EVOLUTION.

The place to debate matters of faith and religion in a more rigorous manner.
Forum rules
The place to debate matters of faith and religion in a more rigorous manner. Differing perspectives from both Christians and non-Christians are actively welcomed, but contributors should come prepared to justify their opinions and beliefs, while showing due respect to the views of others.

Re: EVOLUTION.

Postby Sprocket » March 22nd, 2015, 5:08 am

I gladly except you from the "mad" comment, Vix. I was just frustrated at highly intelligent, educated people coming out with the sort of unconscionable nonsense we've read on this thread.
I would be interested to know how SotS, Theo and Pondy explain the geologic column, with its progession of fossils, from simplest in the lowest and oldest strata, progressing upwards to the most sophisticared in recent strata.
A cat once got frozen to -273 C, but it's 0k now.
User avatar
Sprocket
 
Posts: 15803
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:21 am
Location: Hemel Hempstead, Herts.

Re: EVOLUTION.

Postby GregB » March 22nd, 2015, 8:16 am

Before the other posters Steve alludes to respond to his question (see the above post), I just want to give some brief information about John Lennox (see Pondero's last two posts.) First, his weighty academic credentials (from the Amazon.uk website):
"John C. Lennox (PhD, DPhil, DSc) is Professor of Mathematics in the University of Oxford, Fellow in Mathematics and the Philosophy of Science, and Pastoral Advisor at Green Templeton College, Oxford. He is author of God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? on the interface between science, philosophy, and theology. He lectures extensively in North America and in Eastern and Western Europe on mathematics, the philosophy of science, and the intellectual defense of Christianity, and he has publicly debated New Atheists Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens."

He is a rigorous analytical thinker, as one might expect from a leading academic from the one scientific discipline which, the odd equation and theorem notwithstanding, is virtually 100% verifiable and unfalsifiable (pace Popper) and he brings this approach to his Christian apologetics in his books and debates about the science/religion divide. Many of his televised debates, talks and shortish Q&A interviews can be found on youtube while his books can be read about on Amazon (one of which confronts Hawking head on and another takes on the so-called New Atheists.) Whatever one might think of some of his conclusions (which some non-Christian Amazon reviewers have challenged in a thoughtful, penetrating, though respectful way), his intellectual capacities and the rigour of his rational thinking are not in doubt.
"The war of peoples will be more terrible than those of kings."
- Winston Churchill (1901)
User avatar
GregB
 
Posts: 15484
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:23 am
Location: Barcelona, Spain

Re: EVOLUTION.

Postby Pondero » March 22nd, 2015, 10:18 am

What a wonderful endorsement Greg. That is marvelous. I will certainly read more of what he wrote.

Top of the morning Val :grin:
And the same to good ole Sprock :grin:
If your mind is your brain and your brain is just material , would you rely on it?
John Lennox
User avatar
Pondero
 
Posts: 12424
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:03 am
Location: Etobicoke,Ontario, Canada

Re: EVOLUTION.

Postby Val » March 22nd, 2015, 1:13 pm

I am sure that John Lennox is a fine man with a good mind, a mathematician a man of science but very confused, he believes in Evolution but at some point along that evolutionary path he believes that God Almighty instilled human qualities into some of our evolutionary ancestors and they became persons like God himself, so for you literalists he doesn't accept the biblical account of creation or if he does then he is even more confused than he appears.

A little clip of him in conversation, scroll down the page.
https://answersingenesis.org/reviews/bo ... ad-divide/

This thread started out about evolution. But as usual it has been hijacked by religious zealots; these single-minded nice people think they are doing the work of their particular God by rebutting science with religious doctrine, but we can see that although they believe in God Almighty their God differs greatly and this based on their particular interpretation of the biblical texts and cultural upbringing.

And we find similarities in men of science particularly if they have a deep-seated religious upbringing, it matters not which particular branch of Christianity they belong to, they try and find God in the evolutionary process and Intelligent Design is born, this God of the gaps pseudoscience that sees grand design in nature and incredibly can overlook the leftovers from the evolutionary process of natural Selection, all those billions of trial and error, you would have to wonder what kind of god they believe in.
Anyways I think this thread has run its course, again you cannot rebut scientific and physical archaeological evidence that show evolution in progress with a religious faith.
Last edited by Val on March 22nd, 2015, 3:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I am who I am, your approval isn't needed
User avatar
Val
 
Posts: 3421
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:22 am
Location: Ireland

Re: EVOLUTION.

Postby GregB » March 22nd, 2015, 2:28 pm

I am sure that John Lennox is a fine man with a good mind, a mathematician a man of science but very confused, he believes in Evolution but at some point along that evolutionary path he believes that God Almighty imbued humanism into some of our evolutionary ancestors and they became persons like God himself, so for you literalists he doesn't accept the biblical account of creation or if he does then he is even more confused than he appears

Sorry Val, but it's just patronising to suggest that he's "confused". I mean, who are you, a leprechaun intellectually speaking next to a giant, a mere ventriloquist's dummy mouthing the bleatings of the new gods of atheism? Laughable...

Oh, and your version of Lennox's account of human origins (including your wrongheaded misuse of the term 'humanism') is risibly wrong, making it painfully obvious that you haven't even scratched the surface of his ideas.

That's all I have to say here; my original idea was simply to provide information about John Lennox in the light of Pondero's posts regarding him.
"The war of peoples will be more terrible than those of kings."
- Winston Churchill (1901)
User avatar
GregB
 
Posts: 15484
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:23 am
Location: Barcelona, Spain

Re: EVOLUTION.

Postby Theophilus » March 22nd, 2015, 2:40 pm

Sprocket wrote:I would be interested to know how SotS, Theo and Pondy explain the geologic column, with its progession of fossils, from simplest in the lowest and oldest strata, progressing upwards to the most sophisticared in recent strata.


But would you be interested, actually? Because you asked a question up-thread that you were"genuinely interested" in reading an answer to, yet a few posts later you excused yourself from the thread calling us "mad". This is despite the fact that an answer was attempted for one of these questions, with a promise of more to come for the other questions. Now you want an answer to another question: this time a scientific question. Is there interest, or just attempts to find flaws in our arguments?

I ask because my questions to Christian Evolutionists have been genuine. I am not trying to find flaws in arguments, but actually seeking to know what the arguments are. Saying that Genesis is "clearly allegorical" yet never appearing to offer any allegorical meaning to the words of Genesis is more than a little unsatisfying. Interpretations of Genesis that assume a certain amount of "literalness" in its account are plentiful, and I will search these out if I believe there is an interest from you.

The commentaries on Genesis I know of, which assume the account is more-or-less literal*, provide deep and thoughtful interpretations of why God created the world as He did, and why He created man. Despite Christian evolutionists' mantra of "Genesis describes why, Evolution describes how", from them I read no interpretation that actually states why God created the world the way He did. Their "interpretations" of Genesis are limited to how the account can be reconciled with the narrative provided by evolutionary theory; but that's just talking about how again - the why is not given. Some of your questions directed towards me, Sprocket, seem to suggest that the reason for this is because among Christian evolutionists there really is no clear understanding of "why". The question about God not giving Adam the opportunity to repent is particularly telling, as the answer I gave is practically as old as Christianity itself.









*of course there are non-literal parts of Genesis. Adam walking with God in the garden of Eden can be seen as partially allegorical, as the relative natures of man (even perfect man) and God are so different that both being able to literally walk together is impossible - here the words are used to imply the degree of intimacy between Adam and God before the Fall
It's later than you think!
User avatar
Theophilus
 
Posts: 2989
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:27 am
Blog: View Blog (4)

Re: EVOLUTION.

Postby Theophilus » March 22nd, 2015, 2:43 pm

Val wrote:This thread started out about evolution. But as usual it has been hijacked by religious zealots...


And who started this thread? Someone you see as religious zealot or not?

Still failing to answer those questions, Val. Still, you've stated your intent to leave this discussion behind, so I shan't expect any answer here:

Val wrote:Anyways I think this thread has run its course...


Bye, then. :wave:
It's later than you think!
User avatar
Theophilus
 
Posts: 2989
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:27 am
Blog: View Blog (4)

Re: EVOLUTION.

Postby Val » March 22nd, 2015, 3:21 pm

GregB wrote:Sorry Val, but it's just patronising to suggest that he's "confused". I mean, who are you, a leprechaun intellectually speaking next to a giant, a mere ventriloquist's dummy mouthing the bleatings of the new gods of atheism? Laughable...



What makes him giant? ...his education? ...his credentials? ...the fact that he is unsure what he believes in?,
he sure likes to talk, but can he be a Christian with his interpretation of the bible and his version of the God.

On humanism it made perfect sense to me from a philosophical and ethical stance
, but then the word has been hijacked

But I have changed especially for you :ugeek:
I am who I am, your approval isn't needed
User avatar
Val
 
Posts: 3421
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:22 am
Location: Ireland

Re: EVOLUTION.

Postby Sprocket » March 22nd, 2015, 3:46 pm

Theophilus wrote:
Sprocket wrote:I would be interested to know how SotS, Theo and Pondy explain the geologic column, with its progession of fossils, from simplest in the lowest and oldest strata, progressing upwards to the most sophisticared in recent strata.


But would you be interested, actually? Because you asked a question up-thread that you were"genuinely interested" in reading an answer to, yet a few posts later you excused yourself from the thread calling us "mad". This is despite the fact that an answer was attempted for one of these questions, with a promise of more to come for the other questions. Now you want an answer to another question: this time a scientific question. Is there interest, or just attempts to find flaws in our arguments?

I ask because my questions to Christian Evolutionists have been genuine. I am not trying to find flaws in arguments, but actually seeking to know what the arguments are. Saying that Genesis is "clearly allegorical" yet never appearing to offer any allegorical meaning to the words of Genesis is more than a little unsatisfying. Interpretations of Genesis that assume a certain amount of "literalness" in its account are plentiful, and I will search these out if I believe there is an interest from you.

The commentaries on Genesis I know of, which assume the account is more-or-less literal*, provide deep and thoughtful interpretations of why God created the world as He did, and why He created man. Despite Christian evolutionists' mantra of "Genesis describes why, Evolution describes how", from them I read no interpretation that actually states why God created the world the way He did. Their "interpretations" of Genesis are limited to how the account can be reconciled with the narrative provided by evolutionary theory; but that's just talking about how again - the why is not given. Some of your questions directed towards me, Sprocket, seem to suggest that the reason for this is because among Christian evolutionists there really is no clear understanding of "why". The question about God not giving Adam the opportunity to repent is particularly telling, as the answer I gave is practically as old as Christianity itself.









*of course there are non-literal parts of Genesis. Adam walking with God in the garden of Eden can be seen as partially allegorical, as the relative natures of man (even perfect man) and God are so different that both being able to literally walk together is impossible - here the words are used to imply the degree of intimacy between Adam and God before the Fall

My comment "you're all mad" was not very helpful, but I do get frustrated reading what appears to me to be wilful denial of science from you and SotS. If you would like to answer the point about the geologic column, I can answer your answer, and the discussion can proceed.
Maybe my suggestions as to how Genesis 1-11 can be interpreted allegorically were woefully inadequate. The fact remains that it has to be interpeted in some non-literal way, because we know, as certainly as we know anything in science, that the earth is billions of years old, and reached its present state via evolution by natural selection.
A cat once got frozen to -273 C, but it's 0k now.
User avatar
Sprocket
 
Posts: 15803
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:21 am
Location: Hemel Hempstead, Herts.

Re: EVOLUTION.

Postby Pondero » March 23rd, 2015, 9:07 pm

Well, I for one Sprocket accept the evidence of change from one Species to another. The rocks and fossils over a period of 4.3 billion years prove that. I don't think natural selection accounts for all of it. Darwin didn't know about Mendel's experiments with sweet peas and cross fertilization resulting in the transferring of genes to the offspring, which shows some design.It is not pure chance that determines future species as I often pointed out.

I don't think the days mentioned in Genesis are 24 hour days, but the Hebrew word for day is "yom" which can mean "period of time" . Now unless time spiralled into some kind of black hole where the laws of physics were not what they are now, I believe the creation sections of Genesis are an allegorical account of the creation by God of "the heavens and the earth"
There is no scientific evidence that the laws of physics changed in the past, at least not as far as the earth is concerned.
If your mind is your brain and your brain is just material , would you rely on it?
John Lennox
User avatar
Pondero
 
Posts: 12424
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:03 am
Location: Etobicoke,Ontario, Canada

PreviousNext

Return to In depth

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests