Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (15868)	8/28/2011 2:02:19 AM
From: 2MAR$	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 69300

Gave Lane Craig a listen , just one little older debate with John Stenger physicist in Hawaii, with a good crowd & had to like the Hawaiian shirts, for they were the most exciting thing of all. youtube.com Will assume that Craig's intro logics regarding God/Creator , the origins of the Universe arising out of nothing & science of fine tuning of the forces of the phyisical are typical of his platform ? Being well rehersed for yrs developing this self made revision of the older *The Kalam Cosmological Argument.* If Lane is going to be your champion of late , then might as well get familiar with the structure of what he most oft repeats & frames his debates in speech after speech. en.wikipedia.org You'll note that the first set of premises & subset of these logic arguments he admits later are "proven" most strongly by intuition & back by his experience ? This is exactly back to square one , imo , for Craig is saying that the Universe was Created, and every created thing has a cause therefore it his his beliefe that all of what is stated in the Bible is true . This not exactly brilliant debate nor has he proven anything at all , he's just stating his belief & admiting later that it is his "strong intuition" that is the proof . Assuming everyone should inuit as he does & believe in X,Y & Z in simplest of terms as he presents them . Interesting that he does draw back to & founds a great deal of his logic from Islamic and Aristotelian sciences/philosophy for the base of his argument paying homage . Alot of underlying assuming & intuiting going on here , to call this "proof" ? (Seriously) Craig argues that the first premise is supported most strongly by intuition , but also by experience. He asserts that it is "intuitively obvious," based on the "metaphysical intuition that something cannot come into being from nothing," [20] and doubts that anyone could sincerely deny it. [19] Additionally, he claims it is affirmed by interaction with the physical world. If it were false, he states, it would be impossible to explain why things do not pop into existence uncaused. [20] * In the debate above with physicist Stenger , after a nice flourishing intro dealing with the physics & absolute finess of tolerances needed to arise out of the Big Bang ....that so many things had to behave as they did within unimaginable tolerances to lead to a "*Life Generating Universe'''* was a decent enough . But just as he started out well he declines into sermonizing disguised as debate around 21:27 into this , with extremely tenuous that Jesus was God and "Four Proofs" that the Resurrection is verifiable . ** This powerful debater (? ) cites only historians & theologians of his choosing and really only offers the weakest proofs imaginable, that of belief & 2100yr old heresay . He states that we know where the Tomb was, that it was a sunday ...that it was empty for the women saw that it was empty...that Jesus appeared in the flesh afterwards to so many, therefore Jesus existed & was the Son of God in Heaven etc. At that point my listening to the talk was at an end and found Craig a well rehersed preacher with debate in his background sounding profound for using a blend of Islamic/Aristotelian thought . ( did listen to the physics professor & he was even less entertaining , lol)

To: Greg or e who wrote (15868)	8/28/2011 3:38:31 AM
From: 2MAR$	Respond to of 69300

More thoughts on X~apologist Craig , it appears really that he is a "closet Evolutionist" but for the semantics...he will "come out" in time (not all do but some) But not while this gives him a good living as "Champion of the Cause" ...lectures, debates , books and appearances. Not to worry , they/we all do it Dawkins too , its just human nature to wear our beliefs as as robes of identification & recognition . You'll note that Lane Craig is himself a Progressive Creationist and though they reject evolution they do accept the mainstream geological and cosmological estimates for the age of the Earth, though they reject the evolution of plants/animals , that down thru all this immense time God stepped in to introduce new species as "miracles" of his powers along the way . This concept seems rather massaged & lacking the ability to see their own philosophy is just Evolution , couched in religious terms itself ? (Guess everyone just wants to keep their day jobs with a game of semantics just like the Fed ? ) lol Craig Lane & Modern progressive creationism en.wikipedia.org *" the religious belief that* *God* *created new forms of life gradually, over a period of hundreds of millions of years. As a form of* *Old Earth creationism, it accepts mainstream* geological and cosmological estimates for the age of the Earth, but posits that the new "kinds" of plants and animals that have appeared successively over the planet's history represent instances of God directly intervening to create those new types by means outside the realm of science. Progressive creationists generally reject macroevolution because they believe it to be biologically untenable and not supported by the fossil record, and they generally reject the concept of universal descent from a last universal ancestor. These individuals thus reject a great deal of the scientific consensus regarding the evidence for evolution*. It should be noted that Lane Craig also has admitted leanings towards entertaining a "Theistic Evolution" too ( heaven help him with this ) as this theology does embrace Natural Selection . Seems to me in the end Craig will embrace Evolution but for now it would be detrimental to his reputation as a defender of the Ceationist view and his lecture book tours . "Theistic evolution" (Craig's secret love, he just wont admit it , needs to sell books & stay on tour , think? ) Theistic evolution: or evolutionary creation is a concept that asserts that classical religious teachings about God are compatible with the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. In short, theistic evolutionists believe that there is a God, that God is the creator of the material universe and (by consequence) all life within, and that biological evolution is simply a natural process within that creation. Evolution, according to this view, is simply a tool that God employed to develop human life. Theistic evolution is not a scientific theory, but a particular view about how the science of evolution relates to religious belief and interpretation. Theistic evolution supporters can be seen as one of the groups who reject the conflict thesis regarding the relationship between religion and science – that is, they hold that religious teachings about creation and scientific theories of evolution need not contradict. Proponents of this view are sometimes described as Christian Darwinists. [1] [2]