nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 226:
Line 226: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Extraterrestrial life (view source)
Revision as of 03:48, August 25, 2008
, 03:48, August 25, 2008→Salvation rules out extra-terrestrial life?: Evolution and the Bible ARE incompatible
All this aside, I have made the edits to the particular section in question. What is the opinion on this?
All this aside, I have made the edits to the particular section in question. What is the opinion on this?
--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 18:40, 24 August 2008 (EDT)
--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 18:40, 24 August 2008 (EDT)
:"''I feel that they [Hubble et. al.] "rejected" it because it simply doesn't make sense assuming an inflationary, Big Bang model of the universe''": I believe that the "inflationary, Big Bang model" came ''after'' they had rejected the idea of the universe having a centre.
:"''...for which even then there was already plenty of supporting evidence''": There's not much evidence even now!
:"''...an Earth-centered view is needlessly egocentric on our part...''": Egocentric? When ego is not the reason for thinking that?
:"''...and just simply silly (sorry).''": Because you say so?
:"''You yourself pointed out the impossibility of a moving Earth being able to be and remain at the centre.''": Actually, I was going to add, but forgot (it was late), that this depends on how you define the centre. If it is a point of no width, height, or depth, then that is correct. But we might say that the town hall is in the "centre of town". How can something be ''in'' the centre if the centre is dimensionless? Rather, by "centre" we might be referring to a ''central area'', not a dimensionless point. That being the case, it is quite possible for the Earth to be in the centre (central area) of the universe.
:"''While your point that evolution does not create "new information" is true in a strict sense since no matter is ever created or destroyed, in this case it does not apply because rearranging existing gene sequences can indeed create something better than the sum of its parts.''": Information is neither energy nor matter, but a distinct fundamental entity. Information ''can'' be created and destroyed. Mutations can destroy information, and intelligence can create it. Our DNA contains genetic information, and evolution has no way of generating it. Simply rearranging existing gene sequences at random (i.e. without an intelligent designer) cannot create new [[information]] (<--did you read that?)
:"''With your logic, such things as a baby growing into a man, a seed germinating into a tree, etc. would be impossible if one assumes biology can not by itself create "new information."''": Wrong. A baby already has all the genetic information for the man, and a seed for a tree. No new information required. But biology doesn't explain the origin of that information.
:"''Refer to: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm''": If true (you will note that a biologist—although they don't tell you that he's a biologist—has disputed that claim (and they attempt to counter-counter-claim)), it merely amounts to an exception to the rule; the rule is still that mutations don't produce information. Hypothetically, there is a vanishingly-small chance that a mutation might in extremely rare cases produce new information, but this occasion would be swamped by all the information-destroying ones. It's like going one step forwards and a thousand steps backwards: the result is that you go backwards.
:"''Because if it knows everything, it is complicated, no matter how many theologians you get to say otherwise.''": Again, just because you say so? Sorry if I take that with a grain of salt.
:"''...evolution is not incompatible with Christianity...''": Yes it is. Christianity is based on the Bible, and the Bible's account of creation as well as other passages is incompatible with evolution. For one thing, evolution is naturalistic; the Bible proposes a supernatural explanation. For another, the time span from the start of the univers to the appearance of man is six days according to the Bible, and about 14,000,000,000 years according to evolution. Also, the order of appearance disagrees: evolution has fish before fruit trees, contrary to the Bible, for example. And most importantly, the Bible has death being the result of man's sin (hence death must have come after man) whereas evolution has death a vital factor leading to man. If sin didn't lead to death, then what do we need to be saved from? There is no need for the atonement, and Christianity is pointless. Not incompatible? Hah! It's diametrically opposed.
:"''...evolution is certainly incompatible with a literal interpretation of the Old Testament...''": Ah! So you ''can'' see that it's incompatible! Yet you just (effectively) denied that! By the way, it's not incompatible with a "literal interpretation", but with what the Old Testament actually records. That is, there is no proper way of understanding it any differently.
:"''...so is every aspect of modern life unless one proposes that we reinstate a harsh penalty for wearing mixed fibers.''": You are confusing ''historical record'' with ''rules for the nation of Israel''. Chalk and cheese. Rules can be changed. History doesn't.
:"''A literal interpretation of the Old Testament is perhaps as useful to us a literal interpretation of ancient Egyptian mythology, say, or tribal African cults.''": How about as useful as a "literal interpretation" of ancient Roman history? Or a literal interpretation of evolution? (Ever noticed that when people try and argue that evolution and the Bible are compatible, it's the Word of God and not the words of man that they want to mythologise?)
:"''...it is not clear why atheism itself should produce depression''": Because there's no hope; it's all a matter of chance. Even if you ''think''' that there's hope, why trust what you think, when your thoughts are the result of chance?
:"''If anything, realizing you have such a short amount of time to actually exist encourages people to make the most of it...''": What do you mean by "make the most"? The most what? With atheism, nothing has any meaning.
:"''To me, what's more depressing is sincerely believing that the most important thing in your life is to be "born again." Then, once you've done that, what are you ultimately doing with your life save for waiting around to die--so you can move on to your glorious eternal salvation? It's suffocating, and ultimately makes Earthly life feel very pointless.''": Perhaps that's why you were prone to depression when you believed in God—because you had an incomplete if not distorted view of things. God has tasks for you to do, including telling others about Him. You are most definitely ''not'' supposed to be just "waiting around to die".
:"''...some of my Christian friends because they have a propensity to say things that imply anticipation or excitement about their own personal demise.''": No, they have an anticipation or excitement about being freed from the restrictions of this life. The "personal demise" is a new ''start'', not an end.
:"''Why haven't they ended it themselves? Because that would give them the "bad" afterlife.''": No, because God has work for them to do here.
:"''Just because there is less suicide among theists doesn't mean they are actually enjoying an existence they believe to be transitory.''": Logically, no, it doesn't follow that there is less suicide ''just because of that''. But it's generally true anyway that they are enjoying this transitory existence (I know I am) and that is probably a major reason why they would have fewer suicides.
:"''I have made the edits to the particular section in question. What is the opinion on this?''": I haven't actually looked at your edits yet! When I get time...
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:48, 24 August 2008 (EDT)