Evolution and Creationism

  • Thread starter Thread starter DictatorCzar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
o_mlly said:
At this point, to continue this thread, we need to know what first principles you accept , not reject.
Click to expand...
First principles?
“Impermanent are all compound things.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

“Sorrowful are all compound things.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

“All the elements of reality are soulless.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

– Dhammapada 20:5-7
Click to expand...
 
Maximus_Power said:
If Adolf Hitler and Mother Teresa both end up in the same place eventually then there is no justice in Nirvana. A truly diabolical concept.
Click to expand...
You need to think more about Buddhism. The entity that was Adolf Hitler will have been reborn as a different, though connected entity, maybe in a hell maybe as an animal. The entity that was Mother Theresa will have been reborn in one of the heavens. After (probably) relatively few rebirths the former Mother Theresa will attain nirvana. After (probably) a lot more rebirths and re-deaths the former Adolf Hitler will attain nirvana. In neither case do the actual Adolf Hitler and the actual Mother Theresa attain nirvana since neither became enlightened during their lifetime.

Buddhism is not an Abrahmic religion so a lot of the common assumptions of the Abrahamic religions do not apply. Most obvious is the absence of a soul in Buddhism. A human being is a compound made of parts. All of those parts change and all of those parts are impermanent.

I suggest you start a new thread in the Non-Catholic religions forum if you want to discuss this further. It is off topic in this thread.
 
o_mlly said:
Are you going to address Ripperger’s arguments…
Click to expand...
The ones that lead to the conclusion that the planet was created ’in a very short period of time - a week or so’? Those arguments? The ones that lead to the conclusion that a literal reading of the first chapter of the bible is the correct one? The ones he uses in that video to which I linked where he shows a catastrophically inept understanding of evolution?

The guy really thinks creation happened in a week. That literally all the animals were produced in a few days. That they all wandered around not doing much (not even eating) until the fall. At which point I presume they started eating each other.

Whatever arguments he uses (and boy, can the guy talk), they reach a conclusion that is so patently wrong that it defies all understanding that you could possibly demand that they should be treated with any respect. Philosophy is a worthy endeavour but it’s a foolish person that relies upon it even when it reaches conclusions that can be proved to be monstrously wrong. Do you really think that anyone except a creationist of the most fundamentalist stripe could read anything he says and reach the same conclusion?

If the premises in any philosophical argument can be shown, without any doubt, to be correct, then it’s a fair chance that the conclusion reached will be correct. But good heaven’s above, if the conclusion can be proven to be wrong, then the arguments are obviously not correct. I’ve not read any philosophical arguments that show the world to be flat. But I know for a fact, without reading them, that they’d be spurious. That it would be an utter waste of my time even contemplating them.

As I said upstream, I don’t waste my time discussing the pros and conns of ark construction with any great flood proponent. And if someone proposed a philosophical argument for the flood then equally I wouldn’t be the slightest bit interested. Similarly, if someone wanted to discuss the exact time of day that fish were created then do you really think I’d be interested?

You seem to think that a philosophical argument by the very nature of the fact that is ‘philosophical’ grants it some quality that rises it up above the mundane and must therefore be treated with reverence and respect. But an argument that reaches a patently absurd conclusion is in itself patently absurd.

Ripperger is free to believe in whatever he likes. He is a creationist of the most fundamental variety. And you believe his arguments are correct. So you are likewise a creationist. Of the most fundamentalist variety. Good luck to both of you. I commend you both on the passion in which you both hold these beliefs.

And yeah, I know, this is the philosophical section of the forum. But please don’t think for a moment that I will grant your views, or his, any credibility whatsoever because they are couched in philosophical terms. We all now know where you stand. We now know what you believe. It took quite some time to find that out but we have got there at last. Personally speaking I will henceforth be treating all your posts in the light of that knowledge.
 
rossum said:
40.png
Freddy:
You keep asking for proof that Ripperger is a creationist.
Click to expand...
It is also instructive to have a look at Father Ripperger’s references in the article o_mlly linked to. Alongside the philosophy and theology references, we find Philip Johnson, Guy Berthault, John Sanford and Michael Behe.
Click to expand...
I was talking to my wife about Trump yesterday, following his ‘let’s investigate whether injecting bleach might be worth looking at’ comments. And I said ‘you know, thinking back, Bush wasn’t such a bad president after all. He was a decent guy. Bit of a klutz but I’d have a beer with him’. I mean, Trump makes anyone else look good.

And then I was thinking about Ripperger and his beliefs and after you posted the names of his co-conspirators, I honestly started thinking about Behe in a different light. As in, ‘hey, the guy makes some valid points now and then’.

Could that actually be the tactic here? Put forward 7 day creationism as a valid argument and demand we treat it seriously and then we’ll actually start thinking of Behe and his proposals as sensible alternatives.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Freddy:
The ones that lead to the conclusion that the planet was created ’in a very short period of time - a week or so’? Those arguments?
Click to expand...
Is God limited in how He can create?
Click to expand...
Not at all. He could have actually done it in a week had He wanted to. He could have done it last Thursday. He could have made it flat with turtles all the way down and then made the moon out of cheese.

Oddly enough, there are some people on this thread who think that 20% of those proposals are actually true.
 
Freddy said:
He could have actually done it in a week had He wanted to.
Click to expand...
Just wanted to be sure. The question we are discussing is did He?

Both sides are pretty much looking at the same evidence, and interpreting it differently.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Freddy:
He could have actually done it in a week had He wanted to.
Click to expand...
Just wanted to be sure. The question we are discussing is did He?

Both sides are pretty much looking at the same evidence, and interpreting it differently.
Click to expand...
It was a silly question. He’s meant to be omnipotent. But you need to deny a galactic amount of evidence to be able to accept a young earth. You’d have less work to do picking one of the other options to be honest.
 
Freddy said:
You’d have less work to do picking one of the other options to be honest.
Click to expand...
It has taken 150 years to create the other provisional creation account. And wow there are some doozies in there that fit the definition of blind faith. You are an adherent.
 
If God suddenly created a brand new species and didn’t tell anyone, you would reject it as new species don’t exist. Correct?
 
Pattylt said:
If God suddenly created a brand new species and didn’t tell anyone, you would reject it as new species don’t exist. Correct?
Click to expand...
’
Lineage splitting already goes on.

If God started creating again, I believe it would be a new archetype.
 
Evolution as it is currently understood isn’t compatible with young earth creationism.
So yes, it kind of is an either-or domain.
 
YEC is so weird. The Days of Creation could’ve been 7000 years or even 7 billion years. Im pretty sure the word millions or billions wasn’t invented yet during or before the times of Moses.
 
DictatorCzar said:
YEC is so weird. The Days of Creation could’ve been 7000 years or even 7 billion years. Im pretty sure the word millions or billions wasn’t invented yet during or before the times of Moses.
Click to expand...
Is it that That drives some people nuts? - Who in turn go on almost forever, incapable of not thinking and talking about it 24/7 as if in doing or not doing such - is of some cosmic importance?

Is that what you’re reflecting?

)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top