nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 304:
Line 304: + + + + + + +
→Social effects of Creationist ideas: A continued failure to grasp.
::::::::::::Thanks for being condescending about my ability to grasp an idea. But lets face it. Under the reign of Pope XXI you would have been a heretic. To say that God could not "change the laws of nature on a whim" was one of the forbidden positions on the list compiled by Bishop Tempier in 1277. The view which you call essentially Christian, was actually a position that was heavily inspired by the Greeks, and it was considered basically pagan. So, a position that you say is essential Christian, was fundamentally heretic at that time.
::::::::::::Thanks for being condescending about my ability to grasp an idea. But lets face it. Under the reign of Pope XXI you would have been a heretic. To say that God could not "change the laws of nature on a whim" was one of the forbidden positions on the list compiled by Bishop Tempier in 1277. The view which you call essentially Christian, was actually a position that was heavily inspired by the Greeks, and it was considered basically pagan. So, a position that you say is essential Christian, was fundamentally heretic at that time.
::::::::::::No scientist argues that what you call irreducibly complex emerged by "chance". It emerged by the opposite of "chance". But to paraphrase yourself, given your inability to grasp the concept of "chance", I'll take your comment with a grain of salt.[[User:Order|Order]] 23:19, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::No scientist argues that what you call irreducibly complex emerged by "chance". It emerged by the opposite of "chance". But to paraphrase yourself, given your inability to grasp the concept of "chance", I'll take your comment with a grain of salt.[[User:Order|Order]] 23:19, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: "''Galileo tried to console his findings with the bible. ... Exactly what I told you before.''": I don't recall you saying that, and if you did, I don't recall disagreeing. But you did say "''Opponents pointed at various quotes from the bible, while Galileo pointed at his telescope.''" which does suggest something rather different.
::::::::::::: "''...that someone was a Christian predicts nothing about their position in these matters.''": That doesn't follow from your example. That is, nobody is going to be correct on every last point, so quoting one person with a different view (and I'm taking your word for that) does not mean that Christianity has no or little predictive value.
::::::::::::: "''Thanks for admitting that the existence of a deity has no effect whatsoever on the universality of natural laws.''": Thanks for taking no notice of the distinction I pointed out between "a deity" and "God".
::::::::::::: "''Thanks for being condescending about my ability to grasp an idea.''": Well, given the lack of notice you took between "a deity" and "God", I think I have a point. Not to mention...
::::::::::::: "''To say that God could not "change the laws of nature on a whim" was one of the forbidden positions on the list compiled by Bishop Tempier in 1277.''": But I didn't say that. I didn't say that God ''couldn't'', but that because of His nature, he ''wouldn't''. And it was your reference to the Pope that caused me to question your ability to grasp an idea, so this appears to justify me doing so ''in that very case''!
::::::::::::: "''No scientist argues that what you call irreducibly complex emerged by "chance". It emerged by the opposite of "chance".''": Yet chance is all you have left if you reject purpose and design. Mutations are chance events, and natural selection selects for environments that come about by chance.
::::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 4 February 2008 (EST)