PD Price:
But there is a reason Evolutionists are NOT open to your views: you insist that the science of evolution is INADEQUATE to explain something as rudimentary as speciation - - BUT at the same time you assert that science is (or will) be adequate to identify divine-sourced design!
There is something inherently inexplicable about thinking that the methods of science can assess the mysteries of divine design.
George B.
I’m adding this to my collection of great quotes on this subject .
It’s interesting that none of these things cite evidence.
I apologize. Also thank you.
In your review, you list in this discussion one of Craig’s concessions to YEC:
“7. Craig accepts that Adam and Eve existed in real history and (unlike Joshua Swamidass @swamidass ) he affirms that they were the ancestors of all humans.”
I believe you have misunderstood Joshua (if Joshua thinks differently he should respond).
Joshua ALSO believes an Historical Adam and Eve were ancestors of all humans - - but that it took about 2,000 years of God’s guiding providence to accomplish this in time for the birth of Jesus!
I think that’s confused on two counts. First, on what “ancestors of all humans” means, sole ancestors vs. genealogical ancestors, members of an ancestral population vs. population of two. Joshua means genealogical ancestors of everyone living at the time of Jesus, while others mean something quite different. Also, there’s no need for God’s guiding providence to accomplish that; his simulations show that purely natural diffusion of descent could do the trick (though possibly depending on how you treat Tasmania).
But, if I understand correctly, there was a chance that Adam and Eve’s lineage could have died out completely before the birth of Jesus. So there would have been a need for God to at least keep an eye on things and intervene if that was about to happen.
Excellent quote by you! It bears repeating on the boards on a quarterly basis!
Dear @Admins:
This is a quote taken from 2020.
I am not looking for a gotcha moment.
But how does one classify this posting? Does it violate any rule? If not, do we need at least one more rule.
Do you support the quote?
What could possibly be the problem here? The quote does not call for any harmful action nor expresses any overtly hateful sentiments. It’s an expression of personal interest (or lack thereof, as it were), and ethical position. What rule do you propose to add in the hopes of addressing your unease with quotes like this?
Consider this example:
I have no interest whatsoever in developing a trusting relationship with proponents of faith healing who deny medical treatment to their children and other relatives when they can. Their belief system is false and should not exist.
Is it okay, in your opinion, to say something like this? If yes, then what is it about creationism, in your opinion, that makes it deserve special treatment not extended also to faith healing? If no, then what opinions about harmful ideologies would you say are actually okay to express in public? What criterion would you propose to separate ideologies one ought be allowed to express sentiments like this against from ideologies one ought not be allowed to express sentiments like this against?
Below is my quote in full, in the interest of having as fully informed a discussion as possible (for anyone who thinks this is worth discussing.)
The implication seems to be that you should try to develop a trusting relationship with YECs by telling them lies that they find attractive. Trust built on lies: interesting concept.
(Mind you, that seems to be the winning Trump strategy.)
Do you think @swamidass’ book GAE is arguing in favor of lies or lying?
If you do not, why would summarizing some of GAE’s findings (either factual or metaphysical) be construed as lying?
We’ve already established that you don’t understand GAE. Why would it profit anyone to talk about it with you?
Wait, hold on… What you quoted Faizal_Ali expressing a distaste for creationists over was specifically their denial of evolutionary theory. Are you saying that denying evolutionary theory is among or a summary of GAE’s findings? If yes, citation, please. If no, then your worries about Faizal’s sentiment have nothing to do with GAE, and bringing it up like you just have is a red herring.
I highlight the first part of your quote because i wonder why you think these sentiments need to be aired in public.
Virtually all of us can feel this way about the many opposition groups we confront daily. Do you think it would be TWICE as productive if you trigger very similar comments about you?
How exactly is this building trust? Or accentuating the peaceful modes that we self-proclaim?
It is hard to imagine a confession MORE [< typo reversed!] hostile to YECs than this one, yes? Anything more immediately hostile would be flagged and removed, right?
No, of course not. Implicit in what I am saying is that GAE does not include arguing that God doesnt exist!