So are you are saying that "truth" for Peter can be falsehood for Paul, and conversely? If yes, then you have destroyed the basic concept of "truth" - made it relative and not an absolute. If that is not what you are saying, and truth is absolute (but often unknown) why can only some be convinced of it? (Part of your text I made bold). One answer might be Calvin's - I.e. that God has selected some as his chosen. (Only they can understand, see the truth.)I believe that there is a way to decide which {religion} is true. Not an easy way, and not a way that you can use to prove it to all mankind, but to 'find the truth for yourself' is possible. ...
Calvin's version of the truth grew rapidly among the well off* as their being well off was evidence of them being among God's selected chosen. Anyway can you try again to explain to me how one sect can know its teaching are true and those of others are false when conflicting.
Perhaps to facilitate discussion, let's dicuss only one aspect where there is a conflict, instead of the whole broader problem. For example, Is reincarnation, which I think more believe in that the Christian alternative, true or false? How does one show the majority they are wrong if you think the truth is that souls only pass one lifetime on Earth? If there is no way to show they are wrong, how do you know they are (instead of them being right and you being wrong)?
Inbreading would, according to the now understood mechanisms of genetic inheritance, accelerate change (including often the extreme change of extinction). I think you would agree inbreeding tends to spread a mutation, especially if it was recessive and thus not often expressed - did not give any advantage when latent. (I may not be stating correctly the idea - but hope and think you get my point.)How can you know, beyond an educated guess, that these factors accelerate evolution (or even contribute to it)? Couldn't the preá just be an inbred version of the guinea?
Also a mutation can much more easily become the "new standard" in a population of 40 or less than in 40,000, I would think you will agree also. I will not go thru the other three factors that most think speeds evolution (isolation, stressed population & no predator eating before the advantage facilitates reproduction). In part because I think you would agree all do if one assumes evolution were true. Instead I will admit that evolution could be false, but if it is true, then these five are logical parts of the complete theory. (I read Darwin's Origins a long time ago, but am nearly sure he stressed the isolation bit.) So when a new species appears in 8000 years or less, one needs to have most of these five “accelerators” present or the theory of evolution is in deep trouble. As all five were, for the whole 8000 years, this tends to support the theory.
It is sort of as if you had asked a Chemist, who believes as his "theory of reactions" that there is a potential barrier to some exothermic molecular reaction making the reactants stable when mixed at room temperature, why he thinks heating the chemicals up will speed the reaction. He thinks that, for the same reason I think the five factors speed evolution. - I.e. it is basic part of (or a very direct consequence of) the theory.
Thanks, I look forward to seeing your table of God's days verse our years.
-----------------
*An interesting exception to the general case: Usually the rich are the last strata of society to accept the Christian POV. It has more appeal to the poor and down trodden with the promise that their suffering (often at the hands of the rich) will be compensated in the next life, while the rich will most likely burn in Hell. (The bibical "eye of the needle" problem of the rich man.)
Last edited by a moderator: