitled "The Acceptance of Evolution," which claims that "objections to evolution have come from theological and, for a time, from political standpoints." Who would suspect, reading this, that the most serious objections have been raised by numerous biologists and other scientist of unimpeachable credentials? It is evidently thought unwise to mention them, and books like Douglas Dewar's The Transformist Illusion, which offers an overwhelming refutation of Evolutionism on purely scientific grounds, are not considered fit for inclusion in the bibliography of the subject.
>>3405 >>3353 >Evolutionism is not science; it is science fiction, even a kind of hoax. It is a hoax that has succeeded too well and has imprisoned modern man in what looks like an irreconcilable conflict between "science" and "religion." It has destroyed all faiths that pull mankind up and has substituted a faith that pulls mankind down. "Nil admirari." Chance and necessity and the utilitarian mechanism of natural selection may produce curiosities, improbabilities, atrocities, but nothin to be admired as an achievement--just as winning a prize in a lottery cannot elicit admiration. Nothing is "higher" or "lower"; everything is much of a muchness, even though some things are more complex than others--just by chance. Evolutionism, purporting to explain all and everything solely and exclusively by natural selection for adaptation and survival, is the most extreme product of the materialistic utilitarianism of the nineteenth century. The inability of twentieth century thought to rid itself of this imposture is a failure which may well cause the collapse of Western civilisation. For it is impossible for any civlisation to survive without a faith in meanings and values transcending the ultilitarianism of comfort and survival, in other words without a religious faith. >"There can be little doubt," observes Martin Lings, <that in the modrn world more cases of loss of religious faith are to be traced to the theory of evolution as their immediate cause than to anything else. It is true, surprising as it may seem, that many people still contrive to live out their lives in a tepid and precarious combination of religion and evolutionism. But for the more logically minded, there is no option but to choose between the two, that is, between the doctrine of the fall of man and the "doctrine" of the rise of man, and to reject altogether the one not chosen... <Millions of our contemporaries have chosen evolutionism on the grounds that evolution is a "scientifically-proven truth," as many of them were taught it at school; the gulf of understanding between them and religion is widened still further by the fact that the religious man, unless he happens to be a scientist, is unable to make a bridge between himself and them by producing the right initial argument, which must be on the scientific plane. >If it is not on the "scientific plane," he will be shouted down, "and reduced to silence by all sorts of scientific jargon." The truth of the matter, however, is that the initial argument must not be on the scientific plane; it must be philosophical. It amounts simply to this: that descriptive science becomes unscientific and illegitimate when it indulges in comprehensive explanatory theories which can be neither verified nor disproved by experiment. Such theories are not "science" but "faith."
>>3403 >automatic with no room for divine guidance or design Wasn't Darwin a Christian? I think the most reasonable outlook is that evolution IS the design. >"Creation," "divine guidance," and "divine design" are completely outside the possibility of scientific observation. Why? >illegitimate to claim... evolution "was automatic with no room for divine guidance or design". Is he quoting Darwin? As far as I know, Darwin didn't believe this. He was a Christian for most of his life and still believed in God until his death. >we are asked to believe that inanimate matter is a masterful practitioner of natural selection Not quite... Most scientists believe life sprang up from inanimate matter, which is different than saying life itself is inanimate matter. >For the Doctrine of Evolutionism any possibility, no matter how remote, appears to be acceptable as if it were scientific proof that the thing actually happened: No, not even close. Like all scientific theories, any reasonable person understands that it's not absolute, and there may be new information that changes our understanding. This guy is committing the strawman fallacy because he doesn't like the opposing view. More hubris from Christcucks (distinct from Christians). >One can just see it ... nothin to stop the emergence of Shakespeare Pfft. FYI: Sarcasm can be a sign of cognitive dissonance caused by a lack of a real argument. >no need to speak of ... any lack of knowledge Another strawman. No reasonable person would claim our current understanding is perfect. This guy is extremely tarded.
>>3405 >If we present ... Of course, such a view of cosmogenesis is crazy. This guy seems to think concepts like justice and injustice must necessarily have some kind of divine origin, but that's not true. Even certain animals have displayed quasi-morality, especially chimps. >schizophrenic thinking LMAO, the irony >It is not useful ... who are outside all possibilities of outside observation. "Creator, intelligences, or designers" He's anthropomorphizing things that are far beyond our understanding, like a primitive. He's right that these things are beyond the possibility of outside observation, or scientific understanding, but he can't admit that it's beyond religious understanding, too, and that our concept of God is like a cat's concept of mathematics. >explain phenomena by observable causes ... very fruitful methodological principle. Agreed. >Evolutionism ... excludes the possibility of all higher grades of significance. Not true. Not everyone who believes the theory of evolution is an atheist. More strawman arguments. >"a tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing." lol, lmao >This is The Faith, and all contradicting observations have to be either ignored or interpreted in such a way that the Faith is upheld. Holy shit, the irony is too much. This is exactly what most posts in this thread, even the post I'm replying to, are doing. >Evolutionism as currently presented has no basis in science Translation: The theory of evolution, in my dishonest and purposely incorrect presentation of it, has no basis in science. What a piece of shit. >the doctrinaire propagand ... continues unabated He's right, most scientists think this way, and it bothers me too. But he's being unfair in painting everyone with the same brush who believe in the theory of evolution. It's kind of like judging Christians by the words and deeds of christcucks. Even though christcucks outnumber Christians, it's still unfair to paint them with the same brush. >Douglas Dewar Wasn't this guy pretty thoroughly debunked?

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms
Delete
Report

no cookies?