Disqus - Friends of djByron

Re: Evolutionary Biology = Atheism?

chrispalle — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 23:33:33 -0000

Well, we're talking about both. I agree that they are two different things, but the notion is, if we follow the trail of evolution backwards, we eventually get to a point where we have to ask, "how did it begin?" and EBs cannot, with any degree of certainty, tell us how life began. It will always be hypothetical, but never arguable or unprovable. Scientifically speaking, EB believers can only speculate.

Common Descent in the proper sense? I do believe we were, you and I and everyone else, were _created_ for a purpose. I can only seek God's Will as to what that purpose is as that purpose is far greater than I can know. Did we all descend from one common ancestor? The Bible says we did, but I'm sure it's not the same "Common Descent" of which Darwinists speak.

I guess if you need to have the framework of theistic evolution in order to believe, then that's where you stand. I personally don't need to accept or challenge this belief. When you have "Christian movements" and "denominations" teaching the acceptance of theistic evolution, it's going to cause confusion, dissension, etc, but I would submit, that one should not intend to follow a denomination or movement, but rather Jesus Christ Himself. And hopefully it's detectable in my writings, but I believe Christians are hurting the ID movement by way of association.

Regardless of all that, my point is that the Theory of Evolution (note caps) when taken seriously will lead to a disbelief in God and a disbelief in God will lead to ungodly behavior. The behavior may fit social mores and be acceptable, but it will be ungodly.

Re: Atheist Support for Intelligent Design

chrispalle — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:48:24 -0000

I did respond a couple days ago. DOn't know why you weren't notified.

Re: Evolutionary Biology = Atheism?

chrispalle — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 23:16:59 -0000

Actually, Sam, I never said "evolution precludes the existence of God." The Theory of Evolution as basis for the origin of life requires the _presupposition_ that there is no God. It's not me who says it, though. This is what Richard Dawkins, Steven Jay Gould and other EB contemporaries say.

Would you say that Theistic Evolutionists believe God is at work in day-to-day dealings or is like the watchmaker; that is, "built and let it run"?

Re: Evolutionary Biology = Atheism?

chrispalle — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 23:02:23 -0000

The post itself was not intended to open discussions re: Biblical interpretations. Just my personal account that Evolutionary Biologists cannot also believe in god as creator. Evolutionary Biology as a field comes with the presupposition that all evolutionary processes are of natural cause.

I guess it's better stated that the reasons a believer cannot accept EB is Genesis 1-3, not just Gen. 1. That's the account that everything was perfect at one and it's all gone down hill from there due to our disobedience.

I'm saying a "true believer" (as opposed to your word, "real") believes God created, not that we came from nothing.

The entire account for Creation is handled in Gen. 1-2 and that account is *not* being re-told in Gen 2. It's being reinforced that He created the animals in Gen 2:19; it's not necessarily chronological.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/0...

It's a really awesome picture when you think about it.

Yeah, not sure where geocentric and flat-earth perspectives are about.

Re: Atheist Support for Intelligent Design

chrispalle — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 21:48:47 -0000

Hey Sam- This was not intended to continue from the last post, but rather push the discussion of ID and Evolution a little further. I encourage to finish listening. Intelligent Design != Creationism. UK visitors, please take note. :-)

Re: OmniGraffle Stencil: Social Media Interface Objects

chrispalle — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 23:46:15 -0000

Hey Tim, Yeah, man. Glad you like them. Please come back 'round or send me any links to sites you create with them.

Re: Evolutionary Biology = Atheism?

chrispalle — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 23:20:17 -0000

A thought on Occam's Razor... As matter of fact, William of Ockham (the person to whom the principle is attributed) was a Franciscan friar. Yep. A deist who believed that the simplest way was the best. Hrmmm.... Imagine that.

Fact is, EB complicates the issue. We can still explore, we can still think and dream, .

Here's something else folks, Newton. That guy who came up with the Law of Gravity, believer. Yep. The reason he was able to develop so many solid ideas was because he believed there was a very distinct, finite order to the Universe.

Re: Evolutionary Biology = Atheism?

chrispalle — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 23:12:16 -0000

Not _all_ scientists do it in _every_ scientific field. Caroline Crocker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_Crocker) who was a very successful teacher and pharmacologist says she never needed the ToE to be successful at her work... that is except where she was fired from George Mason. She was actually very successful professor yielding some of the best learners and thinkers, but because she questioned Darwin's theory, she was fired.

Re: Evolutionary Biology = Atheism?

chrispalle — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 23:00:49 -0000

erm, yeah, that was pretty nasty.

Re: OmniGraffle Stencil: Social Media Interface Objects

chrispalle — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 22:56:52 -0000

sorry, misunderstood your question. 960.gs is really great. Definitely download it and play with it. There's also a way cool DHTML implementation of it somewhere. 960 was created by a Christian too. So, that makes it even way cooler. ;-)

Re: Evolutionary Biology = Atheism?

chrispalle — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 21:01:06 -0000

Hi Martin-
First, this post was not intended to discuss Biblical interpretation, but where does the Bible say that man was created before the animals. Additionally, where does it propose a flat earth or geocentricism?

Have to say thanks to that though, because you made me look and I found that Creation was declared _very good_. :-)

Re: Evolutionary Biology = Atheism?

chrispalle — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 20:58:30 -0000

Hi Martin-
First, this post was not intended to discuss Biblical interpretation, but where does the Bible say that man was created before the animals? Additionally, where does it propose a flat earth or geocentricism?

Have to say thanks to that though, because you made me look and found that the Creation was declared _very good_. :-)

Re: OmniGraffle Stencil: Social Media Interface Objects

chrispalle — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 06:07:10 -0000

Hrm , Sel- I wasn't planning on it, but I might be able to do it. I haven't gone from OG to Visio in awhile and the last I remember it was kinda tricky. I will try, though. Someone else asked about turning it into PDF. Would that be helpful?

Re: OmniGraffle Stencil: Social Media Interface Objects

chrispalle — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 06:05:14 -0000

Thanks, DJ- Glad you enjoy it. I do use YUI. To which package are you referring?

Re: Evolutionary Biology = Atheism?

chrispalle — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:30:20 -0000

I'll try to take these in turn.

1) I'm not saying that the theory of evolution rules out the possibility of God. I'm saying people who take EB as the absolute truth cannot also believe in God. It's an either/or proposition.

2) I'm not deeply familiar with Miller's teachings, but from a cursory look at his thinking, he's trying to play-the-middle and he does it with Ph.D. prowess. It does a wonderful job of muddying the water. How does this help us spiritually?

How does my argument account for his rationale? It didn't. He's a very educated man, doing a marvelous job at helping Evolutionary Biologists not feel so bad about their pursuits; however, that doesn't make him right.

3) ID advocates accept evolution? Keep evolution and the Theory of Evolution in semantic check. As I said in my post, i accept change over time. Even speciation is acceptable in a Christ-following worldview. I do not – and neither do ID advocates – accept our existence coming from nothing and we're derived from random mutations. That is, that our lives are purposeless and carry on with aimless direction outside of survival of the fittest.

4) If these "theistic evolutionists" are giving their lives to chance, that's just a cop-out for accountability to their actions.

5) I'm guessing you're a believer, Sam, but what exactly do you find "convincing" about the evidence?

Re: Evolutionary Biology = Atheism?

chrispalle — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 22:49:03 -0000

Not really sure what you're saying here, Samuel. Are you saying that blending Darwinian evolution and belief in God into one worldview would necessitate killing all the species and people in order for evolution to progress? Please explain.

Re: Evolutionary Biology = Atheism?

chrispalle — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 22:44:30 -0000

I think the best reason for why a believer – a true believer – cannot accept Evolutionary Biology for the explanation of life as it is today is in Genesis 1. After God created everything, it was "good." That's not good as in, "good enough." Or it "passes the mustard." Good as in, that's it, it's good and nothing else is needed.

Re: Intelligent Design in Louisiana Public Schools; Internet Sings with Praise

chrispalle — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 06:52:04 -0000

bobxxxx, what are you hoping to achieve by these comments? Are you really trying to find answers or just blathering about only to incite?

Re: Intelligent Design in Louisiana Public Schools; Internet Sings with Praise

chrispalle — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:32:55 -0000

@Andy - Forgive me, you're right. I am confusing the line between the natural and supernatural, but that is because one cannot remove the natural from the supernatural.

@matt - A brief, cursory look at your own site tells us that your position in theology is Atheism. Obviously, evolution supports your dogma. So, it's no wonder you would support it. As a matter of fact, a belief in the Theory of Evolution will, undoubtedly, lead to the disbelief in God. The two are NOT compatible.

So, Matt, what you're saying is that a "quite a lot" of fossil evidence shows speciation from one common ancestor? Interesting, because DNA research says the same thing and so does my Bible. ;-)

Re: Intelligent Design in Louisiana Public Schools; Internet Sings with Praise

chrispalle — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:01:24 -0000

@matt - for the record, nothing in science is unquestionable.

On my analogy of art classes. You would be saying that Intelligent Design has no business in a class solely dedicated the Theory of Evolution, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about general, natural science.

Regarding your statement:
"In the same way, the theory of Intelligent Design, in its postulation of a Designer, immediately puts itself outside the realms of science."

Ummm, How? You're saying that if there is pre-defined order and intention, then it is immediately unscientific?

Actually, Isaac Newton was driven to be as scientifically minded as he was because of his belief in God. It was his belief that there is order to the Universe that drove him to discover some of the most fundamental formulas in the study of physics. Which, by the way, is perhaps the most successful area of science.

Re: Intelligent Design in Louisiana Public Schools; Internet Sings with Praise

chrispalle — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:00:13 -0000

It's not the first time it's been opposed, but I think we need to stop worrying about what others will think about our God when compared to other gods. Go ahead, stack the knowledge texts up and see how they compare.
The thing is, as we're discussing below, perhaps these discussions of supernatural shouldn't be juxtaposed to the natural. I would submit that a position to exclude the natural from the supernatural is impossible, though.

I'm not suggesting that taxpayers pay to teach one faith over another, but rather we somehow show the differences. Perhaps throughout a semester, there are different teachers brought in on a day-to-day basis (not publicly funded) for the pure reason to teach one over another. Evangelize for their own case and allow whatever supernatural process to unfold.

That would be a question that I would propose. Would the public be okay with submitting their children to a mandated class that that explained life, how it came to be, and how it continues from a purely "supernatural faith" standpoint? To the complete exclusion of Neo-Darwinism. For the entire semester all teachers of all faiths would be funded from outside of taxpayer dollars; that is, solely on voluntarily basis or private funding. Funding orgs would have to disclose their names and admins.

I don't know, just some thoughts...

Re: Twitter at church

chrispalle — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:05:10 -0000

Dean, I think this is a great way to share the Word and allow others opportunities to follow along. I agree that at first blush it may seem rude and others in the congregation who might not get what you're doing could... stumble. To your point, it depends on how technologies are used and as long as it's not a distraction.
I would add that there are several folks nowadays with digital Bibles on their PDAs, so it's not too uncommon to see someone interacting with a handheld. My problem is that I don't get service in our building! :-(

Re: Pending Sign of the Twitter Apocalypse: It’s Being Talked About By Internet Marketers

chrispalle — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 08:08:52 -0000

Actually, "chicaweb" we really don't choose. We have the opportunity to block, but what a stinkin' inconvenience. I get enough bacn. Invitation to "friendship" for one's personal, selfish gain is no friendship at all. Don't think you are doing us any favors by asking for friendship just so you can sell us your stuff. If we need your wares, we'll google it or ask a friend – a true friend – for a recommendation. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with selling products on the Internet, or using the Internet for marketing, but following twitter folks just to get them to follow back so you sell products defeats the whole purpose of "friending." Go back to your SEOP, please. kthxbai.

BTW- what's with all the trackbacks below?

Re: Carcinogenic People

chrispalle — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 16:45:09 -0000

We all have been there. A yielded spirit acknowledges this, though. And therein lies, the difference. You acknowledge it, so you're mindful of it's consequences.

We can be tricked into thinking that we're insignificant. Fact is, we're not. We impact others around us all the time, both for good and bad.

Both believers and non-believers acknowledge this, though. I guess the question is to whom do we attribute credit with the driving force?

Re: Disqus integration

chrispalle — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 13:02:56 -0000

These are some really good questions. Maybe we should move this over to http://getsatisfaction.com/disqus