Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The “Sermons” of Jordan Peterson

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
    I have absolutely no desire to misrepresent you. But this is the way theistic evolution is roughly defined in Moreland's edited book.
    Moreland has a reputation of either misstating or misrepresenting evolution, so I don't consider him anything close to credible on the subject.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by psstein View Post
      Moreland has a reputation of either misstating or misrepresenting evolution, so I don't consider him anything close to credible on the subject.
      Can you please substantiate this?

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
        Can you please substantiate this?
        I recall him saying that there aren't any transitional fossils.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
          I don't think theistic evolution implies deism any more than Newton's laws of motion would (assuming one does not maintain that every physical movement of an object is directly guided by God). As a theistic evolutionist myself I would balk at the characterization of my view as deism (and I hardly think that a majority of us are open theists; a position I tend to think is heretical).
          I would like to echo this as well. I don't consider myself anywhere near to being a deist.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by psstein View Post
            I recall him saying that there aren't any transitional fossils.
            Source, please.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
              Source, please.
              I actually saw a transitional fossil for myself at the University of Kansas science museum. This was what actually convinced me of evolution; it made me realize that the common claim of no transitional fossils I had hanged my creationism on was a lie.

              Edit: Oh, you mean a source for Moreland's claim?
              "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                Edit: Oh, you mean a source for Moreland's claim?
                Correct.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by psstein View Post
                  Moreland has a reputation of either misstating or misrepresenting evolution, so I don't consider him anything close to credible on the subject.
                  I'd have to see evidence of this before I made up my mind, but the book referred to is edited by Moreland, with a bunch of other contributors.
                  Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
                  George Horne

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
                    Correct.
                    I'll provide one when I'm home from this symposium.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by psstein View Post
                      I'll provide one when I'm home from this symposium.
                      Thank you kindly.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
                        Thank you kindly.
                        https://books.google.com/books?id=nt...ossils&f=false

                        I misstated what Moreland believes a little bit. He's creating a straw man about the number of transitional fossils, not whether or not they exist. Still, this is a pretty standard creationist debating tactic.

                        Comment


                        • Peterson:



                          You becoming conservative too, whag???
                          Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by whag View Post
                            The Flood myth is pretty foundational as a story, but MacArthur gets it wrong almost immediately. He says that anyone who calls it local essentially calls God a liar:



                            Jordan Peterson does a much better job grasping the anthropological, psychological, and social import of the Noah story without getting hung up on jabbing anyone in his audience who doesn’t accept a global flood.

                            Whose presentation has more depth?
                            In the Genesis ‘verse, the Flood is unambiguously universal. Not local. Though from our POV today, it would be local. Just as the “four quarters” ruled by the kings of Assyria were rather more localised than they imagined. Half the point of the Flood is lost, if it is intended by the human author to be local from our POV. It ceases to be an “anti-creation” if it meant as a mere local inundation.

                            ”All” in Gen.6.5-8.22: https://www.blueletterbible.org/sear...=s_primary_0_1
                            Last edited by Rushing Jaws; 05-15-2018, 03:02 PM.

                            Comment

                            Related Threads

                            Collapse

                            Topics Statistics Last Post
                            Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                            26 responses
                            92 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post alaskazimm  
                            Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                            21 responses
                            129 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                            Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                            79 responses
                            415 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post alaskazimm  
                            Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                            45 responses
                            303 views
                            1 like
                            Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                            Working...
                            X