But OBVIOUSLY the "information", which you are passing on, could be False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect. Or, do you actually BELIEVE otherwise?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 11, 2021 7:02 pmNot "thoughts" Scott...and not "expressing." I'm just passing on information. What you do with it is up to you.
And, according to your "logic" here absolutely ANY one can pass on absolutely ANY information, and it will ALWAYS be up to the "other one", the receiver. Which is OBVIOUSLY a very DISTORTED interpretation of what to do in Life.
And, refutations of religious people's BELIEFS have been MANY and FREQUENT, and not merely from "atheists", but also from many other human beings, including the ones who call "themselves" "religious". So, what was your point here, EXACTLY?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 11, 2021 7:02 pm Refutations of Darwin's initial theorys have been many and frequent -- and not merely from Theists, but from Evolutionists as well.
But NONE of 'you', human beings, in the days when this was written, could EXPLAIN FULLY what the words 'mind' and 'consciousness' refers to EXACTLY. So, what was your point here, EXACTLY?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 11, 2021 7:02 pm Nagel's recent critique is perhaps the most serious: that the evolutionary progressivism inherent in the theory stands to cripple secular science form any prospect of understanding things like mind and consciousness.
YET, very contradictory, you do NOT seem to SEE a 'problem' with ANY of the MANY upon MANY FAULTS and FLAWS in your statements and CLAIMS.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 11, 2021 7:02 pm But a faulty cosmological theory is a scientific problem not necessarily a theological one.
I ALWAYS find it Truly humorous how ALL human beings can "clearly" see fault in ANY view or claim that is not compatible with what they currently BELIEVE is true. The ability 'you', human beings, have to being completely and utterly BLIND to your own obviously DISTORTED and Wrong BELIEFS never ceases to amaze.
If it is REALLY "clearly" NOT merely a 24 hour day, then what does "the day of the Lord" mean or refer to, EXACTLY?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 11, 2021 7:02 pm As I said earlier, it really doesn't matter, from a theological perspective, if we were to ignore all the important critiques that have been offered by both sides, and merely take animal evolutionism on faith. That makes no difference to theology, since God could choose to use any process in order to create animals that He wished...progressivist or instantaneous. "Day," in Scritpture, sometimes refers to a 24 hour period, but often refers to an era, such as "the day of the Lord," which is clearly not merely a 24 hour day.
Your INABILITY to answer and CLARIFY shows and REVEALS just how CLOSED you REALLY ARE "immanuel can".
Evolution AND Creation BOTH play a part in Life.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 11, 2021 7:02 pm What matters, where the pith of the matter of disagreement between Evolutionism and Theism is strictly over the status of mankind. Is mankind a unique creation, or is he/she merely a latter-day animal, one grown up accidentally from the muck and doomed to oblivion?
Human beings are a UNIQUE creation, just like EVERY other 'thing' is OBVIOUSLY a UNIQUE creation AND just like EVERY 'thing' animal, the human being animal has evolved to be a, so called, "latter-day animal", in the day when this was written.
Whether this was accidental or intentional WILL BE DISCOVERED and UNCOVERED, later on, from when this is being written.
Well your suggestion here is OBVIOUSLY Wrong, ONCE AGAIN.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 11, 2021 7:02 pm My suggestion about the latter would be that nobody believes it.
Here is ANOTHER EXAMPLE of how the human beings, in the days when this was written, would say just about ANY thing when 'trying to' back up and support their ALREADY obtained and currently held onto BELIEFS.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 11, 2021 7:02 pm And you can tell both by the way they live and what they say about man. It's fair to say that everybody knows mankind is actually special and unique, and the most ardent Evolutionist doesn't actually react to mankind as if Evolutionism is true.
If you really BELIEVE that this is the "starting point", then you REALLY have a LOT more to learn and understand.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 11, 2021 7:02 pm So that's the starting point. Animal descent is irrelevant; the alleged "ascent of man" is all that is important.
Also, considering that "man" or that the alleged "ascent of man" is all that is important SHOWS just how short and narrowed sighted some human beings REALLY where, in the days when this was written. (That is; the days BEFORE 'the day of the Lord').