OK, one final dinosaur post for the weekend. In the poo post, the implication of carnivory for “ original sin” was touched upon. I never tire of laughing at this article written by everyone’s’ favourite bearded cleric, where he thinks tsunamis, volcanic eruptions and death are the result of eating an apple. I particularly love the paragraph that starts off saying that atheists are becoming more frustrated as our aguments are shown to be limited - he then goes off on a truley ignorant rant of biblical proportions - and he claims to accept evolution, which makes his ignorance all the more incredible. It is a common belief that I don’t think many Christians think about seriously enough. Anyway, here is another example of carnivorous behaviour before the arrival of man. It is a drawing of the rib cage of Compsognathus longipes. Inside, a small skeleton of Bavariasurus (in darker shading) can clearly be seen. It appears to be swallowed whole.
Young earth creationists have to deny this comes before man and claim it ate it’s meal after man and woman sinned. However, let’s ignore the serrated teeth that are so good for hunting for a moment and ask why Elephants or squirrels don’t bring down lions and eat them. Could it be because they are not adapted to be hunters? Theists who accept evolution are confronted with the only credible alternative: god caused large scale industrial suffering to bring his “flawed” masterpiece into being.
Finally, to both sides: a challenge – show some evidence that 1) man existed with dinosaurs and explain the consilient nature of fossil dating techniques, or 2) a role for god in directing evolution that meets the standards of a scientific theory.
10 comments:
Did anyone ever get a coherent answer on this from DR? I just remember him back tracking and being inconsistent like a fool
Billy-
Of course not, what are you, crazy? Perhaps it would be a good question to pose on the new FCOS forum when that starts up in about twelve years' time.
"It is a common belief that I don’t think many Christians think about seriously enough."
True. Often they simply ignore tough questions, or in some cases suddenly start moderating comments. :(
Sometimes they delete whole bloody websites - twice!
Talking of moderation, the guy who contacted me from the "meat machine blog has not posted my comments. He seems to not allow dissenting voices. Looks like the guy that Philip has been talking to from the child abuse blog doesn't like contrary views too much either. Need to throw this at DR for a laugh when he lies about christian tolerance again.
Just read Lockheed's latest comments; only reinforces my view that you guys aren't going to get anywhere with him.
Looks like he did post it, the meat machine one hasnt.
I cant see us getting anywhere, but did list a number of fallacies in this response
"Thanks for the reply
when are you the best qualified to decide what is and is not a fulfilled prophecy?
Now Lockheed, that is the ad hominem fallacy - not a good start I'm affraid.
The New Testament writers therefore have a Holy Spirit-inspired understanding of the prophecies of the OT
Unsustantiated claim fallacy! Can you argue the case that they are indeed insired?
Sure sounds like a Messianic prophecy.
You seem to be distorting my claim here. It is messianic in the sense that the writer is talking about someone who has been "anointed" to do a job for god. It is not messianic in the sense that it is talking about where jesus will be born. Now, you mention the need for context, but you ignore it here. This verse refers to a ruler who will defeat the Assyrians. I most definately is not about jesus.
As far ass Isa 7:14 - again this is a prophecy, on what basis can you declare it doesn't apply to Jesus?
Context! On what basis do you claim it is about Jesus? It refers to events ocurring around 724 BCE that were directly relevant to Ahaz.
What "evidence" are you looking for? And why don't you take the Old Testament as evidence?
I will have to be brief, it is a big topic. No mention of the hebrews in Egypt, anachrionisms in the biblical narrative, contradictions in the regional geopolitics at the time etc. "histories" are also written with a spin, and an obvious one in the OT is jewish imperialism.
It seems that those who argue against the historicity of the Bible often find themselves backtracking as new archeological evidence is unearthed.
It is my experience that those arguing for the bible have to deny new evidence - like the fact that Jericho had no wall when Joshua was happily killing men, women and children for god. If evidence, does appear that supports the bible, then that is fine, please dont use your prejudices to form an "argument". As it stand, there is No evidence that this happened.
Regardless, the discussion was focused on whether or not the God of Scripture was just and/or good in commanding and threatening the Israelites as He did.
And your evidence is?
I'm glad you asked.....
I'm affraid this does not argue about the morality of the situation. It is jus saying god is right and you expect me to believe that. If I said to you the same about some other god, what would you require as evidence? I presume you wouldn't just say - "oh yeah,you've got me there!"
You need to show absolutes exist and are attributable to your god.
As opposed to showing that moral absolutes don't exist? Do you really want to be in that position, defending the right of anyone to do anything at anytime?
It is always sad that a christian should think that I am defending any position. I see morality as more practical. If it hurts others, we should not do it (although there is no reason why I should have this view, and others dont). You still need to show absolutes exist to have a case
God's ways are beyond our understanding, yet He has provided us general and special revelation by which we can know His ways. Through His Word we can know what is right and wrong, moral and immoral.
Dont you find that statement somewhat contradictory?
Perhaps he has then revealed to me that he doesn't exist or is immoral. You still have not shown that it is moral.
Why dont you try and convince me homosexuality is wrong in an absolute moral way. This would be a good way of showing the problem of your position. (I know christians make assumptions when this is mentioned, but just to let you know, I am not gay and have no axe to grind, but my experience is that cheistians project. I dont see how it should make a difference to the arguments if I was)
Well, the God of the Bible stands in opposition to murder, lying, stealing, adultery, abortion, and the like... You can stand in opposition of that, declaring moral that which He's declared immoral but you'll only prove Him right in doing so.
You have commited another fallacy here. You assume that these should be accepted as moral absolutes. I challenge that they exist. As for not condoning these, have you read about joshua killing children, or moses orgering the murder of midianite women and children (except the virgins of course). The problem is that you seem to think it is not murder if your god orders it. If he did in deed order it, then he does condone murder.
I posted quotes, you come back with subjective hearsay.
Only if you consider a quote from Dawkins himself hearsay - which I dont.
it only proves that he contradicts himself whenever convenient.
Read his work in context :-)
He is nt forcing anyone, and has repeatedly said so. He is on the attack, because religion is partly responsible for 9/11. He also has a problem with creationists denying science and trying to force their world view on everyone through the courts - a problem that I share."
Hi Billy,
I hate to be the one to point it out, but you have overlooked The Flintstones.
Schoolboy error.
Some times I wonder if YECs inspired the flintstones
Listen matey, Fred Flintstone went to work on a dinosaur and that's that.
It is well documented on television.
I believe that Richard Dawkins uses television to put his point across so you can't argue with my proof.
I win.
Billy, et al, I aimed a question at DR on this sort of thing and I am not honestly sure if I got any sort of answer or not! The question was:
"This is aimed at David Robertson. Please answer.
The big issue in this whole thing is whether monotheistic religion and science are actually compatible at all.
Christianity is supposedly all about mankind being sullied by sin and unable to be right with God. Only Christ can bridge that gap. That "SIN" that taints us all comes from Adam and Eve.
For the whole Christian modle of sin/redemption/salvation to work THERE HAS TO BE a physical Adam and Eve
Paul and Jesus both speak of these as real physical people, not metaphors.
So David, tell me, do you HONESTLY believe that there was a time in earth history when there was only ONE man and ONE woman.
And that that woman was CREATED from Adams rib?
Was Adam just, scraped together from a handful of dirt?
Or was Adam just a highly "evolved" hominid that God then tweaked to "create" Man? (theisitc evo)
If so, was the immediately preceding hominid devoid of sin?
And since "sin" brought deatrh into the world, presumably this preceding hominid couldnt die?
For Christianity to be true, this needs to be the case. Theistic evolution simply doesnt cut it. Talk of OEC is little more than trying to square the bible with scientific evidence. The only biblical position that "works" is YEC
You probably are aware (and this is highly significant) that R C Sproul has now endorsed YEC? RC Sproul is one of the major league leading evangelicals, not some knuckle dragging retard playing banjo on the verandah!
So is Sproul totally wrong?
A christian by definition IS a creationist. They HAVE to be , otherwise their God is just a redundant bystander if he had nothing to do with the process of life on earth today
To me, the idea of being a Christian (or a Muslim , or a Jew) AND a scientist must involve an awful lot of compartmentalising and downright denial.
Or just ignoring the bits that are awkward... "
I still think it is a killer question. Evolution and the whole christian scheme of perfection/fall/sin/redemption simply cannot be compatible
Which is probably why the fundies, the real hard core XXX type fundies are so opposed to it. They know that (in the words of Richard Tallach, a poster on the old FCOS message board) that Theistic Evolution drives a "coach and horses" through the christian plan of redemption.
Its the faith-heads Achilles heel, no doubt about it.
Hi SG,
I remember you asking, and I don't recall a sensible answer. It is a question he constantly ignored for about a year and a half.
I had coffee with a christian friend last night and he asked why atheists should hijack evolution. I started a response, but some other friends saw what was comming and changed the direction of the conversation. I think I will direct him you your wonderfully written account of the problem. I only got as far as defining what can and can not go into a scientific theory
Post a Comment