Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [apologetics and theology] Re: Checklist of 12 things that falsify evolut...

Expand Messages
  • B1E1Nugent@aol.com
    In a message dated 4/26/2006 11:30:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, yusefii@yahoo.com writes: The idea of non-inductive reasoning (e.g., deductive reasoning and
    Message 1 of 15 , May 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 4/26/2006 11:30:55 PM Eastern Standard Time,
      yusefii@... writes:

      The idea of non-inductive reasoning (e.g., deductive reasoning and
      abductive reasoning) as a means of knowledge is not a trump card that
      you can use against macroevolutionism. Again, the idea that
      macroevolutionism is founded upon probabilistic reasoning is not a
      trump card that you can use against it.


      I was countering the oft repeated claim that evolution is a fact. Evolution
      is certainly not a fact and the weak inferential, probabalistic evidence used
      to buttress it must be shown for what it is. I'm well aware that the hard
      sciences are also based ultimately on inductive reasoning. The case for hard
      sciences is of course infinitely stronger than that of macroevolution.

      -Bill


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • not Yusef
      Inductive reasoning and probabilistic reasoning are *not* absolutely identical, but rather the former is a subdivision of the latter. You seemed to confuse
      Message 2 of 15 , May 2, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Inductive reasoning and probabilistic reasoning are *not* absolutely
        identical, but rather the former is a subdivision of the latter. You
        seemed to confuse the two at one point in your response.

        Having said this, I am not sure you understood what I was asserting
        or arguing earlier, so I'll reiterate some of it: If you want to say
        that the case for macroevolutionism is weak, then fine. If you want
        to say that the weight of evidence does not lean in favor of it, then
        fine. But do not knock the case for macroevolutionism for being
        probabilistic, and do not act as though the case is weak simply in
        virtue of its being probabilistic. If probabilistic reasoning were
        so weak as to be useless, then endeavors such as hermeneutics
        (biblical and otherwise) and jury deliberation would be pointless, as
        can be demonstrated easily enough. In fact, we could take a look at
        some doctrines and beliefs that most Christians hold and find that
        the arguments used in support of these beliefs are in fact things
        that would fit the description that you gave earlier: "weak
        inferential, probabalistic evidence."

        So outsiders already fail to think very highly of people who deny
        evolution. No need to make things worse. Those who argue against
        evolution are already continuing to lose the PR wars as Intelligent
        Design just recently, for example, was consistently mischaracterized
        as mere creationist/"biblical" belief within mass media reports till
        all the buzz finally faded away a few months ago. Again, no need to
        make things worse.

        So there. Let that be DTF's review and Letter to the Editor for this
        month.
        -Kwame


        --- In apologetics@yahoogroups.com, B1E1Nugent@... wrote:
        >
        >
        > In a message dated 4/26/2006 11:30:55 PM Eastern Standard Time,
        > yusefii@... writes:
        >
        > The idea of non-inductive reasoning (e.g., deductive reasoning and
        > abductive reasoning) as a means of knowledge is not a trump card
        that
        > you can use against macroevolutionism. Again, the idea that
        > macroevolutionism is founded upon probabilistic reasoning is not a
        > trump card that you can use against it.
        >
        >
        > I was countering the oft repeated claim that evolution is a fact.
        Evolution
        > is certainly not a fact and the weak inferential, probabalistic
        evidence used
        > to buttress it must be shown for what it is. I'm well aware that
        the hard
        > sciences are also based ultimately on inductive reasoning. The
        case for hard
        > sciences is of course infinitely stronger than that of
        macroevolution.
        >
        > -Bill
      • B1E1Nugent@aol.com
        In a message dated 4/26/2006 11:30:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, yusefii@yahoo.com writes: Evolution with its implicit atheism now holds center stage in our
        Message 3 of 15 , May 3, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 4/26/2006 11:30:55 PM Eastern Standard Time,
          yusefii@... writes:

          Evolution with its implicit atheism now
          holds center stage in our taxpayer funded schools. -Bill >>

          "Implicit atheism"? Explain: How is it that there is some essential
          tenet of macroevolutionism which entails the proposition that God
          does not exist? - Kwame


          Evolution contradicts the creation account in Genesis in a radical way.
          Evolution is the origins myth of secularism and as such it is the taproot of
          unbelief. Evolution is the attempt by atheists to explain the origin of life
          without God. Of course it is implicitly atheistic. Many of its proponents are
          explicitly atheistic. I'm aware that some theologians try to reconcile evolution
          with Genesis. They call it 'theistic evolution.' This view is contrary
          both to Genesis and the fossil record.
          The evolution taught in our taxpayer supported schools is unfortunately the
          secular, implicitly atheistic variety. A public school teacher typically does
          not come out and say "God does not exist." However, the state mandated
          teaching of life origins through evolution without mention of God certainly leaves
          a very firm impression of atheism. Children are taught that their ancestors
          were apelike creatures. They are taught that human beings are just another
          species of mammals. It should be no surprise that when children are taught that
          they are animals without any accountability to God's law that they will act
          like animals.
          -Bill


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Kwame
          Well, I assumed at the time Bill that you had a particular sense or meaning of the word implicit in mind when I asked you about this phrase Evolution with
          Message 4 of 15 , May 4, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Well, I assumed at the time Bill that you had a
            particular sense or meaning of the word "implicit" in
            mind when I asked you about this phrase "Evolution
            with its implicit atheism." In fact, the question
            that I posed clearly was a question about logical
            implication or entailment, not a question of whether
            macroevolutionism inconspicuously has the effect of
            turning people into atheists or quietly has the effect
            of bolstering one's pre-existent adherence to
            macroevolutionism. (And again, if an idea's running
            contrary to biblical truths makes it to be atheistic,
            then you are going to have to admit that many of the
            beliefs of JWs, Mormons, Muslims and many Jews are
            atheistic though surely you do not want to do this.)

            Nevertheless, even if you want to use the word
            "implicit" to mean *tacitly or quietly asserted*, it
            simply is not the case that macroevolutionism and the
            teaching thereof absolutely carry some sort of
            "implicit atheism." For not only is it the case that
            the tenets of macroevolution do not entail the
            proposition that God exists, and not only is it the
            case that many teachers in public schools who teach
            and lecture on evolution with the working assumption
            that it is true do *not* do so in order to promote
            atheism--just ask my former biology teacher Mr.
            Talley, who was a Christian who didn't buy into
            evolutionism--but obviously not everyone who is an
            evolutionist is also atheistic or even agnostic.

            So if you want to say that macroevolutionism has the
            effect of turning people into atheists and of
            promoting amoral behavior, then fine: that's a good
            thing if true. However, to say that evolution
            absolutely has all this ugly, horrible "implicit
            atheism" is either to choose one's words poorly and
            misleadingly, or it is an exercise in sophistry or
            deceit.

            And in the meantime, your ideological opponents are
            mocking both you and like-minded people. You think
            Christ's word about being as shrewd as snakes and
            innocent as doves has any relevance to this matter?

            -Kwame
            P.S. There are gaps and problems with everyone's
            belief systems. Yet not all of them should be
            abandoned. Something to remember when your back is
            against the wall, and when the tables are turned.



            In a message dated 4/26/2006 11:30:55 PM Eastern
            Standard Time,
            yusefii@... writes:

            Evolution with its implicit atheism now
            holds center stage in our taxpayer funded schools.
            -Bill >>

            "Implicit atheism"? Explain: How is it that there is
            some essential
            tenet of macroevolutionism which entails the
            proposition that God
            does not exist? - Kwame


            Evolution contradicts the creation account in Genesis
            in a radical way.
            Evolution is the origins myth of secularism and as
            such it is the taproot of
            unbelief. Evolution is the attempt by atheists to
            explain the origin of life
            without God. Of course it is implicitly atheistic.
            Many of its proponents are
            explicitly atheistic. I'm aware that some theologians
            try to reconcile evolution
            with Genesis. They call it 'theistic evolution.' This
            view is contrary
            both to Genesis and the fossil record.
            The evolution taught in our taxpayer supported schools
            is unfortunately the
            secular, implicitly atheistic variety. A public school
            teacher typically does
            not come out and say "God does not exist." However,
            the state mandated
            teaching of life origins through evolution without
            mention of God certainly leaves
            a very firm impression of atheism. Children are
            taught that their ancestors
            were apelike creatures. They are taught that human
            beings are just another
            species of mammals. It should be no surprise that
            when children are taught that
            they are animals without any accountability to God's
            law that they will act
            like animals.
            -Bill

            __________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
            http://mail.yahoo.com
          • sophia_marie2
            Maybe I will like this list! Bill, I agree with you and want to add something: evolution is ALSO bad science and our kids deserve better! Sophia
            Message 5 of 15 , May 8, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Maybe I will like this list! Bill, I agree with you and want to add
              something: evolution is ALSO bad science and our kids deserve better!

              Sophia




              >
              >
              > Evolution contradicts the creation account in Genesis
              > in a radical way.
              > Evolution is the origins myth of secularism and as
              > such it is the taproot of
              > unbelief. Evolution is the attempt by atheists to
              > explain the origin of life
              > without God. Of course it is implicitly atheistic.
              > Many of its proponents are
              > explicitly atheistic. I'm aware that some theologians
              > try to reconcile evolution
              > with Genesis. They call it 'theistic evolution.' This
              > view is contrary
              > both to Genesis and the fossil record.
              > The evolution taught in our taxpayer supported schools
              > is unfortunately the
              > secular, implicitly atheistic variety. A public school
              > teacher typically does
              > not come out and say "God does not exist." However,
              > the state mandated
              > teaching of life origins through evolution without
              > mention of God certainly leaves
              > a very firm impression of atheism. Children are
              > taught that their ancestors
              > were apelike creatures. They are taught that human
              > beings are just another
              > species of mammals. It should be no surprise that
              > when children are taught that
              > they are animals without any accountability to God's
              > law that they will act
              > like animals.
              > -Bill
              >
              > __________________________________________________
              > Do You Yahoo!?
              > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
              > http://mail.yahoo.com
              >
            • B1E1Nugent@aol.com
              In a message dated 5/4/2006 3:53:20 AM Eastern Standard Time, yusefii@yahoo.com writes: Well, I assumed at the time Bill that you had a particular sense or
              Message 6 of 15 , May 8, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                In a message dated 5/4/2006 3:53:20 AM Eastern Standard Time,
                yusefii@... writes:

                Well, I assumed at the time Bill that you had a
                particular sense or meaning of the word "implicit" in
                mind when I asked you about this phrase "Evolution
                with its implicit atheism." In fact, the question
                that I posed clearly was a question about logical
                implication or entailment, not a question of whether
                macroevolutionism inconspicuously has the effect of
                turning people into atheists -Kwame
                Bill's rebuttal: Kwame, I think you've been blowing smoke rather than
                offering sensible answers. The phrase "Evolution with its implicit atheism" is
                entirely reasonable. Evolution is the origins myth of secularism.




                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Shaun Green
                Hi Bill ... Some very clear explanations of how Evolution implies Atheism, is given in an e-book I am currently reading. The book is titled The Everlasting
                Message 7 of 15 , May 9, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi Bill

                  You wrote:

                  > Bill's rebuttal: Kwame, I think you've been blowing smoke rather than
                  > offering sensible answers. The phrase "Evolution with its implicit atheism" is
                  > entirely reasonable. Evolution is the origins myth of secularism.
                  >

                  Some very clear explanations of how Evolution implies Atheism, is given
                  in an e-book I am currently reading.

                  The book is titled "The Everlasting Man" by G.K. Chesterton. This book
                  can be found on-line, and is well worth a read. The opening subject of
                  the Cave Man was particularly amusing.

                  The author managed to maintain an acquaintance with H.G. Wells, in spite
                  of their vehement disagreement on subjects such as Evolution.

                  Kind regards
                  Shaun Green
                • Kwame
                  B1E1Nugent@aol. com wrote:
                  Message 8 of 15 , May 9, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    B1E1Nugent@aol. com wrote:

                    << Well, I assumed at the time Bill that you had a
                    particular sense or meaning of the word "implicit" in
                    mind when I asked you about this phrase "Evolution
                    with its implicit atheism." In fact, the question
                    that I posed clearly was a question about logical
                    implication or entailment, not a question of whether
                    macroevolutionism inconspicuously has the effect of
                    turning people into atheists -Kwame
                    Bill's rebuttal: Kwame, I think you've been blowing smoke rather than
                    offering sensible answers. The phrase "Evolution with its implicit atheism" is
                    entirely reasonable. Evolution is the origins myth of secularism. >>

                    Bill, what do you think the word "implicit" means, anyhow? Man, if you are going to use English words, then use them as every other member of the English-speaking community does. The word has two contextually relevant meanings, Bill; of course, on one meaning of the word if macroevolutionism has "implicit atheism," then macroevolutionism necessarily entails a proposition which runs contrary to the proposition that God or a god exists, something which I'm sure even you would deny. (Again, false beliefs of JWs, Mormons, etc. are not "implicitly atheistic." By analogy, Evolution is not "implicitly atheistic."); as for the second meaning, it has to do with an idea's or proposition's being tacitly or quietly asserted by something....

                    But macroevolutionism *per se,* the thing itself and not what various adherents of it say, does NOT carry "implicit atheism," Bill. Once again, Bill, there is the example of the Christian teacher that I had in high school who had to lecture in Darwinian evolution while he also denied that macroevolutionism is true. Therefore, this teacher of mine did not quietly assert atheism, Bill. This teacher was real, Bill. This actually happened, Bill. And this teacher is not the only Biology instructor in my own experience to go on the record of not having the agenda of asserted that atheism is true, Bill.

                    You see, here is where you and I disagree, Bill. You want to take what merely are *some* instances of the actions of *the adherents* of macroevolutionism to portray *what they believe* in a bad light. Me, on the other hand, I am a realist. I recognize the spin that you put on the situation; I do this in view of things I personally know and I do this in view of some other truths that many of us already are aware of. And here are the things that we all already know: 1) sauce for the goose is just as sweet to the gander; 2) Christianity is a religion of implicit slave trading and other evils. You can deny as much as you want that the tenets of Christianity itself do not call for slave trading, misogyny, lynchings, etc. However, one thing that you cannot deny is that Christianity historically has been used to support and uphold inhumane conduct. So by analogy, if you want to say that Evolution is "implicitly atheistic," then be prepared to admit that the Bible and
                    Christianity are "implicitly inhumane."

                    Christianity is implicitly inhumane and evil, Bill. Admit it. In fact, I think that from now on whenever I see you use a lazy phrase like "Evolution with its implicit atheism" I should post a response: "Christianity with its implicit inhumane conduct." And I suspect that I will be posting these responses too, for you seem to be of the belief that you are incapable of rallying the troops against the big, bad, horrible monster of Evolution unless you can convey the idea that Evolution makes atheists of people.

                    -Kwame
                    P.S. I too may tend to think people are "blowing smoke" when they have the initial appearance of making things harder than they need to be. But then I slow down and really think about what they have to say, right or wrong.


                    ---------------------------------
                    Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • sophia_marie2
                    I believe what Bill was probably trying to say was that if atheism is taught at public schools as fact, it leads to the thinking that since we are only a step
                    Message 9 of 15 , May 10, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I believe what Bill was probably trying to say was that if atheism is
                      taught at public schools as fact, it leads to the thinking that since
                      we are only a step above monkeys, and nothing more than an animal,
                      the next logical conclusion would be to question the rest of the
                      Bible also, and reject it.
                      There are really several issues here that should be discussed as
                      such, but , most of the time they are all lumped together. The
                      issues: 1. did macroevolution happen and we , in fact, came from
                      animals? My answer: no, it is not a scientific fact and you cannot
                      prove it with scientific methods. 2. How old is the earth/universe?
                      My answer: science is not conclusive enough for me to say that I am
                      convinced the universe is billions of years old, but there is a
                      little more evidence than science has for macroevolution. 3. Why not
                      teach evolution in schools? 2 reasons: Bill's reason, plus, that it
                      is NOT science.

                      Your comments below are just word games, so what if Bill used the
                      word "implicit" in a wrong way, we ALL know what he's trying to say!!
                      That's kind of like picking out spelling mistakes in someone's
                      writing and calling the person ignorant, just because they didn't
                      take the time to do a spell check or something.

                      Sophia



                      --- In apologetics@yahoogroups.com, Kwame <yusefii@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > B1E1Nugent@aol. com wrote:
                      >
                      > << Well, I assumed at the time Bill that you had a
                      > particular sense or meaning of the word "implicit" in
                      > mind when I asked you about this phrase "Evolution
                      > with its implicit atheism." In fact, the question
                      > that I posed clearly was a question about logical
                      > implication or entailment, not a question of whether
                      > macroevolutionism inconspicuously has the effect of
                      > turning people into atheists -Kwame
                      > Bill's rebuttal: Kwame, I think you've been blowing smoke rather
                      than
                      > offering sensible answers. The phrase "Evolution with its implicit
                      atheism" is
                      > entirely reasonable. Evolution is the origins myth of secularism. >>
                      >
                      > Bill, what do you think the word "implicit" means, anyhow? Man,
                      if you are going to use English words, then use them as every other
                      member of the English-speaking community does. The word has two
                      contextually relevant meanings, Bill; of course, on one meaning of
                      the word if macroevolutionism has "implicit atheism," then
                      macroevolutionism necessarily entails a proposition which runs
                      contrary to the proposition that God or a god exists, something which
                      I'm sure even you would deny. (Again, false beliefs of JWs, Mormons,
                      etc. are not "implicitly atheistic." By analogy, Evolution is
                      not "implicitly atheistic."); as for the second meaning, it has to do
                      with an idea's or proposition's being tacitly or quietly asserted by
                      something....
                      >
                      > But macroevolutionism *per se,* the thing itself and not what
                      various adherents of it say, does NOT carry "implicit atheism,"
                      Bill. Once again, Bill, there is the example of the Christian
                      teacher that I had in high school who had to lecture in Darwinian
                      evolution while he also denied that macroevolutionism is true.
                      Therefore, this teacher of mine did not quietly assert atheism,
                      Bill. This teacher was real, Bill. This actually happened, Bill.
                      And this teacher is not the only Biology instructor in my own
                      experience to go on the record of not having the agenda of asserted
                      that atheism is true, Bill.
                      >
                      > You see, here is where you and I disagree, Bill. You want to
                      take what merely are *some* instances of the actions of *the
                      adherents* of macroevolutionism to portray *what they believe* in a
                      bad light. Me, on the other hand, I am a realist. I recognize the
                      spin that you put on the situation; I do this in view of things I
                      personally know and I do this in view of some other truths that many
                      of us already are aware of. And here are the things that we all
                      already know: 1) sauce for the goose is just as sweet to the gander;
                      2) Christianity is a religion of implicit slave trading and other
                      evils. You can deny as much as you want that the tenets of
                      Christianity itself do not call for slave trading, misogyny,
                      lynchings, etc. However, one thing that you cannot deny is that
                      Christianity historically has been used to support and uphold
                      inhumane conduct. So by analogy, if you want to say that Evolution
                      is "implicitly atheistic," then be prepared to admit that the Bible
                      and
                      > Christianity are "implicitly inhumane."
                      >
                      > Christianity is implicitly inhumane and evil, Bill. Admit it.
                      In fact, I think that from now on whenever I see you use a lazy
                      phrase like "Evolution with its implicit atheism" I should post a
                      response: "Christianity with its implicit inhumane conduct." And I
                      suspect that I will be posting these responses too, for you seem to
                      be of the belief that you are incapable of rallying the troops
                      against the big, bad, horrible monster of Evolution unless you can
                      convey the idea that Evolution makes atheists of people.
                      >
                      > -Kwame
                      > P.S. I too may tend to think people are "blowing smoke" when they
                      have the initial appearance of making things harder than they need to
                      be. But then I slow down and really think about what they have to
                      say, right or wrong.
                      >
                      >
                      > ---------------------------------
                      > Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for
                      just 2¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >
                    • Kwame
                      ...
                      Message 10 of 15 , May 13, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- sophia_marie2 <sophia_marie2@...> wrote:

                        << I believe what Bill was probably trying to say was
                        that if atheism is
                        taught at public schools as fact, it leads to the
                        thinking that since
                        we are only a step above monkeys, and nothing more
                        than an animal,
                        the next logical conclusion would be to question the
                        rest of the
                        Bible also, and reject it.
                        There are really several issues here that should be
                        discussed as
                        such, but , most of the time they are all lumped
                        together. The
                        issues: 1. did macroevolution happen and we , in fact,
                        came from
                        animals? My answer: no, it is not a scientific fact
                        and you cannot
                        prove it with scientific methods. 2. How old is the
                        earth/universe?
                        My answer: science is not conclusive enough for me to
                        say that I am
                        convinced the universe is billions of years old, but
                        there is a
                        little more evidence than science has for
                        macroevolution. 3. Why not
                        teach evolution in schools? 2 reasons: Bill's reason,
                        plus, that it
                        is NOT science.

                        Your comments below are just word games, so what if
                        Bill used the
                        word "implicit" in a wrong way, we ALL know what he's
                        trying to say!!
                        That's kind of like picking out spelling mistakes in
                        someone's
                        writing and calling the person ignorant, just because
                        they didn't
                        take the time to do a spell check or something. >>


                        Madam, if you will enter into someone else's
                        conversation, please, please, please make sure first
                        of all that you have kept up with the entire thing
                        before you go telling either party what is already
                        obvious and what has already been established. Yes,
                        we *all* know that Bill is of the belief that
                        macroevolution has bred atheists, as I would agree.
                        Moreover, it has long since been established in the
                        discusstion between me and Bill that one point of
                        contention is that regardless of whether you are using
                        the word "implicit" conventionally, it is misleading
                        to say that macroevolutionism carries "implcit
                        atheism" UNLESS you concede that Christianity in a
                        sense carries implicit racism and inhumane conduct
                        (which in a very real sense it does). So when you
                        engage in a little bit of criticism of your own in the
                        quotation above, you are not telling us anything new
                        or informative.

                        Meanwhile, I'm curious as to exactly what a "word
                        game" is anyhow. Even feminists who insist that words
                        like "mankind" be thrown out in favor of "humanity"
                        aren't playing word games; instead, they just have a
                        faulty understanding of the issues of linguistics
                        and/or ethics, but they certainly are not trying to
                        play games.

                        Finally, what too many people consistently fail to
                        realize is that a discussion of the merits of one's
                        beliefs is not the only thing that matters in the
                        universe. If you want to argue that macroevolutionism
                        is errant, then fine. If you want to take some JW
                        missionaries (sp?) or Mormon missionaries aside and
                        try to enlighten them as to the perceived errors of JW
                        and Mormon theology, then fine. HOWEVER, what if you
                        were to use bad or evil means to do so? What if you
                        were to beat them over the head with a club and say,
                        "You will accept my beliefs and reject your own, you
                        Mormon dogs!"? Well, of course that would be bad, and
                        something like that would demonstrate that a
                        discussion of the fact is not the only thing that
                        matters in life. If you are using faulty means to
                        propagate the truth--that is, if you are doing wrong
                        to advance what is right--you are doing wrong, period.
                        So if I take it correctly that you believe that we
                        should only discuss the merits of Evolution and other
                        views of cosmogony, then I certainly will have to
                        disagree, without apology.

                        -Kwame

                        __________________________________________________
                        Do You Yahoo!?
                        Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                        http://mail.yahoo.com
                      • sophia_marie2
                        Ok, let me summarize what I got out of your reply to me below and then you tell me if I got it right?! You are telling me to butt out of other people s
                        Message 11 of 15 , May 13, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Ok, let me summarize what I got out of your reply to me below and
                          then you tell me if I got it right?!
                          You are telling me to butt out of other people's discussion
                          You are saying we should not force our views on anyone ( which,
                          yeah, I agree with that)
                          YOu are saying it is more than word games to used inappropriate
                          words ( personally, I could care less if it is "mankind",
                          or "humanity", basically, it's the same thing

                          Lol, however, I still have no idea if you believe in evolution, or
                          not ! :-)

                          Sophia





                          --- In apologetics@yahoogroups.com, Kwame <yusefii@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > --- sophia_marie2 <sophia_marie2@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > << I believe what Bill was probably trying to say was
                          > that if atheism is
                          > taught at public schools as fact, it leads to the
                          > thinking that since
                          > we are only a step above monkeys, and nothing more
                          > than an animal,
                          > the next logical conclusion would be to question the
                          > rest of the
                          > Bible also, and reject it.
                          > There are really several issues here that should be
                          > discussed as
                          > such, but , most of the time they are all lumped
                          > together. The
                          > issues: 1. did macroevolution happen and we , in fact,
                          > came from
                          > animals? My answer: no, it is not a scientific fact
                          > and you cannot
                          > prove it with scientific methods. 2. How old is the
                          > earth/universe?
                          > My answer: science is not conclusive enough for me to
                          > say that I am
                          > convinced the universe is billions of years old, but
                          > there is a
                          > little more evidence than science has for
                          > macroevolution. 3. Why not
                          > teach evolution in schools? 2 reasons: Bill's reason,
                          > plus, that it
                          > is NOT science.
                          >
                          > Your comments below are just word games, so what if
                          > Bill used the
                          > word "implicit" in a wrong way, we ALL know what he's
                          > trying to say!!
                          > That's kind of like picking out spelling mistakes in
                          > someone's
                          > writing and calling the person ignorant, just because
                          > they didn't
                          > take the time to do a spell check or something. >>
                          >
                          >
                          > Madam, if you will enter into someone else's
                          > conversation, please, please, please make sure first
                          > of all that you have kept up with the entire thing
                          > before you go telling either party what is already
                          > obvious and what has already been established. Yes,
                          > we *all* know that Bill is of the belief that
                          > macroevolution has bred atheists, as I would agree.
                          > Moreover, it has long since been established in the
                          > discusstion between me and Bill that one point of
                          > contention is that regardless of whether you are using
                          > the word "implicit" conventionally, it is misleading
                          > to say that macroevolutionism carries "implcit
                          > atheism" UNLESS you concede that Christianity in a
                          > sense carries implicit racism and inhumane conduct
                          > (which in a very real sense it does). So when you
                          > engage in a little bit of criticism of your own in the
                          > quotation above, you are not telling us anything new
                          > or informative.
                          >
                          > Meanwhile, I'm curious as to exactly what a "word
                          > game" is anyhow. Even feminists who insist that words
                          > like "mankind" be thrown out in favor of "humanity"
                          > aren't playing word games; instead, they just have a
                          > faulty understanding of the issues of linguistics
                          > and/or ethics, but they certainly are not trying to
                          > play games.
                          >
                          > Finally, what too many people consistently fail to
                          > realize is that a discussion of the merits of one's
                          > beliefs is not the only thing that matters in the
                          > universe. If you want to argue that macroevolutionism
                          > is errant, then fine. If you want to take some JW
                          > missionaries (sp?) or Mormon missionaries aside and
                          > try to enlighten them as to the perceived errors of JW
                          > and Mormon theology, then fine. HOWEVER, what if you
                          > were to use bad or evil means to do so? What if you
                          > were to beat them over the head with a club and say,
                          > "You will accept my beliefs and reject your own, you
                          > Mormon dogs!"? Well, of course that would be bad, and
                          > something like that would demonstrate that a
                          > discussion of the fact is not the only thing that
                          > matters in life. If you are using faulty means to
                          > propagate the truth--that is, if you are doing wrong
                          > to advance what is right--you are doing wrong, period.
                          > So if I take it correctly that you believe that we
                          > should only discuss the merits of Evolution and other
                          > views of cosmogony, then I certainly will have to
                          > disagree, without apology.
                          >
                          > -Kwame
                          >
                          > __________________________________________________
                          > Do You Yahoo!?
                          > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                          > http://mail.yahoo.com
                          >
                        • Kwame
                          Sophia wrote:
                          Message 12 of 15 , May 17, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Sophia wrote:

                            << Ok, let me summarize what I got out of your reply to me below and
                            then you tell me if I got it right?!
                            You are telling me to butt out of other people's discussion >>

                            Well no, that first part is not right. I've no problem with people's butting into other people's conversations in and of itself. However, here's the thing: background is everything, nuances and easily-missed details sometimes are everything, and when outsiders miss these things they can end up saying what need not be said and they can end up misinterpreting other people's conversations as just so much immature squabbling and what-not.


                            Sophia went on to say:

                            << You are saying we should not force our views on anyone ( which,
                            yeah, I agree with that) >>

                            I'm not sure what this oft-used phrase "force your views on someone" even means. Nevertheless, I believe wholeheartedly in trying to proselytize and sway other people. I don't believe in allowing people to go along their merry way wallowing in the muck and mire of their own ignorance and belief in misinformation and disinformation. If you do let people alone, entirely, then what happens is that their mistakes come back to cause you trouble tomorrow; bear in mind that ignorant and misled people vote, serve as jurors, work with you at the office, preside over you from Washington or elsewhere, etc.

                            OTOH, if anyone knows me then they know that one thing I oppose is someone's expecting other people to accept lame, half-baked arguments in favor of this person's cherished, pet beliefs. That plus the whole "Acknowledge that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is his prophet or die, you anti-Taliban dog!" thing: I oppose them both.


                            More:

                            << YOu are saying it is more than word games to used inappropriate
                            words ( personally, I could care less if it is "mankind",
                            or "humanity", basically, it's the same thing >>

                            I'm saying: 1) beware of four-term logical fallacies--something which can result if or when we use words unconventionally; 2) uphold intellectual honesty; 3) give your opponents no excuse to lambaste you or to criticize you.

                            Actually, I'd like to say more about number two there. If Bill or anyone else wants to say, "See, look at the harm that is caused by macroevolutionism and other erroneous ideas," then that is okay and doesn't necessarily obligate him immediately to follow that statement up with, "Okay, the good and veridical ideas of the world do the same thing. I admit this." However, not only is it questionable to use such tactics against the ideas you hate when you yourself subscribe to beliefs that historically have produced evil deeds by evil men, but I don't know--it seems kind of shady to say, "Look at what my opponent (i.e., macroevolutionism) has done; isn't that horrible?" when that same opponent does not invariably and does not of necessity do these horrible things *and* when your own belief system has also been produced horrible results.


                            Finally:

                            << Lol, however, I still have no idea if you believe in evolution, or
                            not ! :-) >>

                            I believe that if one starts with the assumption or presupposition that no person produced the respective origins of different species of lifeforms, then naturalistic macroevolutionism ends up providing a decent account of the origins of species.

                            However, when one starts off allowing for the possibility that some person guided the process of the emergence of the different speices of lifeforms, then the weight of evidence begins to lean in favor of the idea of that common natural laws *cannot* be the mere means of the emergence of the different lifeforms.

                            *If* it is proper for practitioners of the hard sciences to make naturalistic assumptions and to stick to naturalistic procedures and conclusions as part of their work, then they would do well to say, "As a naturalist, I say that evolution separated man from ape, and so on." However, who ever said in the first place that naturalism is true or that naturalism can account for all the phenomena and information to be gleaned in the world in which we live? Answer: no one, or least no one who has ever proved his case. Ultimately, the battle of evolution properly becomes not merely one of the various disciplines of the hard sciences, but one of epistemology.

                            People are used to placing implicit faith in the importance of the study of the hard sciences. But most people do *not* believe in any importance of the ideas of epistemology, much less even know that the word "epistemology" exists. Yet this will probably have to change if Darwin car ornaments are to disappear, and the full-on opposition of Judeo-Christian ideas and unbiblical ones ultimately cannot be avoided. In some measure, the biblical worldview must remain part of the public square, or else the world is doomed to be as backward as some unbelievers will charge religious ideas as being responsible for.

                            Thinking as I go along here,

                            -Kwame


                            ---------------------------------
                            Sneak preview the all-new Yahoo.com. It's not radically different. Just radically better.

                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • sophia_marie2
                            ... at the office, preside over you from Washington or elsewhere, etc. Yeah, I agree! That is why I am on this list, or some other ones I belong too ( mostly
                            Message 13 of 15 , May 22, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              you wrote:
                              > If you do let people alone, entirely, then what happens is that
                              >their mistakes come back to cause you trouble tomorrow; bear in mind
                              >that ignorant and misled people vote, serve as jurors, work with you
                              at the office, preside over you from Washington or elsewhere, etc.

                              Yeah, I agree! That is why I am on this list, or some other ones I
                              belong too ( mostly political ones)
                              The general population is relatively unconcerned about most things,
                              and also not very educated at times (that includes me, but at least I
                              am trying to get informed)


                              you wrote:
                              If Bill or anyone else wants to say, "See, look at the harm that is
                              caused by macroevolutionism and other erroneous ideas," then that is
                              okay and doesn't necessarily obligate him immediately to follow that
                              statement up with, "Okay, the good and veridical ideas of the world
                              do the same thing. I admit this." However, not only is it
                              questionable to use such tactics against the ideas you hate when you
                              yourself subscribe to beliefs that historically have produced evil
                              deeds by evil men, but I don't know--it seems kind of shady to
                              say, "Look at what my opponent (i.e., macroevolutionism) has done;
                              isn't that horrible?" when that same opponent does not invariably and
                              does not of necessity do these horrible things *and* when your own
                              belief system has also been produced horrible results.


                              I think I understand what you are saying here, you are saying that
                              Bill has no proof that teaching Macroevolution to anyone hurts
                              anything, and you could also use that kind of thinking to turn the
                              issue around and say Christianity has done terrible things and
                              therefore is evil.

                              My comments on that: the humans that call themselves Christian are
                              first of all NOT God, and second, they are not free of sin. Nobody
                              has ever claimed that. So, any evil you attribute to Christianity,
                              is just "human evil", just as teaching something that contradicts the
                              Bible is. God never demands we do evil.
                              You are also wrong about the Christian believe system producing
                              horrible results, I personally am happy about the results in my life,
                              caused by having a Christian believe system!! So, if it is good for
                              someone, you can't generalize it away :)


                              you wrote:
                              Ultimately, the battle of evolution properly becomes not merely one
                              of the various disciplines of the hard sciences, but one of
                              epistemology.

                              I disagree. Jesus lived, was a real person, and God, died on the
                              cross and got resurrected. There were lots of eyewitnesses. It's not
                              some type of philosophy but historical fact.

                              and here's my reply to your epistemology:
                              John:
                              1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
                              Word was God.
                              2: He was in the beginning with God;
                              3: all things were made through him, and without him was not anything
                              made that was made.


                              you wrote:
                              Yet this will probably have to change if Darwin car ornaments are to
                              disappear, and the full-on opposition of Judeo-Christian ideas and
                              unbiblical ones ultimately cannot be avoided. In some measure, the
                              biblical worldview must remain part of the public square, or else the
                              world is doomed to be as backward as some unbelievers will charge
                              religious ideas as being responsible for.

                              My dead Darwin critter stays on my car ( eaten by my Jesus fish:-)
                              and the ultimate conflict WILL not be avoided, and even all of YOUR
                              concerns will be answered. Personally, I think many people are going
                              to be very surprised when Jesus comes back. Some might even still
                              doubt at that time. ( I am not saying He is coming back at any known
                              date, just that some day He will, and it MIGHT be soon)

                              I think people have been trying to discredit Christianity for 2000
                              some years, nothing new. It doesn't matter if they have a
                              different "faith" , or "philosophy", or are simply just motivated by
                              pride or greed, it comes down to the same thing. The good thing is
                              God has already won.

                              Sophia
                            • Kwame
                              Sophia wrote:
                              Message 14 of 15 , May 24, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Sophia wrote:

                                << [snip]
                                you wrote:
                                If Bill or anyone else wants to say, "See, look at the harm that is
                                caused by macroevolutionism and other erroneous ideas," then that is
                                okay and doesn't necessarily obligate him immediately to follow that
                                statement up with, "Okay, the good and veridical ideas of the world
                                do the same thing. I admit this." However, not only is it
                                questionable to use such tactics against the ideas you hate when you
                                yourself subscribe to beliefs that historically have produced evil
                                deeds by evil men, but I don't know--it seems kind of shady to
                                say, "Look at what my opponent (i.e., macroevolutionism) has done;
                                isn't that horrible?" when that same opponent does not invariably and
                                does not of necessity do these horrible things *and* when your own
                                belief system has also been produced horrible results.


                                I think I understand what you are saying here, you are saying that Bill has no proof that teaching Macroevolution to anyone hurts anything, and you could also use that kind of thinking to turn the issue around and say Christianity has done terrible things and therefore is evil.

                                My comments on that: the humans that call themselves Christian are first of all NOT God, and second, they are not free of sin. Nobody has ever claimed that. So, any evil you attribute to Christianity, is just "human evil", just as teaching something that contradicts the Bible is. God never demands we do evil. >>

                                Ah, so you mean that the crimes and social ills of adherents of macroevolutionism are not necessarily condoned by the tenets of macroevolutionism? Well, that is part of my point. Of course, if you will go about portraying Evolution as inherently evil given some of the actions of its adherents, then congratulations on making more work for yourself when you end up having to explain away the historical misuses and abuses of Christian theology after your interlocutor points these latter things out.


                                For better or worse, Sophia also wrote:

                                << You are also wrong [how refreshingly blunt] about the Christian believe system producing horrible results, I personally am happy about the results in my life, caused by having a Christian believe system!! So, if it is good for someone, you can't generalize it away :) >>

                                Eh, I never said that the products of Christian theology and the like were of a uniform and monolithic kind or sort. Meanwhile, a given object can indeed produce results variably good and bad as with, for example, the destruction of Jim Crow segregation and the fruits of the Civil Rights movement but also the Gay Rights movement which has ridden on the coattails of the former. Progressive social movements have produced good and bad, and the same goes for theological movements as with "Calvinism" and hypercalvinism with its antipanevangelism. Consequently, you cannot generalize away whatever bad things Christianity has either directly or indirectly produced; it exists, like it or not, though it certainly doesn't follow that Christianity is a bad thing.


                                Sophia also wrote:

                                << you wrote:
                                Ultimately, the battle of evolution properly becomes not merely one
                                of the various disciplines of the hard sciences, but one of
                                epistemology.

                                I disagree. Jesus lived, was a real person, and God, died on the
                                cross and got resurrected. There were lots of eyewitnesses. It's not
                                some type of philosophy but historical fact.

                                and here's my reply to your epistemology:
                                John:
                                1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
                                Word was God.
                                2: He was in the beginning with God;
                                3: all things were made through him, and without him was not anything
                                made that was made. >>

                                You completely fail to appreciate why those statements of mine, along with the context to which it belonged, were said and what they meant. Sadly, I don't feel like going over that point again, though the point was a good one. However, I will say this: you actually tacitly admit that what I said was true when you deny it and argue against it. I'll explain. You said that "it" (whatever the referent is) is not some type of "philosophy" but historical fact and then attempt to support this assertion with an enthymemic argument involving John, chapter one. Well, if I am to interpret the words that you have just used--what they mean according to grammatical rules and such--and if I am to weigh the merits of your argument before concluding that the argument is either valid, invalid, sound, unsound, probable, improbable, etc., then what I have done is *precisely* an epistemological endeavor of some type. That's what epistemology is about: the study of knowledge, means of
                                knowledge, etc.

                                Besides that, I had been talking about evolution, not about the question of whether Christ was real, was crucified and was resurrected. How do questions of "the historical Jesus" relate to the battle of Evolution?


                                Sophia finally wrote:

                                << you wrote:
                                Yet this will probably have to change if Darwin car ornaments are to
                                disappear, and the full-on opposition of Judeo-Christian ideas and
                                unbiblical ones ultimately cannot be avoided. In some measure, the
                                biblical worldview must remain part of the public square, or else the
                                world is doomed to be as backward as some unbelievers will charge
                                religious ideas as being responsible for.

                                My dead Darwin critter stays on my car ( eaten by my Jesus fish:-)
                                and the ultimate conflict WILL not be avoided, and even all of YOUR
                                concerns will be answered. Personally, I think many people are going
                                to be very surprised when Jesus comes back. Some might even still
                                doubt at that time. ( I am not saying He is coming back at any known
                                date, just that some day He will, and it MIGHT be soon)

                                I think people have been trying to discredit Christianity for 2000
                                some years, nothing new. It doesn't matter if they have a
                                different "faith" , or "philosophy", or are simply just motivated by
                                pride or greed, it comes down to the same thing. The good thing is
                                God has already won. >>

                                Regardless of what God himself has won, the opponents of macroevolution certainly have not won the civic and ideological war against Darwinian evolution. Aluta continua.

                                -Kwame


                                ---------------------------------
                                Feel free to call! Free PC-to-PC calls. Low rates on PC-to-Phone. Get Yahoo! Messenger with Voice

                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • sophia_marie2
                                Ok, to keep a long story short: I think your overall point is that macroevolution is not inherently evil. my comments: of course it isn t ! What IS evil ( and
                                Message 15 of 15 , May 25, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Ok, to keep a long story short:
                                  I think your overall point is that macroevolution is not inherently
                                  evil.

                                  my comments: of course it isn't ! What IS evil ( and bad for
                                  society) is that something is taught to our kids in public schools as
                                  scientific fact, when it is NOT scientific fact and cannot be
                                  proven. And what makes it worse, is the REASON it is taught as fact
                                  and the intent behind it : to indoctrinate our kids.
                                  This is how it works: liberals do NOT want the Bible to be the one
                                  and only truth, because if it is, they will not have salvation
                                  because their pride will not let them bow down to God, which is
                                  superior in all ways to themselves. They hate that idea. The second
                                  reason is that they want to be able to sin all they wish, without
                                  consequences or society telling them something is morally wrong
                                  because it says so in the Bible.Take a good look at all sexual
                                  immorality for example. Liberals want to have as much sex as
                                  possible, with anyone they wish, without consequences. Anything or
                                  anyone that wants to prevent them from doing this, is in their way,
                                  and they try to remove such obstacles. THE main obstacle for them in
                                  the U.S. is the Bible, and Christians that believe in it.
                                  So, of course the liberals try to discredit the Bible as much as they
                                  can, and one very effective way of doing so it by indoctrinating our
                                  kids to think they came from apes , which came from fish , which
                                  sprung up out of a rock, which came from nothing....and to make it a
                                  little more believable to impressionable kids they add "billions of
                                  years". All of this is contrary to what it says in Genesis, which is
                                  the very first book of the Bible that also explains the rest of it.
                                  There is NOTHING to be gained from teaching macroevolution as fact ,
                                  OTHER than discrediting the Bible. That is the only reason it is
                                  taught in public schools. It is NOT scientific fact, and does not
                                  advance science in the least. Actually, I think it takes away from
                                  science and prevents science from moving forward, all just so the
                                  liberals can have sex and don't have to get over their own pride...
                                  It's very sad really.


                                  Your comments on knowledge: it doesn't really matter how you get
                                  knowledge and you can study it all you wish, but what does matter if
                                  you accept Christ or not. I have the knowledge that the Bible exists
                                  today, and I can read it. As far as I am concerned the existance of
                                  the Bible is a fact. I am intelligent enough to understand a lot of
                                  it, not all of it, but enough. I have faith that God is real ( this
                                  is different from knowledge), so even without researching Bible
                                  history I am convinced. But, when I have researched the Bible ,
                                  where it came from , what is and what is not historical, I found
                                  nothing to discredit it, or make me believe anything else.

                                  your last comment: Regardless of what God himself has won, the
                                  opponents of macroevolution certainly have not won the civic and
                                  ideological war against Darwinian evolution. Aluta continua.


                                  Don't be so sure! All of this has been based ultimately on the
                                  balance of Surpreme Court justices, which JUST has shifted....
                                  Plus, many people are sending their kids to private schools (have one
                                  in there myself) or homeschool and thus prevent indoctrination....

                                  Sophia







                                  --- In apologetics@yahoogroups.com, Kwame <yusefii@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > Sophia wrote:
                                  >
                                  > << [snip]
                                  > you wrote:
                                  > If Bill or anyone else wants to say, "See, look at the harm that
                                  is
                                  > caused by macroevolutionism and other erroneous ideas," then that
                                  is
                                  > okay and doesn't necessarily obligate him immediately to follow
                                  that
                                  > statement up with, "Okay, the good and veridical ideas of the
                                  world
                                  > do the same thing. I admit this." However, not only is it
                                  > questionable to use such tactics against the ideas you hate when
                                  you
                                  > yourself subscribe to beliefs that historically have produced
                                  evil
                                  > deeds by evil men, but I don't know--it seems kind of shady to
                                  > say, "Look at what my opponent (i.e., macroevolutionism) has
                                  done;
                                  > isn't that horrible?" when that same opponent does not invariably
                                  and
                                  > does not of necessity do these horrible things *and* when your
                                  own
                                  > belief system has also been produced horrible results.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > I think I understand what you are saying here, you are saying
                                  that Bill has no proof that teaching Macroevolution to anyone hurts
                                  anything, and you could also use that kind of thinking to turn the
                                  issue around and say Christianity has done terrible things and
                                  therefore is evil.
                                  >
                                  > My comments on that: the humans that call themselves Christian
                                  are first of all NOT God, and second, they are not free of sin.
                                  Nobody has ever claimed that. So, any evil you attribute to
                                  Christianity, is just "human evil", just as teaching something that
                                  contradicts the Bible is. God never demands we do evil. >>
                                  >
                                  > Ah, so you mean that the crimes and social ills of adherents of
                                  macroevolutionism are not necessarily condoned by the tenets of
                                  macroevolutionism? Well, that is part of my point. Of course, if
                                  you will go about portraying Evolution as inherently evil given some
                                  of the actions of its adherents, then congratulations on making more
                                  work for yourself when you end up having to explain away the
                                  historical misuses and abuses of Christian theology after your
                                  interlocutor points these latter things out.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > For better or worse, Sophia also wrote:
                                  >
                                  > << You are also wrong [how refreshingly blunt] about the
                                  Christian believe system producing horrible results, I personally am
                                  happy about the results in my life, caused by having a Christian
                                  believe system!! So, if it is good for someone, you can't generalize
                                  it away :) >>
                                  >
                                  > Eh, I never said that the products of Christian theology and the
                                  like were of a uniform and monolithic kind or sort. Meanwhile, a
                                  given object can indeed produce results variably good and bad as
                                  with, for example, the destruction of Jim Crow segregation and the
                                  fruits of the Civil Rights movement but also the Gay Rights movement
                                  which has ridden on the coattails of the former. Progressive social
                                  movements have produced good and bad, and the same goes for
                                  theological movements as with "Calvinism" and hypercalvinism with its
                                  antipanevangelism. Consequently, you cannot generalize away whatever
                                  bad things Christianity has either directly or indirectly produced;
                                  it exists, like it or not, though it certainly doesn't follow that
                                  Christianity is a bad thing.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Sophia also wrote:
                                  >
                                  > << you wrote:
                                  > Ultimately, the battle of evolution properly becomes not merely
                                  one
                                  > of the various disciplines of the hard sciences, but one of
                                  > epistemology.
                                  >
                                  > I disagree. Jesus lived, was a real person, and God, died on the
                                  > cross and got resurrected. There were lots of eyewitnesses. It's
                                  not
                                  > some type of philosophy but historical fact.
                                  >
                                  > and here's my reply to your epistemology:
                                  > John:
                                  > 1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and
                                  the
                                  > Word was God.
                                  > 2: He was in the beginning with God;
                                  > 3: all things were made through him, and without him was not
                                  anything
                                  > made that was made. >>
                                  >
                                  > You completely fail to appreciate why those statements of mine,
                                  along with the context to which it belonged, were said and what they
                                  meant. Sadly, I don't feel like going over that point again, though
                                  the point was a good one. However, I will say this: you actually
                                  tacitly admit that what I said was true when you deny it and argue
                                  against it. I'll explain. You said that "it" (whatever the referent
                                  is) is not some type of "philosophy" but historical fact and then
                                  attempt to support this assertion with an enthymemic argument
                                  involving John, chapter one. Well, if I am to interpret the words
                                  that you have just used--what they mean according to grammatical
                                  rules and such--and if I am to weigh the merits of your argument
                                  before concluding that the argument is either valid, invalid, sound,
                                  unsound, probable, improbable, etc., then what I have done is
                                  *precisely* an epistemological endeavor of some type. That's what
                                  epistemology is about: the study of knowledge, means of
                                  > knowledge, etc.
                                  >
                                  > Besides that, I had been talking about evolution, not about the
                                  question of whether Christ was real, was crucified and was
                                  resurrected. How do questions of "the historical Jesus" relate to
                                  the battle of Evolution?
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Sophia finally wrote:
                                  >
                                  > << you wrote:
                                  > Yet this will probably have to change if Darwin car ornaments are
                                  to
                                  > disappear, and the full-on opposition of Judeo-Christian ideas
                                  and
                                  > unbiblical ones ultimately cannot be avoided. In some measure,
                                  the
                                  > biblical worldview must remain part of the public square, or else
                                  the
                                  > world is doomed to be as backward as some unbelievers will charge
                                  > religious ideas as being responsible for.
                                  >
                                  > My dead Darwin critter stays on my car ( eaten by my Jesus fish:-
                                  )
                                  > and the ultimate conflict WILL not be avoided, and even all of
                                  YOUR
                                  > concerns will be answered. Personally, I think many people are
                                  going
                                  > to be very surprised when Jesus comes back. Some might even still
                                  > doubt at that time. ( I am not saying He is coming back at any
                                  known
                                  > date, just that some day He will, and it MIGHT be soon)
                                  >
                                  > I think people have been trying to discredit Christianity for
                                  2000
                                  > some years, nothing new. It doesn't matter if they have a
                                  > different "faith" , or "philosophy", or are simply just motivated
                                  by
                                  > pride or greed, it comes down to the same thing. The good thing
                                  is
                                  > God has already won. >>
                                  >
                                  > Regardless of what God himself has won, the opponents of
                                  macroevolution certainly have not won the civic and ideological war
                                  against Darwinian evolution. Aluta continua.
                                  >
                                  > -Kwame
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > ---------------------------------
                                  > Feel free to call! Free PC-to-PC calls. Low rates on PC-to-Phone.
                                  Get Yahoo! Messenger with Voice
                                  >
                                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  >
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.