What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

[_ Old Earth _] The Evolution Lie

The statement we like to make and we all make them "did you read the mans work" that's mans work. Why are we so fast to believe mans work Jesus said it was because they are of this world and the world loves it own. When you find yourself liking a mans work be careful your liking them for the right reasons are we liking what they have to say because it bolsters our ego. I know people.. not the side 99% of the people see.. its the 1% they don't see of this individual and that 1% tells a different story and that's how God sees us. False prophets were/are very popular with the majority.. since when has God been on the side of the majority He sees that 1% the majority doesn't see.. These are those wolves in a sheep's clothing.

The book of Jude its a very small book that speaks volumes it tells us about how the world will cling to the one that has a mastery of his vocabulary. Read a book written by a man that has this mastery of words you can't put it down then he publishes a new book a book people will stand outside a store at midnight waiting for them to open at the dawns early light so they can be the first. Charles Darwin was such a man but he was "just a man"

tob
 
The real God, who created all things, and gave His promise to Abraham, whose Son died for us, created evolution like everything else in our world. Some men, in their pride, think they can have it their own way.

But God has the last word.
 
TOG said:
That's quite a video. I just finished watching it. I thought it was pretty good quoting Richard Dawkins saying that faith is an excuse for not thinking and then showing that ait takes faith to accept evolution.

The TOG​
Click to expand...

Dawkins is a funny one. Not many scholars take him seriously anymore. I have seen internet Atheists make more intelligent statements than him.
 
Dawkins is pretty much like the creationist scientists he scorns. That is, he does pretty good work, so long as it doesn't involve his phobias.
 
Barbarian said:
Dawkins is pretty much like the creationist scientists he scorns. That is, he does pretty good work, so long as it doesn't involve his phobias.
Click to expand...

There are many just like Dawkins, too. I am not sure if I would call it a phobia that he has. It's possible though. He clearly has a bias, which was discovered when he said that the only plausible kind of ID only involved Aliens(I am assuming he means that they engineered us and implanted us on the planet.).

Lawrence Krauss is another one. He does good work, but is blinded by his bias(seen when he tries to redefine "nothing").

Dr. William Lane Craig exposed that quite nicely.
 
They used to call scientists like that, "paradoxers." Perfectly rational, except for one goofy idea, like militant atheism or creationism, or geocentrism.
 
Barbarian said:
They used to call scientists like that, "paradoxers." Perfectly rational, except for one goofy idea, like militant atheism or creationism, or geocentrism.
Click to expand...
Atheists call themselves the "brights" too.

labeled Insults or labeling ones self pride doesn't mean much intellectually. It only demonstrates character.

That's because blanket labels are easily broken down via logical fallacies. Dr. William Lane Craig (Christian Philosopher) seems to be a hard man to debate, as most Atheists are unable to pass these blanket labels on him.
 
Last edited:
They used to call scientists like that, "paradoxers." Perfectly rational, except for one goofy idea, like militant atheism or creationism, or geocentrism.
Atheists call themselves the "brights" too.

labeled Insults or labeling ones self pride doesn't mean much intellectually. It only demonstrates character.

That's because blanket labels are easily broken down via logical fallacies. Dr. William Lane Craig (Christian Philosopher) seems to be a hard man to debate, as most Atheists are unable to pass these blanket labels on him.
Click to expand...

For one simple reason. He's not a creationist. He says that the evidence shows an Earth billions of years old. Not being a creationist, he's pretty hard to shoot down in a debate.
 
Barbarian said:
They used to call scientists like that, "paradoxers." Perfectly rational, except for one goofy idea, like militant atheism or creationism, or geocentrism.


For one simple reason. He's not a creationist. He says that the evidence shows an Earth billions of years old. Not being a creationist, he's pretty hard to shoot down in a debate.
Click to expand...

Wrong, he rarely argues on the basis of Evolution. In fact, he is on record saying he is a layman on the subject but he does have a lean towards Evolution. His specialty is Philosophy, which is why he is able to defeat the arguments of Atheists. Like putting a group of people in the same boat. I like Dr. Craig, he doesn't ever sound like he has an angry diatribe against particular people.

duari teaches: Stereotyping Fallacy:
All X’s have the property Y.

Z is an X.

Therefore, Z has the property Y.

duari remembers:
That's because blanket labels are easily broken down via logical fallacies. Dr. William Lane Craig (Christian Philosopher) seems to be a hard man to debate, as most Atheists are unable to pass these blanket labels on him.
Click to expand...

Craig is hard to debate, because he doesn't let his opponents get away with logical fallacies. He is a Philosopher, that's what he does.
 
Craig is good at arguing on the grounds of his own philosophy. Craig uses an updated version of the Kalam Cosmological argument that is sound for the sense of an argument. However in dissections of his argument by members such as Hitchens and Dillahunty. Craig's argument has a problem that anything can be plugged into the first cause argument. Any god will do. A force will do. Also the argument relies on a vague notion of this area called " outside of Time and Space". This is an undefined area. So many speakers such as Dillahunty, Rand, Nietzche, Harris, Hitchen, etc. have pointed out that this would require the person taking the argument at face value and relying on one's ignorance of pre cosmological events to take over. So Craig can have a solid argument, but his premise is shaky, and doesn't even fully set up his conclusion.
 
Barbarian observes:
For one simple reason. He's not a creationist. He says that the evidence shows an Earth billions of years old. Not being a creationist, he's pretty hard to shoot down in a debate.

Wrong,
Click to expand...

Well, let's take a look...


Looks like he isn't.

he rarely argues on the basis of Evolution. In fact, he is on record saying he is a layman on the subject but he does have a lean towards Evolution.
Click to expand...

That would pretty much rule out creationism, then.
 
Barbarian said:
Barbarian observes:
For one simple reason. He's not a creationist. He says that the evidence shows an Earth billions of years old. Not being a creationist, he's pretty hard to shoot down in a debate.



Well, let's take a look...


Looks like he isn't.



That would pretty much rule out creationism, then.
Click to expand...
I think it's a simple misunderstanding we have, here. We should be able to come to an agreement on him.

I said he tends to lean towards Evolution, and I never said he was a Creationist.

I said "Wrong" because:

For one simple reason. He's not a creationist.
Click to expand...
His knockdown argument is Morality, not Evolution. He doesn't win arguments because he believes in Evolution, he wins them based on his arguments as a Philosopher. Which is what I said, and taught in my last post.

That should clear us up. Love watching his debates, by the way. I would love to meet him in person.
 
duari91 said:
His knockdown argument is Morality, not Evolution. He doesn't win arguments because he believes in Evolution, he wins them based on his arguments as a Philosopher. Which is what I said, and taught in my last post.

That should clear us up. Love watching his debates, by the way. I would love to meet him in person.
Click to expand...
Craig is a good speaker, but I much prefer Rand's views on Objectivism instead of Craig's moral argument of Christianity. I even find Dillahunty's discussion on morality to be more convincing than Craig's argument.
 
Craig says that creationism 'is not plausible', and that there is no conflict between Christianity and contemporary science. He says that nothing in his argument goes against contemporary science.

So he's perhaps tough on atheism, but he's on board with science as it is today, and he's clearly opposed to YE creationism.
 
Barbarian said:
Craig says that creationism 'is not plausible', and that there is no conflict between Christianity and contemporary science. He says that nothing in his argument goes against contemporary science.

So he's perhaps tough on atheism, but he's on board with science as it is today, and he's clearly opposed to YE creationism.
Click to expand...

Duari listens to Craig:

"I don't think it's plausible" -- "I am going with the flow of contemporary Cosmology and Astrophysics"

He uses the Kalam Cosmological Argument as an introduction. After his initial argument, he elaborates and uses the knockdown argument of Morality.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/in-defense-of-the-kalam-cosmological-argument

Duari restates again:

"His knockdown argument is Morality, not Evolution. He doesn't win arguments because he believes in Evolution, he wins them based on his arguments as a Philosopher. Which is what I said, and taught in my last post."

He is tough on Atheism because of his Philosophical arguments. No claim was ever made about him being pro-creationist.
 
What's the definition of
Barbarian said:
Craig says that creationism 'is not plausible', and that there is no conflict between Christianity and contemporary science. He says that nothing in his argument goes against contemporary science.

So he's perhaps tough on atheism, but he's on board with science as it is today, and he's clearly opposed to YE creationism.
Click to expand...

Gday Barbarian,

Craig said that a 61/2 ka Earth isn't plausible and later went on to say YEC is dodgy. I'm not sure he considers all Creationism implausible. What's the definition of Creationism btw ?

He made a tongue slip when he gave the age of the world as ~ 13.7 Ga did he ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top