Jump to content


Photo

Questions For Theistic Evolutionists


  • Please log in to reply
126 replies to this topic

#121 Kairos2014

Kairos2014

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 55 posts
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 04 November 2015 - 06:22 AM

Uncertain, but unlikely.

 

https://en.wikipedia...ki/Craig_Venter

OK, cheers!

 

 

 

"As is the case with most scientists, Venter is an atheist. When asked by “60 Minutes” interviewer Steve Kroft if he believed in God, Venter quickly replied:

No. I believe that the universe is far more wonderful than just assuming it was made by some higher power."   http://hollowverse.com/craig-venter/ 

 

lol this is similar to Albert Einstein who believed in some higher power "Spinoza GOD" yet but he doesn't call himself an atheist but an agnostic? Why don't Venter become an agnostic if he believes in a higher power other than GOD? Great, now we see new atheism and the old atheism taking the position of not believing in GOD but someone like Venter can believe in a higher power but still call himself an atheist? I don't get your worldview? It's like 2.0 USB upgrading to 3.0 USB lol and altering on the GO like trying to define evolution? Now we see the same with the atheism worldview?

 

Don't mind me I am only voicing my opinion ;)



#122 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 04 November 2015 - 10:18 AM

lol this is similar to Albert Einstein who believed in some higher power "Spinoza GOD" yet but he doesn't call himself an atheist but an agnostic? Why don't Venter become an agnostic if he believes in a higher power other than GOD? Great, now we see new atheism and the old atheism taking the position of not believing in GOD but someone like Venter can believe in a higher power but still call himself an atheist? I don't get your worldview? It's like 2.0 USB upgrading to 3.0 USB lol and altering on the GO like trying to define evolution? Now we see the same with the atheism worldview?

 

Don't mind me I am only voicing my opinion ;)

Theistic evolutionists are not atheists.....

 

Just pointing out the obvious.



#123 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 04 November 2015 - 02:04 PM

Kairos, it's interesting that Venter says, the universe is, "far more wonderful". Whatever does he mean by, "wonderful"? Is that not a subjective term? If atheism is true, what is, "wonderful", it is nothing, therefore Venter's opinion is nothing, because his opinion is nothing more than some chemicals bouncing around his head, that have evolved from pond-scum.

 

I find that an interesting epithet to use, "wonderful".

 

Now if you are a Christian, you can appreciate the true wonder of creation for what it is without lying. You don't have to pretend that a butterfly is only beautiful to the human but that objectively it is a created thing. You don't have to believe morality is invented by man, you don't have to believe that freewill is an illusion. You don't have to pretend that a miraculous level of design in organisms and in nature generally, is a mirage and that it was intelligently designed by something with no intelligence. (evolution).

 

In short, you can take reality for what it is - truly wonderful because it is a miraculous creation. A creation with meaning. But in Venter's world - what is 'meaning'?, What is 'wonderful'? They are nothing more than the opines of relativity. They are dust, shadows, phantoms, and the atheist becomes the puppeteer that animates them, having no tether to the earth himself.

 

Furthermore, if the creation is wonderful then since the Creator made it, the Creator would be wonderful as the creation is a reflection of the creator. It is an assumption that we "assume" God is there, just because the atheists say we do, as though they have proven the bible is not God's voice to us.

 

To say the universe is too wonderful to be made by God is like saying that a wonderful song is too wonderful to be sung by a wonderful singer. A contradiction, for they both compliment eacother. To imagine that God existing would not be wonderful, is bizarre and shows how far from God the unbelieving mind is in it's belief in falsehoods and contradictions and a failure to even understand base-wisdom.

 

Where do these guys come from, Goku? Who are these people you quote, that have no wisdom and state contradictions as though we should value them?

 

S O P H I S T R Y. Why do you glorify these glorified sinners in your mind?

:acigar:


  • Kairos2014 likes this

#124 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,002 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 04 November 2015 - 05:35 PM

lol this is similar to Albert Einstein who believed in some higher power "Spinoza GOD" yet but he doesn't call himself an atheist but an agnostic? Why don't Venter become an agnostic if he believes in a higher power other than GOD? Great, now we see new atheism and the old atheism taking the position of not believing in GOD but someone like Venter can believe in a higher power but still call himself an atheist? I don't get your worldview? It's like 2.0 USB upgrading to 3.0 USB lol and altering on the GO like trying to define evolution? Now we see the same with the atheism worldview?

 

Don't mind me I am only voicing my opinion ;)

 

I think Venter is saying that he doesn't believe in any higher power.

 

Where do these guys come from, Goku? Who are these people you quote, that have no wisdom and state contradictions as though we should value them?

 

S O P H I S T R Y. Why do you glorify these glorified sinners in your mind?

:acigar:

 

People asked what his religious beliefs were, and since his wiki didn't address it I found an article that did and posted it. It was not meant to be anything more than informing people what his religious beliefs were as people seemed to be curious.



#125 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 05 November 2015 - 03:36 AM

 

 

Goku: People asked what his religious beliefs were, and since his wiki didn't address it I found an article that did and posted it. It was not meant to be anything more than informing people what his religious beliefs were as people seemed to be curious.

 

 I wasn't picking on you really, there was some tongue-in-cheek in me accusing you, as I cannot resist a bit of mischief with old Goku-guru. :D

 

(It seems to me you do have more sense than to state some of the things that some of these guys say. All I ask is that they think through what they say first, so often some of these guys make indirect STABS at people like us (theists), like when he says, the world is far too wonderful, which obviously implies that our belief as theists is some kind of simplistic stereotypical "assumption" we are all indulging.  That's arrogant because he doesn't know what each person believes and why they believe it, because God is a simple concept to Him doesn't mean that God is a simple concept or "assumption".

 

Can you not see how that might be throwing a flame? Why do these guys need to demote theism in order to promote atheism? Can't they provide a case for atheism without relying on the demotion of theism? (It's something for you to think about)

 

The only way it seems, that these guys can win, is if they try and make it seem like we are the ones with the losing argument, but where are the POSITIVE arguments for atheism. I don't hear many.



#126 Kairos2014

Kairos2014

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 55 posts
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 08 November 2015 - 12:02 PM

Theistic evolutionists are not atheists.....

 

Just pointing out the obvious.

Thanks piasan I do know the difference. I know I kind of hijacked the OP and took it somewhere else :D

 

Kairos, it's interesting that Venter says, the universe is, "far more wonderful". Whatever does he mean by, "wonderful"? Is that not a subjective term? If atheism is true, what is, "wonderful", it is nothing, therefore Venter's opinion is nothing, because his opinion is nothing more than some chemicals bouncing around his head, that have evolved from pond-scum.

 

I find that an interesting epithet to use, "wonderful".

 

Now if you are a Christian, you can appreciate the true wonder of creation for what it is without lying. You don't have to pretend that a butterfly is only beautiful to the human but that objectively it is a created thing. You don't have to believe morality is invented by man, you don't have to believe that freewill is an illusion. You don't have to pretend that a miraculous level of design in organisms and in nature generally, is a mirage and that it was intelligently designed by something with no intelligence. (evolution).

 

In short, you can take reality for what it is - truly wonderful because it is a miraculous creation. A creation with meaning. But in Venter's world - what is 'meaning'?, What is 'wonderful'? They are nothing more than the opines of relativity. They are dust, shadows, phantoms, and the atheist becomes the puppeteer that animates them, having no tether to the earth himself.

 

Furthermore, if the creation is wonderful then since the Creator made it, the Creator would be wonderful as the creation is a reflection of the creator. It is an assumption that we "assume" God is there, just because the atheists say we do, as though they have proven the bible is not God's voice to us.

 

To say the universe is too wonderful to be made by God is like saying that a wonderful song is too wonderful to be sung by a wonderful singer. A contradiction, for they both compliment eacother. To imagine that God existing would not be wonderful, is bizarre and shows how far from God the unbelieving mind is in it's belief in falsehoods and contradictions and a failure to even understand base-wisdom.

 

Where do these guys come from, Goku? Who are these people you quote, that have no wisdom and state contradictions as though we should value them?

 

S O P H I S T R Y. Why do you glorify these glorified sinners in your mind?

:acigar:

Absolutely! I remember watching a Christian movie "GOD's NOT DEAD" and one of the reference was used by John Lennox "Nonsense remains nonsense even for Stephen Hawking"

It kind of reminded me of Venter how you were describing "Wonderful".

 

Hmm I always wondered but never got around to it. I have a question for evolution:

1. Why are insects, animals, hamo sapiens, etc, have almost a perfect outline or perpendicular in design? Why is it not a random design? (hope that makes sense)

 

Example: http://www.bestanima...ated-gif-32.gif



#127 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,281 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 09 September 2017 - 06:36 AM

It didn't destroy everything. In my opinion, the factual Noah's Ark flood was a localized event in the area of what is today Iraq, but was then Mesopotamia or Sumer. A man likely gathered a pair of all of his domestic animals and put them on board a large version of the traditional river vessel of the region: a hollowed out, circular boat. This hypothesis of mine is supported by the fact that a 4000+ year old clay tablet was unearthed in the past few years from Iraq, depicting just such a story. If I'm not mistaken, the name of the man is also Noah.

 
It's your opinion. Don't garner it with factual. It's a hypothesis at best, finding a tablet with a similar story is interesting, but doesn't make it true. One that doesn't really make that much sense for a number of reasons. If that was a localized flooding, why didn't they just move to higher ground? 

 

This event was likely the kernel of truth behind the legend. The story was seized upon by people across the region of various faiths. This is why we see older, polytheistic versions of the Noah's ark story, such as the famous Epic of Gilgamesh, in which the Noah figure goes by the name Utnapishtim. All religions that sought to tell the more mythical version of the actual events did so in the context of their own gods.

 (global) Flood stories aren't limited to "across" the region, they are a world-wide phenomenon. How do you know the other versions are older? Here is another hypothesis:

There was indeed a global flood. Noah and family were indeed the only survivors. After the flood they had more children. At a stage those people were spreading out over the earth, since their languages had been confused. The spread out people told stories to their children about their ancestors. Those ancestors became gods and the stories were altered or corrupted. As the languages were radically altered as well, those "gods" had different names. With time the stories may have become mixed up, have omissions or were embellished a bit. 

 

Get the picture. The story was spread by traditions of people that split up at some stage (which was btw also a commandment - fill the Earth, become many[different] people )

 

 

In Jewish tradition, the flood was exaggerated to cover the whole Earth instead of just a region, so that all humans but Noah were wiped out. The reason for this exaggeration is that the story was probably never meant to be taken literally. Instead, it is a parabolic device meant to show God's immense power, and even more importantly, His promise to humanity that He would never bring such a cataclysm on them again is meant to demonstrate His love.
A story doesn't have to be entirely literally factual in order to be true. It's all about conveying a message.

 

Literally = taken as the text is meant. You mean to see it was to be taken figuratively, but that's not the impression the text gives at face value, unlike parables for example. To me it sounds like a briefing on real historical facts. And it's quite clear that the flood was across the whole surface of the Earth. Noah and family being the survivors of the line of blessing, that afterward replenished the Earth. 

 

A briefing can't cover all the details, but it nevertheless needs to contain the basic facts. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users