trying to be converted!!

RiderOnTheStorm

SDooM wrote:

you clearly don't understand the pentadactyl limb theory, its nothing to do with vestigial limbs, its to do with the shared bone structure in limbs between all animals.

my bad. I thought that pentadactyl limb was indeed the vestigal limbs.
I dont know about pentadactyl limbs at all, so I cant comment.

Doctor DooM

RiderOnTheStorm wrote:

my bad. I thought that pentadactyl limb was indeed the vestigal limbs.
I dont know about pentadactyl limbs at all, so I cant comment.

No prob I shall butt out, its in its own thread.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

Actually, no. I don't want to sidetrack this interesting discussion, but in the interests of accuracy I should point out that inerrancy involves belief that the Scripture is without error, but does recognise that different literary forms exist (poetry, figures of speech, metaphors etc.) To use an obvious example, when Jesus says "I am the true vine" (John 15:1) the inerrantist does not believe that Jesus metamorphosed into a tree!

Therefore there are a large number of Christians who accept evolution but are still 'immature' enough to believe in the inerrancy of scripture.

I think Theology has invented a literary form of its own and put its own version of the word "inerrancy" in it.
People used to think the account in Genesis was factual inerrant. Now most educated, sensible people don't. It's either a metaphor or completly wrong.
Either way, it's a more evolved and mature faith that realises that than one who thinks it's literal inerrant truth.

Zillah

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Your understanding of Christianity is very narrow if you think that evolution is a stumbling block to all Christians.

I said absolutely nothing about Christianity. If you want to go off and have a conversation all on your own, then please go do just that, no need to involve me.

Wacker

I rarely contribute here as most of what I would ever want to say is said before I get there, and by people who are more well read than I am. However, I do observe the goings-on here on a very regular basis, and one observation of mine is applicable in this instance.

It happens frequently that you'll get a theist in here prosletysing and trying to show us the error of our ways. Every single ham-fisted arguement he makes will get torn apart with surgical efficiency, so the guy will go off and do some googling, and come back with something better. This may also get torn apart, but more importantly, everyone will see through what just happened.

I think the OP may be trying to do just that. OP, I think the last thing you should do when discussing your beliefs is to recycle some arguements that you don't fully understand. I'm not saying that stuff here is going over your head or anything. What I think you should do is post here your own reasons for atheism (it is atheism, right? I don't know if you're an atheist or an agnostic), and try to fit them in with what is said here.

Zombrex

RiderOnTheStorm wrote:

Therein is the problem a lot of Christians / Jews / Muslims have with evolution. It denies the existance of God.

Well it doesn't really deny the existence of God. It provides a way for life to evolve that doesn't require God. To a lot of people that makes the concept of God rather redundant.

Of course to others it simply means they frame-shift what they believed God did, while still holding onto the idea that God must exist and must have done something to do with life, even if they have no idea what that was or have any rational reason for believing it.

RiderOnTheStorm wrote:

But evolution (dare I say it) like God, cannot be proved.

Well nothing in science can be proven, as has been pointed out many times on this forum.

Science does not attempt to prove something right.

Its purpose is to model, through the use of theories, the natural world around us. Accuracy is what is important, not "proof", since accuracy of a model means that the model can be used for useful purpose (eg. evolution heavily effects medicine).

Neo-Darwin evolution is a model of how biologists believe the system of organism life works on Earth.

Like all scientific theories, the more accurate this model appears to be the more weight is put in it by scientists. Which is why the model is constantly updated to make it more and more accurate when more and more tests are run.

And at this stage the model appears to be very accurate, it not only fits observation but predicts future observation, the sign of a good scientific theory.

Pompey Magnus

5uspect wrote:

Tell him you've seen the light and are now worshiping Zeus.

I was going to suggest exactly the same thing. That is what I would do in that situation.

Zillah

Wacker wrote:

It happens frequently that you'll get a theist in here prosletysing and trying to show us the error of our ways. Every single ham-fisted arguement he makes will get torn apart with surgical efficiency

Thats poetry right there.

Wacker

Zillah wrote:

Thats poetry right there.

Why thank you sir.

RiderOnTheStorm

RiderOnTheStorm wrote:

Therein is the problem a lot of Christians / Jews / Muslims have with evolution. It denies the existance of God.

No, it just doesn't include god, different kettle of fish entirely

But evolution (dare I say it) like God, cannot be proved. Evolution is a theory, and all theories need experementation and observation to be proved

Scientific theories don't get "proven", that's just maths theorems

"theory" means it has a ton of evidence backing it up and is as strong as you're going to get. If it was just an idea, it would be a hypothesis