Posted on 09/27/2006 9:56:09 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
Sorry, I guess I should have included the sarcasm tags. As far as it not being a logical conclusion of the claim, I'll argue that. If it is "first and foremost a weapon against religion" then it was conceived and constructed for that purpose from the outset.
>>With respect, that's a cop out.<<
I disagree. Strongly. If you claim it is compatible with the Bible, you must know what the bible says on the subject. You are asking the other side to prove a negative. We are merely asking you to prove a positive.
See 81.
>>What I disagree with is the incompatibility with Christianity.<<
He did not say it was incompatible with Christianity. He said it precludes the need for a God Creator. However, I would most definitely say it is absolutely incompatible with Christianity.
It is also incompatible with reality.
And I can't see how your thesis that even a nonliteral reading of the Bible remains inconsistent with evolution.
Personally, I believe that God is quite clever, and wants us to be, too.
>>>It was a joke...may biblical literalists do believe that.>>>
I think that is more the case. You can believe that a creator is possible without taking the Bible literally (I think alot is Christian Mythology).
Unfortunately, the Darwinists want to feel soooo intellectually superior that they chose to make fun of anyone who doesn't adopt their theory as fact.
The cop out was in referring me to a website, and not succintly stating the point yourself.
Evolution is now a laboratory science. It makes no difference what its implications for religion are.
Religion will come to terms with evolution, as it did with heliocentrism, germ theory, anaesthesia, and other controversies.
"He said it precludes the need for a God Creator. "
That's what HE said. My point is that it does not.
>>The cop out was in referring me to a website, and not succintly stating the point yourself.<<
It is not a cop out. It is avoiding redundance. It's all there. Read it yourself. Heck, just stick with Genesis and note very carefully the words used and their actual dictionary meaning. Anybody who says darwinism is compatible with Christianity OR the Bible is grossly ignorant, either unintentionally or intentionally, of what the Bible actually says on the subject.
Choose multiple versions if you choose.
>>>The cop out was in referring me to a website, and not succintly stating the point yourself.>>>
What did you expect him to do? Post the entire Bible? Not gonna make the mods happy with that post.
>>"He said it precludes the need for a God Creator. "
That's what HE said. My point is that it does not.<<
Let me be more specific. His remark simply said that darwinism, if true, describes a world where there is not a NEED for a God Creator, not that there is not a God Creator.
I'm just following the logical implications of the author's claims, not agreeing with them.
We don't NEED ice cream, but we can't deny that it exists.
"What did you expect him to do? Post the entire Bible? Not gonna make the mods happy with that post. "
No, but a two sentence statement of beliefs would have been sufficient.
You're spinning, or missing my point.
But is has its uses.
Ha ha!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.